This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Guest Post: CFR Globalists Say Don’t Worry - “Your Guns Are In Safe Hands”

Tyler Durden's picture




 

From Brandon Smith of Alt-Market

CFR Globalists Say Don’t Worry - “Your Guns Are In Safe Hands”

It’s funny, I was worried about my Second Amendment rights just a moment ago, but now that the Council On Foreign Relations, a global governance think tank and inbred cesspool of despotic elitism, has explained the situation to me, I suddenly feel at ease…

In preparation for the fast approaching UN summit on “international conventional arms trade” in New York, the CFR has published yet another disinformation piece skewing the facts and twisting reality to lull Americans into a state of apathy:

http://blogs.cfr.org/patrick/2012/07/20/your-guns-are-in-safe-hands/

Am I surprised that the CFR would rehash the talking points of the UN and declare uninhibited support for their worldwide gun grabbing bid?  Of course not.  The CFR and the UN are part and parcel of the same nefarious sea monster; each tentacle does its duty to rend sovereign ships asunder.  However, such propaganda articles from establishment organizations do give us an opportunity to dissect and annihilate a host of lies and misdirections in one fell swoop.  There may not be much sport in pulling apart the CFR’s poorly composed arguments, but, it has to be done…

CFR writers Stewart Patrick and Emma Welch begin with a kind of red herring distraction, immediately bringing up the internal conflicts in Syria as some kind of rationale for the UN putting its nose into the gun buying habits of sovereign countries.  I would like to point out that most of the “illegally procured” firearms being shipped into Syria are coming from the U.S. to supply an insurgency which is now looking more and more like a bought and paid for destabilizing false flag army rather than a true and honest revolution for freedom:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/syrian-rebels-get-influx-of-arms-with-gulf-neighbors-money-us-coordination/2012/05/15/gIQAds2TSU_story.html

I am highly doubtful that the UN has any intention of stopping this activity on the part of the U.S., primarily because they have never declared opposition to the covert support of Syrian rebels.  On top of this, the guidelines of the UN Small Arms Treaty are so broad that they could be interpreted any number of ways to fit any number of desired outcomes.  If the UN wanted to label the supply of U.S. arms to Syrian insurgents “legal” within the bounds of the treaty, they could.  The injection of Syria into the treaty issue by the CFR is an obvious ploy designed to make you falsely associate the UN action as being useful in combating Syrian destabilization, even though this is in no way the UN’s goal.

Ironically, after slipping the Syrian crisis into the discussion to manipulate readers, without mentioning the U.S. government’s involvement in the clandestine supply of arms to the opposition movement, the CFR then attacks Iran’s involvement in the treaty as hypocritical, because of their alleged funneling of arms to the Assad regime.  So, within the first two paragraphs of their article, the Council on Foreign Relations has dishonestly tied Syria to the gun treaty debate with cherry-picked data and criticized Iran for supposed crimes of which the U.S. is also guilty.  This kind of disinformation truly boggles the mind…

The article continues by outlining the “horrors” of the small arms trade, which it immediately associates with terrorism, rogue states (of which they apparently include Iran, but not the U.S.), and criminal syndicates.  When, in fact, most of the arms deals taking place in shadow markets around the world are consistently discovered to be facilitated by governments themselves (as the Syria crisis clearly illustrates as well as the Fast and Furious scandal).  I still have not seen any indication from the UN that this is a problem for them as long as participating governments play the globalist game.  You can read the text of the Small Arms Treaty here:

http://iapcar.org/?p=970

The only thing the UN treaty accomplishes is a double standard in favor of establishment entities to which the rules do not apply.  A destabilized Syria serves globalist interests, and so, the insurgency WILL get U.S. arms, and the United Nations WILL look the other way, treaty or no treaty.

The CFR goes on to claim that:

“…participating countries generally agree that a treaty is desperately needed and long overdue…”

This is to paint a false image of consensus in the minds of readers.  It is as if we are supposed to say “well, if everyone is for it, then I am too…”

Only a few lines later, the article contradicts itself by lamenting:

“…despite three years of preparations and nearly a decade of advocacy campaigns, there remains a lack of consensus on the scope, criteria, and implementation of the treaty. The usual suspects, Russia, China, and—to a certain extent—the United States, are among the most influential of a handful of countries raising objections, particularly over the proposed inclusion of small arms and ammunition, human rights criteria, and regulatory measures. And to compound matters, the United States continues to face domestic opposition to its participation in the treaty negotiations…”

So, we finally get to the heart of that which chaps the CFR’s behind, and the primary reason the article was written:  Domestic opposition to U.S. participation in the UN treaty.

Government opposition to the treaty is not what worries the UN.  Barack Obama will sign the accord in a heartbeat and salivate while doing it.  What does concern the globalists is the fact that so many Americans, millions of them, are largely against the proposition.  This fact, in itself, is very revealing of their true intentions.

Why is it that, though the UN has clear support from our President and our Secretary of State, they are so adamant about public support and acceptance?  Senate ratification may become a stumbling bloc, but their arguments do not address the senate; they address us as citizens.  Why is the CFR so concerned with convincing us that the treaty is “harmless”?  If the treaty is going to be signed regardless of what we feel, and if it is truly not a threat to our rights, then why not simply pass the resolution, and show us through action that our right to own firearms is not under threat?  Why are the UN and the CFR so interested in manufacturing our consent?

The reality is, laws and treaties, domestic and international, are mostly implemented to achieve psychological acceptance from the populace.  If a law or set of principles is written down and praised by the bureaucratic circus, but the people do not embrace the action, then the lawmakers have ultimately accomplished nothing.  They are not satisfied with codification.  They want cultural identification.  They want people to love the new law.

I have found in my time tracking and analyzing corrupt law, the harder the shills work to convince you that a particular regulation is innocuous, the more dangerous it ends up becoming.

The CFR continues by giving a deliberately weak sided opposing view to the treaty by quoting arguments from the NRA and Mitt Romney, of all people.  The NRA has many times in the past actually contributed to the support of laws in the U.S. which are undermining to the 2nd Amendment and has long been considered by knowledgeable gun right advocates to be controlled opposition.  Mitt Romney’s (flip-flopper extraordinaire) record on gun control is no better than Obama’s:

http://www.businessinsider.com/mitt-romney-gun-conrol-nra-assault-weapons-colorado-shooting-theater-2012-7

The CFR would of course never quote true and intelligent proponents of gun rights, like Gun Owners of America, for instance.  Otherwise, their string of logical fallacies would be completely disrupted. 

That said, the threat to American sovereignty and Constitutional protections is indeed on the minds of many in this country.  The CFR labels these concerns “inflammatory” and “unfounded”.  They list the stock responses and talking points which have no doubt been composed and passed around by the UN.  I have listed them below, along with the reasons why they are disingenuous:

1)  The treaty is limited to the international trade of conventional arms, which pertains to the buying, selling, transshipping, transferring, or loaning across borders.

Don’t worry America, the UN treaty only covers the importation and exportation of firearms, says the CFR.  I would like to remind you, though, of similar situations that have been exploited by the Federal Government here in the U.S. in the name of the Commerce Clause.  The original intent of the Commerce Clause was to allow the Federal Government some oversight over the FOREIGN and INTERSTATE trade of goods.  Sovereign states were meant to retain governance over all internal commerce.

Unfortunately over time, especially since FDR’s presidency and the New Deal, the government has used and abused the commerce clause, subjugating the rights of states and claiming authority over ALL trade, not just external trade.  Even when a state takes a stand on a particular form of commerce, as Montana has with firearms or medical marijuana, the Federal Government has ignored local law and unleashed alphabet agencies like the FBI, ATF, and FDA to crush dissenters.  I have no doubt that the UN will eventually abuse the Small Arms Treaty just as our Federal Government has abused the Commerce Clause.

2)  The draft text of the treaty explicitly recognizes “the exclusive right of States to regulate internal transfers of arms and national ownership, including through the constitutional protections on private ownership.

As stated above, there are no guarantees on this.  Also, there has been a consistent push by globalist academia to assert that treaties somehow “supersede” Constitutional protections.  This argument comes primarily from a misguided interpretation of the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution by men like Chief Justice John Marshal, who said in 1829:

“A treaty is, in its nature, a contract between two nations, not a legislative act. It does not generally effect, of itself, the object to be accomplished; especially, so far as its operation is intraterritorial; but is carried into execution by the sovereign power of the respective parties to the instrument…In the United States, a different principle is established. Our constitution declares a treaty to be the law of the land. It is, consequently, to be regarded in courts of justice as equivalent to an act of the legislature…”

Marshal was a very confused and foolish interpreter of the Constitution, at least in this instance.  In regards to treaties and the Supremacy Clause in general the Constitution clearly states:

“This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.”

Meaning, all laws and treaties are subject to the guidelines of Constitutional rights and the laws of the states first and foremost.  If a law or treaty violates those rights, it is null and void.  Period.  Sadly, this fact has not stopped the use of treaties by certain government officials and think tanks as an argument for an end run around the Constitution.

3)  In response to the charges that the treaty would co-opt U.S. national sovereignty, arms control experts argue that the treaty would have “little to no impact” on existing regulatory processes…

By signing this treaty, the U.S. would indeed lose sovereignty.  The CFR acts as if the UN is simply handing out a short list of guidelines and giving regulatory control to nation states.  It would seem they have not read the fine print.

Article 13 of the UN treaty establishes what they call the “Implementation Support Unit”.  This group collects data from member countries, oversees the enforcement of treaty provisions, asserts final authority over the interpretation of said provisions, collects financial obligations from member countries, and centralizes the entire process under one roof.  The ISU will be a UN agency that administrates over the U.S. and other countries when it comes to the trade of small arms.  For the CFR to claim that the U.S. will not lose sovereignty is a flagrant falsehood.

4)  In an attempt to diminish concerns that the UN will overstep its bounds when it comes to U.S. sovereignty, the CFR states:  “The United States already has in place a rigorous export control system, defined as the “gold standard.” Instead, the treaty is primarily aimed at countries in which rigorous controls and oversight are absent, in an attempt to harmonize and coordinate standards worldwide…”

My question is, if the United States ALREADY has a rigorous export control system, then why is it necessary for us to join the UN gun treaty at all??? 
The CFR moves forward by stating that the U.S. must use its position to “set an example”, but it would appear that we already have set that example according to the CFR’s own words.  What purpose then does a UN treaty on guns serve?  Why do we need the UN to mediate anything?  Does anyone have a logical explanation for this?  I would enjoy hearing it.

I believe that the UN Small Arms Treaty is another step, perhaps an important step, in the imposition of a subversive philosophy: that gun ownership is an affront to the “globally conscious”.  That it is a barbaric relic of a bygone era, and that it is no longer practical in our modern times.  The mass shooting in Colorado this past week has been used as a rallying point for the anti-gun fervor, but what that event really showed us is what the world would be like if law abiding citizens were totally disarmed (as they were in Aurora by anti-carry laws within the city).  Criminals will always be able to get weapons, and they will almost always choose targets that are unarmed and low risk.  If Americans lose their right to bear arms, I can promise that we will see massacres like the Aurora Theater attack on a regular basis.

As far as national sovereignty is concerned, the CFR is completely unqualified to comment.  CFR members have in the past openly admitted the true purpose of their organization, which is to eliminate national sovereignty and institute global governance:

"The sovereignty fetish is still so strong in the public mind,
that there would appear to be little chance of winning popular assent to
American membership in anything approaching a super-state organization.
Much will depend on the kind of approach which is used in further
popular education."

CFR "American Public Opinion and Postwar Security Commitments", 1944

"The Council on Foreign Relations is the American branch of a society which originated in England ... [and] ... believes national boundaries should be obliterated and one-world rule established…I know of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years in the early 1960s to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments. I have objected, both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies ... but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known." Dr. Carroll Quigley, CFR Member, Mentor to Bill Clinton, from Tragedy and Hope

"In the next century, nations as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. National sovereignty wasn't such a great idea after all." Strobe Talbott, CFR Member

In light of this information, I find the Council On Foreign Relations’ attempts to reassure us on the safety of our sovereignty rather hilarious.  Their blind stab at defending the UN’s gun treaty tells me all I need to know.  Where there is smoke, there is fire, and no quarter should be given to these people.  None.  Their intentions are not honorable, and they often seek to deceive to get what they want.  Our safest bet is to stand in the way of any action they choose to support.  If it’s good for them, it will invariably be bad for us.

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Wed, 07/25/2012 - 09:04 | 2648648 quasimodo
quasimodo's picture

" We remain able to take back our freedom as long as we have guns."

That is what scares them badly.

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 09:08 | 2648678 GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

And you'd be doing that.....when?

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 09:16 | 2648742 Cthonic
Cthonic's picture

You only need to be disarmed once...

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 09:27 | 2648813 GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

Any gangbanger can tell you that isn't true.

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 11:19 | 2649424 Overfed
Overfed's picture

Well, mr. snark, be a leader. Show us the way. Pick up your gun, gather a group of men and launch an attack. Oh, wait, you're a statist, government boot licker, who can't understand why anyone else would turn down the privilege of grovelling for gestapo TSA, FBI, DHS.

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 09:31 | 2648838 writingsonthewall
writingsonthewall's picture

Against the US army navy and air force?

 

How many guns do you have? - I bet they have more...and they're trained (you watching Rambo 40 times so you know it off by heart doesn't count as 'training')

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 09:51 | 2648946 N. B. Forrest
N. B. Forrest's picture

Most of the fanatics for freedom I know are retired or currently in the US military.  They will not be the ones firing upon their fellow citizens.  Like the War Between the States 150 years ago, the military men will go to whichever side they feel is right.  Ergo...  Both sides will have the big guns.

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 11:20 | 2649430 Overfed
Overfed's picture

As I love to point out, tell that shit to the mujahadeen.

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 09:06 | 2648665 SoNH80
SoNH80's picture

"There is no right to strike against the public safety"-- Calvin Coolidge responding to Boston Police Strike, 1919

I respect Bloomberg as a self-made businessman, and as an efficient day-to-day manager of NYC, but his nanny state wankery is the acme of the Elite's attitudes, and I don't like them.  You know, Mike, America isn't Lower Manhattan, pal!  Focus on garbage collection and playground maintenance this summer, not cramming socialistic regimentation down our throats!

 

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 10:11 | 2649043 Hype Alert
Hype Alert's picture

I used to think Bloomberg just had an agenda, but now I question his sanity.

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 10:34 | 2649187 Joe Sixpack
Joe Sixpack's picture

Bloomberg stands against evil- guns and large sodas.

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 09:11 | 2648703 PatientZero
PatientZero's picture

Good. Fuck the cops. Let them strike all they want. They are welfare queens with badges anyway. Local militias and Sheriff's posses would do a far better and would do it more effeciently.

Cops are welfare queens.

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 09:18 | 2648766 writingsonthewall
writingsonthewall's picture

We remain able to take back our freedom as long as we have guns.

 

What an idiot.

You keep your 'guns' and I will laugh as the F16 fighter sweeps down and wipes out you, your guns, your family and all your neighbours with a bunker busting bomb that you will only hear AFTER it's blown you to smithereens.

 

...or maybe they will just send a drone....

 

I on the other hand will be going for the 'weak link' in the chain - the mind and conscience of the pilot

 

Good luck - you're going to need it to prevent being a dead man.

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 10:09 | 2649030 collon88
collon88's picture

Death with honor is better than slavery with dishonor.   People like you will never understand "it's a good day to die". 

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 10:33 | 2649066 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

 

 

You keep your 'guns' and I will laugh as the F16 fighter sweeps down and wipes out you, your guns, your family and all your neighbours with a bunker busting bomb that you will only hear AFTER it's blown you to smithereens.

 

Claiming that you would enjoy seeing a military take over of the United States with massive civilian causualities doesn't exactly help your credibility around here. Back to Kos with you, where you can cheer on the death of Americans with your peers.

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 10:18 | 2649080 N. B. Forrest
N. B. Forrest's picture

“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!” –Samuel Adams

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 15:02 | 2650305 fhk96
fhk96's picture

Love that quote.

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 09:54 | 2648960 GCT
GCT's picture

Bloomberg the billionaire with paid body guards that carry!  I respect our police but honestly they do not prevent crimes they show up when the crime is being committed or after the fact.  You investors see trends and invest and hope to make a profit.  Criminals do the same thing they kill where concealed carry is not allowed.  Something to just think about. 

If they choose to strike nothing changes at all.  Well except the money they make for City Hall writing tickets.  Maybe they can lower my property taxes if we no longer have a police department.  Dam I was dreaming there for a minute. 

 

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 10:11 | 2649044 Shizzmoney
Shizzmoney's picture

I love how some crazy asshole in Denver shoots up a theater, and Bloomberg says we need gun controls. 

Yet, when his NYPD shoots up a poor unarmed black 17 year old in the Bronx......all I hear about his stance on gun control are crickets.

I hope for the Mayor's Sake, that the Great Crash that is coming doesn't happen under his tenure.  Because if it does, he'll be the first to run to some NYPD bunker surrounded by his "Army" of armed paid SWAT thugs. 

What a condescending POS.  "You can't have guns, but the govenrnment can".  Yes, Mike, because this worked so well for the Jews (as well as Catholics) in Nazi Germany.

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 11:05 | 2649368 Randall Cabot
Randall Cabot's picture

Bloomberg is a jew supremacist-it makes him nervous that the goyim have a means to defend themselves against Trotskyites like himself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_terror#Atrocities

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 12:20 | 2649707 my puppy for prez
my puppy for prez's picture

That's okay...he'll still have the 7 Noahide Laws and those facy modern guillotines for the non-compliant!

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 10:04 | 2649011 PatientZero
PatientZero's picture

Here, I'll take it a step further. I support Bloomberg's plan for cops to strike. Because when this happens, the gig is up: people will finally realize that cops are nothing more than welfare queen walking armed revenue agents. In fact, I would rather pay a crackhead to receive a welfare check every month than to pay for an asshole with a badge that'll taze me, shoot men and beat me half to death for not identifying myself at random unconstitutional checkpoints.

Solution: a citizens' militia or Sheriff's posse -- made up of common men that do it part-time or on a volunteer basis. Guarantee that they'll do a far better job AND uphold rights.

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 10:16 | 2649067 Hype Alert
Hype Alert's picture

Do a search on Warren vs DC and you'll find the police have no obligation to protect citizens anyway.  It's not that most of them don't try, I'm not saying that, but search that supreme court case and you'll see.

 

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 09:06 | 2648639 Mercury
Mercury's picture

"Oh what a give away!" as the peasant in Monty Python's Holy Grail would say.

Talk about "enemies, foreign and domestic"....holy crap.

It' is unfortunate though that such an authoritarian,  statist goon like Strobe Talbott has such a cool name.

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 09:07 | 2648674 SoNH80
SoNH80's picture

He was Bill Clinton's roommate...

 

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 09:15 | 2648733 Mercury
Mercury's picture

Yes but perhaps more significantly....

He bears a striking resemblance to Oscar Goldman from The Six Million Dollar Man.

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 09:03 | 2648642 Backdraft
Backdraft's picture

Molon Labe, assholes.

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 09:06 | 2648663 GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

Whiskey Pete, comin' up!

 

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 09:23 | 2648789 Calmyourself
Calmyourself's picture

Projection is a horrible thing especially when it is your cowardice, lick the hand and stfu..

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 09:29 | 2648827 GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

Stop hiding behind the (strictly perceived, but not actual) safety of a crude projectile hurling manifestation of your own inability pursuade your fellow man using anything but force.

Then eat a dick.

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 10:13 | 2649057 Calmyourself
Calmyourself's picture

I would not dream of persuading you.  Your record of cowardice and socialist group think is well known.  Things like you belong in a preserve, an island preserve, with signs warning real people, tread not as madness be here.. The complete misunderstanding of human nature that only a true socialist / progressive can muster, btw I got your Willy Pete right here..

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 12:45 | 2649807 New England Patriot
New England Patriot's picture

Persuasion has never been the standard by which liberty has been judged.

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 09:03 | 2648644 Decay is Constant
Decay is Constant's picture

All your rights belong to us.

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 09:04 | 2648651 Bicycle Repairman
Bicycle Repairman's picture
Definition of INALIENABLE

: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 09:06 | 2648662 Yellowhoard
Yellowhoard's picture

"The Council on Foreign Relations is the American branch of a society which originated in England ...

That would be the Fabian Society whose logo includes a wolf dressed in sheep's clothing.

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 10:02 | 2648997 Reptil
Reptil's picture

Rhodes Society.

read

Carroll Quigley "TRAGEDY AND HOPE"

brief introduction: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSlMEtN5VTA

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 12:13 | 2649672 my puppy for prez
my puppy for prez's picture

Actually, that would be the RIAA (Royal Institute of International Affairs)

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 09:06 | 2648666 Vince Clortho
Vince Clortho's picture

Stalin and Hitler took guns from the citizens of their countries.

That went well.

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 09:12 | 2648718 writingsonthewall
writingsonthewall's picture

That's not even true - maybe you should learn some history before you write such crap.

 

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcnazimyth.html

 

Typical gun supporters argument - a myth which is proported as FACT.....and if that fact isn't believed - then the myth just gets repeated and repeated ad-nauseum.

 

People who own guns are not big and certainly not clever.

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 09:21 | 2648782 Vince Clortho
Vince Clortho's picture

Quote taken directly from the link you posted above:

"[1]. This is not to say Hitler did not value gun control. After having occupied Russian territory Hitler said:


Der größte Unsinn, den man in den besetzen Ostgebieten machen könnte, sei der, den unterworfenen Völkern Waffen zu geben. Die Geschicte lehre, daß alle Herrenvölker untergegangen seien, nachdem sie den von ihnen unterworfenen Volkern Waffen bewilligt hatten.

[The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.] 
         --- Adolf Hitler (1889-1945), April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitlers Tischegesprache Im Fuhrerhauptquartier 1941-1942. 
[Hitler's Table-Talk at the Fuhrer's Headquarters 1941-1942], Dr. Henry Picker, ed. (Athenaum-Verlag, Bonn, 1951)

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 09:30 | 2648828 writingsonthewall
writingsonthewall's picture

So you're comparing American citizens and gun control to the occupied nations in WWII?

 

Deary me - what a mess you're in. I suspect the US imposed 'gun control' in Iraq (well in certain areas) due to the fact that usually occupied nations are generally 'hostile'

 

...but don't let me stop you comparing a banana to a beach ball and calling them 'the same'.

 

 

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 10:23 | 2649109 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

Gun sales are way up since Friday. Ha ha!

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 09:56 | 2648968 N. B. Forrest
N. B. Forrest's picture

Damn, you burnt the guy with his own post.  How hilarious.  Liberal/progressives aren't the smartest bunch. 

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 10:00 | 2648988 writingsonthewall
writingsonthewall's picture

Damn, you burnt the guy with his own post.  How hilarious.  Liberal/progressives aren't the smartest bunch.

 

They're smarter than cheerleading gun supporters who didn't read the article themselves - and the response of course.

 

Still waiting to hear how small arms will prevent the biggest military in the world taking control of Amreica.

 

...come on dummies - it's not a hard question is it?

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 10:12 | 2649050 knightowl77
knightowl77's picture

80% of the rank & file in our military know the constitution better than you apparently do. As a Vet, the guys in my unit would not turn their guns on civilians..........the plan for the elites has always been to bring in foreign troops who would fire on Americans....

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 10:25 | 2649121 DosZap
DosZap's picture

the plan for the elites has always been to bring in foreign troops who would fire on Americans....

And when that happens, the patriots will come to the fore in vast numbers.No real American will allow foreign soldiers to murder Americans.

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 11:16 | 2649418 FeralSerf
FeralSerf's picture

No real Afghan will allow foreign soldiers to murder Afghanis.

Why are American troops in Afghanistan?

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 10:24 | 2649118 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

 

Still waiting to hear how small arms will prevent the biggest military in the world taking control of Amreica.

 

Have you ever heard of a place called Iraq?

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 10:37 | 2649203 Abiotic Oil
Abiotic Oil's picture

You are a collectivist tool.

All humans are individuals and should be judged/treated as such.

Let help you understand what you are saying.

"They are smarter than stupid ass brainwashed Democrats who actually believe that only the state should be armed and didn't read US history to understand why the founders wanted us armed."

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 10:41 | 2649240 j8h9
j8h9's picture

Wow. it appears the red/green arrows on this comment are frozen and not working?

 

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 12:11 | 2649662 my puppy for prez
my puppy for prez's picture

Comments begun with italics are not arrowable!  And he obviously knows this.

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 11:23 | 2649448 Overfed
Overfed's picture

The biggest, most powerful military in the world can't even defeat the bass-ackward goat ropers in Afghanistan, douche.

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 11:50 | 2649564 Lednbrass
Lednbrass's picture

Excellent point, everyone knows those little guys in black PJ's in the 60's and 70's failed miserably against our vast technological superiority as have the Afghanis.

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 10:00 | 2648993 Randall Cabot
Randall Cabot's picture

LOL Clortho, So by your implications, the israeli jews should arm the conquered palestinians? LMAO

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 09:26 | 2648796 Chump
Chump's picture

.

Guy above beat me to it.

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 09:13 | 2648721 goforgin
goforgin's picture

No they did not! Germany armed its citizens to the teeth and Stalin issued submachine guns by the millions.

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 09:18 | 2648765 Vince Clortho
Vince Clortho's picture

The Weimar republic passed gun control and registration laws.  The Nazis passed further laws in 1938 that dealt more specifically with gun control for Jews.

The only Germans "armed to the teeth" were in the military.

 

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 09:27 | 2648814 writingsonthewall
writingsonthewall's picture

Did you even read it?

 

Can you even read?

 

You have also tried to backtrack from your earlier (and incorrect statement) - a classic sign of a 'follower' who is sadly out of his depth.

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 09:49 | 2648934 Abiotic Oil
Abiotic Oil's picture

Your absolute best bet for survival is clearly to move to Mexico where guns are illegal.

Due to guns being illegal in Mexico, there is no gun crime. Mexico is very peaceful, you will enjoy living there.

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 09:56 | 2648971 writingsonthewall
writingsonthewall's picture

Mexico suffers from the fact it borders with the US and the ease of obtaining guns in the US encourages illegal trade into Mexico.

 

Why didn't you choose JAPAN? where gun control resulted in just 11 deaths last year.

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-many-americans-killed-with-guns-2012-7

 

Maybe you should have investigated more before you grabbed the first country with gun control which is in the grip of a drugs war brought on by the mass market demand for Drugs in neighbouring America.

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 10:09 | 2649032 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

A drug war encouraged by our CIA, Read "Dark Alliance", or the opium fields of Afganistan- yeah CIA again with the help of the Exchange Stabilization Fund, that unconstitutional agency of the Treasury. Your government is creating the war- see fast and furious. 

What a moron.

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 10:13 | 2649053 Abiotic Oil
Abiotic Oil's picture

Excellent choice. Move there!

A culture so subservient to authority they allow their government to contaminate the entire world with radiation.

Of course they allowed us to disarm them, after they were crushed in WWII due to their imperial aggression.

And perhaps Mexico would have less violent gun crimes if the Feds weren't so busy giving the cartels arms.

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 13:56 | 2650038 SgtShaftoe
SgtShaftoe's picture

Look at the pictures. They have grenades from every country In the world, most guns are from military arsenals / deserters, others never had a serial number, manufactured in some other country or covert manufacturing area. Guns aren't that hard to make. You can build one in your garage with basic machine skills. The Israelis did.
http://www.wejew.com/media/4945/Ayalon_Institute_Secret_Israeli_Weapon_F...

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 12:09 | 2649651 my puppy for prez
my puppy for prez's picture

Maybe it wouldn't be wise for "Cass Sunstein" to move to Mexico...he would be susceptible to skin cancer.

On second thought....

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 09:32 | 2648842 Abiotic Oil
Abiotic Oil's picture

Then the Feds took a bunch of the language from the Nazi gun control laws and added it to the 1968 Machine Gun Act.

We need to eliminate the unconstitutional NFA, 1968 and 1988 laws.

Eliminating those laws would also eviscerate the BATFE as they would have nothing to tax under their flimsy 10th amendment excuses.

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 09:20 | 2648780 moondog
moondog's picture

Right...especially the Jews /sarc

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country." --Adolf Hitler, dinner talk on April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitler's Table Talk 1941-44: His Private Conversations, Second Edition (1973), Pg. 425-426. Translated by Norman Cameron and R. H. Stevens. Introduced and with a new preface by H. R. Trevor-Roper. The original German papers were known as Bormann-Vermerke.

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 12:18 | 2649694 Lednbrass
Lednbrass's picture

The claim that Germany armed its citizens to the teeth is an entirely ahistorical lie and has no connection with reality whatsoever.

As a point of reality, it was quite dangerous even before the legislation referred to above.  During the widespread urban warfare there after WWI (it was effectively a Civil War with both sides having multiple division level strength) both the Communists and Freikorps shot anyone found with a weapon in their house on the spot and without mercy under the assumption that they were with the other guys. Both groups had arms caches including artillery and airplanes funneled from their respective factions in the military after the war, the population at large absolutely did not beyond the occasional hunting rifle or shotgun which could easily get you killed in 1919-1920.

Read some fucking books, asshole. Produce just one single valid reserched source proving your contention that Germany armed the citizenry at large (not some tripe from DKos or Media Matters).  You cannot because it did not happen, you are simply a liar. If one did not belong to a State force or paramilitary group like the Red Army, Freikorps, or SA you did not have anything beyond perhaps an old drilling type used when with your registered and approved hunting club.

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 09:08 | 2648677 writingsonthewall
writingsonthewall's picture

Can the NRA crowd out there explain how your automatic pistol is going to 'defend' you against one of the following 2 oft cited examples of why you need a gun.

 

1) In a dark theatre where a madman is shooting an automatic rifle, tear gas and massive confusion and many innocent people running around in panic. You don't want to shoot a child by mistake or you might be suspected as 'in chaoots with the madman'.

 

2) In the event of a Government crackdown - how will your semi-automatic pistol manage against the might of the US army, Navy and Air force?

 

I mean seriously - these are the two 'best arguments' for resisting gun control and neither of them stands up to the simplest of scrutiny.

 

This is why NRA members have to shout louder than the rest of us - all bullshitters talk very loud.

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 09:12 | 2648714 Oh regional Indian
Oh regional Indian's picture

Shhhhhh.... Writingonwalls, this is a pro-gun echo chamber. Logic has no place in such passionate discussions.

ori

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 09:15 | 2648731 writingsonthewall
writingsonthewall's picture

Over the last few days I have seen the pure insanity of the gun lobby.

 

I actually saw people arguing about "how they would have taken that sucker down" in the dark night premiere.

 

The first problem in America is guns - the second problem is everyone thinks they are Clint Eastwood and that "just like th efilms) only the 'bad guys' get hurt.

 

This is not a good combination.

 

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 09:17 | 2648758 SoNH80
SoNH80's picture

What you may not appreciate is, in a large, high-crime country like the U.S., private ownership of firearms is key to personal security in your home especially.  This is a BIG country, with plenty of BAD guys.... hence, "When seconds count, the police are minutes away."  Or, in rural Maine or Wyoming, "the police are an hour plus away."  Dolt.  Turn on your Ingsoc telescreen and mind your own business.

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 09:26 | 2648804 writingsonthewall
writingsonthewall's picture

Oh my god - just listen to yourself.

 

"What you may not appreciate is, in a large, high-crime country like the U.S., private ownership of firearms is key to personal security in your home especially"

So you think the US is a 'high crime country'? - you don't even come close.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

been watching too much MSM - think all the crime is in YOUR neighbourhood?

 

"This is a BIG country, with plenty of BAD guys"

 

Fuck me - you think you're in a film do you? There are no 'good guys and bad guys' you moron - this isn't a bible story or fairytale.

How old are you dickwad? 11 or something?

"When seconds count, the police are minutes away." 

Where did you LEARN that phrase eh? - what a fucking parrot.

"Or, in rural Maine or Wyoming, "the police are an hour plus away."  Dolt." 

Lot of crime in rural Wyoming is there? Cattle rustling a big problem?

"Turn on your Ingsoc telescreen and mind your own business."

 

How about you stop buying SO MUCH SHIT YOU DON'T NEED and then maybe people won't bother burgling you.

 

Alternatively get up in the night thinking you hear a burgular and shoot your wife / son / daughter by mistake - it's how things usually pan out...

 

You stil haven't explained how you intend to defeat the US army, navy and air force with your second amendment rights.

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 09:35 | 2648846 SoNH80
SoNH80's picture

There are junkies breaking into houses in my town to steal anything they can every week.  In a town not 40 miles away, a family was attacked by idiot junkie teenagers, mother dead, daughter scarred mentally and physically for life.  They did it "for fun".  How much I buy is my own F'n business, my home is my castle, and you can take your Ingsoc bullshit and stuff it up King George's dead ass.... how's that for you?

Bad guys are as bad guys do.  And I speak from experience, as someone who was threatened on the street with a knife, and never intend to repeat the experience. I do not owe my victimhood to anybody.

But of course, logic doesn't mesh well with Ingsoc conditioning, does it? 

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 09:41 | 2648884 writingsonthewall
writingsonthewall's picture

There are junkies breaking into houses in my town to steal anything they can every week.

2 observations

1) That's capitalism mate - did you think your 'qaulity of life' improved via capitalism didn't produce desperate people at the other end?

 

2) Why don't you move house.

 

Bad guys are as bad guys do.  And I speak from experience, as someone who was threatened on the street with a knife, and never intend to repeat the experience. I do not owe my victimhood to anybody.

Just once?

I've been the intended victim of 8 muggings and 1 aggravated burgulary. I didn't NEED a gun to reolve those and come out alive.

you just sound like a very, very scared man - how disappointing when you acted so brave when you hid behind your gun.

 

My advice? - don't get a gun, the way you talk the first big guy you meet will simply take it from you as you stand petrified to the spot due to your MSM influenced fear.

 

But of course, logic doesn't mesh well with Ingsoc conditioning, does it?

Ah a logic man - so can you answer how you intent to retain your freedoms against the largest military force on earth with shop bought guns?

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 09:45 | 2648907 SoNH80
SoNH80's picture

I think I've reached my troll-feeding quota for the day.  You've done a good job regurgitating the latest trendy Labour/Democratic Party talking points, good boy, you get a gold, I mean, red star for effort.

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 09:49 | 2648936 writingsonthewall
writingsonthewall's picture

Like most 'debates' with gun nuts - you ran out of arguments and now have to 'shoot or leave'.

 

 

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 09:36 | 2648857 Chump
Chump's picture

"How about you stop buying SO MUCH SHIT YOU DON'T NEED and then maybe people won't bother burgling you."

Out of all the mindless crap you litter all over this site, this has to be the single dumbest thing you've ever managed to write.  By this "logic" I guess women really do "ask for it" when they walk around all sexy-like, right?  Don't want to get raped?  Don't be attractive.  Don't want to get robbed?  Don't have things someone else might want.  Idiot.

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 09:48 | 2648931 writingsonthewall
writingsonthewall's picture

It's called disparity of wealth you idiot.

 

 

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 12:05 | 2649628 my puppy for prez
my puppy for prez's picture

And now you reveal your Fabian proclivities!  (Golf clap...)

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 12:31 | 2649758 XitSam
XitSam's picture

You not so skillfully avoided his point, should hot women be raped because they are on the plus side of a disparity of looks?

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 13:08 | 2649784 akak
akak's picture

And the posts of "writingsonthewall" display a disparity of intelligence --- or a surfeit of intelligence, at the very least.

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 12:03 | 2649618 my puppy for prez
my puppy for prez's picture

Your vitriole is sophomoric and caustic.  Rapid fire expletives denote insecurity in ideology.

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 12:20 | 2649710 Lednbrass
Lednbrass's picture

Ah, English I see.

No wonder you are so fucking servile, that explains a few things. Just go back to sleep, government will care for you.

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 10:24 | 2649117 Calmyourself
Calmyourself's picture

Sigh... The guy walked into the theatre from the front exit door, he was much higher than any child and was silouehetted by the screen, yes I would have shot him.  I may have missed three maybe four times but yes I would have hit him.  His OODA loop wpould have been seriously messed with and I would have kept firing.    Most of the guns being used by the Mexican cartels are mexican military or other latin American military weapons.  The US Government also had a hand in arming them through the Fast & Furious program apporoximately 2000 "assult weapons" in actuallity semi-auto firearms.  Several Federal Agents were killed with thiese guns as well as hundreds of Mexicans. 

A gun has no morality it is a hunk of steel only the wielder has choices..

Sipseystreetirregulars

David codrea

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 10:27 | 2649136 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

 

 

The first problem in America is guns - the second problem is everyone thinks they are Clint Eastwood and that "just like th efilms) only the 'bad guys' get hurt.

 

Aurora, Colorado banned concealed carry as did the theater chain and pretty much everybody but the bad guy got hurt. But you didn't know that because you can't read. Ha ha!

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 09:13 | 2648722 Vince Clortho
Vince Clortho's picture

Gun owners are the reason you have the freedom to write your post.

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 09:46 | 2648913 writingsonthewall
writingsonthewall's picture

What bollocks - tim berners lee is why I can write my post you fucking moron.

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 10:30 | 2649156 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

Never Mind the Bollocks, Here's the Sex Pistols!

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8J20yMoNWZo

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 10:48 | 2649279 Abiotic Oil
Abiotic Oil's picture

Aha.... A Brit? Disarmed? How's the crime rate in the UK since the populace was disarmed? Plenty of knife crime over there. Get put in jail for defending your property from invasion etc. sadly the US is not too far behind the UK in nanny-statism.

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 12:53 | 2649829 rwe2late
rwe2late's picture

 yes, "weapon-free" Britain,

well on its way to becoming a most lovely police state,

with all the surveillance and draconian laws any government could ask,

happy to sell weaponry to dictators and apartheid/religious extremists 

and lackey for all the Pentagon/NATO wars and invasions...

 

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 09:39 | 2648868 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

The US armed forces were barely capable of controlling three cities in Iraq. They have been beaten in Afganistan- thus the peace talks. 

The government is incapable of taking on the population of the united states. The police are incapable of stopping ANY gun violence whatsoever. In fact, as has been demonstrated in Anaheim, we have the police to fear. 

No one is asking you to buy a gun. You have no RIGHT to tell me whether I can have one or not. So, please take your fascist crap and hang yourself from the nearest tree of treason. 

I don't have to make an argument to own a gun- it is my right as an american. 

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 09:45 | 2648908 writingsonthewall
writingsonthewall's picture

The US armed forces were barely capable of controlling three cities in Iraq. They have been beaten in Afganistan- thus the peace talks.

Are you seriously thinking of taking on the US military?

 

What an asshat you are!!

 

No one is asking you to buy a gun. You have no RIGHT to tell me whether I can have one or not. So, please take your fascist crap and hang yourself from the nearest tree of treason.

Now I see why you need a gun - you can't win an argument any other way!. You accuse me of being a fascist because I don't think murdering weapons are a good idea in a civilised society - and yet wasn;t it YOUR government which bailed out YOUR banks in the grandest act of state / corporate merger since Mussolini?

 

I don't have to make an argument to own a gun- it is my right as an american.

Was it the right of James Holmes to own one too?

 

with rights come responsibilities - and your arguments prove you're not up to the job. You actually think your gun gives you power over the mightiest military force in the world.

 

.....that's what a child would think...

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 10:03 | 2648999 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

Your response to my first statement is a question of no argumentative value. You make no attempt to debate, just obfuscate. Strike one.

I accused you of being a facist, because you seek to steal my Constitutional right to have a gun. The Constitution is the law of the land (supposedly). You are advocating breaking the law to suit your personal prejudice. Strike two.

Yes, it was his right. It was not his right to take someone's life. With rights come responsibilities and Holmes will pay. However, the reasons that drove Holmes to commit the acts he did have no bearing on my Constitutional rights. If that were true, all rights would be eliminated every time a nutjob did something. There is a reason Constitutional rights are supposed to have a superior standing over single actions- it provides stability. Strike three.

You are the one that thinks as a child. A petulant, prejudiced, myopic child having a tantrum. Grow up.

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 10:45 | 2649262 writingsonthewall
writingsonthewall's picture

This is not a baseball game and you are not an umpire - your assumption of this role allowing you to dish out 'srtikes' makes YOU the fascist as you seek to obliterate my HUMAN RIGHT to freedom to express what a clown you are.

Strike 1

 

The US constitution is not MY law - nor is it YOURS - you are selectively choosing the laws which suit you - or do you feel the same about the CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to abortion?

Strike 2

 

You state that james Holmes had the right to have those guns - but not the right to use them as he did. It's funny you suggest that everyone whould have the chance of mass murder before you decide they are not fit to be armed. Again this is a sign of a fascist - who views the world through HIS eyes and HIS eyes alone.

 

Strike 3

 

You are the one that thinks as a child. A petulant, prejudiced, myopic child having a tantrum. Grow up.

 

You suggest I think like a child - I suggest you already think (and act) like a fascist - and like most fascists you hide behind the guise of 'protecting freedoms' but failing to mention you are talking about your own freedoms and not the protection of others.

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 14:02 | 2650056 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

Funny, How am I supposed to obliterate your "right" to free speech and where did I attempt to do so? 

If the Constitution is not your law, then you must not be an American. In which case, why do you care?

There is nothing selective about the 2nd amendment. You aren't very bright, are you?

As long as a women is allowed the right to choose, then yes, abortion is the law. No problemo.

Actually, the eyes of a fascist are a function of nationalism, a military industrial complex, debt based government spending, colonialism/military for resource exploitation andd the suspension of liberties. You might try getting an education.

If you are going to attempt to associate my motivations with your own, you need a much better argument.

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 11:59 | 2649601 my puppy for prez
my puppy for prez's picture

And most likely, Holmes was PROGRAMMED to carry out this act, at the behest of the very government that wants to take guns away.

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 18:23 | 2651136 FeralSerf
FeralSerf's picture

Or he wasn't even the real shooter?  How do we know that it was Holmes inside all that SWAT getup?  He may have been a drugged up patsy for all I know.  A lot of details just don't add up.

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 10:20 | 2649091 PatientZero
PatientZero's picture

Using conventional forces to fight guerrillas is futile. Ask the Viet Cong.

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 09:42 | 2648896 Abiotic Oil
Abiotic Oil's picture

 

"2) In the event of a Government crackdown - how will your semi-automatic pistol manage against the might of the US army, Navy and Air force?"

How many years have the empires of the world been unsuccessfully fighting the 4th world goat herders in Afghanistan?

Insurgency is a bitch.

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 09:53 | 2648956 writingsonthewall
writingsonthewall's picture

You lot are seriously fucked up.

 

You're the second person to take the comparison of the US army in Afghanistan and use it as a prop to suggest that "the military ain't that hard"

 

What a bunch of morons - you discredit your own military (whilst claiming to be a patriot - I bet) by suggesting a few small arms amongst citizens will be a 'hard fight' and you embarrass yourself by claiming you wouldn't be blown to pieces from a distance where you can't even see your enemy!

 

Clearly the NRA has no minimum IQ criteria for entry.

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 10:01 | 2648995 DosZap
DosZap's picture

What a bunch of morons - you discredit your own military (whilst claiming to be a patriot - I bet) by suggesting a few small arms amongst citizens will be a 'hard fight' and you embarrass yourself by claiming you wouldn't be blown to pieces from a distance where you can't even see your enemy!

Tell it to Al Queda, and the Taliban.They have not gotten your message yet.

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 10:07 | 2649025 GlomarHabu
GlomarHabu's picture

You're wrong.

Even the patriots of 1776 did not want standing armies. There is no correlation between being a patriot and loving the military. Quite the opposite is true.

I say this as a former US Marine and CIA operative.

You speak as ignorant trailer trash.

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 10:20 | 2649081 DosZap
DosZap's picture

Even the patriots of 1776 did not want standing armies. There is no correlation between being a patriot and loving the military. Quite the opposite is true.

Dead on,the original military was to not exceed 100,000 men,as at the time the popultaion was approx a million,and they never ,ever intended the military to be stronger,armed better than the people,the militia.(they did not ever want the standing army to be more than 10% of the population.

Every American on this site is a member of the unorganized militia,whether they know it or not.

Chew on that one dudes.If you 18 to whatever and able bodied your IN IT.

Plus the GCA of '68 took away the Founders intent for the people.

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 10:16 | 2649071 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

You have no idea how many people own guns in America. However, people don't need guns to overthrow a government, they merely have to refuse to abide by the law. Much like you are advocating here. Elimate Constitutional protections because of a personal bias.

The number of registered gun owners in the midwest are the tens of millions. A F-16, 18 or 22 cannot hunt individuals. You have to go to the ground and we don't have a large enough army, nor one willing to kill their own parents, brothers and sisters.

North Vietnam kicked our asses with tunnels, determination and whatever weapons they could buy or create. It is THEIR land, just as America is ours. Not the government's, not the banker's, Ours.

 

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 10:29 | 2649149 Calmyourself
Calmyourself's picture

"You lot" English or Aussie, now we understand... 

You are indoctrinated to not beleive in self defense.  Never mind guys, he cannot help himself, like arguing with a five year old about brushing his teeth or eating his veggies,  He has no idea why our ideas on Freedom and self defense are good for him..

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 10:38 | 2649224 AUD
AUD's picture

Hey, I'm an Aussie & I have several rifles, & I like them. I might even shoot a kangaroo tomorrow, filthy fucking vermin. They are good to eat though.

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 11:05 | 2649373 Calmyourself
Calmyourself's picture

Actually I have some friends in Oz and a few in kiwiland that I would not want pissed at me..  Mostly good people but dominated by pussified elites like the above..

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 10:52 | 2649300 Abiotic Oil
Wed, 07/25/2012 - 10:09 | 2649033 DCFusor
DCFusor's picture

I know how to shoot fast and acurately - I compete regularly in just that and have my share of trophies.  I know how to tell an armed madman wearing body armor and shooting from a child, doh, and would have risked my life to end his spree, probably with one shot.  Which would have been from a semi-automatic (gheesh) revolver I carry (anything that can shoot more than once is semi automatic).

In the case of a country wide gov crackdown, I promise you our military, who take their oath to the consitution (not anything else!) very seriously, would be on our side, and in any case, their weapons of mass destruction are not very useful against isolated pockets - see Iraq, Afghanistan, and all those years and all those billions with little success for a proximate example of assymetric warfare and how good they are at it.  Sure, a single pass by a warthog would turn my valley into lava - and be so expensive they'd never adopt that widely even if the military forgets what they took their oath about.  Why do you think it's the police who want drones?  They know damn well the military would do no such thing - they have honor.

More worrying is the 450 million rounds of ammo DHS bought for itself, all for pistols.  As some one who trains cops sometimes - most can't shoot for diddly, first off.  And they don't have military discipline - or courage - they waited outside the building in Blacksburg till Cho ran out of ammo...and arrested a friend of mine who went to his truck to get his gun and put a stop to it.

Police/DHS don't have the stuff to do a major op - their strategy is to to outnumber you locally - they bring ten people to a household to dominate it.  One wonders what their new plan is for all that ammo, however.  Best to just stay under their radar entirely.

So YOU go ahead and pretend to support them in their taking of our rights, and be a nice little sheep and stay under the radar if that's your plan for survival.  Some of us would rather die on our feet than live on our knees sucking fascist dick.  Probably only a tiny fraction even of those who say things like that, but it might be enough.

 

 

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 12:39 | 2649785 Lednbrass
Lednbrass's picture

I dunno, I don't find the .40 cal purchase to be a problem, if things completely fell apart and it got that bad anyone with a pistol is toast.

However, the .223 is another matter entirely-

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&tab=core&id=140e263e1c4b2654e61adf022688eb5d

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 10:22 | 2649106 knightowl77
knightowl77's picture

The only one "shouting" here is you....

Guns are equalizers, period. Two unarmed 6'2" guys attempting to rape a 5' woman armed with 9mm pistol are in a world of hurt (hopefully)...if she was unarmed, her best chance is that she can run faster and longer..

Since you have NEVER been in a gunfight, perhaps you should not speak about what is or is not possible in a dark theater where you could aim at the muzzle flash of your attacker..

The U.S. Military is made up of Constitution loving fellow Americans....They would not be our enemy. You on the other hand quisling, would be..............................

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 11:01 | 2649351 Killtruck
Killtruck's picture

First - HAHAHAHAHAHA. Your claims of the "simplest of scrutiny" are hilarious. Maybe the simplest of delusions.

Have you ever been shot, or had rounds fired in your direction? My guess is no, because if you had, you would understand the deterrence aspect. This is the problem with your argument, it is completely theoretical - and as such, naive and misguided (and rather laughably infantile). Take for example the recent robbery-gone-bad from Florida last week, where the 71 year old man shot two would-be thieves. You can even watch the video footage from three angles, as they walk in with a baseball bat and a pistol, order everyone on the floor, the 71 year old pulls his own firearm and fires...and the would-be robbers fall all over each other trying to get out the door like cartoon characters. Your argument is stupid, and uses selective evidence. The broad trend is that when the law-abiding citzenry is well-armed, crime still exists, but is relatively low. Why do the Bobbies have to carry Glocks these days? Hmmm?

1.) In a dark theatre where a madman is shooting an automatic rifle, if you are not armed, what is your suggested course of action? Reason with him? Curse him for a coward? Beg for him to spare you? A firearm is a tool, just as hammer or a screwdriver is a tool. Those tools do not necessarily grant you the ability to survive an instance like this, but they increase the chances. Not having such a tool leaves the chances somewhere around the level of minimal. Again, a .38 or .45 may not have stopped the attack, but shattering the illusion of control is the most important thing. "Taking that sucker down" is a throw-away argument. Instances like these tend to happen in locations where the illusion of control can be maintained for a sustained period of time.

2.) HAHAHA - again, you're like a child. Do you still wet the bed? Why would you use a semi-automatic pistol against a military? Take for instance the average U.S. infantry platoon. 90% of their firepower has a combat-effective range of about 200 meters. In many rural areas of the United States, you can buy a rather inexpensive deer rifle in a popular caliber with a combat effective range of 500 meters or better. So on a ground-force comparison matchup at distance/guerrilla war, the citizenry seems to be doing okay. The air force and the navy are different matters entirely, and while they can project significant power into the water and airspace, they cannot physically conquer anyone - that job is always left to the infantry, which we've already discussed.

Any other arguments you have, simpleton? Your "parrot" comment was rather ironic, as your own mind is weak. You are not samurai.

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 09:08 | 2648680 goforgin
goforgin's picture

.....scarring the nation with guns and ammunition

--Police and Thieves, The Clash

--Police, Thieves and Patriots, goforgin

 

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 09:11 | 2648706 slackrabbit
slackrabbit's picture

from my cold dead hands....

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 09:13 | 2648720 Abiotic Oil
Abiotic Oil's picture

Original news stories about Aurora shootings showed Holmes had 2 roommates. That info has been totally scrubbed from all stories.

Took the FBI 2 days to disarm the apartment it was so complicated. 2 days for the best bomb disposal guys the feds have? Binary liquid explosives etc. Why did he go to all that trouble and then tell the cops about the explosives immediately upon capture?

Where did he learn how to setup explosives that are this complicated?

Just in time to help push through the Small Arms Treaty...

Remember, US citizens don't need guns but the police need armored personnel carriers w/ Ma Deuce in the turret... Right?

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 09:57 | 2648940 DosZap
DosZap's picture

Took the FBI 2 days to disarm the apartment it was so complicated. 2 days for the best bomb disposal guys the feds have? Binary liquid explosives etc. Why did he go to all that trouble and then tell the cops about the explosives immediately upon capture?

Where did he learn how to setup explosives that are this complicated?

 

Another MSM blown to hades lie.

Everything the idiot had rigged is available online, and is unless in huge quanities,almost like fireworks.

Tannerite is commonly used to make expoding targets,there are no serious expolsives available on the net.(in large quanities it can be dangerous).They were systematic taking the apt apart because they did not want to start a fire,or burn the bldgs down.

IF you are stupid enough to mix chemicals(without losing your Johnson),to create more powerful stuff, you need to damn well know what your doing.

Get on You Tube and check it out.

Why did he go to all that trouble and then tell the cops about the explosives immediately upon capture?

Because if you murder a law Enforcement agent/officer, its a 100% guarantee of a death sentence.

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 10:11 | 2649045 XitSam
XitSam's picture

I could search the web but then proably not find what you're talking about. Please provide at least one link. I wasn't aware that the officials had said anything specific on the apartment.

Brian Terry was murdered with ATF and DoJ as an accomplice. Doubtful any death sentences will be handed out.

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 09:42 | 2648755 Bansters-in-my-...
Bansters-in-my- feces's picture

I am glad you described the nature of the CFR.

This group is a threat to any shred of democracy or liberty that is left.

This group is made up of pure evil.

Fuck you's CFR.....

This group dictates to the U.S.A Gov.

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 09:25 | 2648800 uwsjack
uwsjack's picture

Sad that this website chooses to post this political crap. A complete waste of time and, imo, mission creep from the original intention of Zerohedge. Please, stick to market related posts.

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 11:59 | 2649598 rwe2late
rwe2late's picture

uwsjack

Your comment is an attempt at sarcasm, right?

No one could be so stupid as to believe politics and economics are unrelated and without mutual effect.

Or that the "market" is unrelated to the wider economy and politics.

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 09:26 | 2648802 uwsjack
uwsjack's picture

Sad that this website chooses to post this political crap. A complete waste of time and, imo, mission creep from the original intention of Zerohedge. Please, stick to market related posts.

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 09:50 | 2648939 SoNH80
SoNH80's picture

Here's one:  The VIX Forward Volatility Coefficient plunged 0.00000093 this morning.  Izzy Schwartz of Putz Advisors predicts turmoil in the Reverse Repo PMSI Super-Priority over-the-counter deep pool markets as a consequence.  Warren Buffett disagrees, he's bullish on same.

You don't have to read the political articles if you don't want to, but you did.  So why complain.

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 10:10 | 2649034 rehypothecator
rehypothecator's picture

Zerohedge pulls the curtains back from the elites.  The elites are also interested in disarming the muppets, as well as robbing them.  (For some reason that entirely escapes me, a mere muppet.)  

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 09:35 | 2648850 PatientZero
PatientZero's picture

While Mao Zedong was a mass-murdering communist dipshit, he spoke perhaps the truest sentence in modern memory:

"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun"

Guns are political tools and bullets are votes. Guns are the only means to enforce your will - and enforce your will from a distance. That's power. And I don't want governments to have a monopoly on power.

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 09:45 | 2648909 Abiotic Oil
Abiotic Oil's picture

And of course the UN gave the Chinese a seat on the UN Security Council...

Any government that can murder that many civilians has to be good for world peace, right?

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 11:36 | 2649509 my puppy for prez
my puppy for prez's picture

China has long been the petri dish for all things Global Tyranny!  

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 09:36 | 2648855 Wakanda
Wakanda's picture

Wow!  Troll city - proceed with irony.

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 09:39 | 2648869 the not so migh...
the not so mighty maximiza's picture

All CFR members should be fisted to death, but hey we won't use guns.

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 11:17 | 2649421 De minimus
De minimus's picture

No my friend, we need to use rope and preferablly hemp rope. Nor should we limit the targets to simply the CFR, there are so many others who deserve to swing. Rope, especially hemp rope is sustainable! It's the "green" thing to do!

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 10:01 | 2648923 rehypothecator
rehypothecator's picture

4)  In an attempt to diminish concerns that the UN will overstep its bounds when it comes to U.S. sovereignty, the CFR states:  “The United States already has in place a rigorous export control system, defined as the “gold standard.” ... ”

I'm curious why, if gold is a barbarous relic, and only suitable for sewing into the clothes of 1938 Jews, why this antique phrase still exists.  Wouldn't it carry much more authority to cite something that is durable, is backed by the full faith and credit, and is recognized world-wide, The Fiat Standard?

 

 

“This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby,anything in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.”

"Meaning, all laws and treaties are subject to the guidelines of Constitutional rights and the laws of the states first and foremost.  If a law or treaty violates those rights, it is null and void.  Period. " [edited to add quotes here]

I interpret the opposite.  If a treaty has been ratified, it is the supreme law of the land, anything in the Constitution notwithstanding. 

 


Wed, 07/25/2012 - 09:51 | 2648944 tip e. canoe
tip e. canoe's picture

i'm all for gun control, but only if it begins with the complete demilitarization of all local, state & federal police forces.

take that, Mayor Mikey.

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 11:33 | 2649494 viahj
viahj's picture

but what about the criminal element, they get to keep theirs?

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 09:53 | 2648953 goforgin
goforgin's picture

All those guns ans ammunition in US will be used to SUPPORT the status quo--not to fight it.

In 2011, US Congress has done away with Bill of Rights by passing NDAA, yet all the guns and ammunition are silent.

 

 

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 10:17 | 2649073 PatientZero
PatientZero's picture

Because we don't pick fights. Most of us have families. We wait for them to give us an excuse.

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 22:47 | 2651837 Clever Name
Clever Name's picture

I gave you the +1. Unfortunately, you may be correct. I was suprised to see Max Keisers take on the whole deal, (Uh...cant insert link, so I just have to... http://maxkeiser.com/2012/07/21/the-insanity-doubling/  )when he responded to some commenters with these nuggets.

 

"What about the thrown election in 2000 persuaded U.S. not to employ their 2nd amendment rights? (if you don’t use it, you lose it). Admit it, American didn’t have the balls to stand up to Bush, so why not just start a commune or something and stop pretending to defend anything other than eating yourselves to death and shooting each other to help the box office receipts of your lord, Warner Brothers."

And...

"per the second amendment – the ‘tyranny threshhold’ was passed in 2000 and many times since"

Oh how many love to talk a good game (and Im not suggesting those are all blather) but he's got a point. We are being trampled as we speak, and what do they do? Support RP? the NRA? Talk smack and get pissed, and vent their frustration on the net? What would it take for the 'cold dead hands' crowd to act? F3m4 camps? At least having guns makes (uh, them!) feel better.

Sorry state of affairs, this. RIP USA. It was good while it lasted, too bad I was too young to understand...

What do you get for pretending the danger's not real
Meek and obedient you follow the leader
Down well trodden corridors into the valley of steel
What a surprise!
A look of terminal shock in your eyes
Now things are really what they seem
No, this is no bad dream.

 

-Sheep (Pink Floyd)

 

 

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 10:03 | 2649005 XitSam
XitSam's picture

I note two things

1) "the United States continues to face domestic opposition", the people are the government, supposed to be anyway. The federal government is not our parent or our betters, controlling us, telling us what to do. That they include this statement shows their belief in two classes: the elite and the proles.

2) The fact that this treaty exists, tells me that they think small arms are a significant factor in resisting tyranny.

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 10:28 | 2649141 bankruptcylawyer
bankruptcylawyer's picture

i'm certain the recent trend of hedge funds and corporations consolidating the biggest gun and ammo manufacturers is a far bigger threat to gun ownership than any foreign treaty. 

if a corporation is large, they consolidate the information the government wants. when the government wants it, they take it. 

much easier to cut deals or apply leverage or violence to a single board of directors than to a whole slew of smaller companies operating independently. 

any collaboration of course will be done in secret so as the large corporation can continue to reap profits .

 


Wed, 07/25/2012 - 10:37 | 2649211 Buckaroo Banzai
Buckaroo Banzai's picture

Thanks for pointing this out. In fact what is even more worrisome is that a creepy corporation like Cerberus is behind most of these american small-arms and ammo manufacturer rollups.

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 19:05 | 2651100 James
James's picture

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerberus

Cerberus is the name of the mythical 3 headed dog that gaurds the gates of the underworld.

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 10:31 | 2649164 ian807
ian807's picture

Two people. One has a gun. You know which one has the power.

If the government (i.e. an arbitrary group of people) had all the guns tomorrow, what would be the odds that they wouldn't use their firepower to dominate the remaining, now helpless, population?

 

Put simply, guns maintain the balance of power between a government and its people. The lesson of Vietnam was that, short of nuking the country, you couldn't defeat people with guns, even if you had airplanes, napalm, and burned down the occasional village. The tendency of governments is always absolute domination. Disarm the populace and they will dominate absolutely.

 

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 14:18 | 2649167 rwe2late
rwe2late's picture

Compare:

Mexico has some of the strictest gun laws of any country.

In Switzerland, gun ownership (including military type weapons) is supported by the government.

Is the problem the US has with violence (domestic and foreign) really one of the citizenry having “too many legal weapons”,

or is that just a wedge issue diversion away from the real causes of problems in the US?

Are the establishment advocates of “gun control” really concerned about stopping violence? Are Obama, Hillary, and other leaders ready to stop the overseas militarism, the drug war killings, the prison industry violence, the support for vassal dictators and apartheid governments?

Tightening the current laws about LEGAL gun ownership will bring miniscule, if any improvement to the above. We ought not conflate gun violence by illegal possessors of weapons with legitimate gun owners. In the current political environment, advocacy for more gun laws will likely most result in added unnecessary and oppressive surveillance and incarceration.

Whereas ending Prohibition II aka the so-called drug war, ending overseas US militarism, and ending militarized Homeland policing...

would have the BIGGEST effect for ending violence (domestic and foreign) from the use of weapons owned legally AND illegally.

And redirecting resources wasted on war and financial racketeering instead to useful physical and social infrastructure would reduce all types of violence world-wide.

The real issue today is state-sponsored violence. How many millions have been needlessly killed and wounded by the US and its allies, and from their policies in places such as Vietnam, Guatemala, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Haiti, the ghettos and prisons in the US, and by US weaponry supplied to tyrannies throughout the world?

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 10:33 | 2649174 billsykes
billsykes's picture

80% I would estimate 80%+ of all gun owners in north America would lay down arms if asked or under a martial law order. 

All it takes is a relocation drive and a couple of regular army patrols and the 20% would be mostly wiped out.

Look at all those guns for dollars campaigns, disrupt the food supply or cause a brief panic, coupled with existing treaty law and in one midnight congress session or 1 executive order it would wipe out the 2nd. 

"All owners of firearms please drop off your weapons to the nearest police station to receive a 50 dollar food stamp, you have 30 days grace. After this period, owners of firearms will be charged, have their property confiscated and be sent to a mandatory re-education classes."

I think society is totally different than even in the 40's, I think we are a bunch of pussies now, I can only fight the revolution after work or the my family excuse, my wife won't let me, etc.

And the guys that are left would have to form an underground in order to even have a chance, and sometimes those guys will leave over such overwhelming odds. But even if it could get organized, America would call on its "allies" in the UN to help quell the sporadic outbreaks that threatens the nations democracy. Because foreign armies don't give a shit about civilians or enemy combatants.

Not a nice thought.

 

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 11:32 | 2649477 GlomarHabu
GlomarHabu's picture

Well, that's an interesting estimate. The skunk at the garden party is that the "pussies" don't usually buy guns and those of us who own 20-30 weapons and 10's of thousands of rounds aren't going peacefully into the night.

Too many good and great men before I came gave up everything for our freedoms. I will not, I cannot, let their efforts go for want of courage.

There is no doubt with the NSA is spying on all of us by their admission, that the thugs in government know who we are and where we are. We must not kow-tow because they believe someone will attack us. They are using that as a straw man.

 

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 13:17 | 2649923 billsykes
billsykes's picture

I have known or met many pussies with guns and many without.

Look at the UK banning guns, no guns (less 22's), no knives, with no civil uprising. Japan, guns totally illegal yet no civil war.

Australia, total gun ban, no civilian uprising. Canada, in 2001 or 2002 with the long gun registry and ammo could only be bought with license holders, yet no civil uprising, no cold dead hands when it is well known that Canada has more guns per capital then the US.

It's all rhetoric and chest puffing because 1 guy against  1 swat team= 1 dead guy very quickly.

The thing that you may think would likely happen won't, it will be a contagious virus or whatever that will aim to preserve infrastructure and maximize killing.  This whole thing that the US would turn into a Baghdad is a fantasy.

This would mean a multi headed approach, GMOed food, hidden gene sequences, then a super virus then after the devastation of this the government would "help" the people with vaccines and these would of course be mandatory or not, even with low police/army levels you could self enforce thru the employers, just like when they deduct taxes from your paycheck. Couple the vaccine that kills sperm values by even 20% in the next generation you have no traceable crime and less population to control. 

They could do the whole enforcement vaccine thing just with a modest business tax incentive for this at 1% and the employers would beg to enforce this mandatory vaccination. Not vaccinated, no job.

 

 

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 13:14 | 2649914 Lednbrass
Lednbrass's picture

Yeah, not sure where you get that 80% at all.

After the Katrina confiscations the entire South freaked the hell out and pretty much every state had to pass a law guaranteeing that citizens did not have to hand over weapons during disaster or even declaration of martial law.

Federal law now also forbids it for any federal employee or agency, Bush signed it in 2006 under Public Law 195-206. See Section 706 "Prohibition of Confiscation of Firearms"" under Title V "General Provisions"if interested.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-109publ295/pdf/PLAW-109publ295.pdf

I think it is also unwise to confuse the urban population with who lives outside of those areas.

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 13:29 | 2649960 toomanyfakecons...
toomanyfakeconservatives's picture

Agreed, the previous poster is sorely confused about the power wielded by tens of millions of American gun owners, patriots, active-duty military, veterans, reservists, police, federal marshalls, and so on...

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 13:27 | 2649952 toomanyfakecons...
toomanyfakeconservatives's picture

Do you know what marial law actually is? It's rule by the military after the civilian government fails, not rule by the civilian government after the military fails. The scenario you described is fear-porn police-state fantasy, not actual martial law. Get a grip. The U.S. military isn't about to rain death and destruction down on it's friends, families, and countrymen. Instead, the military is about to back a civilian-led return to the Constitution and help arrest thousands of top traitors from Obama and Brenanke on down... http://tinyurl.com/cd5cyjo/

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 18:32 | 2651161 FeralSerf
FeralSerf's picture

Yeah, just like the military in Guatemala and Honduras and countless other countries that have had military coups.

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 18:32 | 2651162 FeralSerf
FeralSerf's picture

Yeah, just like the military in Guatemala and Honduras and countless other countries that have had military coups.

Wed, 07/25/2012 - 10:33 | 2649179 TPTB_r_TBTF
TPTB_r_TBTF's picture

This is bullish!  If they take our guns away, then we have to buy more to replace them!

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!