Articles
   
       
       
Pics/Video
   
       
       
Shop
Search
 
 
 
 
 
Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
WAKE WORLD HOME
Email Password
Go Back   WakeWorld > Non-Wakeboarding Discussion

Share 
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old    Barry Waste (barry)      Join Date: Apr 2002       03-13-2013, 8:07 PM Reply   
Interesting read.

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/51977

Being heavily involved in the gun culture for the last 30 years I've seen first hand how the anti-firearms advocates break down the neutral with misinformation/lies.They purposely misinform the largely uneducated public and intentionally associate firearms advocates with societies worst. Always using assumptive language and knowing that if you spread a lie long enough, it will be perceived as fact. I've watched as legislation after legislation is proposed and passed , each incrementally more restrictive, but always just shy of "the straw". Then when there's an outcry from the firearms advocates they're always dubbed as "frothing and ready for war". Garbage!! let me tell you, if we were ready for war we would have taken to them in '32 with the

National Firearms Act of 1934
Gun Control Act of 1968
1970 with the Firearms Registration and Licensing Act
the Brady Act in 1993
or the Assault Weapons ban of 1994
and the COUNTLESS individual state legislation that's been passed.

Much like your position on firearms themselves, the portrait you paint firearms owners is with a dripping brush of fear-mongering. Pernicious lies to convince the neutral that anything/anyone associated with firearms is bad- The Militias, the para-military groups, the preppers, the hoarders..Homeland security puts out another warning which means these people must be ready and eager to take to the streets with weapons. No.
Here's your problem- We're patient and very, very slow to wrath. We don't want conflict, we want to be left alone.

Here's how we all know you simply have an agenda to rid the U.S of firearms, but use crime as the excuse..

New firearm laws proposed to strengthen old firearm laws that criminals don't obey.

That's it! You've shown your hand!

Let me get this straight- you're going to create new laws that criminals will obey because the old law was not... lawful enough? This new law will be more.. .. lawful?

It's preposterous to believe that if, at the time of Sandy Hook, there was in place ONE MORE law, the shooting would not have taken place. I hear from others how 'stupid the anti-crowd" is.. I've always disagreed. I refuse to believe that ANYONE with an ounce of common sense can, with a straight face, tell me that stricter gun control will stop crime. Time and time again they'll argue the point and I'm starting to think perhaps they really are stupid enough to believe it....If you tell a lie long enough...right?

I'm hearing murmurings from young and old alike that they're not going to allow another "ban" ...and,as much as I think that the mainstream news media are well paid poop-stirrers, when they start questioning the possibility of a revolt the anti-firearms crowd had better take head and listen.

Last edited by barry; 03-13-2013 at 8:13 PM.
Old    Nick Schrein (wakeboardern1)      Join Date: Aug 2007       03-13-2013, 9:10 PM Reply   
I firmly believe in gun rights, and am against nearly all of the proposed measures. That being said, maybe it's just an extremely vocal minority, but there is a lot of talk of violence in defense of rights amongst people I've talked to, overheard or read in the comments on videos. Whether or not it's just tough guy posturing doesn't matter, because even mentioning the idea of a violent revolution can and will give the anti-gun people the ability to misconstrue the majority of gun owners as whackjobs and will make it that much easier for them to take away guns.

The majority of us gun owners do just want to be left alone, however that doesn't mean that there aren't very vocal gun owners that do not represent the majority. It's like when Alex Jones was on Piers Morgan, I saw a clip of the video, and while he is loud, he does not represent the majority of American gun owners. Him going on that show did more damage to gun ownership than it helped, because it really just made us look crazy.

After reading through most of the article (I'm about to fall asleep, so I won't make it through the whole thing tonight) I can say that when he gets into the Constitution bit, he is completely right. If there is an approved change to the Bill of Rights that is ratified by the States, there isn't much we can do. However if we let the Government tell us that certain rights are obsolete with the times, how long is it until they take away other rights in the BoR? Freedom of the press? Religion? Speech? We've already lost the right to warrantless search and seizure, and yet if you argue against that, people come in and call you a conspiracy theorist for saying that the government is taking our rights.

Last edited by wakeboardern1; 03-13-2013 at 9:17 PM.
Old    Jo Shmoe (joeshmoe)      Join Date: Jan 2003       03-14-2013, 6:27 AM Reply   
Not very interesting article and this writer just got sucked in on what the media thinks is the #1 problem in America, it's definitely Not Gun Control, 1934,1968,1970,1993,1994, 201?, let them pass their stupid gun control act(with resistance of corse, political not physical) and then we don't have to hear about it for another 20 years or so. Everyone knows the law isn't going to work anyway and I cannot stand the media reporting gun violence anymore, we have not had a homicide in my city since...ever, there was a domestic dispute 20 or more years ago and someone died, come to think about it, I don't think anyone has died on our streets ever, the speed limit is almost 25mph throughout the city and now people can drive gulf carts through the town.
Revolution? hahahaha, there is no revolution, not one scenario how thats going to play out, they would first have to get rid of the 2nd amendment.
Old    Big D (bigdtx)      Join Date: Feb 2005       03-14-2013, 10:46 AM Reply   
Try taking 30 days off from TV, the Internet, and talk radio.
Then come back and see if these conspiracies seem as real without the echo chamber.
Old    D C (dirwoody)      Join Date: Apr 2003       03-14-2013, 11:41 AM Reply   
Agree with above - let's make another law, to try and stop those who break the law, from doing it again.....but I digress....
What drives me even more nuts than that, is all the money and energy being put into the gun debate while our country continues to bury ourselves in debt. Let's get the big issues under control before we try and get our hands around something else.
Old    Shawndoggy (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       03-14-2013, 12:40 PM Reply   
We should get rid of all laws, because, you know, they obviously don't work because we still have criminals. I mean really, speeding is a crime and people speed all the time. Murder, when are we getting rid of that one? Clearly laws against murder don't work because murderers and still murdering.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       03-14-2013, 4:37 PM Reply   
But everything was kosher when we let them start listening to our phone calls, reading our emails, and seeing what we were looking up on the internet because of what the boogieman terrorist may do? Oh yeah, that's right, there was a Republican as president back then.
Old    Barry Waste (barry)      Join Date: Apr 2002       03-14-2013, 5:16 PM Reply   
Fun Fact:
Other than you, nobody has said a thing about Republican or Democrat.

Most of our freedoms are being eroded away by both parties.. little by little.
Old    Nick Schrein (wakeboardern1)      Join Date: Aug 2007       03-14-2013, 7:39 PM Reply   
Exactly Barry.

Jeremy, when I became old enough to fully understand the implications of the Bush Administration policies, I found myself strongly disliking him as president. Then Obama comes in promising to be different, but he just strengthened and expanded upon Bush's policies, which means he's no better whatsoever. McCain and Romney both believed in those policies, and I didn't support either one of them. I refuse to support any politician who is willing pick and choose what parts of the Constitution that are relevant.

Big D, it's not a conspiracy theory that if you live within 100 miles of the border, the feds can walk into your house and search it without warrant. Something like 2/3rds of the population lives within that 100 mile area. The ACLU is fighting it, but who knows if that will amount to anything. You're so sure that it's a conspiracy theory that the government has taken our rights that it's almost sad. They really have been stripping us of rights protected under the Constitution as well as rights to privacy.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       03-15-2013, 12:02 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by barry View Post
Fun Fact:
Other than you, nobody has said a thing about Republican or Democrat.

Most of our freedoms are being eroded away by both parties.. little by little.
I agree with your last sentiment. But my point was, we should have been more angered by the passing (and re-passing by Obama) of the Patriot Act one hundred times more than by the threat to ban weapons. But people that were against the Patriot Act (myself included) were labeled as un-American or treasonous.
Old    Shawndoggy (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       03-15-2013, 12:28 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakeboardern1 View Post
Big D, it's not a conspiracy theory that if you live within 100 miles of the border, the feds can walk into your house and search it without warrant. Something like 2/3rds of the population lives within that 100 mile area. The ACLU is fighting it, but who knows if that will amount to anything. You're so sure that it's a conspiracy theory that the government has taken our rights that it's almost sad. They really have been stripping us of rights protected under the Constitution as well as rights to privacy.
Cite for this?
Old    Jason G (jason_ssr)      Join Date: Apr 2001       03-15-2013, 2:21 PM Reply   
Jeremy, why even bring party into it? You're ok with the government attacking your gun rights because they were successful with attacking your web browser rights?
Old    Nick Schrein (wakeboardern1)      Join Date: Aug 2007       03-15-2013, 2:55 PM Reply   
http://www.aclu.org/national-securit...tion-free-zone

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/200...lu-assails-10/

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/200...rder-agents-c/

Enjoy.

Regarding the searching of homes and private property, they have made it clear regarding the vehicular searches, it's not even a remotely far cry from the ability to searching homes warrantless for "illegal" immigrants or for "drugs transported over the border." Slippery slope.

Jeremy, unfortunately it took the weapons thing to wake people up. Now that they're awake though, both sides should be banding together against all of these policies rather than trying to pass blame around.

Last edited by wakeboardern1; 03-15-2013 at 3:04 PM.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       03-15-2013, 4:30 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by jason_ssr View Post
Jeremy, why even bring party into it? You're ok with the government attacking your gun rights because they were successful with attacking your web browser rights?
If you think it's only about "web browser rights", you're clueless.
Old    Nick Schrein (wakeboardern1)      Join Date: Aug 2007       03-15-2013, 5:31 PM Reply   
I fail to understand why it is that you guys have to fight back and forth about which rights that are protected under the Constution are important. They're all equally important! As soon as you allow anyone to erode the rights in one Amendment, it rapidly paves the way for them to do the same with others. The Patriot Act has violated many of our Constitutional rights that are just as important as the 2nd Amendment.

http://www.scn.org/ccapa/pa-vs-const.html

Seriously, stop arguing about what is more important or about how people should have been outraged sooner. It's stupid and pointless now. Now is the time for everyone to demand that our government stop trampling on our Constitution. We've let it go on for far too long and it's time that it should stop. You people on this forum are so divided by stupid party lines that you're missing what the government has done. If your party does something, you justify it by saying that "oh there must be a good reason" but if the other party does something similar, you become outraged. The outrage needs to be spread equally against anyone who would step on the founding documents of the United States. It's not about left or right anymore, and people need to understand that.
Old    Eric (DenverRider)      Join Date: Feb 2013       03-15-2013, 6:40 PM Reply   
I like my second ammendment rights which don't seem to be in any real danger. I do wish that people who choose to fight for the 2nd ammendment would be as rigorous about protecting the 1st ammendment. I like my guns but I hate your religion. I wouldn't hate your religion if you could keep it out of my government but you don't seem to be able to handle that. Does it automatically mean you are an extreme religious person because you are an outspoken 2nd ammendment supporter? I guess it isn't 100% but I have yet to talk to someone who doesn't confirm my stereotype. If you wanted to protect the ENTIRE constitution instead of just part of it then maybe more people would be willing to take you seriously. Lets protect the entire bill of rights instead of just part of it. The founding fathers knew what they were doing.
Old    Eric (DenverRider)      Join Date: Feb 2013       03-15-2013, 6:42 PM Reply   
... and enough of the civil war talk already. It makes you sound like a whack job.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       03-16-2013, 8:06 AM Reply   
We have a name for people who use weapons to enact violence against the will of the majority. It's "terrorist".
Old    Shawndoggy (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       03-16-2013, 9:05 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
We have a name for people who use weapons to enact violence against the will of the majority. It's "terrorist".
Loathe as I am to support the ridiculous premise of the OP, one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       03-16-2013, 11:02 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by shawndoggy View Post
Loathe as I am to support the ridiculous premise of the OP, one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.
Exactly. Remember Bill Ayers the terrorist? What was his issue.... The US govt conscripting the American youth right out of high school and murdering them in a foreign land of no strategic significance to the US. About 55K of them.

Why was he a terrorist? Because the majority of Americans (who weren't eligible for service) thought that it was ok to wage the war. For right or wrong the majority of Americans don't see it as a valid reason to fight for the kind of gun ownership rights that a minority think they should have.
Old    Jason G (jason_ssr)      Join Date: Apr 2001       03-16-2013, 7:33 PM Reply   
Quote:
If you think it's only about "web browser rights", you're clueless.
No, its an example you gave. Do I need to type out the entire patriot act before you will answer the question?
Old    Barry Waste (barry)      Join Date: Apr 2002       03-17-2013, 5:42 PM Reply   
Quote:
But my point was, we should have been more angered by the passing (and re-passing by Obama) of the Patriot Act one hundred times more than by the threat to ban weapons. But people that were against the Patriot Act (myself included) were labeled as un-American or treasonous.
There's a flaw in your logic. We should be outraged by both, no doubt. The threat to firearms is more pressing because it is our last line of defense.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       03-18-2013, 1:40 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by barry View Post
There's a flaw in your logic. We should be outraged by both, no doubt. The threat to firearms is more pressing because it is our last line of defense.
Last line of defense against what? I think it is a tired argument to believe that some guy is going to be able to stave off the US Govt with a .22 or a 9mm.
Old    Paul (psudy)      Join Date: Dec 2003       03-18-2013, 1:53 PM Reply   
Thats why they are against an assault weapons ban.
Old    Barry Waste (barry)      Join Date: Apr 2002       03-18-2013, 2:37 PM Reply   
"they"? As in "those crazy people who adhere to our constitution"?

What an outdated group of people. Imagine.

How many U.S soldiers( who are far more patriotic than the average American citizen) do you think will turn against their own people? How many high level officials do you think are going to give those orders? Heck, Local sheriffs around the country are refusing to enforce any new weapon ban(s).. If the boots on the ground won't enforce the law than the law has no teeth to begin with.

Government is the God of the liberals, but they're really just men like the rest of us.
Old    alan plotz (alanp)      Join Date: Apr 2001       03-18-2013, 11:17 PM Reply   
nick you oversimplify the law stating that w/in 100 miles of the border "the feds" can walk into your house and search it without a warrant. there are essentially 13 exceptions to obtaining a search warrant. applicable case law be "hot pursuit" and "exigent circumstances". rest easy, "the feds" arent going to break down your door and conduct a warrant-less search. in the 3 years i was a border patrol agent a warrant-less search of a home was never conducted by anyone at my duty station.
further americans have lost the "right" to bear arms and it should be a privilege imo. the 2nd amendment is beyond antiquated at this point. the united state's need to form a militia/hasty army has long since passed. and if you think you will protect yourself/home with your pistol/rifle against government/military intrusion youre sorely mistaken. whats more inherent the "right" to own a gun or the "right" to live.
Old    Barry Waste (barry)      Join Date: Apr 2002       03-18-2013, 11:27 PM Reply   
Alan,
Explain to me how you're able to conclude that a natural right is antiquated.

Your statement presupposes that the BOR grants/is the giver of rights. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       03-19-2013, 3:32 AM Reply   
^Barry, please explain how the 2nd Amendment is a "natural right".

And FYI, an F-16 was prepared to shoot down United 93 if it did not crash into PA. The national guard opened fire on protestors at Kent State. Local sheriffs can be removed from office for not obeying laws.
Old    Paul (psudy)      Join Date: Dec 2003       03-19-2013, 6:56 AM Reply   
Barry, I only meant "they" as in the ones posting in this thread(since I had not been active in it), not as in those people. Bad choice of words.
Old    Nick Schrein (wakeboardern1)      Join Date: Aug 2007       03-19-2013, 7:33 AM Reply   
Alan, how long ago were you a BPA? Did you watch the video on the ACLU site? Are you aware that this warrantless law was very recently expanded by the Obama administration?

Eric Wuest, all of these people fighting for gun rights are religious people trying to use their religion to push their views? What an absurd statement. Right here, me, this guy, prime example of someone who doesn't follow your perceived stereotype. I am about as religious as a rock and yet after studying political science and theory in college as well as a lot of the constitutional law surrounding the first amendment (journalism degree with minors in history and poli sci), I am an ardent supporter of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Read The Prince, which sarcastically laid out the groundwork for how dictatorships should be created and handled. Read some Plato, Aristotle or even some Marx. When it comes to government, it was laid out very carefully how unjust governments come into existence. The system of checks and balances as well as the idea that the government has to follow the words of the Constitution were both put into place to prevent the pitfalls that lead to an unjust government. Bit by bit we are eroding these two huge facets of our government and we are following the paths laid out by many great philosophers hundreds, thousands, of years ago.

Last edited by wakeboardern1; 03-19-2013 at 7:35 AM. Reason: Ipad typos... Grrr.
Old    Barry Waste (barry)      Join Date: Apr 2002       03-19-2013, 7:55 AM Reply   
Quote:
^Barry, please explain how the 2nd Amendment is a "natural right".
This is the problem. You lack understanding. Go study it yourself. Let me get you started- Natural and Legal rights are not synonymous.

To be honest, Jeremy.. It's obvious we have diametrically opposed world views and I don't care to spend any more time debating with you. I'm sure you're a great guy and I wish you the best.
Old    Jason G (jason_ssr)      Join Date: Apr 2001       03-19-2013, 8:02 AM Reply   
Quote:
further americans have lost the "right" to bear arms and it should be a privilege imo. the 2nd amendment is beyond antiquated at this point.
LMAO! Really? Was there an amendment Im not aware of?

Scary that people with this mindset are the ones who are supposed to be protecting us.
Old    alan plotz (alanp)      Join Date: Apr 2001       03-19-2013, 10:12 AM Reply   
jason take a minute and read the sentence. imo means in my opinion. im not here to convince you, barry or anyone else that what i say is doctrine, its just my opinion. and ive done more for my country than alot people. currently im in afganistan and this is my fifth deployment here not to mention operations and deployments ive done in other parts of the world.

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/201...co-Insurgency/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9zjxYG_BEs

nick i have not seen the video on the aclu site. ill check it out when i get back stateside.
Old    Nick Schrein (wakeboardern1)      Join Date: Aug 2007       03-19-2013, 11:09 AM Reply   
Alright.

I did more research into it beyond the ACLU site and the articles I posted. They expanded the powers into being able to search a computer up to 30 days after crossing the border, which is what has a lot of lawyers annoyed. However, the DHS and ICE are still currently stating that they will only search at the borders. That's not what happened to the guy in the ACLU video, (30 minutes after crossing the border they stopped him and searched his vehicle). The concern is that they keep incrementally adding to what they can search and the search parameters within that 100 mile area.
Old    Jason G (jason_ssr)      Join Date: Apr 2001       03-19-2013, 11:53 AM Reply   
Alan, You are entitled to your opinion and Im entitled to mine.

It is your opinion that Americans have lost the right to arms that the second amendment allows us, and you believe we have lost it without a new amendment stating such.

I believe that without said new amendment, we have not lost the right that the second amendment provides, and attempting to take that right without the new amendment is unconstitutional.



I did not accuse you of trying to convince me. Thanks sincerely for your service.


Its often postulated that if bad legislation went through and the military were ordered to disarm the citizenship, that there wouldnt be a single soldier willing to do so to his fellow countrymen. Ive always thought that there wouldnt be a single uniform willing, and that soldiers who have seen the horrors of war know more than anyone else the importance of the 2nd amendment. I guess Im naive.
Old    alan plotz (alanp)      Join Date: Apr 2001       03-19-2013, 12:18 PM Reply   
well sorry for the miscommunication. i clearly dont think we have lost the right to bear arms thats preposterous. i keenly aware a new amendment is needed to deny that right. and when i say "americans have lost the right" to clarify i think that too many screwballs have ruined it for the masses and its unfortunate, perhaps a poor choice of wording on my part and too literal of a translation you yours. violence is too rampant in our country. im not naive most persons wanting to do harm with a will do so and a criminal doesnt register a gun anyway. i like the idea of banning assault weapons with large capacity magazines as a starting point. the argument that and armed society is a safe society doesnt hold weight to me. reference chris kyle.
Old    Jo Shmoe (joeshmoe)      Join Date: Jan 2003       03-19-2013, 1:59 PM Reply   
" Violence is too rampant in our country."
Alan, there is hardly any violence in my city, most of it occurs in big cities. Another problem we have in this country is people dieing in car wrecks, what would happen if we made everyone who drives a car have to pass a test to get a license and then they have to renew that every four years? oh wait, that wouldn't work because all of the criminals wouldn't follow the law and they would just drive cars without a license.
Also, did the DEA go into Columbia and help their government take out the crime lords, I saw someone advertising for a vacation in Columbia, but I am not sure I would go down there at this time.
Old    Jason G (jason_ssr)      Join Date: Apr 2001       03-19-2013, 2:20 PM Reply   
Sorry for the confusion, I guess things don't always come across on a message board.


Quote:
violence is too rampant in our country. im not naive most persons wanting to do harm with a will do so and a criminal doesnt register a gun anyway. i like the idea of banning assault weapons with large capacity magazines as a starting point. the argument that and armed society is a safe society doesnt hold weight to me. reference chris kyle.
I agree that violence is rampant, but why do you think that is? Why do you think limiting those who obey the laws will have any affect on those who do not?

IMO, violence is rampant in some areas for two reasons:

1. Parenting
2. Money

Neither of which have to do with guns, and neither of which can be offset by banning guns, knives, or frying pans. If you want to change the violent culture, promote the family unit, and make violence less lucrative and more costly. Make prison unpleasant.

Chris Kyle was not a victim of rampant violence. He was a victim of a risk he was willing to take to help fellow service men. There is inherent risk to putting a gun in the hands of a mentally unstable veteran as a method of therapy.
Old    C.I.E..... Evan (guido)      Join Date: Jul 2002       04-03-2013, 1:14 PM Reply   
We give our rights away every day for the sake of making America safer, prettier, healthier. Everyone wants this place to be full of roses. A place where you don't have to work hard, where you get universal healthcare and well fare.

The trouble is that this country was not founded on those principals. We were born a rough country. We stole the land from the indians. We rebelled against Englands tyranny. Brothers went to war over beliefs.

If you think we cannot have another Civil War you are confused and blind. Our country is precipitously close to collapse. I don't mean today or tomorrow. It could be 500 years from now, but the direction that we are traveling will not be maintained. I'm not saying that I can see the future, but the frustration is building. People (patriots) are tired of having their lives infringed on. They're tired of being taxed to death only to have local government break down (Stockton Bankrupt?!?).

Once the 2A is gone the 1A will follow. Your property will be searched and seized in the name of "Homeland Security." The only reason we all aren't up in arms is that they haven't found YOUR pressure point YET. The peace loving gun hobbiests and enthusiasts are not who you need to be afraid of. The politicians are. A career politician is a dangerous thing. Who's interest are they really looking out for?

And..... If you don't think that a war can be fought against our government with simple weapons you are dead wrong. Look at Afghanistan. There is a reason that we can't win that war. They are simple people with simple weapons and they are giving us hell. You have severely underestimated what the determination of man can achieve. Besides, I think you'll find that those in the military will be on the same side of the line with those that consider themselves patriots and Americans.

War is a filthy thing. I don't think ANYONE wants a war on our soil. For that reason I implore people to open their eyes and stop giving your rights away. Pay attention. Look at an argument from both sides and make your own decisions.

America needs to remember history and it's roots. All great empires fail eventually. Usually because of greed and corruption from the government. Tell me that I'm wrong.......

This is not a Republican/Democrat issue.
Old    Jo Shmoe (joeshmoe)      Join Date: Jan 2003       04-03-2013, 6:30 PM Reply   
Uh, no, No civil war!Do you even know why the civil war was fought? If you think we are going to have a civil war you are confused and listening to people who have no idea what they are talking about. Not even close, nobody is touching the second amendment. We don't have to "overthrow the government" we just wait a couple years and vote them out! see? no bloody war(or any other reason to use your guns)
Our country Was precipitously close to collapse. Our whole economic growth relies on the banks and the people bailed them out so we can continue to succeed. Have you noticed the banks have been getting stronger and there is a reason the economy is growing slowly, the rules have changed, now you need an excellent credit rating to get an excellent % rate. I have even bought a VLX because the % rate was so good! As our country moves to energy independence the trade deficit will start to diminish, we just went through the worst economic times since the great depression and now property values are rising, sure the stock market is going to crash, but it will rebound more quickly the next time, the US economy is only going to get stronger, its Not the gloom and doom you perceive.
So, give me ONE legitimate scenario how this civil war is started and do not say it starts when the federal government storms your house because they find out you are a convicted felon and are not allowed to own a gun. I support the police when they raid a house of a felon to take their guns.
I am not afraid of the peace loving gun hobbyist and enthusiast, I could easily be one myself. What puzzles me is that it seams that most of the people that are against guns are the same exact people that need guns to protect themselves.
Old    Nick Schrein (wakeboardern1)      Join Date: Aug 2007       04-03-2013, 7:51 PM Reply   
Joe, you do know that civil wars are fought for a plethora of reasons? Our first, (yes I said first because who knows if there will be others. We as a nation have barely been around compared to others and look at the sheer number of internal power struggles that have gone on through the years) was over the secession of the southern states regarding the issue of slavery. Lincoln ordered the men of Fort Sumter to stay there no matter what, and when the South attacked a Union fort, it gave Lincoln the ability to declare war while garnering the support of the North. A second one could very well happen, whether we want to admit it or not. Is it going to happen anytime soon? Highly unlikely. Will one occur one day in the distant future? Looking at the history of nations, there's a strong possibility. That's not conspiracy theorist talk, that's just discussion of the way that nations have risen and fallen for thousands of years.

And sure the banks are doing well, sure you're doing well, but unemployment numbers (not the deflated numbers of people receiving unemployment) are still sky high. Sales jobs are borderline impossible to make the kind of money they used to and the real estate market is still in the crapper. You know what is selling well in real estate? Foreclosures and homes that are priced 30-50% below what they were valued at 5 or 6 years ago. People are constantly going underwater because they purchased a super expensive home when the economy was good, and then found that they couldn't make ends meet. Then when they go to sell the house, they can't even get back what they paid for it.
Old    Jo Shmoe (joeshmoe)      Join Date: Jan 2003       04-04-2013, 6:41 AM Reply   
I don't know any States that want to reinstate slavery, so what we going to fight over? Guns? I don't know any States that want to outlaw guns, not One.
yah, we could have a civil war in 1000 years, don't really see how thats going to play out. Maybe someone could come up with a legitimate scenario of how its going to happen besides the argument, "They are taking our guns!" because, "They are NOT taking our guns!" One thing is for sure, we will have a war with another country before we have a civil war. World War III ?
Energy independence is Big, we wont have to go to the middle east and protect our interest. There is a lot of talk about going to war but thanks to Bush(I would vote for him again), I don't see us attacking another country without provocation.
"Foreclosures and homes that are priced 30-50% below what they were valued at 5 or 6 years ago"
Thats right, now is the time to buy land! Once in a life time chance to buy a house at bargain basement prices, I did know of a property for sale here in my town in which the price will Double in ten years. I don't even think the stock market will double in the next ten years. There also was a property four blocks down from me with a big colonial house on it, they bought the property and tore down the house, will be interesting to see what they build(probably will be their retirement home)
Back in the 50's economist thought that 6% unemployment was terrible for the economy, then 6% became acceptable throughout the last three decades in the twentieth century, as companies become more efficient, maybe 8% is the new norm? There are companies that sell a lot of their products overseas, so US unemployment would not matter to them as much.
I hope none of you think about this "stuff" when you are out wakeboarding, I know I don't. Life is definitely Good!
Old    Nick Schrein (wakeboardern1)      Join Date: Aug 2007       04-04-2013, 8:50 AM Reply   
Joe, it could be something as simple as the government deciding that they control something that they shouldn't. Or taking away rights enumerated in the Constitution beyond gun control. Some state (eg. Texas) decides to attempt to secede and others join. Military forces are used to stop it from happening and fighting breaks out. The country fractures upon party lines.

You're looking at it with such a narrow mind. There are radicals out there on both sides that wouldn't take much to tip into fighting mode. It could start as something small and turn into an absurd conflagration based on something as ridiculous as political ideology. Or the economic woes of one part of the country could drive them to think that they can do it better, so they attempt to secede. A million things could happen that lead to some event that sparks riots, fights with police and the other types of civil unrest that lead to war. Technically the Revolutionary War was a civil war, with the British supporting one side and the French supporting the other (similar to how many modern civil wars play out. It was a proxy war between the Brits and French using Americans). It was started by a select few who were avidly against something and they drew in followers and used rhetoric to enrage others into fighting.

And yeah, you can buy stuff for stupid cheap, but they are things that someone lost. Just because one person can afford to buy them doesn't mean everyone can. If so many people can afford to buy cheap property, there wouldn't be so much cheap foreclosure property on the market. That's the sign of an awful economy, not a great one.

Again, 8% is a drop of water in the pool. The real number is sitting around 20% with fluctuations. There's a number out that states that 16.2% of 18-29 year olds are unemployed. As a recent graduate, I remember growing up how everyone said you have to go to college to get a good job. That created a massive influx of college degrees into a job market that is still saturated with baby boomers who are being forced to stay working because of the economy. Now the only way to make yourself stand out from the crowd is to get a masters or Phd, which are essentially the new college degree.
Old    C.I.E..... Evan (guido)      Join Date: Jul 2002       04-04-2013, 11:37 AM Reply   
Jo, You really think they are not looking to ban guns? You need to look further. CO just passed legislation that all but makes it impossible to legally transfer a gun that has a magazine with removeable base plates (read: almost every gun with a magazine). You cannot even loan your gun to a friend or family member for over 72 hours. The law is so vague that it effectively makes almost all gun owners criminals. NY just passed laws limiting all guns to 7 rounds. You will have to buy (so far un-available) custom magazines to comply. They will not allow transfer of so-called assualt weapons. They cannot even be handed down to children. They will have to be destroyed on your death. CT and MD are close at their heels. They will pass so-called AWB's also. CA already has an AWB in place. There are work arounds, but they are poor.

You can bet they are after our guns. The liberal states for sure. Diane Feinstein has said that if she could she would confiscate every gun in America. Bloomberg has said the same.

The gun issue is just a talking point right now. Once they eliminate guns they will be after your other freedoms. Look to history. This is how it is done. Our country is going down the same road as the Roman empire, as Germany. They will deflect the truth, fabricate statistics, then keep doing so. Population becomes lazy and complacent. Rulers (so called: democratically elected officials) become more powerful, power hungry and greedy.

I'm not sure if it is blatant or if they really think this is the best course of action. If you have a very narrow vision you can see why they think banning guns is in the best interest of the country. If you look at the big picture you will understand that it doesn't work and will in fact promote other forms of violence. People are violent creatures. You will never stop that. There is no Utopia. The majority of people are too un-educated to understand the true function of guns. They think an AR-15 is the same gun that you go to war with. Most think they are fully automatic.

The economy should be a #1 priority. Interest rates are at a level than cannot be sustained. If they go up, the economy stops. Housing prices are already over inflating near me. Multiple bidders. Properties going up $15-30k/month. People are jumping on the bandwaggon before the low rates go away. IMO they are overpaying. Our dollar is being devalued and losing status as the worlds reserve currency. Oil is being purchased in the Yuan instead of the dollar. The Aussies have gone away from teh dollar. Germans have started collecting their gold reserves and bringing it back home. The Texans have requested that the federal reserve return their gold to their state.

Trust me... The last thing I want to see is any failure in this country. I live a great life. I think people just need to keep their eyes open. Just because things are great now doesn't mean you should turn a blind eye to the issues. If we all lived and spent like our country is, we'd all be broke and bankrupt. Just something to think about.

Then again... I'm not that smart.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       04-04-2013, 11:46 AM Reply   
Quote:
Once they eliminate guns they will be after your other freedoms
Too late. They already dispensed with our right to protection from warrant-less searches. Americans don't care. Gun owners never made a fuss out of that. The majority just think that you shouldn't have anything to hide. Same with guns. There will always be a bigger majority that doesn't care.

The fringe element will never gain critical mass. Succeed from the US and lose your SS and pensions? Good luck establishing a monetary system. It's only the massive size of the US economy that allows the US and the fed to create money out of nothing and reenforce the economy. Civil war is a pipe dream for the offended.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       04-04-2013, 1:03 PM Reply   
^Exactly John. 10 years ago, when the Patriot Act was first in-acted, hardly a fuss. Now the NRA is fueling the whole suppression of rights issue.

And Nick, since you see to be enamored with "What If's", what if a giant sinkhole swallows the entire US the day before the next Civil War happens? And seriously, bringing up the whole Texas succession thing to support your argument? Are you wanting to have a serious discussion or one based on fantasy?
Old    Nick Schrein (wakeboardern1)      Join Date: Aug 2007       04-04-2013, 2:13 PM Reply   
Well then I guess there won't be a Civil War. Be more of a facetious jackass please.

I'm not saying any of that is even remotely likely to happen (I stated that in an earlier post. I get that it's hard to go through all of the posts on a forum and that it is easy to overlook things like that, I do it too, but if you're going to attack me you better at least make an effort to read and comprehend what I write). He's arguing the point that it is completely impossible for a civil war to break out anytime within the next 1000 years. I'm giving him the what ifs that lead to civil wars across the world.

There are crazies in Texas that do believe and very well may be insane enough to attempt a secession (if you're going to insult the intelligence of people on this board frequently because of spelling, you might want to make sure you get it right yourself every time, just a suggestion) if they perceive the government as going too far to the left. Would they succeed? Hell no. Would the country they create be financially viable? Like John said, no. But it doesn't mean that crazies aren't thinking that they could make it work. They look at the Bank of North Dakota and say, "Well if they can make their own bank that is successful, so can we!"

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

I hear people everywhere talking seriously all the time about the things that I am posing as hypothetical situations. Maybe it's because I live in a rural and generally conservative area. But there is a pretty dang big chunk of the country that fits that demographic. Based on what I've heard from people outside of the internet (yes, those places exist!) I'm having a serious discussion. I'm seriously discussing the fantasies of a distinct group of people and what it would take to push them to the point of attempting something that most of us view as insane.

I still fail to see why it is that you justify the current actions that violate the Constitution by the actions of Bush. At this point, wouldn't it be best to quit bragging about how you were paying so much attention that you protested then and to actually support those who are against further destruction of the Constitution? Or do you honestly believe that it's okay that they continue doing it is okay now? Yeah, it took the gun rights people entirely too long to wake up to the problems of the Patriot Act, but guess what, they're awake now and for someone who seems to be so staunchly against the Patriot Act, you sure seem to think that it's okay these days.

Louisiana Sinkhole
http://www.nbcnews.com/video/nbc-news/51132866
http://www.wafb.com/story/21798850/g...-25-more-trees
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       04-04-2013, 5:09 PM Reply   
^No it's not a serious discussion. Texas (the state I live in, TN along with almost every other state in the country filed a petition for secession) is not going to secede. It does nothing to support your argument other than to say you believe everything you read on the internet.

And me bringing up the silence on the Patriot Act is not me saying, "well they did this, so it's okay to do that", it's saying we lost a portion of our rights that the 2nd amendment is there for to protect. When you've already lost all of your rights, it's too late to start fighting. But when people rallied against the Patriot Act, they were called anti-American or terrorist supporters. I guess there wasn't a powerful enough lobbying group to pump enough cash into a campaign or to sink enough campaigns to make enough of a ripple?

Nick, I have said it in the past, I own two firearms. I'm not against the 2nd Amendment.
Old    C.I.E..... Evan (guido)      Join Date: Jul 2002       04-04-2013, 6:11 PM Reply   
John, I agree that people seem to be OK having their freedoms stripped. It goes back to exactly what I said; It just has to get to the point where a freedom that matters to you is taken or it directly affects ennough people to incite action. Will it happen today, tomorrow, in the next 100 years? Who knows, but we've started down the path, in fact, we started down the path when the nation was born. It's a re-ocurring theme in history.

For those that don't think it's possiblle, go troll some conservative sites. There are a lot of places in the country that are financiallly depressed and people aren't willing to give to much more.

As it stands, I'll be suprised to get social security by the time I retire. Failure of that system alone could be a catalyst.

Again, I'm not saying it will happen and you could speak in hypotheticals every day, but when people flat say that it couldn't happen I think it is short sighted.
Old    Nick Schrein (wakeboardern1)      Join Date: Aug 2007       04-05-2013, 8:29 AM Reply   
Again... I'm not talking about stuff I read on the internet. I'm talking about real world conversations that I hear a lot. If they believe everything on the internet, so be it. I've said it before, the only stuff that I read online are RT, Wikipedia, random news sites (CNN, Fox, HuffPost) WakeWorld, the IMDB boards for random movies and shows that I like, Facebook, Twitter and the occasional weightlifting site/forum.

I'm sorry that I was 12 when the Patriot Act was first passed, and that I knew literally nothing about it other than what the adults on TV said, that it was supposed to protect us from terrorists right after I watched thousands of people die live in the school library. It's not like there's a lot that could be done by someone at that age.

But now it's time to distinctly stand against it and other government actions that can and do violate the Constitution and vote for politicians who are against said bills. Have we lost a lot of rights? Yup! Have we lost all of them? Nope, and it's time that everyone stands up against this stuff before it truly is too late. I get that it is an absurd uphill battle, but I know that Ron Paul was very close to Mitt Romney (until Romney and his lawyers pulled the rug out from under Paul) which means that something that Paul was saying was resonating with a lot of people. Probably the stuff about maintaining the Constitution (or at least I'd like to hope that is what got people interested in him, rather than some of his more radical beliefs).

As for Texas secession, I agree, the overwhelming majority wouldn't even remotely go for it. But again, crazy people do crazy things. Timothy McVeigh was angry at the government and look what he did. I have repeatedly overheard public conversations about some states trying to secede or about fighting the government in a civil war. Again, perhaps that's because I live in a rural, conservative and economically depressed area where people perceive the current path of the government to be bad. But that has been my experience with people and to tell me that I'm living in a fantasy land because it's what I frequently hear OFF of the internet and therefore lay out hypothetical situations in which these people finally get to the point of doing something drastic is personally insulting.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       04-05-2013, 8:55 AM Reply   
Define "this stuff". That's the problem. There is a huge movement of people who believe that their rights to access to medical treatment of their choice is oppressed by the govt. But most people hardly consider that an issue at all. Yes, if you are looking you can find all kinds of groups who are outraged about the loss of some right(s). But no matter how vocal it never reached critical mass. For everyone who has an issue there are 100 more who don't give a hoot.

A facetious as you might have thought Jeremy's sinkhole example was, I wager that the most likely use you will have to use your guns in a breakdown of society will be after a huge natural disaster. So yeah... nothing's impossible.
Old    Jo Shmoe (joeshmoe)      Join Date: Jan 2003       04-05-2013, 9:43 AM Reply   
Nick, I did not say it was completely impossible, more like highly unlikely
The supreme court has upheld the right to bear arms for the people in its 2 past rulings on the 2A even though it was a 5-4 vote, if this did not happen I would not have made my comments,hopefully this will continue
Most states have a right to bear arms for its citizens, even Colorado states it in its constitution
New York and California do not have right to bear arms in their constitution, the 2nd A states that the States can have a militia, it doesn't say anything about what happens if a State declares Guns illegal, you might have to move to another State.
I know the right to bear arms is one vote away from non-existence, maybe this will be the tipping point for the 2016 election?
Yes, some States have passed gun laws, but you have your rights to own handguns, shotguns, and rifles to protect your home.

To equate the US to hitler is just asinine,
Hitler was not elected chancellor of germany, he was appointed. Germany ceased to be a monarchy in 1918, Then it became a republic, so it had very week democratic principles and was easy for hitler to convert to a Dictatorship once he was appointed. He could never have been elected in the USA. Do you think hitler was peaceful and non-antisematic when he was growing the nazi party? He joined the party because they were a militant group and antisematic. He was serving a prison term when he started writing mein-kopf.
Nobody is going to touch the 2A, that is a vote that will have to go to the people, so even if the government instituted martial law the people could vote them out and reintate it, no reason to go to war.
Old    Wes (pesos)      Join Date: Oct 2001       04-05-2013, 9:47 PM Reply   
Maybe Georgia can fight on the side supporting racially segregated proms
http://schoolsofthought.blogs.cnn.co...tegrated-prom/
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       04-06-2013, 4:54 AM Reply   
TN is already posed to fight GA in a civil war about access to our water and a 200 year old survey.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505266_1...terway-access/

Reply
Share 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:11 AM.

Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
Wake World Home

 

© 2012 eWake, Inc.    
Advertise    |    Contact    |    Terms of Use    |    Privacy Policy    |    Report Abuse    |    Conduct    |    About Us