New regulations?

[Dirk Williams]

I got a canned call from the NRA yesterday regarding some new under the radar laws and agenda's being pushed by the US and I thought they said NATO was involved.

Anybody know what they are talking about. Paper work, weapons inspections etc etc.

DW

[Icculus]

Not exactly under the radar but are you sure it wasn't the UN instead of Nato?

https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=85602

https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=82682

[Dirk Williams]

It very well could have been the UN rather then NATO< in fact that makes more sense.

Thanks.
DW

[Moose-Knuckle]

Obama: We're Working on Gun Control 'Under the Radar'


During the meeting, President Obama dropped in and, according to Sarah Brady, brought up the issue of gun control, "to fill us in that it was very much on his agenda," she said.

"I just want you to know that we are working on it," Brady recalled the president telling them. "We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar."

http://nation.foxnews.com/guns/2011/05/25/obama-were-working-gun-control-under-radar





The UNODA's (United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs) has their "Small Arms Treaty" which will be on the table this summer.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/06/07/u-n-agreement-should-have-all-gun-owners-up-in-arms/

http://www.un.org/disarmament/convarms/SALW/

[Dirk Williams]

Interesting, Im certain everybody here is going to comply with UN related laws in the US.

James W Rawles posted an interesting story on his web site.
" SurvivalBlog.com" Basically it says that there are SOOOOOOOOOOOOO many guns in the USA that it's simply not possible for the feds to enforce or try and recover weapons.

Believe he's right on this one.

DW.

[Moose-Knuckle]

Interesting, Im certain everybody here is going to comply with UN related laws in the US.

James W Rawles posted an interesting story on his web site.
" SurvivalBlog.com" Basically it says that there are SOOOOOOOOOOOOO many guns in the USA that it's simply not possible for the feds to enforce or try and recover weapons.

Believe he's right on this one.

DW.

However IF such a law is ever "enforced" here in the US you can rest assured that there would be Presidential Emergency Powers enacted, the EO’s would be green lighted, a state of martial law would be implemented, and foreign troops would "aid" in carrying out such orders. At least that would be the first of many contingencies.

[VooDoo6Actual]

DW,

I'm thinking it might be Tesler-Moran / Rehberg Amendment possibly ?


Here's a few that come to mind. Perhaps you will recognize some ;-/

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson, proposed Virginia constitution, June 1776. 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 (C. J. Boyd, Ed., 1950)

"Every good Communist should know that political power grows out of the barrel of a gun, and that gun must remain firmly in the hands of the state."
Mao Tse Tung


“If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves.” - Joseph Stalin


Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.” - Harry S. Truman

or this sound vaguely familiar ?

“Our main agenda is to have all guns banned of course. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn’t matter if you have to distort facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed.” Sarah Brady, 1994

Last one sounds like "Under the radar" to me...

[J Krammes]

The question is will "We the People" actually stand up and say enough is enough...

One of my favorite pics...

http://techno-ruby.smugmug.com/photos/1149988117_QkwcN-L.jpg

[Dirk Williams]

Moose, I met with some old partners today and this subject was discussed.

Although not verbally stated I saw these off duty Deputy's concern at being put in such an ackward position, we all share one common subject, and that is simply the love of weaponry and shooting.

Ive known these guys a minimum of 10 years most much longer and know their love of this country. I believe at least this group of men would follow the constitution, they swore an oath to protect the people of this community.


They are certainly aware that stripping the people of their weapons only complicates matters by turning rightous citizens into victims without the ability to defend themselves and their families.

For any citizen to turn their weapons over to UN troops is simply not going to happen up here in the hills. These people up here are tough mother ****ers and not so into the govt and their minnions already.

Im afraid that would be the last straw amongst the farmers and ranchers around these parts. These guys have the resources to have some really cool shit in their gun safes.

DW

[VooDoo6Actual]

Interesting, Im certain everybody here is going to comply with UN related laws in the US.

James W Rawles posted an interesting story on his web site.
" SurvivalBlog.com" Basically it says that there are SOOOOOOOOOOOOO many guns in the USA that it's simply not possible for the feds to enforce or try and recover weapons.

Believe he's right on this one.

DW.

Possibly Tesler-Moran / Rheberg Amendments ?

I'm familiar w/ James W. Rawles OP Eds /books etc. Unless I'm mistaken & IIRC, he does not address UN / NATO being the enforcing arm of the UN agenda. Dunno why not.

FWIW,
NATO / UN is the planned enforcement component for the weapon confiscation not US troops. Copius material & Docs. on that NOT "tinfoil hat" monikers that people like to throw around so freely these days.

[Moose-Knuckle]

Moose, I met with some old partners today and this subject was discussed.

Although not verbally stated I saw these off duty Deputy's concern at being put in such an ackward position, we all share one common subject, and that is simply the love of weaponry and shooting.

Ive known these guys a minimum of 10 years most much longer and know their love of this country. I believe at least this group of men would follow the constitution, they swore an oath to protect the people of this community.


They are certainly aware that stripping the people of their weapons only complicates matters by turning rightous citizens into victims without the ability to defend themselves and their families.

For any citizen to turn their weapons over to UN troops is simply not going to happen up here in the hills. These people up here are tough mother ****ers and not so into the govt and their minnions already.

Im afraid that would be the last straw amongst the farmers and ranchers around these parts. These guys have the resources to have some really cool shit in their gun safes.

DW

There are a number of US Sheriffs that are very vocal about armed oppostion to the feds if a gun confiscation was to commense in this nation. That would be a picture wouldn't? The days of Ruby Ridge and Waco are over, people are awake and many who swear oaths are not going to sit by and watch the Federal governement/UN/who ever destroy our Constitution.

I'm in the employ of a municipal LEA and it comes up amongst friends. No way would (or could for that matter) our guys go "house to house" in search of legal arms.

[a0cake]

“Our main agenda is to have all guns banned of course. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn’t matter if you have to distort facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed.” Sarah Brady, 1994



Sarah Brady is a wacko and an enemy of freedom to be sure, but she never said this. Look it up. You SERIOUSLY need a lesson in source selection and vetting. This is getting crazy. There's a disturbing amount of half-cocked, easily refutable, nonsensical BS being posted here on a daily basis now, and it's getting sad.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

According to gun rights activist Chris Knox (Neal Knox's son):
"The quote originally appeared in Machine Gun News, June 1991, Volume 5, Number 1, page 6. in the column "RAFFICA" by Dan Shea, Column 2, Paragraph 2. (Also see Dan Shea's comments, which drives a proverbial stake through the heart of this apocryphal quote).
"Neal Knox checked into this extensively -- before it appeared in the National Educator -- and concluded that this quote just never happened."

"It simply sounds bogus on its face, sounding more like dialogue from a bad 1930s propaganda movie than anything a real person would say. It's often easier to believe something we'd really like to see."

(The National Educator is described by the Anti-Defamation League as an anti-Semitic periodical "whose pages have honored the leaders of the far-right terrorist gang called The Order and the neo-Nazi paramilitary group, Aryan Nations." Source: ARMED & DANGEROUS: MILITIAS TAKE AIM AT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT: AN ADL FACT FINDING REPORT, Anti-Defamation League, 1994. In other words the National Educator is something other than a professional magazine for school teachers).
The Second Amendment Foundation also comments:

"This phony quote is often cited as a statement from Sarah Brady, Chairman, HCI, to Howard Metzenbaum, The National Educator, January, 1994, Page 3. "Sarah" and "Metzenbaum" are sometimes misspelled as "Sara" and "Metzanbaum" on the Internet. [T]he common citation does not check out."]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Iraqgunz]

This isn't a trick question. How many of yoh believe that any of our politicians would truly be so stupid as to allow Nato to come in and enforce some BS law? Then ask yourself how many Nato or UN idiots would try? Even if they did. The first day of their casualties would be so high that they would bail in 24 hours.

[J Krammes]

This isn't a trick question. How many of yoh believe that any of our politicians would truly be so stupid as to allow Nato to come in and enforce some BS law? Then ask yourself how many Nato or UN idiots would try? Even if they did. The first day of their casualties would be so high that they would bail in 24 hours.

This deals with a Treaty, so only the Senate has to approve along with the president. So it would not supprise me if they vote for it. It will be attached to some other bill, or be voted on on a Friday or a weekend very late at night with no media coverage. I don't think they care about us anymore. It is all about power. Clinton tried to get it passed, but the Senate voted it down. Our congress is much worse now than it was in the 90's.

[RogerinTPA]

This isn't a trick question. How many of yoh believe that any of our politicians would truly be so stupid as to allow Nato to come in and enforce some BS law? Then ask yourself how many Nato or UN idiots would try? Even if they did. The first day of their casualties would be so high that they would bail in 24 hours.

Agreed. If this ever came to fruition, they would be considered foreign invaders to most Americans. We have so many combat vets, switched on citizens, fudds & bubbas,...when organized, it would be an enjoyable wholesale slaughter. :D

[VooDoo6Actual]

This isn't a trick question. How many of you believe that any of our politicians would truly be so stupid as to allow Nato to come in and enforce some BS law? Then ask yourself how many Nato or UN idiots would try? Even if they did. The first day of their casualties would be so high that they would bail in 24 hours.

I don't disagree at all BUT, then who'd a thunk we would have continued on this azimuth of spending our way out of a recession or NDAA, or a ton of EO's, Fast & Furious, Mexico Border situation, still in Astan, Libya, Syria etc. Whether we choose to believe or disbelieve someone else is pulling the strings & the people's will is not being followed. You know my background & you know I have worked for & protected some of these people & their families. I do have some insights as to their thought processes & ideology as jacked up as that may be. This IS how they think & their ideology.
They are older now & close to their time. They have a dream & we are caught in it at this time. They think differently for a number of reasons.
We are not a member of their club, we did not get the MEMO or were Cc'd.
Right or wrong, it is what it is.

Clearly many American people got blindsided.
How many (to use your words) stupid/idiots voted for Obama ?

I think DW's original question pertains to Tesler/Moran/Rehberg Amendments

[kaiservontexas]

This isn't a trick question. How many of yoh believe that any of our politicians would truly be so stupid as to allow Nato to come in and enforce some BS law? Then ask yourself how many Nato or UN idiots would try? Even if they did. The first day of their casualties would be so high that they would bail in 24 hours.

That sounds like a vacation to me.

Friend: What did you do over the weekend?

Me: Harassed some idiot French blue helmets. Picked up this great FAMAS.

Friend: Cool, I got a G36 off some Germans.

Me: Yeah but our buddy over there got a M240B.

Friend: Son of a bitch! Think those idiots will come back and try again so we can get one?!?!?!?!?

Me: Naw, but the new president is promising to invade. Too bad I am too old to sign up. If ya go, grab me some snazzy stuff!

Talk about the death of the NFA 34, etc. with all the battlefield pickups.

Though in all seriousness. I know y'all in the military are good at locking down cities now-a-days. It may not ever be an invasion. It could just be shut down shipping of ammo and goodies. Then it could be just lock down easy areas and slowly creep over time. But logistically I do not see it happening as an invasion. I would see cutting off import/export as the target.

*forgive me I am drinking my morning cup of coffee and wiping sleep out of my eyes*

[montanadave]

There's a disturbing amount of half-cocked, easily refutable, nonsensical BS being posted here on a daily basis now, and it's getting sad.

I concur.

[Heavy Metal]

This deals with a Treaty, so only the Senate has to approve along with the president. So it would not supprise me if they vote for it. It will be attached to some other bill, or be voted on on a Friday or a weekend very late at night with no media coverage. I don't think they care about us anymore. It is all about power. Clinton tried to get it passed, but the Senate voted it down. Our congress is much worse now than it was in the 90's.

You can't attach a treaty to any other bill and it requires 67 of 100 votes to ratify.

[a0cake]

That sounds like a vacation to me.

Friend: What did you do over the weekend?

Me: Harassed some idiot French blue helmets. Picked up this great FAMAS.

Friend: Cool, I got a G36 off some Germans.



Not that this entire scenario / fantasy even makes sense to consider in the first place, but my friends in the French Army would stuff you into a locker and take your lunch money. :rolleyes: ( I know you were half kidding. So am I...kind of)

But seriously, don't even worry about this hapening. Because it makes no sense.

[Dirk Williams]

Ocake that very reason is why I think it makes complete sense. Sadly I see the majority of citizens complyng cuz the govt knows best. Hell we have had UN working traffic stops/road blocks on I-5 or some major highway down in LA with the USMC. "Training"

In Oregon we just voted. I refused to vote for anybody that was an incumbent. My feeling is that it don't matter if your rep or dem, if your in office you are the problem.

If they ran for another term then you don't seem to get that the problem is them.

Regarding the french or any other UN troops I have no elussions of a simple country ass wooping on them.

I view the situation as a goat **** and a slow extended Gorilla warfare kinda thing. One here, one there, trashing their supply lines killing their leadership and in it for the long haul.

I hope your right I don't want to live any part of my life like that. I WILL die a free man in my country

DW

[Moose-Knuckle]

But seriously, don't even worry about this hapening. Because it makes no sense.

So when was the last time anything did make sense?

[a0cake]

So when was the last time anything did make sense?

Literally every time something happens, it must by definition make sense, or else it wouldn't have happened.

The key then, if you wish to predict or even control events, is to think critically and rationally about the mechanisms and processes by which things occur. If you can analyze an event or chain of events properly, with the aid of good information, even the counter-intuitive occurrences that seem odd and random begin to make sense.

I simply think that the notion of fighting French and German troops enforcing the UN's will on American soil makes no sense, and such fantasies are the result of an irrational thought process.

PS. As I said in the other thread, I agree that the UN is collectively a massively negative force for American gun owners. But this extreme that some people are imagining is not going to happen. If you want to keep the international community out of America's gun laws, get involved in the process. Work in the field. Let your representatives know how you feel about it and work to elect people who won't let it happen. But sitting around on M4C daydreaming about taking pot-shots at French and German soldiers? Come on.

Even if it WAS true, the gung-ho attitude about it is also a little strange. I've worked with plenty of our NATO allies and they're good men and good soldiers. Again, not that it would happen, but I know quite a few who would HALO in from 35K, land...then bang your girlfriend AND your mom before wiping out that cute little Mossy Oak cammo'd militia. Sorry, I figure as long as we're writing fiction novels... :D (I'm JOKING, please don't take this personally).

[Moose-Knuckle]

The key then, if you wish to predict or even control events, is to think critically and rationally about the mechanisms and processes by which things occur. If you can analyze an event or chain of events properly, with the aid of good information, even the counter-intuitive occurrences that seem odd and random begin to make sense.


This is the line of thinking that always gets me pegged as a tin foil hat wearing conspiracy wacko, “connect the dots” if you will.



I simply think that the notion of fighting French and German troops enforcing the UN's will on American soil makes no sense, and such fantasies are the result of an irrational thought process.

PS. As I said in the other thread, I agree that the UN is collectively a massively negative force for American gun owners. But this extreme that some people are imagining is not going to happen. If you want to keep the international community out of America's gun laws, get involved in the process. Work in the field. Let your representatives know how you feel about it and work to elect people who won't let it happen. But sitting around on M4C daydreaming about taking pot-shots at French and German soldiers? Come on.

IMHO the vast majority of Americans would turn to wet noodles if tracked vehicles began rumbling down Main St. and armed men in uniforms went house to house to collect any and all firearms, food, medical supplies, et al. in the name of the greater good. Such a thing would only come after America experienced some “event” that "forced" POTUS to enact EO's, suspend the Constitution, and green light UN (and others) to occupy and police CONUS.

I have never said that any such thing WILL occur in our lifetime, I merely point out that the ground work has been laid out to make such things "legal". While we can speculate till the apocalypse the likely hood of said events playing out the fact remains that the laws are on the books and the plans are in place.

[a0cake]

This is the line of thinking that always gets me pegged as a tin foil hat wearing conspiracy wacko, “connect the dots” if you will.


I don't really like that identifying language either. It's constricting and reductionist. It creates two camps, one which will believe nearly any conspiracy theory, and one which constantly denies that things are anything but how they exactly appear.

I personally try to eliminate as many of my own biases, preconditions, and preconceived notions as possible and examine thoughts and theories on an individual basis. If this leads me to believe the official story or to an alternate position (a so called conspiracy theory), then at least I've arrived there honestly. I just think that this growing trend of conspiracy theorizing is more often than not an issue of belief without evidence (or based on wrong evidence), than the result of rational and informed thought.

[Alex V]

I seriously doubt this would happen, but if it does I'll be screwed since few in my neck of the woods would stand up to this...


My friends in the French Army would stuff you into a locker and take your lunch money.

The French government announced yesterday that it has raised its terror
alert level from "Run" to "Hide." The only two higher levels in France are
"Collaborate" and "Surrender." The rise was precipitated by a recent fire
that destroyed France's white flag factory, effectively paralyzing the
country's military capability.

~John Cleese

[a0cake]

Tell that to the families of the nearly 100 French soldiers who've died in Afghanistan, a few of which I've known and worked alongside. They're not cowards. Or tell it to their buddies and see how that works out for you.

But I know history, and I know where this anti-French sentiment comes from.

I still don't understand your point though. So the French are afraid to fight as your quote seems to imply, which is why they would possibly be fighting on US soil against US citizens??? And at the same time it's why you also seem to imply that you could defeat them so easily? Any of this makes sense?

[Dirk Williams]

OCake, why is it that if someone else's research differs from your's they are off base conspiracy types.

I think Moose make a solid case via a perponderance of evidence to make a factual observation. I think HOP adds to the fact based threads out there.


What is clear to many of us is that SOMEONE either in our Govt or big business has an agenda and the resources to buy or influence law which is clearly not in the USA's best interest.

If it werent for these off the wall web sites, chances are we the people would never see the big picture, or know of our freedoms and liberty's being encroached on by our own govt, it's clear to me that they sure as hell are not telling us about it.

When our Govt and big business are in bed together nothing good will become of it, regarding the needs of the people.

I do agree that the answers are evident in that history tends to repeat itself. It's not like the US has never been occupied before.

I hate the conclussions I come to after doing my daily research, via multiple web sites, and media sources.

Rather then being paranoid, I'd think it's simply wise to be a good boy scout, remain vigilante, and be prepared for most situations ...

Have a good one
DW

[Spiffums]

However IF such a law is ever "enforced" here in the US you can rest assured that there would be Presidential Emergency Powers enacted, the EO’s would be green lighted, a state of martial law would be implemented, and foreign troops would "aid" in carrying out such orders. At least that would be the first of many contingencies.

And it would be the End of the World on so many levels. America would fall (at least in what it was set up on) and it would open so many doors. It would not be something we could recover from in our lifetime.

[a0cake]

OCake, why is it that if someone else's research differs from your's they are off base conspiracy types.

I think Moose make a solid case via a perponderance of evidence to make a factual observation. I think HOP adds to the fact based threads out there.


What is clear to many of us is that SOMEONE either in our Govt or big business has an agenda and the resources to buy or influence law which is clearly not in the USA's best interest.

If it werent for these off the wall web sites, chances are we the people would never see the big picture, or know of our freedoms and liberty's being encroached on by our own govt, it's clear to me that they sure as hell are not telling us about it.

When our Govt and big business are in bed together nothing good will become of it, regarding the needs of the people.

I do agree that the answers are evident in that history tends to repeat itself. It's not like the US has never been occupied before.

I hate the conclussions I come to after doing my daily research, via multiple web sites, and media sources.

Rather then being paranoid, I'd think it's simply wise to be a good boy scout, remain vigilante, and be prepared for most situations ...

Have a good one
DW

In this thread and the 1961 plan thread, I've been talking about the specific issue of UN troops enforcing an agenda on US soil through force and occupation. I'm not talking about UN initiatives that are anti-gun, corporate manipulation of government, the Illuminati, the FED, crop circles, or whatever else.

When blue helmets are running patrols in armored vehicles through the streets of US cities, you can look me up and say I told you so, and I'll say you were right.

Until then, you do your research and apply your critical thinking skills and I'll do the same. I'm lead to my conclusions and you to yours. In the mean time, we'll sit here and hash it out. That's fine. But don't act like I'm doing something wrong by disagreeing and engaging in debate.

[Dirk Williams]

Ocake, Sorry about that. Wasn't trying to offend you. Frankly I read most of your posts, and usually come away thinking. Generally your view challenges me to think and to re-think my position and to re-review my resources, which is a good thing.

I am a retired LEO with 24 years on the streets. I learned early on that I don't believe in chance happenings or structured intel. Shit happens for a reason and that the truth is generally not in plain sight.

That out of the box style served me well, as a representitive of the people of the communities I had the honor of serving in.

I usually found the real truth in alleyways and on back streets and dirt trails, and railroad yards around the community.

Where im headed with this is that personally I haven't had much luck getting straight answers from city hall, or the county exec''s, or state resources, or the major 3 news sources. The info is out there, it's just not where one would think it would be for review.

My truths have always come from the most unusal locations and from odd and interesting folks, not those who make speechs and write articles in the local rag, or stand and make self serving speech's.

In the past few years Im finding it harder and harder to cross reference info learned from media sources of any kind for determining it's truthfulness.

If you have some resources please share them .

Happy Memorial Day to all.

DW

[Moose-Knuckle]

Sarah Brady is a wacko and an enemy of freedom to be sure, but she never said this. Look it up. You SERIOUSLY need a lesson in source selection and vetting. This is getting crazy. There's a disturbing amount of half-cocked, easily refutable, nonsensical BS being posted here on a daily basis now, and it's getting sad.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

According to gun rights activist Chris Knox (Neal Knox's son):
"The quote originally appeared in Machine Gun News, June 1991, Volume 5, Number 1, page 6. in the column "RAFFICA" by Dan Shea, Column 2, Paragraph 2. (Also see Dan Shea's comments, which drives a proverbial stake through the heart of this apocryphal quote).
"Neal Knox checked into this extensively -- before it appeared in the National Educator -- and concluded that this quote just never happened."

"It simply sounds bogus on its face, sounding more like dialogue from a bad 1930s propaganda movie than anything a real person would say. It's often easier to believe something we'd really like to see."

(The National Educator is described by the Anti-Defamation League as an anti-Semitic periodical "whose pages have honored the leaders of the far-right terrorist gang called The Order and the neo-Nazi paramilitary group, Aryan Nations." Source: ARMED & DANGEROUS: MILITIAS TAKE AIM AT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT: AN ADL FACT FINDING REPORT, Anti-Defamation League, 1994. In other words the National Educator is something other than a professional magazine for school teachers).
The Second Amendment Foundation also comments:

"This phony quote is often cited as a statement from Sarah Brady, Chairman, HCI, to Howard Metzenbaum, The National Educator, January, 1994, Page 3. "Sarah" and "Metzenbaum" are sometimes misspelled as "Sara" and "Metzanbaum" on the Internet. [T]he common citation does not check out."]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My Google-fu turned up this:



"It's true! It's true! Our good friends at the California Rifle and Pistol Association stuck to their guns, did their homework and won vindication. The following is a statement released by CRPA: Setting the Record Straight The Western Regional Director of Handgun Control, Inc., has contacted the California Rifle and Pistol Association in Sacramento regarding the quote reportedly attributed to Sarah Brady by the January, 1994,"The National Educator" magazine which was referenced in the January issue of The Firing Line. HCI states that "the quotation you attribute to Ms. Brady is a complete fabrication..." It was asked that CRPA publish a retraction in the next issue of The Firing Line (March 2000). There are very few copies of the January 1994, "The National Educator" magazine known to be available in public libraries. CRPA was able to locate one at the State Historical Society of Wisconsin Library and obtained a copy of the quote in question. The quote, as published in "The National Educator," is not precisely as was referenced in The Firing Line. What the quote in "The National Educator" magazine does say is the following: "Our task of creating a Socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed." According to "The National Educator" magazine, Sarah Brady made this statement to U.S. Senator Howard Metzenbaum while lobbying in support of a ban on semi automatic firearms. We regret any confusion this may have caused."
-- Jeff82, Hampton Roads

http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/Sarah.Brady.Quote.A222

[Moose-Knuckle]

I don't really like that identifying language either. It's constricting and reductionist. It creates two camps, one which will believe nearly any conspiracy theory, and one which constantly denies that things are anything but how they exactly appear.

So it took you three sentences to say you don't agree with me, okay.


I personally try to eliminate as many of my own biases, preconditions, and preconceived notions as possible and examine thoughts and theories on an individual basis. If this leads me to believe the official story or to an alternate position (a so called conspiracy theory), then at least I've arrived there honestly.

I agree with this school of thought and exercise my methods similar.

[a0cake]

My Google-fu turned up this:
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/Sarah.Brady.Quote.A222

What you found is exactly the thing that what I posted was intended to refute. I take this to mean that you agree with me. Do I miss your point? I'm not being sarcastic. If you think it's a counter-point, the chronology is backwards.

[a0cake]

So it took you three sentences to say you don't agree with me, okay.


No. I used those three sentences to explain why I DO agree with you that summarily labeling people "conspiracy theorists" or "tin-foilers" is not a good practice. Maybe if I'd used four my point would have been comprehended? :blink:

[Moose-Knuckle]

What you found is exactly the thing that what I posted was intended to refute. I take this to mean that you agree with me. Do I miss your point? I'm not being sarcastic. If you think it's a counter-point, the chronology is backwards.

Negative. I do NOT agree that those words were never spoken by Sarah Brady.

So I surmise that we can agree to disagree?

[Moose-Knuckle]

No. I used those three sentences to explain why I DO agree with you that summarily labeling people "conspiracy theorists" or "tin-foilers" is not a good practice.

Ah, well as the kids say "my bad". :o



Maybe if I'd used four my point would have been comprehended? :blink:

I think not, it would have only aided in clouding my comprehension. :D