 Email link
 Read comments (14)
 Blog archive
 Share link
The Traitors........part onePosted Tuesday, January 6, 2009, at 11:00 PM
Webster's collegiate defines TREASON as a "betrayal of trust and faith, violation of allegiance owed to one's sovereign or state, to deliver up, betrayal of one's country, giving aid and comfort to the enemy."
My old nemesis, Ex-Intern loves to point our how often I return to the gun issue. A lot of people think I'm pretty much just a one-issue dude. Not true...but it IS my MAIN one, and it SHOULD be YOURS, whether you own one or not. You have what you have today, because of that "One Issue." You can own a home or work where and for who you wish, because of that "One Issue." You're free to come and go as you please, raise your children where you wish, attend the church of your choice or not at all, if you wish because of that "One Issue." You can get on a blog like this one.....no matter WHO you are, Jacknife, Opinion Missy, Ex-Intern, Bazookaman, Eagle Eye.....doesn't matter. You can write letters to an editor or stand on the street corners and spout whatever comes to mind....because of that "One Issue." You can VOTE for who you want to represent you, and not be stuck with a dictator and no rights at all, because of that "One Issue." We've had airplanes flown into skyscrapers, but we haven't been invaded because of that "One Issue", (even the TERRORISTS are smarter than to try to take it into the streets here, where every 3rd or 4th house might have an American flag in the front yard and a Winchester hanging on the wall).....and if there's a CONFEDERATE flag in the yard, you KNOW there's one on the wall and probably five more just like it, somewhere else in the house, down in the basement, out in his pickup, or under his jacket! The Second Amendment was written into our Constitution for five reasons: to keep the freedoms we had just won, getting out from under the thumb of the British....to keep it from ever happening again.....to keep government in-check,.....hunting/survival......and personal protection. We HAVE what we HAVE folks.........because we have the MEANS to tell our government "NO" if we so desire, and BACK IT UP if they come to the door. You can't control any populace that you can't contain. This is what "gun control" is all about. It's not about guns....it's about CONTROL, and if we ever give them up, we give OURSELVES up as well. When "only the police and military have guns" (as most libs would like to see), you might as well just hand the keys to your house, your car and your safety deposit box over to Uncle Sam. They can do what they want, and who is going to stop them? You? With WHAT? Remember the scene in China?....Tiananmen Square? I KNOW EX-Intern does, being the world scholar HE is........the troops? Tanks? Protestors?....one of those portfolios we've all seen, pictorially stamped into our memory banks. Remember those Time/Life photos? A rock against an AK-47 is NOT an even exchange. A two-by-four won't take the paint off a tank.............but that's all they had..........that's all they had. To a politician.........power is intoxicating, and even if we had a NON-corrupt government, if we were stripped of all firearms, the temptation to "rule" would be too inviting for many of them. To RULE........make your own laws, back it up with your own private military (and we're gonna get to THAT in part 2 or 3 of this blog), KNOW that you can KEEP your "King" status and nobody can vote you out. Tax everybody as much as you want, to line your own pockets, and have anybody who resists you hung or shot. YOUR way or NO way. Pretty tempting, eh? My old blog buddy, "Ex" likes to quote history with finesse and correctness, so.... far be it from me to disappoint him: 1. In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. 2. In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. 3. In 1938, Hitler established gun control in Germany. From 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, Catholics, the mentally ill and selected others, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. 4. In 1935, China established gun control. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. 5. In 1964, Guatemala established gun control. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. 6. In 1970, Uganda established gun control. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. 7. In 1956, Cambodia established gun control. From 1975 to 1977, one million "educated people", unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. In the last century, about 56 MILLION people have lost their lives because of "gun control" alone. In a pure case of irony, Bill Clinton sent U.S. troops to Kosovo to STOP the genocide THERE, yet STILL imposed restrictions on gun owners back here..incredible.......even when he saw for HIMSELF what can happen to an unarmed nation at the mercy of a brute government. "But we need it for crime prevention".........oh really?, it hasn't been all that long ago since Australians surrendered 640,381 personal firearms, but it HAS changed the crime rate.......... Homicide is up by 3.2% Assaults are up by 8% Armed robberies are up by 44% In Victoria alone, homicides are up by 300% .....guess which group of people DIDN'T turn in their firearms?.............. Guns of the honest have been destroyed "down under", and there will be no more to be had. So now, only the bad guys and the cops are armed, and it's totally up to the police to come save them if they're broken into, in the middle of the night, or even in broad daylight. All in the name of "public safety." In Part II of this blog, we're going to see what some of our "premiere politicians" have in store for us here in OUR country, and just so my buddy, Ex-Intern has something to check for himself.........something that isn't just "rhetoric" or "baseless", I'm going to provide Congressional bill numbers, and sponsorship names to go with them, that he can look up for himself, before he tries to figure out a way to defend them because they ALL happen to be Democrats......every one of them. Stay tuned........... Comments Showing comments in chronological order [Show most recent comments first] |
Hot topics The Traitors........part one(14 ~ 4:59 AM, Jan 27)
Ninety-Nine and "Nighty-Night"
An Even Hundred Before I Go
The Traitors.......part III......brown or black?
The Traitors......part IV........The U.N.
|
Facebook
Twitter
del.icio.us
Digg
StumbleUpon
Technorati
Newsvine
Reddit
Google
![[Feed icon]](http://www.mountainhomenews.com/images/icons/feed-icon-14x14.png){kind=icon}
I wasn't pointing out how often you return to the Second Amendment so much as I was pointing out how quickly you have to change the topic when your underlying "facts" are revealed to be inaccurate.
It's taking you some time to dig up proposed federal legislation. Could it be even those Democrats who are simply wrong on gun control are busy with other priorities? Like planning a responsible withdrawal from Iraq, where McCain wanted to keep us for fifty to a hundred years? Like turning the economy around?
I think that'll be a big part of it. But I also think the party leadership will continually, through the next four years, push the gun-control advocates to the back-burner. They know it would kill them in the next election. I can think of at least three seats here in Pennsylvania it would cost the Democrats in the U.S. House, and if they aren't already writing off Minnick's re-election chances - and they probably are - there's another seat it would cost them.
The greater danger to the Second Amendment is not the national Democrats, it's local governments - yes, usually dominated by Democrats - in urban, pro-gun control areas where there is no electoral penalty for backing bad policy.
There are two things wrong with that.
First of all, they aren't that worried about "political suicide", or they wouldn't still be after it as recently as last year.
Secondly, what chance would they be taking? If they can get it pulled off, and somehow manage to get them confiscated (or at least MOST of them), there theoretically would be NO MORE NEED for elections.
If you're curious as to how they would proceed to START this, see part III..............and what I lead off with........
By the way, you missed another historic example of gun control.
The American South before, during, and after the Civil War up through at least the 1960's. Whites prevented Black Americans from exercising their right to keep and bear arms.
Funny how you glossed over that one.
The use of data from Australia is misleading in the extreme. The figures quoted are from 1997, 1 year after gun law changes. Since those 1996 gun law changes the 3 crime types most associated with firearms; murder, attempted murder and armed robbery are all down.
The murder rate in Australia is now is 30% lower than it was in 1996.
The citing of "In Victoria alone, homicides are up by 300%" is particularly disingenuous; the figure went from 6 to 18, but then fell back to 6 in the following year (10 years ago).
The author has simply lifted these claims off the internet, given no time frame and ignored the fact they are a decade out of date.
Think so, eh? Well Pottering, rather than debate what WAS...let's see if we can somehow track what IS.
As all you libs out there know and despise, the Washington D.C. gun ban has finally been lifted, allowing the people in our NATION'S CAPITOL to exercise their CONSTITUTIONAL rights...........disgusting, isn't it? The Constitution HAS to be followed.in D.C. of all places! What is this country coming to??
Now, I'm not quite sure yet how we're gonna do it, having to work against the media, but now that the citizens back there don't have to rely on the "system" to protect them from the bad guys anymore, I wonder which way the crime rate will be headed?
The people can now SHOOT the punks when they break in. The punks know it, too.
I predict the crime rate is going to drop...sharply. I also predict you won't see it on the nightly news, or read about it in the papers...............ever. They all made a big stink about the Supreme Court Decision, but unless the crime rate were to RISE, which I definitely don't see happening NOW....you won't hear a peep.
If you DO........it'll most likely be a "Shooting in Washington D.C."......but will concern a citizen shooting a thief, and the thief is now suing the homeowners, and the Post" is in there to help him do it.
Out of curiosity, Pottering, where do your "updated" Australian figures come from?
Bazookaman, you're comment "Well Pottering, rather than debate what WAS" is rather strange because that was EXACTLY the point I was making about the article, ie that it merely recycled data from a decade ago and ignored what's happened since and is happening now, "what IS" as you term it.
My "updated" figures come courtesy of the Australian Bureau of Statistics (www.abs.gov.au). Clearly the article never ventured that far, despite opining on matters Australian. As I mentioned before, these same claims have been aired previously and have just as often been shown to be highly misleading and out of date.
Ok. And we'll just assume that the Australian Bureau of Statistics ISN'T an agency that works for ther government that confiscated their guns.
How about YOU, Pottering?.........Do you own a gun?........and if so, would you feel safer without it?
Ah yes, shoot the messenger; but in this case you're firing blanks Bazookaman. Unless you are suggesting that the ABS doctors the crime numbers to make the government look better, what is your point? And if you are suggesting that, where is your evidence?
The ABS is an internationally respected statistical agency that operates at arm's length from the government. The government provides the funding, but it is the ABS who make the calls on what's collected and how it is collected. In a western democracy agencies like the ABS are relied upon to provide unbiased reports on the state of the nation. Trying to discredit them because their figures upset your sensibilities does you little credit.
And no, I don't own a gun.
Didn't think so...and that's your right of course, as I don't care if a guy owns a gun or not.........until he sides with antigun factions that think they're going to take MINE!
I have no evidence that anything's being "doctored-up", just my natural distrust of ANY government, I suppose. But you know, no government will never admit when it's wrong, and risk losing credibility with the voters. If the crime rate HAS risen (as it has all over America in cities where the people can't protect themselves)........if it HAS risen "down under" and it was reported to the people......what would that make their government look like, after all that hoopla...after the confiscations...after the chop-shops and the meltdowns. They COULDN'T report a crime rise.........no way.
I suspect their media is no different than ours, they all have their little agendas, and "one hand washes the other."
No.......I can't say what the numbers actually are, and you rely on the ABS..........but I know THIS..........and it comes from having grown up in a big city.........there is nothing, and I mean NOTHING.....more inviting to a hood, than KNOWING he has a potential victim that can no longer fight back.
Crime HAS to be up down there, as it is in Canada and England.
There is virtually NO crime at all in Switzerland and never HAS been. It's the only country in Europe Hitler never even CONSIDERED trying to take..........care to venture a guess as to why?
I'll drop this one, Pottering. You can have it. Australia's gonna be a "Garden of Eden" now with only the police, the military and the hoods being armed now.
Australia's not an immediate concern to me, anyway, but America IS.
You write "There is virtually NO crime at all in Switzerland and never HAS been. It's the only country in Europe Hitler never even CONSIDERED trying to take..........care to venture a guess as to why?". I'll give it a shot.
Hitler did have Switzerland in his plans, once the outward aims of the Reich were secured it was to be taken over on the way back, but other things intervened eg Russia. The reasons he never invaded are numerous and include the tough Swiss terrain, it's lack of natural resources, its use as an accessway between Germany and Italy, its relatively strong military (for its size) and its banking system which allowed depositing of money and more importantly laundering of money especially that courtesy of looting invading nations. Both the Allies and the Axis powers utilised Switzerland's neutrality for their own ends.
As for Switzerland having no crime at all, clearly you've never spoken to a Swiss person. On the site Nationmaster.com Switzerland ranks 20th out of 60 for total crimes per capita (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_percap-crime-total-crimes-per-capita) which would seem to make your claim look downright silly.
Unfortunately most of what you write is more bluff and bluster than rational analysis. From what's been happening here we could go on endlessly with you making claims and me easily debunking them. I leave that up to you.
uh-huh.
Someday when your house gets raided............well, no point in going into it. Not this morning, anyway.
I understand why you wouldn't want to go into it Bazookaman, you've been shot down in flames before and all you have left is fear tactics. Still I admire how you simply ignore it when your claims are demolished and simply switch topics, that takes a whole lot of skill.
Come on, show some balls and defend your claims instead of ducking and weaving. If you get it wrong, ie Australian stats, Swiss crime then admit it. By running for cover you only expose yourself as a blowhard who can dish it out, but certainly can't take it.
But I didn't get it wrong.....something you libs are going to find out the hard way, some fine morning when you're awakened from a sound sleep.
You and I both know, that you can get anything you want out of a statistic.
Reality is at the back door or side window. It's out on the streets, away from your videogames.
Balls?....I carried an M-14 41 years ago, same as I do today..........listen, liberal.... I was shooting gooks when you were shooting marbles, and the only thing I was "ducking" was AK-47 rounds. Don't lecture ME about "testacles'
Running for cover?..... I had planned to DROP this blog carnival a few months ago.
I have simply said everything I'm willing to say on an internet, and anything MORE I have to say or do is NOT intended for public knowledge.
I haven't been shot down by ANYBODY. I have my sources of information...you guys have yours. Doesn't validated one or the other.
I've also got first hand combat experience...which means when you "college professors" out there are crapping your pants, I'll be taking care of business.
In the meanwhile, Pottering....there's actually a part of me that's GLAD about that lying S.O.B. of yours who's taking the oath tomorrow. You, Intern and a host of other libs, are going to get what you asked for!
I'd planned to pull the plug on this circus this morning, but at the time, had forgotten it's MLK Day and they might not be open today. Oh well, I'm going out for coffee anyway, so I'll swing by the news office while I'm out...........might have to wait until tomorrow, so if there's anything else you'd like to spout, you might have time.............though few in this town would care.
Well Bazookaman, you confirmed my thoughts, you really are a blowhard, and a paranoid one at that.
It seems your only way of deflecting attention away from your fact-free rants is to ignore the truth, ie that Switzerland DOES have crime, and launch into tirades about how big and strong you are and the terrible fate I'm going to suffer.
You whine "that you can get anything you want out of a statistic", and you are exhibit A. Your Australian stats were a decade out of date and when I supplied up to date information all you could do was attempt to sling mud at the data provider. The fact is the Australian Bureau of Statistics is an internationally respected agency and is a way more credible source than you.
You say "I have my sources of information", it's a pity you were too shy to reveal them, unlike me.
You go on to grizzle about "that lying S.O.B. of yours who's taking the oath tomorrow. You, Intern and a host of other libs, are going to get what you asked for!". Problem is you are dead wrong, again. As I'm an Australian he's all yours, mate.
If you have anything substantive to offer then break the habit of a lifetime and let's see it.
ps if you're going to go to all the trouble of highlighting a word, ie "testacles", at least spell it right