Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Facebook | Twitter | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 
Latest Post:
Started By:
Rank:
Category
442 days ago.
by Munster
Caspiansynn
#1

Winds of revolution?

Has anyone else noticed that not only the rhetoric but general conversation has changed for the worse since the Newtown shooting? There have always been some crazy ideas coming from the extreme left and right but lately I've noticed that insanity seems to be infecting average citizens as well. People every where are talking rebellion, in bars, restaurants, shoping centers, online news sites, chat rooms, fitness clubs, the list could go on forever. From my observations it appears that the people are angry about health care, taxes, the economy, but mostly its gun rights and all the talk of restrictions and confiscation by the elected officals. Could an attack on the second amendment be the catalist that could launch this great nation into an armed rebellion?

 
 

Member Comments

Tiredofit

how many rounds do I need to defend myself>??? I will count the brass when its over. Nuff said.

Posted 449 days ago.

Caspiansynn

Today, January 16th ,the President is calling for step no.3. How long before step no.4? or will he jump straight to step no.5 next?

Posted 455 days ago.

luvthesouth

sorry for some the obvious spelling mistakes in previous post. also to moderation...why would they want to trade arms??? are theirs defective? i hope you did enjoy your warm thaw day!

Posted 456 days ago.

luvthesouth

publicity to the politicians) , the required insertion of pork into relief bills and the benefit concerts (which give beneficial publicity to entertainers).

Posted 456 days ago.

luvthesouth

good morning thegreek. from what i have read, the ammunition was being procured for the enforcement divisions of several federal agencies as well as to be used for target practice. this all sounds reasonable and considering the current question of sanity among the population, i personally would want as much ammunition , as i could carry if i were going after lawbreakers covered by the different agencies. as far as fema camps and coffins, after the last two natural disasters, it would make sense to have a central location in which to house and care for those that did not have somewhere to go and as you know we have to do something with the dead that are not going to be claimed. could all of this be used nefariously....sure can be. is it?... i don't know. what is apparent from this latest disastor is that we have not advanced within fema as much as i think we should have. i believe many of the victims are still digusted after the requisite political photo ops (which give beneficial publ

Posted 456 days ago.

thegreek

As far as a revolution goes. I do not remember the Social Security dept purchasing millions of rounds of ammo, FEMA camps or FEMA coffin reports in the past.. Can someone tell us what is up with that??

Posted 457 days ago.

Caspiansynn

Mod, sorry I should have used the word began and not begin. Things began to get scary because of the comments section below the interview. Most comment sections are filled with a lot of common sence, some thought provoking statements and a small amount of lunacy. But under the Morgan/Jones interview it was different, they were filled with calls for violence from both sides with some of the worst coming from the antis. Since then I've noticed a simular slide on other news sites as well. Passions run rampant on this subject, add that to a general unrest in society over many other issues and we could be headed for a very difficult if not dangerious future.

Posted 457 days ago.

moderation

Arms trade treaty, lts. have a great January thaw day.

Posted 458 days ago.

luvthesouth

moderation, frankly i am having diffuculty remembering posting anything about that subject. it is not under this heading. i took a moment to research the "treaty of 2012" and all i could find was information regarding a vote on the willingness to enter into an agreement concerning the exportation of certain firearms. from what i have read, we and several other nations have indicated non-interest at this time. the sticking point seems to be the sovereignty issue in giving a u.n. body governance over an individual nations constitution. should an agreement be entered, i would imagine that our own law enforcement agencies from the FBI to the ATF would most likely oversee enforcement within our borders. i feel certain that violations would be handled much the same way violated sanctions or agreements are dispatched now by the united nations. feel free to look into and post any corrections or ideas that you may wish to share.

Posted 459 days ago.

moderation

And casp'nn, would you define "things begin to get scary"?'

Posted 459 days ago.

moderation

lts- I am curious about the signatory power you say the UN will wield if Barry signs the arms treaty. first,how might it be implemented and enforced ?

Posted 459 days ago.

luvthesouth

BobDahler, combining does not equal confusion. i made no assertion that you were confused, but you must have combined since you set forth the parameter of the date. thank you for pointing out need for futher review. quite possibly i should have added "enacted" to the sentence. it appears that most of the executive orders pertain to civilain activity war time or extreme civil conditons, which in and of themselves directly violate the constitution. as tragic as some of the events happening today are, i do not think it warrants unilaterral action. since we need to deal with the here and now, the realization that the president apparently can exercise his will on the constitution and any other law is still very sobering in and of itself. we must rely on "this" congress to hold his powers in check. more sobering.

Posted 460 days ago.

Caspiansynn

Confiscation will come in steps. 1st you put a huge tax on full-auto firearms so that no one can afford them, no a ban but just as effective. 2nd you require registraion of all new firearms and a permit to carry one. 3rd you ban a few firearms that look scary and make it illegle for private partys to sell a gun without doing a background check and registering it. 4th you ban more guns and require that all guns be registered and all gun owners get a permit on a yearly basis. 5th you ban all firearms and require that they be turned in. 6th since all guns are registered you have a list of who had them and who din'nt turn them in , so you go house to house and arrest them and confiscate the contraband.

I belive they are working on step 3 now.

Posted 460 days ago.

BobDahler

Luv: If you haven't found any (other than Obama's) executive orders that have attempted to modify, clarify, or otherwise enforce our Constitution, you need to dig a little deeper into the history of our country.

Posted 460 days ago.

BobDahler

As far as your assertation that Obama is the first President to utilize executive order that has Constitutional implications... That is absurd, and you should know it.

Of course such executive orders have occured in the past, some of which I agreed with, some of wich I didn't...

The reality is, ALL (with the exception of two or three) were accepted as Constitionially valid, regardless of the "outcome".

Posted 460 days ago.

BobDahler

luvthesouth: I'm not confused by the term executive order, regardless of the nomenclature associated with it in various eras. The term used to describe it, doesn't alter it's effect or import as related to the Constitution.

Posted 460 days ago.

BobDahler

My post directed toward Munster's last comment.

Posted 460 days ago.

BobDahler

Uhhh, yes there is, but it would require draconian (by our standard) methods. That is what the gun lobby should be concerned about.

Instead of a happy medium that we should all strive to achieve, the NRA insists on un-fettered "rights" that will ultimately be the downfall of our ability to own ANY firearm due to the public pressure exerted against their intransigent position.

In other words, The NRA is creating a situation where it is "all or nothing". They, and their adherents, need to compromise before it gets to that extreme, because in the end, it will be "nothing" if push comes to shove in today's society.

Gun advocates, though very vocal, need to realize, they are in the minority in this country, and need to act accordingly.

Posted 460 days ago.

luvthesouth

munster you ask...Do you really believe that all firearms will be confiscated ??? There isnt any way to do that ! yes eventually, i believe it will happen and there is most certainly a way to accomplish that goal. all that has to occur is the methodology used by those in the last century to disarm their citizens. do not let yourself be lulled into a false sense of security. all the while they tell you they are not taking them, it is occurring under your very nose. the funny part is you are supporting it while we speak but still deny any concerted effort to diminish ones rights. think of this, if i own a fully automatic weapon that has a 30 round clip and fires 500 rounds a minute but i never load it or fire it. the current law only punishes the potential and not the actual. since we all have the potential to commit horrendous crimes, by that logic we all should be locked up. maybe we can start by having you turn yourself in.

Posted 460 days ago.

luvthesouth

freedoms you have or have not? survival should not be the goal in my opinion but the ability to thrive.

Posted 460 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or