• If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Announcement

Collapse

Vote on the New WH Logo! We need YOUR help!

Everyone, we need YOUR help! Take a moment to cast your vote on the new WH logo! Vote Here!
See more
See less

Real Agenda: Confiscation

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Real Agenda: Confiscation

    Americans are naive and gullible to believe that gun control prevents crime, that politicians enact gun control laws to reduce gun violence, and that gun grabbers do not want to confiscate Americans' guns and obliterate the Second Amendment. Lying politicians aren't as dangerous to individual rights and liberties as gullible and easily duped Americans who're unable to connect related concepts. Let there be no misunderstanding: James Madison memorialized our natural RIGHT to keep and bear arms in order to preserve America's freedom and Americans' liberties. Arguments to the contrary are false. In "The Federalist No. 46" James Madison wrote that Americans have the RIGHT to keep and bear arms in order to retake their government by force should all other safeguards of freedom and liberty he had written into the US Constitution fail resulting in tyranny in the country he helped create. James Madison's Second Amendment memorialized Americans' natural rights of freedom and liberty. Without the Second Amendment, freedom and liberty are abstract illusions.

    Americans are naive and gullible to believe that treasonous politicians do not want to confiscate their constitutionally owned guns. Americans are naive if they believe that there isn't a ruling elite that controls our country. Our ostensible government is straw man for our ruling elite. We are ruled. We are not governed. We're not much above dandified unwashed masses of Third World countries.

    US Representative Debbie Dingell is going to introduce gun confiscation legislation. I've just read this on another Website: "Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-MI) used an April 2 Fox News Live appearance to announce that she is preparing to introduce legislation to create a federal law allowing firearm confiscation orders."

    "Dingell stressed that seizure of firearms must occur in a way that protects due process, but she did not explain how such protection is possible."

    My money's on fake news not covering such a massive governmental theft of Americans' most fundamental RIGHT. I don't watch network news, so I have no clue whether it broadcast Dingell's scheme to enslave Americans.

    Only Americans are so thoroughly naive and gullible to protest the very RIGHT that assures their freedom and liberty. Contained within proposed and existing gun confiscation law is de facto denial of due process, a Fifth Amendment right. If due process can be stripped from Americans' Second Amendment RIGHT, it can be capriciously stripped from Americans under any circumstance. In CA, Americans' guns can be confiscated without due process and without slaves knowing their natural right to lawfully owned property has been revoked

    We're enslaving ourselves, yet too many of us cannot recognize government is not giving us illusory security. It is giving us shackles that it intends for us to fasten to ourselves. Written plainly: we're enslaving ourselves. Be very vigilant of incremental gun control. One incremental law at a time is the strategy that will result in complete destruction of James Madison's Second Amendment. If the Second Amendment becomes past tense, we'll live in reality of tyranny.

    You gotta be careful of which you wish because you might just get it. By then, it'll be too late. Lady Liberty will have been long dead and buried.

    What's the real scam? What's the real reason politicians want us completely disarmed?

    #2
    Didn't Australia's gun control result in a reduction of mass shootings and gun violence? Or is that liberal propaganda? I think they have non-Caucasians in Australia.
    "Those sowing seed with tears
    Will reap with a joyful shout." - Psalm 126

    Comment


      #3
      Stillness,

      Nope. Australia had ONE mass shooting. From that one act, it enacted draconian gun confiscation. Many Aussies did not comply opting for civil disobedience. Last I've heard, it's going to rescind that law. Canada has reversed its draconian gun control laws. But what other countries do is immaterial. This is about whether we're gonna remain a constitutional republic with specific enumerated rights. We're unlike any county in the world.

      Comment


        #4
        There were plenty of massacres and mass shootings in the 1800's in Australia, but they were group on group between Europids and Aboriginals. No gun control laws were enacted because of them. Because of the definition of mass shootings, most multiple shootings do not count as mass shootings. However, mass killings by means other than firearms have risen. Arson seems to be a favorite. 2014 was a bloody year. See Wikipedia for a list of massacres in Australia. The USA population is more than 10 times that of Australia.
        I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience.
        ...
        Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?

        From a speech by Patrick Henry on March 23, 1775 at St. John's Church, Richmond, Virginia

        Comment


          #5
          I just read an interesting interview with the Australian ambassador from a couple of months ago. He was involved in enacting his country's gun control legislation. It's entitled "AUSTRALIA'S AMBASSADOR SAYS HIS COUNTRY'S GUN LAWS CAN'T SAVE AMERICA."

          As the title implies, he agrees that what his country did won't work here. The history and culture is too different. But he disagrees that what they did works. He claims that it worked dramatically.

          They had 13 mass shootings in the fifteen years before the legislation and went to zero over the 20 years after. They cut gun violence by 60%. He thinks that America's gun culture is too strong for what they did there to work. He even talks about how the NRA came to Australia to stop the legislation there, but it backfired because Australians saw it as US interference. Interesting stuff.
          "Those sowing seed with tears
          Will reap with a joyful shout." - Psalm 126

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by Stillness View Post
            They had 13 mass shootings in the fifteen years before the legislation and went to zero over the 20 years after.
            The definition of "mass shooting" is very important here since there are a number of multiple murders using firearms that occurred after the legislation was enacted. Look up massacres in Australia using Wikipedia. What is the definition being used?
            I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience.
            ...
            Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?

            From a speech by Patrick Henry on March 23, 1775 at St. John's Church, Richmond, Virginia

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by jns View Post
              The definition of "mass shooting" is very important here since there are a number of multiple murders using firearms that occurred after the legislation was enacted. Look up massacres in Australia using Wikipedia. What is the definition being used?
              Good question. Maybe it has to do with the number of deaths. Maybe randomness is a factor too? Like if someone kills their mate, kids, and self; shoots their neighbor over a disagreement; or rival gangs have a turf war, it's not the same as someone randomly shooting 10 people in a school.

              I think they're just a less violent, gun-obsessed nation, so you all are right about the comparison not being fair.
              "Those sowing seed with tears
              Will reap with a joyful shout." - Psalm 126

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by WaveRider View Post
                We're unlike any county in the world.
                read the article that's on yahoo now:
                unfiltered I have never seen that many injured patients by high velocity weapons all at once

                read the damage assault weapons inflict on the body and tell me honestly why we need these in our
                "unlike any country"

                why do WE risk kids and our citizens by allowing assault weapons to be purchased

                Comment


                  #9
                  amy40,

                  You are aware that assault weapons are illegal to own, are you not?

                  When you post that the Stoneman shooter or Vegas shooter used an assault weapon, you're revealing that you've fallen prey to propagandists. A kid's .22 semiauto rifle operates by the same mechanism as rifles used at Stoneman & Vegas.

                  The 5.56 NATO round used in semiauto rifles like the AR-15 is at the low end of the power spectrum. Real damage is done by big game hunting cartridges such as the .308 Win which is similar to the 7.62 NATO round. The .308 Win is a powerful big game hunting round that, as designed, inflicts massive damage upon big game animals thereby assuring quick and humane death. But most people prefer a hydraulic-driven steel rod through a steer's head at a slaughterhouse. Most people believe there's no blood of their hands if others do their killin' for 'em. I'd have no problem killing wild big game in legal, fair chase hunts. I couldn't ranch and kill domestic animals (cattle, etc) nor could I work in a slaughter house.

                  amy, you seem like a very sweet woman. And please believe me when I write that I'm trying to help you by considering opposing facts. Please ask yourself whether you're being propagandized. From my life's experience, the easiest people to con are people who believe they're too smart to be duped. Con artists detect feigned intelligence and use their target's illusory intelligence to exploit them. When I was in college I was burned by a con artist. Now I'll ask myself whether facts support conclusions.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    did you read the article?
                    are you saying it's a fake article?

                    as it cites the weapons distributed in 2016
                    and d I c k s made decision to stop selling military style semi assault weapons!!!

                    just recently!!!

                    Comment


                      #11
                      The conclusion that there haven't been mass shootings in Australia since it has denied its citizens right to own AR-type and more innocuous rifles is sheer brilliance. But it's really logical fallacy. There weren't mass shootings prior. A wack-job murdered ~30 in a single mass shooting, and Aussies, who are usually on the high side of the bright spectrum, concluded the gun was causal. Now they'll proudly recite the script that the draconian gun ban has resulted in zero mass shootings. Keeping in mind that Aussies usually have high IQ's but not in this case, there wouldn't have been another mass shooting without the ban. If a whacked Aussie were to acquire a hankering for mass murder, he'd of done it. He could've easily acquired a banned AR-type semiauto or picked up a genuine military assault rifle from the Down Under black market. Or he coulda brought down a building full of people using horse s h i t just like whack job McVeigh.

                      We need to teach kids propaganda detection before they can earn a high school diploma.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        amy,

                        Nope. I don't need to read it. I know what is factual and what is fake news. The article you've read was crafted to coax its readers to its intended agenda.

                        Social science research must always be suspected as flawed. Propaganda is very often latent within social science research.

                        Before I would read social science research, I'd examine methodology, data gathering, and how it was assigned value.

                        I ain't yet met a psychologist that didn't think he/she held status of a physician. Physicians distance themselves from psychologists because medicine is rooted in hard science & psychology is a deeply flawed soft science.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by WaveRider View Post
                          The conclusion that there haven't been mass shootings in Australia since it has denied its citizens right to own AR-type and more innocuous rifles is sheer brilliance.
                          waverider, you can't prove that the removal has not helped prevent mass shootings

                          someone said in an article other day that there's only a 1 in 200,000 chance that there wouldn't be any mass shootings in Australia without the measures they took

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by amy40 View Post

                            waverider, you can't prove that the removal has not helped prevent mass shootings
                            Inferential proof. Do you really believe Australia's gun confiscation law prevented another mass shooting? Do you really believe that a whack job hellbent on mass murder wouldn't do it because of law? If another Aussie wanted to commit mass murder, he'd of done it, and no law would have prevented it.

                            You might want to search engine, "Black market supply and demand."

                            QUOTE=amy40;n803358]someone said in an article other day that there's only a 1 in 200,000 chance that there wouldn't be any mass shootings in Australia without the measures they took[/QUOTE]

                            You are aware that there is nothing of value in this sentence, are you not? What "someone said" is useless opinion of a fool.

                            "But nobody wants to know him, they can see that he's just a fool."
                            ---The Beatles, "Fool on the Hill"

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Waverider, you're mistaken about Australia's mass shootings. They had a lot of them and got tired of it. It wasn't just one event. They wen't from 13 over a 15 year period to 0 over the next 20 years after the enacted the laws.

                              So when you keep asking where gun control has worked, they're a prime example of a place where it has.
                              "Those sowing seed with tears
                              Will reap with a joyful shout." - Psalm 126

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X