It's the Guns, Stupid

NO LONGER A RUMOR !!!!!

Verified by Snopes to be TRUE !!!! Is this the Obama Administration's 1st
step in disarming America ? Thanks to the Democrats the "changes" keep
coming as they continue to flush our America Freedom down

www.snopes.com/politics/guns/blairholt.asp

Cana wrote:

<quoted text>
Those periods are real I agree, but the people in power at the time...prevailed over the general population, no?
So number one question; If general pop had arms, would they have prevailed?

So the right to have weapons and to use self defense depends on if you think they can win ?

Hitler's Nazis would have prevailed over the Warsaw Jews, but that's irrelevant. The Jews should have had guns and should have FOUGHT FOR THEIR LIVES AND FOR THEIR CHILDREN'S LIVES. Instead, most of them went for a shower, JUST LIKE THOUSANDS OF SHEEP BEING ROUNDED UP BY ONE OR TWO SHEEPDOGS.

Hey, if the Warsaw Jews were able to hold off the Nazis would another country have decided to help them ? Would it have changed the outcome ? Who are you to decide ?

Cana wrote:

<quoted text>
How will owning a gun solve a tyrannical gov't?

Read the beginnings of American history.

Cana wrote:

<quoted text>
Those periods are real I agree, but the people in power at the time...prevailed over the general population, no?
So number one question; If general pop had arms, would they have prevailed?

There would have existed a possibility that did not exist without arms.

RetiredArmyNCO wrote:

<quoted text>Christ did instruct his disciples to sell their robes and buy a sword if they didn’t have one. The revolver wasn’t in existence at that time, had it been, he would have instructed to purchase one. He chose the sword because it was the standard type weapon of the day.

You, and biblical scripture, support my theory that Adolf Hitler was a reincarnation or 'second coming' of 'Herr' Jesus Christ.

Foie Gras Fox wrote:

<quoted text>
You, and biblical scripture, support my theory that Adolf Hitler was a reincarnation or 'second coming' of 'Herr' Jesus Christ.

Jesus taught peace, and self respect. Hitler taught hate. I guess I see the connection between the two. You should maybe scrutinize that theory a little better, sounds off to me.

As for me, do you mean to imply that my views are somehow aligned with Hitler?

GTO wrote:

NO LONGER A RUMOR !!!!!
Verified by Snopes to be TRUE !!!! Is this the Obama Administration's 1st
step in disarming America ? Thanks to the Democrats the "changes" keep
coming as they continue to flush our America Freedom down
www.snopes.com/politics/guns/blairholt.asp

Typical alarmist nonsense from one of the NRA cult members. First off, it's not Obama, its a congressman's bill. And for those readers that do go to Snopes, read the end of the article that talks about the bill's chances of passage - slim to none.

And it doesn't ban anything, would require registration though. It's amazing to me how little people understand our govt and the Constitution. And of course the political suicide an elected member risks should they ever support anti-gun legislation unless they are from a district where there is widespread support, which is very few.

By the way, I'm not a liberal and I am a gun owner and this bill would apply to me BUT it won't because its going nowhere. Let's think rationally okay.

RetiredArmyNCO wrote:

<quoted text>
Jesus taught peace, and self respect. Hitler taught hate. I guess I see the connection between the two. You should maybe scrutinize that theory a little better, sounds off to me.
As for me, do you mean to imply that my views are somehow aligned with Hitler?

:-)
Nah, I just figured it'd be fun to throw in an intellectual teaser. Guess it didn't work too well!
But you know, there's a little bit of a Hitler in all of us. You can't deny that. Otherwise we'd all be angels, right?

Plant Lady wrote:

<quoted text>
Read the beginnings of American history.

A lot of genocide, dead bodies and horrendous oppression and despair appear in the early annals of U.S. history. In fact, it doesn't significantly differ from the histories of Spanish/Portuguese America or the Caribbean Islands at all.

Yankee Yahoo wrote:

<quoted text>
That's because of your world view. You think of humanity as generally being evil, even though you consistently fail to prove that is the case.
People that don't like humanity and consider it evil don't like themselves, and engage in self-loathing philosophies.
Ironically, this mentality IS the cause of most evil in the world. Those that consider humanity as mostly evil, actually struggle to make it so.
Ergo, religious and ideological fanaticism inherit in both the Catholic Church and socialist ideologies.
Basically, if we could somehow let people like you become the animals you want to be, the world would be a much better place.
;)

You talk alot of Gouda cheese here!
Essentially, there is "Cause and Effect."
Following that, there is "Effect and Cause." Yet, somehow I think your cognitive functions prevent you from realizing the connection between the two processes.

Gee, you MUST be right about guns.
After all, THERE WAS NEVER ANY VIOLENCE/WARS/KILLINGS BEFORE GUNS WERE INVENTED.

THEY JUST HAD SWORDS, CATAPULTS, KNIVES, SPEARS, POISONS, EXPLOSIVES, BOWS-ARROWS, CROSSBOWS, Etc.

What WERE they using all of these devices for????
Love and romance?????

Foie Gras Fox wrote:

<quoted text>
:-)
Nah, I just figured it'd be fun to throw in an intellectual teaser. Guess it didn't work too well!
But you know, there's a little bit of a Hitler in all of us. You can't deny that. Otherwise we'd all be angels, right?

Hitler was pure evil. I cannot find anything about the man that would show compassion or positive attributes. He led his own people to destruction, directed the wholesale slaughter of millions and favored only tyranny to lead and not personal freedom. Only the most depraved would I ever consider to have a little Hitler in them. Using the Hitler analogy to describe the 99.99% people that do not harbor such evil really downgrades what Hitler really was.

Just my thoughts.
I do agree that all men do not always act in the best interests of others, that is a part of human nature. But a nature that we can control ourselves with outside influence of morals, values and social acceptance. Many find religion as a source for morals, and others have self thought beliefs that guide them. Regardless of how those ideas are instilled, they are positive. I know there are those who take their religious beliefs beyond the teachings and there are those who corrupt the writings of their scriptures, Muslim terrorists and the pastor of Westboro come to mind, but they are again the minority of their affiliations.

RetiredArmyNCO wrote:

<quoted text>
Jesus taught peace, and self respect. Hitler taught hate. I guess I see the connection between the two. You should maybe scrutinize that theory a little better, sounds off to me.
As for me, do you mean to imply that my views are somehow aligned with Hitler?

Jesus was powerless against iron chariots (judges 1:19) so even if Jesus was armed with an Uzi, he'd have been useless against Hitler's Panzer division. And, if iron chariots were a stumbling block, I'm sure those nasty U-Boats would have been a problem for him as well.

Charles P wrote:

Gee, you MUST be right about guns.
After all, THERE WAS NEVER ANY VIOLENCE/WARS/KILLINGS BEFORE GUNS WERE INVENTED.
THEY JUST HAD SWORDS, CATAPULTS, KNIVES, SPEARS, POISONS, EXPLOSIVES, BOWS-ARROWS, CROSSBOWS, Etc.
What WERE they using all of these devices for????
Love and romance?????

Plus, back in the biblical days, they liked playing, "burny, burny, cut, cut" a lot. So, at least they had that going for them, which was nice.

Yankee Yahoo wrote:

<quoted text>
American Revolution.
French Revolution.
Russian Revolution.
Mexican Revolution.
Cuban Revolution.
And many, many, many more.
Can't overthrow a tyrannical government without weapons.

Not arguing the right to bear arms or anything but can you name me one truly constitutional democratic country who's population has revolted violently against it's government if democracy has been instilled in that country for more than one generation.

The examples you have quoted are all from countries who did not enjoy constitutional democracy at the time of the revolutions.

Aussie wrote:

<quoted text>
Not arguing the right to bear arms or anything but can you name me one truly constitutional democratic country who's population has revolted violently against it's government if democracy has been instilled in that country for more than one generation.
The examples you have quoted are all from countries who did not enjoy constitutional democracy at the time of the revolutions.

I can't name one (to answer your question).

An armed America deters genocide, enslavement, other forms of tyranny or oppression, and personal tragedy. DETERS. Already, democratic Obama wants mandatory national service. That may be okay for you, but not for me.

"Democracy is elective dictatorship" "In America, democratic elections are about determining who the next dictators will be." "The winners get to bully the losers." "In a democracy, 51% of the voters get to bully the remaining 49%." Many bad things can be said for democracy (so much for the good things about democracy).

In 1953 the CIA orchestrated a coup that ousted the democratically elected leader of Iran, and helped replaced him with the brutal Shah (a U.S. puppet). Does Iran allow for an armed society ?

Adolf Hitler was democratically elected. The Germans should have violently revolted. By the time Hitler committed suicide, Germany was completely destroyed.

Why should an American take your implied advice (surrender their guns) and presume it can't happen again or it can't happen here ?

Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

Him wrote:

Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

Some people who don't have swords may be killed by some people who have swords.

Hopefully, the people who try to stop us from protecting ourselves with arms, shall perish "with the sword".

RetiredArmyNCO wrote:

Hitler was pure evil. I cannot find anything about the man that would show compassion or positive attributes. He led his own people to destruction, directed the wholesale slaughter of millions and favored only tyranny to lead and not personal freedom.

Maybe. Though WHO was it that created him, made him react the way he did (which BTW is a normal psychological reaction for a severly traumatized person due to combat experiences)? Half of France was crying out that Versailles was an immoral dictation which could only conjure up greater hardships in the future. Woodrow Wilson needed to be seen as powerful enough to subjugate a European people because it brought him and the U.S. political fortune. The other allies gladly went along, hoping to siphon some of America's political prowess for themselves out of the process.

RetiredArmyNCO wrote:

Only the most depraved would I ever consider to have a little Hitler in them. Using the Hitler analogy to describe the 99.99% people that do not harbor such evil really downgrades what Hitler really was.
Just my thoughts.

You only want to see the unblemished spots in U.S. history, like a utopian constitution which nobody really cared to abide by due to racial prejudice.. Most of it was quite tragic. KKK, the way the West was won, Indian wars, black slavery and a marginalization and discrimination of whole ethnic groups until the 1970's. This was all done by part time little Hitlers (from a Christian perspective)! The really disturbing thing is that while the real Hitler was severly provoked, these people were not. They tended to be just uneducated and with a need to feel powerful.

RetiredArmyNCO wrote:

I do agree that all men do not always act in the best interests of others, that is a part of human nature. But a nature that we can control ourselves with outside influence of morals, values and social acceptance.

That's a pipe dream with many holes in it! They've been dreaming it for centuries — if not millenia, now.

RetiredArmyNCO wrote:

Many find religion as a source for morals, and others have self thought beliefs that guide them. Regardless of how those ideas are instilled, they are positive. I know there are those who take their religious beliefs beyond the teachings and there are those who corrupt the writings of their scriptures, Muslim terrorists and the pastor of Westboro come to mind, but they are again the minority of their affiliations.

:-D
Positive is a wide term, NCO!
It could be argued that any belief causing one to take physical action is a positive, as opposed to a negative which will not cause action. IMHO, that is a short sighted view. Now, whether 'the RESULT of the action' will be positive is quite another story! Remember, we live in nature and are bound by its laws. In nature there is cause and effect, but effect always results in a domino effect.

Tory II wrote:

<quoted text>
Some people who don't have swords may be killed by some people who have swords.
Hopefully, the people who try to stop us from protecting ourselves with arms, shall perish "with the sword".

It would occur to many, after some contemplation, that one who "hopes" for the destruction of others (as you do in your post) is an instinctive killer, a natural gun advocate.

Recently I listened to a military chaplain on a radio show justify soldiers' killing the enemy during war.
His response was that Jesus never criticized Roman legionnaires nor rebuked them for their profession.
Further this chaplain dissected the commandement "Thou shalt not kill." He said that the literal translation of the word "kill" from Greek really meant "murder." Hence, it should read 'Thou shalt not murder'. Therefore he reasoned that a soldier killing in defence of his country is okay but premeditated killing equals murder and becomes a sin.
I think the chaplain forgot that the Bible has been translated many times with the original languages of it's recording being Hebrew and Aramaic. To take the Greek version as the blueprint of its meaning is literally unscientific because it is an inaccurate translation of the Hebrew/Aramaic texts.