Again - he can try... why is everyone already throwing in the frikkin' towel??? Are we patriots or sheep?
JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Obama WILL reinstate the ban.. Thank you Mexico
- Thread Starter Jaybo
- Start date
Again - he can try... why is everyone already throwing in the frikkin' towel??? Are we patriots or sheep?
- Messages
- 2,079
- Reactions
- 318
Not throwing in towel...just knew he would try this because of past vote record. Just getting ducks in row now for a move in second term if reelected. He owes alot of people that are not on our side.
- Messages
- 117
- Reactions
- 9
I thought I heard late last night that he was backing off of his desire to reinstitute the ban for right now. I work nights so I heard it pretty late, I wish I could remember which radio program I heard it on. Oh well national media and their desire to confuse and disinform.
Right after I read this, threw the mouse across the room...scared the crap out of the poor geeks that I work with...I found this article as well. It seems that maybe one of these news agencies is a tool...
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2546321.htm
... Despite that, the President suggested he won't try to reinstate a US ban on assault weapons. Instead, he's appointed a border czar, says he'll support a regional weapons treaty and will impose financial sanctions on three of the big Mexican drug cartels. That'll allow the Government to seize their vast assets.
Spray-n-pray...very well put! Too bad that no one seems to think logically.
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2546321.htm
... Despite that, the President suggested he won't try to reinstate a US ban on assault weapons. Instead, he's appointed a border czar, says he'll support a regional weapons treaty and will impose financial sanctions on three of the big Mexican drug cartels. That'll allow the Government to seize their vast assets.
Spray-n-pray...very well put! Too bad that no one seems to think logically.
Most? Care to share your source for this?
- Messages
- 65
- Reactions
- 0
Ding ding ding! I knew this smelled like BS! Hmm.. law-abiding citizens all over the country having difficulty buying "assault weapons" due to increased demand, yet somehow thousands are confiscated in Mexico? Which would mean there are hundreds of thousands not being confiscated? What a crock
Sorry, I was re-reading the dozens of posts from people insisting that a ban renewal wouldn't be attempted and how we're all paranoid for thinking that it's possible.
Anyway, I have to agree that in order to control the outflow of firearms that Americans are prohibited from buying, we must ban the weapons that they ARE able to buy. It makes perfect sense to me.
But then, I also buy extended warranties on disposable items.
Anyway, I have to agree that in order to control the outflow of firearms that Americans are prohibited from buying, we must ban the weapons that they ARE able to buy. It makes perfect sense to me.
But then, I also buy extended warranties on disposable items.
- Messages
- 664
- Reactions
- 133
Yes, I think it's totally wrong. Ol Skool is right, the real problem is the corrupt Mexican Government. All of the cartels have top military officials and politicians on payroll, and that's the truth. Nothing to do with the US.
If the US is guilty of something it is by funding the cartels by buying drugs. Soo.. if you really want to "help" Mexico, crackdown on drug use in the U.S. It would be a win win for both nations.
- Messages
- 1,254
- Reactions
- 187
Funny thing I noticed: black man speak with forked tongue. In his quoted discussion with Señor Calderón, he stated that existing US law prevents the "migration" of such weapons from the US to Mexico, and promised increased enforcement of such existing laws. Then, out of the other side of his mouth, he confirms the lies that those weapons travelling south are the reason we need to reinstate the ban on the specific "assault weapons" (few of which are ever confiscated in Méjico as the thugs there seem to prefer the types unavailable here.
The solution is so simple he's missing it: BUILD THE DAMN FENCE AND SEAL THE BORDER. No "arms" or cash flowing out, no drugs flowing in. Both problems solved. If the narcotraficantes can't sell their junk across a sealed border, they've no market. No market, no cash. No cash, no goons eager to shoot up anyone they can find. AND we'd have the added benefit of a vastly reduced quantity of drugs available on the streets in the US of A, where they do NOT belong. The Colombian submarines will have to be redesigned to nearly double their range, because they'd no longer be able to deliver their cargoes to Guatemala or southern Mexico, as now done. No, they'd have to make it all the way to the California coast.... where they are ten times more likely to be found out.... tripling the lost-in-transit rates now seen. They now only carry sufficient fuel to make the coast near southern Mexico. Either less cargo, or larger subs.... either way, more costly to transport. Ah, the multiple benefits of simply sealing our southern border!! Astounding no one's thought of it before... perhaps I'm the genius they're looking for to solve the problem? NOTTTTT>.... that concept has been on the table for years. Funny, our boundary with Canada is even longer, nearly double. Few ever come across that line.... it is rather well secured. And that in a lot of territory that is far more rugged and remote than ANY of the US-Mexico border. Hmmmm.... could it be the drug situation is somehow politically USEFUL? Economically useful?
The solution is so simple he's missing it: BUILD THE DAMN FENCE AND SEAL THE BORDER. No "arms" or cash flowing out, no drugs flowing in. Both problems solved. If the narcotraficantes can't sell their junk across a sealed border, they've no market. No market, no cash. No cash, no goons eager to shoot up anyone they can find. AND we'd have the added benefit of a vastly reduced quantity of drugs available on the streets in the US of A, where they do NOT belong. The Colombian submarines will have to be redesigned to nearly double their range, because they'd no longer be able to deliver their cargoes to Guatemala or southern Mexico, as now done. No, they'd have to make it all the way to the California coast.... where they are ten times more likely to be found out.... tripling the lost-in-transit rates now seen. They now only carry sufficient fuel to make the coast near southern Mexico. Either less cargo, or larger subs.... either way, more costly to transport. Ah, the multiple benefits of simply sealing our southern border!! Astounding no one's thought of it before... perhaps I'm the genius they're looking for to solve the problem? NOTTTTT>.... that concept has been on the table for years. Funny, our boundary with Canada is even longer, nearly double. Few ever come across that line.... it is rather well secured. And that in a lot of territory that is far more rugged and remote than ANY of the US-Mexico border. Hmmmm.... could it be the drug situation is somehow politically USEFUL? Economically useful?
I had a guy at work (as far as I know, not pro-gun nor anti-gun per-se) mention the AWB (he knows I'm a gun owner) and that there should be a "balanced discussion" on it given the situation down in Mexico. When you try and tell a person like this that the government and media are deliberately twisting the facts to suit their own agenda, they immediately write you off as a paranoid, right-wing extremist, gun-nut. It is one of the most frustrating feelings you can have. I just can't comprehend how intelligent people can still trust politicians and the media after all the lies and distortions we've seen over the years on a whole range of issues. How do we reach people like this guy at my work? Taking a "balanced" approach in this guy's mind requires that I accept these lies and distortions as fact, and I'm sorry, I just can't do that. Therefore, I'm a paranoid, right-wing extremist, gun-nut. Well, so be it! But that gets me nowhere with this guy! Is this a losing battle? Maybe the guy is subconsciously anti and is just using the "balanced discussion" argument to hide that from me. I just don't know. 
- Messages
- 132
- Reactions
- 2
The People of Mexico have been forbidden to own and carry firearms, so it is real easy for a small amount of armed crooks to take over and run rapid, take our guns and it will happen here........
- Messages
- 585
- Reactions
- 21
I have a better idea, since assault weapons and such are the problem with the druggies down in Mexico and the border, instead of banning assault weapons, why not just ban drugs! Oh wait... they already are... and somehow the problem is still there... so how is banning assault weapons going to do any good? These people clearly don't care about the law and will have them no matter what. This is utter BS.
- Messages
- 1,254
- Reactions
- 187
Is this a losing battle? Maybe the guy is subconsciously anti and is just using the "balanced discussion" argument to hide that from me.
try switting him down and having him read the article at the ehad of this thread. I've seen it here, and in one or two other places. Perhaps the fact that Fox News has done some invetigative reporting and come up with a different "set of facts" might squeeze the door open a tiny crack..... also, help him objectively understand a few things about the specific weapons confiscated in Mexico and their availability (lack thereof) in gun stores open on US soil. Then, a few specifics about what constitutes an "assault weapon", maybe take him to the California Deartment of Justice site and go down the list of "characteristics" that define an "assault weapon". Then SHOW him how silly all that is, because a guy can take a stock Ruger 10/22 carbine, available at Walmart or Bimart for under two hundred bucks, throw away the wod stock it brings, and in about ten minutes install a plastic pistol grip stock, or even a "cool lookin" thimbhole stock, and all of a sudden one now owns a banned "assault weapon". Add a Hotlips 35 round mag, and he's just been upgraded to a terrorist felon.
It might take a while to lead him down this path..... but if you aproach him as a friend, decent guy, not trying to cram anything down his throat, calmly and matter of factly "discuss" these things.... maybe he'll come round and realise we've been sold a crock.
One other possible path.. if he's a reader. I recently read a book called "Armed America: how guns became as American as Apple Pie". Seems we've about a four hundred year history of hysteria leading to "spin" leading to legislation.... restricting our right to bear arms. Fascinating story. Written in response to some whackjob who worte a book explaining how our 2nd Ammendment rights "really mean" that the national standing army can have weapons, but no one else should..... very informative read.
try switting him down and having him read the article at the ehad of this thread. I've seen it here, and in one or two other places. Perhaps the fact that Fox News has done some invetigative reporting and come up with a different "set of facts" might squeeze the door open a tiny crack..... also, help him objectively understand a few things about the specific weapons confiscated in Mexico and their availability (lack thereof) in gun stores open on US soil. Then, a few specifics about what constitutes an "assault weapon", maybe take him to the California Deartment of Justice site and go down the list of "characteristics" that define an "assault weapon". Then SHOW him how silly all that is, because a guy can take a stock Ruger 10/22 carbine, available at Walmart or Bimart for under two hundred bucks, throw away the wod stock it brings, and in about ten minutes install a plastic pistol grip stock, or even a "cool lookin" thimbhole stock, and all of a sudden one now owns a banned "assault weapon". Add a Hotlips 35 round mag, and he's just been upgraded to a terrorist felon.
It might take a while to lead him down this path..... but if you aproach him as a friend, decent guy, not trying to cram anything down his throat, calmly and matter of factly "discuss" these things.... maybe he'll come round and realise we've been sold a crock.
One other possible path.. if he's a reader. I recently read a book called "Armed America: how guns became as American as Apple Pie". Seems we've about a four hundred year history of hysteria leading to "spin" leading to legislation.... restricting our right to bear arms. Fascinating story. Written in response to some whackjob who worte a book explaining how our 2nd Ammendment rights "really mean" that the national standing army can have weapons, but no one else should..... very informative read.
Hey tionico,
That sounds like some pretty good advice! This is a guy who used to tell me that shooting sounded like fun and he might like to go sometime. He seemed pretty open-minded a while back before all the media frenzy. I also know he's pretty liberal on a host of other issues and most likely voted for Obama. I suspect he is being influenced by his liberal friends and the liberal media (I'm pretty sure he doesn't watch FOX news - it's not "politically correct" among liberal intellectual types don't ya know). But I'm pretty sure he respects me, and so I think it's important for me to at least try and reverse this trend in his thinking. Maybe the best thing is to take him shooting, and casually bring up the issues you've identified.
There is one thing I did say that seemed to make an impression on him. Here's the gist of it:
"If you are truly serious about having a "balanced discussion" on the issue of guns, try a simple experiment. Go out and buy a gun, join a gun-club, and try living the life of a gun owner for one year. I promise you, at the very least, you will understand why gun owners feel victimized, marginalized and stereotyped by the liberal media and the government, and why many of us take such a firm stance on the issue of gun rights. Who knows you might even become a radical, extremist gun-nut yourself - God forbid!"
Thanks again for your advice tionico!
DEK
That sounds like some pretty good advice! This is a guy who used to tell me that shooting sounded like fun and he might like to go sometime. He seemed pretty open-minded a while back before all the media frenzy. I also know he's pretty liberal on a host of other issues and most likely voted for Obama. I suspect he is being influenced by his liberal friends and the liberal media (I'm pretty sure he doesn't watch FOX news - it's not "politically correct" among liberal intellectual types don't ya know). But I'm pretty sure he respects me, and so I think it's important for me to at least try and reverse this trend in his thinking. Maybe the best thing is to take him shooting, and casually bring up the issues you've identified.
There is one thing I did say that seemed to make an impression on him. Here's the gist of it:
"If you are truly serious about having a "balanced discussion" on the issue of guns, try a simple experiment. Go out and buy a gun, join a gun-club, and try living the life of a gun owner for one year. I promise you, at the very least, you will understand why gun owners feel victimized, marginalized and stereotyped by the liberal media and the government, and why many of us take such a firm stance on the issue of gun rights. Who knows you might even become a radical, extremist gun-nut yourself - God forbid!"
Thanks again for your advice tionico!
DEK
- Messages
- 1,254
- Reactions
- 187
Yeah, Dek.. take him shooting, probably best to a local range where he can see other "gun nuts' up close. Bring, buy, borrow, rent, a .22 autoloader, such as the Ruger 10/22, and let him see what a blast that can be... or a .22 LR pistol like a Buckmark, Ruger 22/45. Let him play with the rifle, and after he's "hooked", explain how easy it is to turn it into a banned in California "assault weapon", which changes NOTHING about the way it works or what it can do, ONLY how one hangs on to it while using it. Then give him a hi cap magazine, let him empty it out, and THEN tell him he cannot get one of those while a California resident..... and that the AWB would make them illegal anywhere in the nation.
Put reality in his hands, THEN let him decide. If that doesn't change the tune he's whistling, he's a lost cause.... until the zombies come over the hill. At that time he'll wish he'd listened and done something about it.
Good job the squirrel hunting colonists never submitted to the Brits as they attempted to disarm them in Boston after the Tea Riot and the Boston Port Bill.... house to house searches turned up a few rusty old muskets, but they'd already made the REAL guns "disappear". It was those "squirrel guns" in the hands of "uncivilised" farmboys that carried the day at Lexington and Concord, and eventually put the great and pompous Cornwall (and his 'mighty" redcoated army) in the loser's circle at Yorktown.
I sincerely hope it never comes to that again, but if chaps like your co-worker can't be convinced to stand up for THEIR rights (which rights are NOT conferred by civil government but by our Creator) it will come to that again. Which would be a great travesty.
A repeat of what the Brits tried in Massachussetts in seventeen seventy something with a far sadder outcome is what happened in Europe in the late 1930's.... a few old uncles and grandpas handed over only their rusty old family heirlooms, keeping back the "real" weapons they had, as did the colonists in Boston, but the vast majority of serviceable firearms were taken up by the Wehrmacht of Hitler. Most of Europe fell, one country at a time, most within a few days of first invasion. The reason? The citizenry were disarmed. Read Churchill's seven volume history of the Second War to End All Wars. Frightening stuff. But worth it. And HE had no axe to grind in writing it. Interesting he saw the rising up of Germany three years after the FIRST War to End All Wars.. and began speaking out about it. No one wanted to listen to the crazy sabre-rattler. They flushed him out of politics.... until Hitler was gathered on the shores of occupied France, trying to figure out how to cross the Channel.
Now IF weapons in the hands of The People are never needed for such a time, well. We;ve had them two hundred years and more. Never really needed. Which situation pleases me greatly. BUT..... consider the economy tanking so badly our standing army dissolves. Or Mexico's armed narcotraficantes weary of dealing with the border and simply invade. Or the hundreds of thousands (millions?) of Chinese soldiers begin to get feisty, or greedy, or want wives (they've few there, they've aborted most of them in favour of sons)...... or the moslems weary of desert sand and want lands to grow crops--- and slaves to grow them. THEN what, if we're all disarmed? Or only have single shot .22's against their full auto AK 47's, RPG's, armoured vehicles, and the like? It would be Baghdad in reverse, but with no one cheering us on but our own.
Put reality in his hands, THEN let him decide. If that doesn't change the tune he's whistling, he's a lost cause.... until the zombies come over the hill. At that time he'll wish he'd listened and done something about it.
Good job the squirrel hunting colonists never submitted to the Brits as they attempted to disarm them in Boston after the Tea Riot and the Boston Port Bill.... house to house searches turned up a few rusty old muskets, but they'd already made the REAL guns "disappear". It was those "squirrel guns" in the hands of "uncivilised" farmboys that carried the day at Lexington and Concord, and eventually put the great and pompous Cornwall (and his 'mighty" redcoated army) in the loser's circle at Yorktown.
I sincerely hope it never comes to that again, but if chaps like your co-worker can't be convinced to stand up for THEIR rights (which rights are NOT conferred by civil government but by our Creator) it will come to that again. Which would be a great travesty.
A repeat of what the Brits tried in Massachussetts in seventeen seventy something with a far sadder outcome is what happened in Europe in the late 1930's.... a few old uncles and grandpas handed over only their rusty old family heirlooms, keeping back the "real" weapons they had, as did the colonists in Boston, but the vast majority of serviceable firearms were taken up by the Wehrmacht of Hitler. Most of Europe fell, one country at a time, most within a few days of first invasion. The reason? The citizenry were disarmed. Read Churchill's seven volume history of the Second War to End All Wars. Frightening stuff. But worth it. And HE had no axe to grind in writing it. Interesting he saw the rising up of Germany three years after the FIRST War to End All Wars.. and began speaking out about it. No one wanted to listen to the crazy sabre-rattler. They flushed him out of politics.... until Hitler was gathered on the shores of occupied France, trying to figure out how to cross the Channel.
Now IF weapons in the hands of The People are never needed for such a time, well. We;ve had them two hundred years and more. Never really needed. Which situation pleases me greatly. BUT..... consider the economy tanking so badly our standing army dissolves. Or Mexico's armed narcotraficantes weary of dealing with the border and simply invade. Or the hundreds of thousands (millions?) of Chinese soldiers begin to get feisty, or greedy, or want wives (they've few there, they've aborted most of them in favour of sons)...... or the moslems weary of desert sand and want lands to grow crops--- and slaves to grow them. THEN what, if we're all disarmed? Or only have single shot .22's against their full auto AK 47's, RPG's, armoured vehicles, and the like? It would be Baghdad in reverse, but with no one cheering us on but our own.
Excellent post, except for this minor point. When disaster strikes, these people do not learn a costly lesson or "see the light" as we all hope they will. The same twisted logic that gets in their way now will continue to hold fast as they flail about grasping at any train of thought that doesn't end with "I was wrong." In fact, when constructing their argument for blame, the word "I" won't be anywhere in it.
- Messages
- 117
- Reactions
- 9
How about we outlaw the drug cartel and put them away or worse and not the border agents that they left incarcerated for so long. They infect our kids as well as others with drugs ruining untold thousands of lives and families I don't see a problem with eliminating them.
and not the border agents that they left incarcerated for so long. They infect our kids as well as others with drugs ruining untold thousands of lives and families I don't see a problem with eliminating them.Remember Pablo Escobar and the Medellin cartel? Columbia and the United States finally got fed-up with all the murder, mayhem and drug-running of this scum-bag and his crew, and so they formed the Search Block (trained and coordinated by Delta Force and the Navy SEALs) to hunt him down and get rid of him once and for all. And they did just that! Where there's a will, there's a way, and that way is Delta Force and the Navy SEALs! :gun09:
These killers down in Mexico, beheading people and the like, deserve no less than Escobar. Send in our elite forces once again and get rid of these scuzz-balls like they did Escobar - end of story! Seems simple enough, but are Obama and Calderon serious about stopping the Mexican drug cartels or is this "crisis" just too useful to them right now?
Wow, I can't believe I just said this! I'm normally a pretty easy-going, gentle, peace-loving guy! I guess Teamowner's post must of struck a nerve somewhere.
These killers down in Mexico, beheading people and the like, deserve no less than Escobar. Send in our elite forces once again and get rid of these scuzz-balls like they did Escobar - end of story! Seems simple enough, but are Obama and Calderon serious about stopping the Mexican drug cartels or is this "crisis" just too useful to them right now?
Wow, I can't believe I just said this! I'm normally a pretty easy-going, gentle, peace-loving guy! I guess Teamowner's post must of struck a nerve somewhere.
- Messages
- 3
- Reactions
- 0
Hello.. I read the article and must say that i disagree with the majority of it. Reasons that i think we all are feeling. I was curious if anybody knew of a good spot to really research this topic and get some reliable sources. By topic i mostly mean the Assult Weapons Ban.
Ive got lots of anti gun friends and would like to have a good argument with sources to back it up
Thanks for any imput!
Ive got lots of anti gun friends and would like to have a good argument with sources to back it up
Thanks for any imput!
Similar threads
Upcoming Events
New Classified Ads
-
-
Sico ambi lower with larue mbt trigger, b5 stock and radian safety- Started by jerhine23
- Replies: 0
-
Ruger Single Six 3 Screw w/.22LR & .22 WMR Cylinders 1967- Started by hammerstriker
- Replies: 1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-