Conspiracies, sheeple, the universe and everything

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Probably the same as the last one, a large bloody mess that tears the country apart and is still being fought, but without weapons, over a century later.

Yep and once again it would be a tyrannical US Government's fault.

[desertstriker]

bubblehead I have a feeling you hate all democrats. but i do have a good meme for this anti gun BS that you think only democrats are for

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by u crank

I'm not talking about rights. Taking 200 million or so guns away from their owners is impossible. How would you do it?



A civil war may be the result of an attempt to disarm the populous, but what happens before that? And again there is the examples of failed attempts to subjugate smaller and less well armed nations. Ask the American gun owners on this forum what would happen. It would be messy. I think it would be almost impossible.

Question to the bishop. Will you wear the pointy hat?

Well it depends on how far things would escalate and who tyrannical the government is.Saying it could not and would happen here is just ignorant.Unlikely? Yes, but possible? Absolutely.

Lincoln launched a war of aggression that cost 800,0000 americans their lives, ruined an entire area of the country, left millions homeless and impoverished, scarred emotionally and physically,Lincoln suspended habeas corpus , jailed his critics for simply speaking out against him among his many other crimes. All over slavery which was on it's way out anyway.

All it takes is the wrong person in charge. I could see an unlikely but possible scenario of economic collapse(which will happened if we dont change course, could be 10, 20 years) leading to widespread unrest and with the wrong politican like BHO or worse in office, perhaps lucky enough to have a majority and shoving some wild anti gun legislation down our throats they way they did obamacare or the way the PATRIOT ACT was passed in the wake of 9/11.Then suddenly, any citizen caught with a firearm after so and so date is a felon.All depends on timing and how tyrannical said leader is willing to be. Don't say things like this won't happen, they have, Lincoln and civil war are prime example.

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by desertstriker

bubblehead I have a feeling you hate all democrats. but i do have a good meme for this anti gun BS that you think only democrats are for

Okay, this meme is garbage.

First, perhaps Reagan was listening the citizens of his state? Crazy idea for politicans to do.I don't even know if it's true he did this but will do some research. Also, did he ban concealed carry or just open carry?

Okay, maybe the militant types Palin disarmed(if this is true) were a bunch of wackjobs? Not patriots but actual wackjobs, sure she was within the law and far as I know, Alaska's gun laws are gun friendly.

Romney is NOT a Conservative, so he does not count.Romney is an establishment Republican which all have a taint being half "progressive" .Also, he was governor of MA, a liberal cesspool of a state, but if that is what the citizens ignorantly wanted, perhaps he was listening to them?


That is also the difference, state's have much more leeway in firearms laws than the feds.State's can not violate second amendment either but certain details are within their purview.Obama, being president, ie the federal government, has not one shred of business discussing magazine size etc .That is difference, he has no place here and if such a law were passed by the federal government, it would be unconstitutional.

Far as hating Democrats, yes I hate what the Democratic party has devolved into.The Democratic party is the party that seeks to open the borders, raise taxes higher and higher in order have a cradle to grave welfare state, take away means of self defense(guns), pursues flawed and failed economic theory(keynesian) exploits the poor and uneducated, exploits the poor and uneducated(minorities) in particular with identity politics(race and economic) mainly in order to secure power. This party is the "Progressive" party, which is nothing more than another name for socialist or even communist but no one will get elected to national office running as that, so they brand themselves "progressives".

To be fair, some good things they do. They are better, for most part, on labor issues.California just made minimum wage $10 an hour, I agree with that.Usually, they don't tend to have almost imperial like ambitions they neocons have but are still part of the problem.None of this is compares to the lunacy and almost sheer, evil that comes out of that part.I am not usually a good, evil type, I am an atheist so don't believe in good and evil in the biblical sense.However, some ideologies are just outright evil and marxism, especially with what manifests itself as in modern america, is just evil.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

Yep and once again it would be a tyrannical US Government's fault.

So Lincoln was a tyrant?

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by Oberon

So Lincoln was a tyrant?

Absolutely. Lincoln was a divisive figure to begin with but instead of trying to work with the states, respecting their rights, their culture and understanding slavery was on it's way out , he launched a war without justification.Then the manner in which he prosecuted said war, such as allowing Sherman to pursue scorched earth policy, is just reprehensible .

Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, imprisoned his many of critics indefinitely until the end of the war. Sure, there is a suspension clause but to jail someone for criticizing your war against fellow American's simply standing up to a tyrannical government? Not what it was meant for.This is tyrannical behavior, any man who would do such a thing is just that, a TYRANT.

[desertstriker]

bubblehead i always had you pictured for one of those uber Christian republicans that fact you seem to be uber republican astounds me if you are truly an atheist. normally the atheists are more in the middle of the political spectrum because both parties use whatever religion when it suits them the most (republicans christo-catho, dems everything else) and both parties more the republicans despise the atheists. that being said what do you think of independents like me who don't side with either party but like some of the policies of both sides? me i an not a gun fanatic but i support a round limit because i aint going hunting with an assault rifle. the main problem is that neither party wants to cooperate and get things done or address underlying causes of an issue again lets look at guns these mass shootings are done by people who are mentaly ill yet all we hear is dems want to take your guns (when i think thats furthest from the truth), video games are to violent, or we need to arm more people(which is ironic because that may mean a mentaly ill person may get a gun again) but i never heard a solution to the common factor MENTAL ILLNESS!!!!
that's my bit for now

I must say that the lunacy in this CT topic is reaching new levels.
I didn't think anyone could top the troofers, but bubbles certainly has.

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by desertstriker

bubblehead i always had you pictured for one of those uber Christian republicans that fact you seem to be uber republican astounds me if you are truly an atheist. normally the atheists are more in the middle of the political spectrum because both parties use whatever religion when it suits them the most (republicans christo-catho, dems everything else) and both parties more the republicans despise the atheists. that being said what do you think of independents like me who don't side with either party but like some of the policies of both sides? me i an not a gun fanatic but i support a round limit because i aint going hunting with an assault rifle. the main problem is that neither party wants to cooperate and get things done or address underlying causes of an issue again lets look at guns these mass shootings are done by people who are mentaly ill yet all we hear is dems want to take your guns (when i think thats furthest from the truth), video games are to violent, or we need to arm more people(which is ironic because that may mean a mentaly ill person may get a gun again) but i never heard a solution to the common factor MENTAL ILLNESS!!!!
that's my bit for now

I am a CONSERVATIVE first, a true conservative, not a religious one, one that insists we follow the constitution of the united states and have sound, sensible economic policy. I am a registered Republican so can vote in primaries and seek to do what is happening now, make the Republican party the conservative party and root out the "progessives", they have ruined the party for far too long.

Trust me, I fight with fellow about as conservatives/republicans as much as I do democrats because I am an atheist and not shy about it. Yes both parties exploit religion but that is because sadly our population has not evolved enough to not get caught up in the religious mumbo jumbo.However, since I live in a country founded on respect for individual liberties, I respect someone's right to believe in fairy tales, as long as don't try to make it law where it affects me.I often confuse people in class when I am the first one to defend a religious group's right.I will never forget the looks on some faces in a class back when the news about obamacare mandate on church hospitals providing contraception.I am pro contraception, think it is just outright ignorant to not practice it.However, it is not my place nor the government's to tell someone what to do in that realm, so I was there in class arguing for the catholic church.I will never forget a guy I sparred with all the time, absolute pinko commie, raising his hand and asking if anyone thought it was ironic mister atheist was defending the catholic church?

That is the point , I can put my own views aside in regards to the constitution and rule of law and everyone is supposed to do the same.While you may not go hunting with an assault rifle, it is not your place, nor mine, nor the government's to tell someone what type of gun they need, that is a choice and a RIGHT guaranteed by the Second Amendment.The Second Amendment says arms, not muskets.The founders knew the nature of man, the nature of government, the constitution was put in place to limit govenrment but also also provided a mechanism for enforcement if you will, the Second Amendment.The Second Amendment is the safe guard, they know they can only get away with so much due to a heavily armed populace.That was the point and it has worked mostly well as think government would be far more oppressive by now if not for second amendment.The garbage it was about hunting etc is propaganda, it is about SELF PRESERVATION, an inherent right.My politics are about one word:LIBERTY. Political, Economic liberty for myself and fellow citizens.Each time we give any little bit of ground, we lose some.

What do I think of independents? Well I think many see lunacy on both sides, and are turned away.I also think many are unprincipled, either because they are apathetic or just don't have the knowledge etc to care. Some are just trying to be pragmatic and may not understand the big picture.Example, I think if many independent voters full understood the ideology of progressives , they would never support a democratic candidate again but sadly, a large part of the voting public do not understand one bit.

[TarJak]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

Okay, "BO takin er gunz" thing, really? Not a conspiracy but he is a Democrat, a far left one at that, part of their agenda is gun control.Some 9Democrats wants guns gone because they are emotional and think it will shootings etc or keep them way down.Others like Obama and many more, believe the general public should not have weapons and one reason is an armed populace is a check against full implementation of their agenda.I don't think Obama is evil and wants to kill everyone, in fact he means well but he holds views and an agenda that are contrary to the US Constitution and the very fabric of this country.That coupled with his psychological issues, makes for someone very dangerous.

The UN may be ineffective in disarming countries but they still seek to do so and treaties like this further erode sovereignty and violate rights of citizens, so again, knowingly doing such a thing is treason.

But seriously, why does the UN want to take your guns?

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

I must say that the lunacy in this CT topic is reaching new levels.
I didn't think anyone could top the troofers, but bubbles certainly has.

Please explain wise one. What I said about Lincoln is true? Did he not suspend habeas corpus? Yes he did.Did he not imprison many of his critics? yes he did.Did he not launch a bloody war that left a section of the country in ruins ? yes he did. All true, so please explain.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

Yep and once again it would be a tyrannical US Government's fault.

It wasn't then, and you're still trying to to force that faulty view into a discussion about something else. If your "knowledge" of that war is indicative of your overall perception, then maybe the people who keep trashing you are right. In that case you seem to have done zero research yourself and have no clue what you are talking about. If you want to discuss it further, bring it up in one of the several threads we already have on that subject. You don't seem to have read any of them.

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by TarJak

But seriously, why does the UN want to take your guns?

Well many mean well, think the world would be a better place without guns.The other side of the coin is power, much easier control people who have no means to defend themselves.There are actual people who want a one world government you know, some are at the high levels of the UN, some in various governments.Do I think it's some massive conspiracy? No. Are there people doing what they can to lay groundwork to facilitate this many years from now if possible? Absolutely.

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

It wasn't then, and you're still trying to to force that faulty view into a discussion about something else. If your "knowledge" of that war is indicative of your overall perception, then maybe the people who keep trashing you are right. In that case you seem to have done zero research yourself and have no clue what you are talking about. If you want to discuss it further, bring it up in one of the several threads we already have on that subject. You don't seem to have read any of them.

Did Lincoln not launch a war? Yes he did. Did he not allow the war to be conducted in a terrible manner? Yes he did. Did Lincoln behave like a tyrant? suspending habeas corpus, jailing his critics? Yes he did.Nothing faulty chief, play again.

[TarJak]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

Well many mean well, thing the world would be a better place without guns.The other side of the coin is power, much easier control people who have no means to defend themselves.There are actual people who want a one world government you know, some are at the high levels of the UN, some in various governments.Do I think it's some massive conspiracy? No. Are there people doing what they can to lay groundwork to facilitate this many years from now if possible? Absolutely.

And again your evidence for your assertion is...? Absent as usual. You really do need to research better and form more coherent arguments. And no I don't "thing" the world would be a better place without guns but I do think that.