UNARMED Reginald Denny during that riot
Posted on 12/21/2011 12:13:53 AM PST by neverdem
UNARMED Reginald Denny during that riot
If you believe that they will stop with just taking your 2nd Amendment Rights, you are an absolute fool.
Mobs during riots or between riots - ex: "flash mobs" - need no firearms. They depend only on their large numbers willing to use violence & make shift weapons - and UNARMED victims.
Very true. As Horowitz quotes the 60s radical,
“The issue is never the issue - the issue is always the Revolution.”
As with the millions of problem-driven government programs, the goal of the program is never to solve the problem, the goal is always to expand the program and its attendant power and funding.
Yes they do.
They need for the violence to get to a point that Federal troops under the President are put in the streets, not just National Guard under the Governor of the state.
The US government did NOT need to setup private US gun dealers in Fast and Furious, to arm criminals south or north of the border. They DID need Fast and Furious to disarm law abiding Americans.
When Hillary said, “We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.” most everybody thought she was just talking about money.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1162872/posts
Salute to FierceDraka, wherever you are.
So where is this big outpouring of demand from the American people for more gun control because of the violence in Mexico?
OOPS! Not there is it? In fact there is a record number of Americans buying guns for the first time.
Once someone is convinced they need a gun for their personal protection, you’re not going to take it away from them by legislation. They would simply vote the SOB that took their gun away out of office and vote someone in that supports their right to protect themselves.
Once someone is convinced they need a gun for their personal protection, you’re only going to take away their right of self protection by force, which is what they are doing.
They need the violence to increase so they can do it.
When you say "close" to journalism, you are implying a high standard that has never been true of journalism. Journalism is reporting on the events that the reporter chooses to discuss. It is not the reporting of all facts, or even all known facts about what happened recently. That would be impossible.It is not objective reporting, because objectivity is unnatural and can only be attempted - and that, only if you are willing to admit that you are only trying, without claiming that you actually are objective. No one can know that he is objective;The wisest and most cautious of us all frequently gives credit to stories which he himself is afterwards both ashamed and astonished that he could possibly think of believing . . .Any claim of actual objectivity is proof that one is not even trying to be objective.It is acquired wisdom and experience only that teach incredulity,
and they very seldom teach it enough. - Adam Smith
When you say "close" to journalism, you are implying a high standard that has never been true of journalism. Journalism is reporting on the events that the reporter chooses to discuss. It is not the reporting of all facts, or even all known facts about what happened recently. That would be impossible.It is not objective reporting, because objectivity is unnatural and can only be attempted - and that, only if you are willing to admit that you are only trying, without claiming that you actually are objective. No one can know that he is objective;The wisest and most cautious of us all frequently gives credit to stories which he himself is afterwards both ashamed and astonished that he could possibly think of believing . . .Any claim of actual objectivity is proof that one is not even trying to be objective.It is acquired wisdom and experience only that teach incredulity,
and they very seldom teach it enough. - Adam Smith
When you say "close" to journalism, you are implying a high standard that has never been true of journalism. Journalism is reporting on the events that the reporter chooses to discuss. It is not the reporting of all facts, or even all known facts about what happened recently. That would be impossible.It is not objective reporting, because objectivity is unnatural and can only be attempted - and that, only if you are willing to admit that you are only trying, without claiming that you actually are objective. No one can know that he is objective;The wisest and most cautious of us all frequently gives credit to stories which he himself is afterwards both ashamed and astonished that he could possibly think of believing . . .Any claim of actual objectivity is proof that one is not even trying to be objective.It is acquired wisdom and experience only that teach incredulity,
and they very seldom teach it enough. - Adam Smith
But this is going nowhere. I present many facts to support my position and disprove yours. You state your opinion neither presenting facts to support it nor addressing any of the facts I present. The thread is about Fast and Furious and Fast and Furious was about Gun Control. Case closed!
No the case is not closed. F&F is not not about gun control.
If they wanted gun control they had the House, Senate, and Presidency for 2 years and nobody could stop them. The gun control crowd was at an all time high right after the 08 election.
To come up with a plan that increases the number of people opposed to gun control, as a way of getting more gun control, doesn’t make sense on it’s face.
They intend for these weapons to be used, just like in the 1996 election when B Clinton’s buddies the Chinese, were arming up the gangs with full auto weapons to make sure Clinton didn’t leave office.
I listened to an interview with a retired DEA agent on a local radio station and the host asked his perspective on Fast & Furious. He noted that he had been involved in large money laudering stings, nowhere near the potentional direct implications/risks of running guns to a cartel in a sting...and with that they had to get permission from DOJ initially and do quaterly reviews/reports with DOJ. In other words, they had to display that the investigation was a fruitful pursuit or ever more constructive as time passed. That was the hurtle in just facilitating money flow for drug dealers, not putting guns in their hands on the cheap.
If they wanted gun control they had the House, Senate, and Presidency for 2 years and nobody could stop them. The gun control crowd was at an all time high right after the 08 election.
F&F was about appeasing the gun grabber base, especially those who wanted to re-instate a so called "assault weapons ban" and a .50 caliber ban. Those weapons were smuggled for a reason. The gun grabbers were obsessed by them.
Go back to 2006. The rats understood that they were losing on social issues. They started running candidates who were pro-Second Amendment and pro-life where necessary, e.g. Bob Casey for Senator in PA. They took the Congress back in 2006, and they grew their majorities in 2008.
In 2009, when talk about renewing an "assault weapons ban" was proposed by Holder, over 60 pro-Second Amendment rat Congressmen sent Holder a letter to forget about it. It was a no-go if they wanted to keep a majority in the House.
Obama was being threatened by bad ratings by Sara Brady et al. Hence the scheme to do something "under the radar."
IMR 4350, ask yourself, why did the rats not propose any serious gun grabbing bills when they they controlled the Congress from January 2007 until January 2011?
good point (s) LOL Just teasing. Postus Epilepticus. I have had it, too.
All the facts do close the case against the "F&F is not not about gun control" position - for all whose minds are not closed to the facts.
The dems had talked gun control and had gotten the AWB signed into law.
Bill Clinton Mr. Gun Control himself, signed a special waver for the Chinese. They were allowed to bring in anywhere from 100-150,000 SKS rifles. They were so cheap you could pick one up for under $50. If you wanted 250 rounds of ammo with it, about $65.
While the Chinese were bringing in the SKS’s they were also smuggling in full auto weapons for the gangs in LA. The same people that gave us the LA race riots of 1992 all because of those evil republicans and their racism and police misconduct.
In December of 1995, Brian Ross had started dragging out the R King case again.
The Clinton's were also stirring the racial pot at the time with the phony stories of Black Churches being burned with visions of hooded riders through the night. Those evil repubs were such racist, Blacks were going to loose their right to vote and it was going back to Jim Crow.
Let's go to 1998-1999, during B Clinton's impeachment. Hillary had a plan she called “The Scorched Earth Policy” as a way of staying in the WH.
There is a little book out there from the Weather Underground, it's called PRAIRIE FIRE, it gives instructions on how to orchestrate a race riot.
Find an incident, a spark to ignite the flame, ratchet it up to a raging inferno.
The Clinton Justice Dept. was stirring the racial pot with Reno's report on ‘Racial profiling”. The bow-tie freak, Quanell X out of Houston, was running all over the country stirring the racial pot, proclaiming every incident was going to be “the spark to ignite the flame”.
Are you starting to get the picture.
Hillary's “Scorched Earth Policy” was a plan to orchestrate massive race riots throughout the country as a way of staying in the WH.
Even though Clinton hadn't been removed from office, that didn't stop Hillary from trying to implement her plan.
March 20, 1999 AP reporter Martha Mendoza did a report on police misconduct and how they weren't being held accountable, the exact same thing that led to the LA race riots of 1992.
Have yourself a look at what the DoJ is doing right now. Stirring the racial pot with Hispanics by claiming wide spread police misconduct, racial profiling, and voter disenfranchisement.
Whenever the exact same thing happens over and over and over again, it's called a pattern.
This pattern that has been created by the dems is directly from the Weather Underground playbook.
Gun control my butt.
Get a clue what's going on.
And I vehemently disagree with this. They were monsters FIRST.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
(Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co. 1854), Vol. IX, p. 229, October 11, 1798.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.