The enemy is the one who is scared of us, We the people. Evil is NOT invincible. You are the resistance, and the power. Evil knows this. As evil and corruption manifests itself more, people are going to remember the seeds we plant. We will take humanity back.
Even if bad things happen, it will be the enemy who is scared. That is why THEY try to intimidate, because they are afraid. Trust in God, He will take us the rest of the way.
I am not afraid of their propaganda, and the new world order. What we need to be afraid of is "we the people" not resisting them and letting them fully take over. That is what is actually frightening, that "We the people" willingly give up those certain unalienable rights endowed by our Creator.
Resist, be kind, but never give your rights up, for anyone.
Joe Biden just received a pay raise. After this video click on the third one at the top that states: "Buy a shotgun Joe Biden lying AR-15"
Update: Molotov chimed in and revealed what Biden said was a criminal action!
My friend, and presidential candidate, Thomas Hoefling just pointed this quote out to us:
“Nil desperandum, — Never Despair. That is a motto for you and me. All are not dead; and where there is a spark of patriotic fire, we will rekindle it.” — Samuel Adams
bit.ly/WethePeople
Aren't shotguns and hunting rifles etc exempt anyway? Isn't it just fucking assault weapons and shit like that that are?
ReplyDeleteAs for "left" denying women the right to choose? Right:
19:38: Ladies, you can either do a good job of caring for the house or a poor job. That’s not me talking. That’s the Bible talking!
27:50: The Bible says cooking for your family is what you’re supposed to be doing! What else are you doing that’s so important, anyway? “Farmland”?! “Bejewel me”?! Facebook?!
31:00: Women, are you too busy? You better be too busy cooking, because that’s what the Bible says you should be doing.
>> Isn't it just fucking assault weapons and shit like that that are?
DeleteThe U.S. Department of Defense defines assault rifles as fully automatic rifles used for military purposes. What they're trying to ban now are defense rifles, and reclassify and re-label them as "assault weapons" like semi AR-15 which are a lot easier to shoot then a 12 gauge shot gun (as the Biden video shows). In fact, AR-15's are a lot safer.
What they're trying to ban now are defense rifles
DeleteThere's no coherent definition of "defense rifle", and you know it.
If you were smarter, you'd point out that the definition for "assault rifle" is largely arbitrary.
Women are "busy" out in the workforce in order to bring home the Bacon - and if that's not enough (cause it never is) they're expected to cook it and only have a small piece and clean up after everyone has feasted on her hard work. Women's Lib is the pits.
DeleteThere are no serious proposals to deny women, or anyone else, the right to buy a gun for self defense. You also have no objective data to show that the types of weapons that may be banned have any demonstrated value other than killing large numbers of children.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the argument that guns are required to prevent tyrrany is a pleasant fiction that allows you to feel all noble, nothing more. Please provide even one example of gun ownership "protecting" a freedom that you would have lost otherwise.
An armed society is a polite society. Also, they certainly do wish to disadvantage women by banning AR-15s, as the Joe Biden video revealed.
DeleteBy any standard the US is a heavily armed society now. It is hardly "polite", unless you think it is polite to gun down innocent people.
DeleteDan: I realize that arguing evidence with someone who doesn't believe evidence exists is largely futile, but on what planet does your Biden video count as evidence?
DeleteTo summarize, you have a bunch of clips of people obviously unfamiliar with the weapon they're attempting to use having humorous mishaps, followed by clip of someone with appropriate headgear and some experience firing an AR15.
How many cases were there of AR15s used for home defense by women? In what percentage of those cases would the outcome have been different with a different weapon?
Answering those sorts of questions involves evidence; your video is merely propaganda and nothing more.
It is far easier for Women, and even children, to fire safely an AR-15, than a shotgun and anyone says differently, like Biden, is ignorant on the subject and should be ignored.
Delete>>I realize that arguing evidence with someone who doesn't believe evidence exists is largely futile, but on what planet does your Biden video count as evidence?
DeleteOK here is more evidence that reveals what Biden said was a criminal action.
Dan wrote:
DeleteAn armed society is a polite society
You're living proof that this is false.
Mike:
ReplyDeleteI suspect you are being disingenuous. The "example" you call for sounds a lot like Dan's "are you certain? how can you be certain?" line. I note that the U.S. military keeps "assault weapons" for itself. Since you say these have no purpose except "killing large numbers of children," let the military get rid of its weapons first.
In the entire current discussion around gun ownership, including Dan's posts, the implied topic is usually *private* gun ownership. I will be happy to be more specific if that helps, however.
DeleteOne of the constant arguments for *private* gun ownership is that an armed populace prevents "tyranny" and defends the rights of the people. However, proponents of this view are unable to point to any specific tyrannical action that was thwarted by the presence of many privately armed citizens.
However, we have a number of examples of bad government being stopped by non-gun related actions like civil action, research, publicity etc. - we were able to remove a sitting president (Nixon) without using guns, for example. Plus there are many other democracies happily operating and avoiding tyranny with a fraction of the guns we have in the US.
We also have a number of serious threats to our freedom - use of torture, email monitoring, ability of the government to kill US citizens without due process, etc. that are happening now and I don't see any *private* gun-related actions stopping those problems.
If we don't have any actual examples of *private* gun ownership stopping government tyranny, what evidence do we have that it actually works? It sounds more like the story of the man walking down the street banging a pot to scare away dragons. When asked if it really works, he points to the lack of dragons as proof.
Only in this case, we actually have dragons.
You only have to look at Chicago to see gun control doesn't work since it is now murder capitol of our nation with strictest gun control.
DeleteI would never wish to fight our military, but I would hope the good men and women of our military would stand against our tyrannical government with us in a coup d'état. After all, it is one of our checks to the balance. I see that happening more then the military turning on our own people on the orders of our government. At least that is my hopes. If not, we'll all lose. The left pushing to disarm our citizens is a sign for our military to do just that. Return that unconstitutional act by disarming our tyrannical government. I would love to see that happen for the health of this country. Sure would make be proud to be called an American.
So if you think the military would side with the people, who exactly do you need to shoot??
DeleteYet another incoherent 'argument from Dan it seems...
Historically, when the military becomes part of your political "checks and balances" you've already lost. (Think Egypt, but there are hundreds of examples.)
DeleteI find it ironic that the same people who push to maintain the enormous military we now have then turn around and demand they get weaponry to protect themselves from that military. And then when that weaponry is (surprise!) used to kill innocent people they
propose we should all buy more weaponry to protect ourselves from the original weaponry.
Wow - it's almost like gun manufacturers wrote the script on this. But capitalism always produces the best outcomes - ask any murdered 7 year old.
How in hell is your gov't "tyrannical"? Your xian churches don't even pay taxes for goodness' sake!
ReplyDeleteYou conservative xians have got to be the biggest crybabies on the net that I've ever seen. A democrat gets in, and all of a sudden your gov't is "tyrannical"! Obama has done precious little to change the country from what Bush had done to it. Even the "faith based" programs are untouched, your politicians yammer on about your god most important: You can vote them out!
Just because your gov't does a few things that you people don't like doesn't make them "tyrannical". Learn some history and see what a tyranny really looks like.
For a country that loves to use the word freedom a lot, the US always has a certain fascist undercurrent that can too easily bubble to the surface. Dan, for example, will talk volumes about protecting your rights, unless we're talking about women's reproductive rights - then he's suddenly OK with government tyranny.
DeleteI would agree with Dan that demanding immigration papers during normal travel within the US is overreach. I find it funny that his own example shows citizens successfully thwarting this overreach without using guns at all. Couldn't have found a better example if I'd tried.
I am not for any specific group, whether black people, women, gays, etc. What I am certainly for is individual rights. That is far better and more important. Yes, even the individual babies almost born. Women do not have four lungs, two hearts, two noses, etc.so I battle for both. You claim it is one life but logic and common sense and reason says differently. Are you absolutely certain that is NOT a human inside the woman? If so, how are you certain?
DeleteWhether or not its human is irrelevant. I mean you go on and on about how people have the right to carry guns to so they can defend themselves. It doesn't matter if the the target is human or not you can end that life to protect your own. So if a women's life is threatened she can abort the baby's life to protect her own. Or do pregnant women lose the right to protect their lives?
DeleteDan: Since you are willing to "battle for both", when a woman wants to exercise her right to an abortion, how do you "battle" for her? After all, you said: "Resist, be kind, but never give your rights up, for anyone".
DeleteI take it that means only those rights you happen to approve of.
Every call you make in these subjects are a judgment call. I mean, you can pull a guy off a woman who appears to be attacking her and she turns on you and hits you over the head screaming "leave my husband alone!"
DeleteThe aggressor needs to be neutralized in every attacking situation. If a woman is attacking her baby inside of her, to kill it, then she is the aggressor to the innocent baby. If her life is in jeopardy I cannot fault her for self preservation, but she is a horrible mother, as any mother worth her salt would die to save her baby's life.
To summarize, in your examples a woman is:
Delete1) fickle and irrational
2) an aggressive murderer
3) a really bad parent
and people wonder why women vote for the democrats. Go figure. (BTW - if the woman in your third example has other kids at home, would you still consider her an unfit parent if she chooses not to leave her actual children motherless? Just wondering.)
Nevertheless, a woman has a right to an abortion in this country. If you want to restrict that right (as I assume you do), why should the rest of us care about your gun ownership rights? If you truly believe in fighting for rights, you may have to fight for those rights you don't agree with. I detest Westboro Baptist, but I will support their ability to do what they do. Because if I restrict their rights, the next ones to go may be ones *I* enjoy.
To address your points:
Delete1) Sometimes, sure, we all have that potential. No one in humanity is immune from being human.
2) If they are killing babies that are not a direct threat to their own safety, in self defence than sure. That is the definition of murder after all.
3) A soldier that abandons his post to save himself, instead of fighting for his troops, is a bad soldier. In wartime it is punishable by death. A woman that abandons her post to protect herself instead of her own child, not only is not a mother, but an unfit human.
>> and people wonder why women vote for the democrats.
Why resort to a hasty generalization fallacy? I thought you were doing fine until this point.
>> Nevertheless, a woman has a right to an abortion in this country.
Wrong, abortion is a right as much as slavery is. You're sadly mistaken if you actually believe that. In fact, having abortions is illegal.
I too defend Westboro, and Atheists, rights to speak their views. But I probably do it for a different reason than you do. See, I defend the individual rights, not minorities, or any one group. Even the blasphemous language used by some individual atheists here. I respect God's choice to give them their unalienable right to deny Him even. You cannot be for one right, no muzzle to allow them to speak, and then turn around and tie their arms and not let them protect themselves from aggression, as bare arms is apropos to bear arms, as a right that shall not be infringed. I hope everyone understands what "not infringed" means. I will defend that position from enemies, foreign and domestic, as I take my oath seriously.
"Folks need to get this through their heads: The "Supreme" Court is supreme only over the lower courts, not over God, not over We the People, not over the Constitution, not over duly-passed constitutional laws, and not over the other branches of government." ~Tom Hoefling
DeleteI don't consider the military part of the "checks and balances." I do consider an armed citizenry to be an important check to discourage tyrannical actions on the part of governments. (I recall making a comment to that effect earlier; but it seems to have vanished.
ReplyDeleteMaxFF:
"Whether or not [the baby being killed is] human is irrelevant."
I disagree. I consider killing a helpless child in the name of a "choice" to be murder, not "reproductive freedom." I support the right to bear arms and I think having them makes it less likely that the government will give you cause to use them. Killing the child is not done in defense. A case of defense can make the humanity of the target moot. A case of "choice" should not be allowed when the target is human.
It is one thing to make the claim that an armed citizenry discourages tyranny, but I have yet to see anyone present evidence to support this claim. What do you base this assertion on?
DeleteMike:
ReplyDeleteYou were quite clear when you said that the only evidence you would accept was the government being stupid and acting before the guns are taken out of private hands and then the people thwarting them with use of arms. But here's something a little circumstantial. The Chinese citizens are unarmed. Their protest was met with a massacre at Tienanmen Square. Our citizens are armed. We have not faced a similar massacre. Now, I know you won't accept that. Your standard of evidence means that, as long as the government waits until guns are out of private hands, there won't be any evidence that you will accept.
Pvblivs:
DeleteI appreciate you providing some rationale for this - most people just take it as self-evident, which it isn't.
The pattern of repressive autocratic governments killing their own citizens is, unfortunately, a too common pattern in history. Essentially what you are saying here is that when looking at the broad scope of governments in human history, an unarmed populace is vulnerable, so arming *has* to be better. (Note that this doesn't say "successful", just that unarmed has zero chance so armed has a chance better than zero. Fairly weak from a probability standpoint.) It's a valid argument, but leaves out a lot.
The US, of course, despite all its faults, is not a repressive communist government. When you compare the US to its peer group (Western-style democracies) you'll find that this notion of an "armed populace being the only thing preventing a sudden onset of tyranny", is, AFAIK, a fairly uncommon idea. Canada, for example, has many gun owners, but the idea that everyone needs to buy guns to keep government from taking over is pretty much considered tinfoil hat territory. So if your thesis is correct, how does it account for all these governments (some older than the US) that successfully function *without* vast numbers of armed citizens?
Second, I am not an expert on US history, but there are examples of rebellions, uprisings, and riots throughout the past 200+ years. Many of them included armed citizens. Some of the participants were killed. And almost without exception, they failed. (The South lost, by the way.) My take-aways from this are a) an armed populace hasn't been very effective, and b) because these events have been rare and useless, there must be other forces at work keeping government on the right track. Like, you know, *VOTING*.
You might say, well, we're still better off armed than unarmed. That ignores the negative impact of extensive gun ownership - vastly increased levels of suicide attempts, gun related accidents, and more dead school kids.
And finally, when do you propose that this "armed revolt against tyranny" kicks in? We're currently losing many of our rights - it's now legal to kill citizens on US soil without due process, all our communications are open to scrutiny without a warrant, torture is legal, etc. I don't see any vast upswelling of armed revolt trying to stop that. Despite 200+ years of a government that can't keep a secret in a paper bag, I've heard no mention of any politician saying "yeah, we can't do that because of guns" - and why should they? They can pretty much do what they want - gun owners don't seem to react to anything except laws that involve guns. It's far more likely that a hugely armed populace will turn its guns on each other. Which is what happens now.
So, in my view, I don't see much to support the idea that our vast store of guns is keeping government in check. I think voting and lots of FOIA requests has historically done far more to curb excessive government than some hardware locked in a closet.
I am interested as what Pvblivs will say on this subject, as you both articulate well on various subjects.
DeleteBut, even if one can articulate well, as your case here Mike, does not mean you will not be fallacious in your reasoning, as you are here too Mike. I was going to respond on everything you said but I will just, for now, to say you believe a government will not try be a communist government, because they haven't been one in the past, is fallacious.
You obviously see our government trying to erode our basic individual rights, rights that shall not be infringed mind you, so without being "hasty" myself to think they will not continue is naive at best, and denial at worse. We ALREADY have a tyrannical government, and we the people, would be justified to revolt already. Patriot act, assassinations of citizens, indefinite imprisonment without due process, check points to "show your papers", crony capitalism, too big to fail, too big to prosecute, illegal attack to devalue our dollar by the FED (an act of war on other nations), just to name a few. We are now extremely justified for revolution by armed force of we the people.
It is why Obama gave AK47's and RPG's to Lebanon and Syrian citizens, to overthrow their own governments. No wonder they wish to disarm us, they see the writing on that proverbial, and literal, wall. But we are hopeful and want to work within the system,... until the system breaks down. We ALL know what that means, and what it will take. I am confident that our military and some of our police forces will not shoot their own citizens, on the orders of this rouge government. So the point will be when, when will enough be enough? It is past that, but we all know the stakes, so we the people are looking for that one straw. For now, we are exhausting our courts and working to vote within that system, that is obviously deteriorating. To say otherwise, is being in denial.
Mike:
ReplyDeleteI hold the premise (as self-evident) that people in power like to stay in power. Also, Hitler was able to rise to power in a Western-style democracy and then declare himself dictator. (Godwin's law does not apply. Some people are a little overzealous about it. This only shows that a Western-style democracy is not sufficient to prevent the occurrence. It does not claim that Western-style democracies are evil.)
You mention many failed uprisings. You omit a very obvious successful one. The Revolutionary War threw off British rule. I think this is doubly-important because (had the Confederate States won, you would omit that as "not part of U.S. history" as well. Now, voting is nice. It even helps persuade most people that an uprising is (currently) not necessary. I will agree that it is currently not necessary. It was necessary in the original establishment of unions. I sense a criterion for inclusion in your list.
Now, I would like to ask you this: What, in your mind, stops a president from decreeing himself dictator and that there is no more voting. The assertion that he would be "voted out of office" is, obviously, inadmissible. In my view, it is easier to take away the guns first and then take away voting rights. If you take away voting rights first, the expression of displeasure may be more effective.
How long after the end of World War II did it take before the public was aware that the Enigma Cipher had been broken? What are the current codes used by the US military for encryption? How many people are currently being held without access to lawyers in places like Gitmo? It seems to me that the government is more successful at keeping secrets than it lets on. It's not perfect. Say, one in a thousand secrets slips out. That's still a lot that don't. And it's probably more like one in a million that escape.
Incidentally, I find the use of "tinfoil hat territory" to be disingenuous. It is only a way of saying "don't listen." And it is a very good sign of propaganda on the part of the person using the line. I'm not a big fan of silencing tactics, either directly by gagging the person trying to speak, or indirectly by getting others to ignore him.
I see you did not disappoint. One question though,
Delete>> I will agree that it is currently not necessary.
What would tell you that it is "necessary" considering the current environment of rights erosion?
Dan:
ReplyDeleteThe biggest indicator would be if they were actually stopping the vote. We do have a problem in that the bulk of the population is rather complacent. However, this very complacency would make an armed revolution fail. And without this complacency, the vote (as long as it is not hindered) would be sufficient.
Ultimately, I recognize the need for the right to bear arms because I do not trust the government not to hinder or invalidate the vote.
Well said.
DeleteBut, like you pointed out, they will certainly seek to disarm before they deny voting in some dictatorship. So the act of disarming is certainly a hostility, or a precursor, to not allow voting. But very valid point that complacency destroys revolution through.
Hi Val,
ReplyDeleteI have a few questions for you, since you believe you're a prophet. One, what is your prophecy for us to evaluate? Second, what do you bring to the table to assist in your own salvation?