[B]So, you don't think that Obama could easily pull off draconian gun laws, bans or g

[MP301]

I am a very level headed individual and I dont go around with "The sky is falling, the sky is falling" type of mentality. I, like many others, had pretty much come to the conclusion that Obama is probably going to have bigger fish to fry then dealing with the gun issue (to any major extent).

Then I remembered something I read many years ago. The issue was about nuclear war and this scientist said that we were told by the government that if a nuclear war ever happened, the whole planet would die 25 times over, etc. He beieved that was far from the truth. He saidt we were told that because people, when faced with something that major or horrific, would just say to themselves that it will just never happen. Makes bad things easier to deal with I guess.

With that in mind (coupled with my need to not be out smarted - especially on something that is so important to me) I revisited the gun control-obama-biden-democrat majority in congress-etc issue. I asked myself what it would take for the new administration to pull something significant off and make it stick? Has there ever been a more gun unfriendly group of people in our history as the upcoming administration and congress? No, but thats not enough to be concerned with I tell myself, because we have the Heller decision.

Has there ever been a better time to attack our gun rights in a significant way then after the new administration takes control? Keep in mind that even many pro gun people voted for Obama probably because of finance/money/economic reasons. Thier livelyhood and supporting their family was proably taking priority with them in spite of knowing that Obama is most likely not even eligible to be president; Is a socialist;has a rotten voting record on gun issues (as does Biden);,etc.

No, but thats still not enough for me to worry cause im thinking because he will be too busy dealing with money issues, right?

So, then, I ask myself.....what would have to happen for the upcoming administration to have the jiuce to sigificantly damage our gun rights?

Well, I guess you would have to get a large number of people to go along with it or at least accept it, right? And how would one accomplish this?

Ok, what did it take to virtually ban guns elsewhere in the world, like England and Australia? Hmmmm, looks like something bad happened and that was the catalyst for the gun grabbing. But hey, they didnt have the 2nd Amendment or the Heller decision confirming it, so no worries, right?

That said, are there any examples of our Government gettig around the constitution? Uh huh, 911 and the "Patriot Act".

Without the occurance of 911, what do you think the chances would have been of implementing the "Patriot Act"? Remember that this is where we lost, among other things, some of those much valued 4th amendment rights. (I find it suspicious that it was written and ready to go prior to 911, but maybe thats just me). Most of those in Congress signed off on it without even reading it because they didnt want to look weak on terror.

Side note - Many believe that our Government was responsible for or was somehow in on the 911 incident, and there is compelling evidence to that, but lets put that aside for a minute. However it happened, they implemented something that never would have even been seriously considered had it not been for that event. Besides, would our government try to do something that nasty for any reason? Of course not. (Never mind they attempted the same thing before in the 60's by thier own admission and documentation including flying a plane into a building!).
Operation Northwoods http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/doc1.pdf
Do you see where im going with this? What exactly do you think would happen, for example, If there were some sort of event...manufactured or by chance..that was really bad.... this time maybe involving firearms, where a large number of people (maybe important people or real innocent well liked type people) were brutally killed? Maybe something like the recent attack in India, but on our soil? Maybe on a larger scale with more being killed? Maybe add the sensationalism that our media is so good at?

OR, what about civil unrest? Couldnt happen here? What about SoCal and Rodney King? What about the Washington WTO protests? How easy would it be to get people in enough places, riled up enough on a major scale, to cause a president to declare Martial Law? Martial Law = suspension of the constitution = no 2nd Amendment. Period.

My point is that no matter what you believe or predict, S**T happens... S**T has happened in the past AND, S**T may just happen again...And if S**T does happen, what would we do? I have no clue actually, but if we viewed it as the real threat it may just be, at least we wouldnt feel so stupid and have to say "Duh, I should have seen that coming!" Who knows, whatever precautions we might take or plans we may have thought out whilst considering this real possibility might make the difference...

And now, a message from our sponsers.....:ban:

[Paladin]

What exactly do you think would happen, for example, If there were some sort of event...manufactured or by chance..that was really bad.... this time maybe involving firearms, where a large number of people (maybe important people or real innocent well liked type people) were brutally killed? Maybe something like the recent attack in India, but on our soil? Maybe on a larger scale with more being killed? Maybe add the sensationalism that our media is so good at?The Mumbai attack is thought to have been the successful execution of a thwarted al Qaeda plan to attack Manhattan hotels 15 years ago. Details at:
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20081203_new_york_landmarks_plot_mumbai_attack

[oddball]

Side note - Many believe that our Government was responsible for or was somehow in on the 911 incident, and there is compelling evidence to that

This is where I stopped reading.

[jamesob]

i believe it would be the biggest mistake of his carrer to try to push gun laws right now. with people loosing jobs left and right and the economy in the tank why would someone push laws that effect people that are already struggling. with crime and murder most likely to be on the rise with this crisis going on,it is my opinion that it is going to be a very volitile situation.

[H2H]

he won't get the support right now. People are too busy now with the economic situation.

[lowracer]

Unfortunately the ban bill is already written. All they have to do is tack it on to some huge multi-hundred-billion dollar economic bailout bill or emergency economic stimulus package. This could be done very quietly, they wouldn't have to make a big deal about it. Remember how the recent bailout bill had a bunch of pork added to it, to the tune of over a hundred billion dollars? Completely unrelated stuff? These bills are just waiting out there, already written, and ready to be added on.

This "tacking on" is how a lot of bad laws get passed. No congressman is going to vote against a feel-good "save the children" bill, but legislation is almost never presented for vote as a single issue. They always tack completely unrelated stuff on to the package at the last minute. I think that's how it will go down. It will be slipped in on the back of a large package that no one would vote against.

This tacking on of unrelated legislation has got to stop. It is the root of all evil.

[yellowfin]

Doesn't matter if he has other things to do. Look at this state. There have long been bigger priorities to fix- hello, budget? Yet they still keep writing anti gun bills like their lives depended on it.

[FastFinger]

This is where I stopped reading.Likewise. At least until under our Christmas tree I find a shiny new tinfoil hat.

[bulgron]

I'm torn as to whether Obama will be so stupid as to pursue anti-gun legislation in 2009. It's a sure way to lose his Democratic majority in Congress come the mid-terms, plus with the current makeup of the federal courts a ban is unlikely to stick.

If he's smart, he'll wait until his time in office is almost done to push gun control.

If Americans are smart, we'll do everything we can to make sure he doesn't have a compliant congress when it looks like Obama's career is almost done.

All of that said, the gun-grabbers have shown themselves to be arrogant, obsessive, compulsive, and (frankly) stupid where it comes to gun control legislation. So I think there's a chance Obama will bolt for gun control right away. Not that I think an AW ban, or anything like it, can stick given Heller.

There are smart ways for him to attack our gun rights. We're all going to get to see just how smart he is.

[Harrison_Bergeron]

Doesn't matter if he has other things to do. Look at this state. There have long been bigger priorities to fix- hello, budget? Yet they still keep writing anti gun bills like their lives depended on it.

You mean like how we aren't allowed to mail order ammo, or buy it in bulk anymore?

[corrosively_armed]

I think the only remaining thing that has never been explained is why did the government allow one plane full of saudis to leave the country when all the rest were grounded. That has never been answered. Forget all the rest of the bs, just ask that question.

Likewise. At least until under our Christmas tree I find a shiny new tinfoil hat.

[corrosively_armed]

You mean like how we aren't allowed to mail order ammo, or buy it in bulk anymore?

I may be somewhat out of touch being in the central valley so forgive me but where are you not allowed to have bulk amounts of ammo? I know about shipping restrictions into sac and la though.

[Jim40]

Obama won't have to push or even mention anti-gun legislation.

Obama will just have to sign it when it hits his desk.

[Harrison_Bergeron]

I may be somewhat out of touch being in the central valley so forgive me but where are you not allowed to have bulk amounts of ammo? I know about shipping restrictions into sac and la though.

I was referencing the failure of AB2062. It died because more important things came up.

[MP301]

Texan is absolutely correct....there are no line item veto's. If the majority of people are all for an important (maybe economic) bill, then all they have to do is tack on a bad gun bill at the last minute...its been done before.....

And for oddball and fast finger, you should have read the rest of it...I didnt say I thought that way, I was just pointing out others views. My whole point was that if there is a major incident... no matter if real terrorists do it, or its a false flag type of deal, there would be sweeping legislation under the guise of safety that would be hard, if not impossible, to stop. What if some dumb**s racist redneck tried to whack Obama? You think for a second S**t wouldnt hit the fan?

Are there any disagreements with this last paragraph? Guys, I dont care if you agree with me or not or have a different opinion, but at least have the courtesy to read the whole post if your going to comment. You can save your Jevenile Tin Foil hat comments as well....

[getafterit]

This is where I stopped reading.

This is "where you stopped reading"
But, take a look at your sig line. I smell a hipocrite

[Bruce]

For those who are relying on Heller and SCOTUS to prevent a gun ban, I would remind you of Andrew Jackson and the Cherokee Indians. Jackson wanted to remove the Cherokees from Georgia. The Cherokess fought Old Hickory in court. The case went to SCOTUS and Justice John Marshall ruled in the Cherokees favor. Jackson's reportedly said of Marshall,"He has made his ruling. Now let him enforce it."
The Cherokees were marched across the South and across the Mississippi at gun-point.

[Kestryll]

This is "where you stopped reading"
But, take a look at your sig line. I smell a hipocrite

And I smell someone who isn't planning on staying around long....

[grywlfbg]

Thier livelyhood and supporting their family was proably taking priority with them in spite of knowing that Obama is most likely not even eligible to be president; Is a socialist;has a rotten voting record on gun issues (as does Biden);,etc.

Hmm. You claim to be a level-headed person yet you seem to have bought into a bunch of hearsay.

Obama not eligible? Don't you think that if there were a shred of evidence that this were true that the Repubs wouldn't have been all over it?

Obama's a socialist? Do you know what that word means? If so, please give me an example of Obama planning to implement socialist policies.

I think your post is a valuable one to think about and we need to keep talking about it (Obama does have an anti-gun voting record) but let's try to keep from perpetuating patently false information.

[bulgron]

For those who are relying on Heller and SCOTUS to prevent a gun ban, I would remind you of Andrew Jackson and the Cherokee Indians. Jackson wanted to remove the Cherokees from Georgia. The Cherokess fought Old Hickory in court. The case went to SCOTUS and Justice John Marshall ruled in the Cherokees favor. Jackson's reportedly said of Marshall,"He has made his ruling. Now let him enforce it."
The Cherokees were marched across the South and across the Mississippi at gun-point.

This is a whole other situation.

If Obama passes a gun ban, and SCOTUS says 'no', then he can't get any prosecutions. So, at most, he could issue an illegal order to confiscate guns that the courts have told him he can't confiscate.

I'll leave it up to your imagination as to what happens if an American President issues an illegal order to confiscate guns. However, at the very minimum, I would think that the Democrats would lose Congress and impeachment hearings would follow shortly thereafter. That's the 'happy' result of this particular scenario.

[bulgron]

Obama's a socialist? Do you know what that word means? If so, please give me an example of Obama planning to implement socialist policies.

Universal health care, wealth redistribution via taxation, and gun control are all socialist policies.

Whether that makes a Obama a socialist is, I think, up to the definition of how you define 'socialist'. But he has certainly talked about all of these things as something he would like to do, so if he isn't a socialist then he's at the least only a step or two away from it.

[grywlfbg]

Universal health care, wealth redistribution via taxation, and gun control are all socialist policies.

Whether that makes a Obama a socialist is, I think, up to the definition of how you define 'socialist'. But he has certainly talked about all of these things as something he would like to do, so if he isn't a socialist then he's at the least only a step or two away from it.

Socialism is defined as government or collective ownership of the means of production (industry). None of the things you've stated fall into that category.

We already have universal health care (they're called Emergency Rooms), wealth redistribution is part of a welfare state, not a socialist one, and gun control has nothing whatsoever to do with the type of government.

If Obama supports a nationalized healthcare system where the hospitals are owned by the government and the doctors work for the government then you can call him a Socialist. Until then he's not a socialist.

[Harrison_Bergeron]

Why do we need guns in the first place?

For those who are relying on Heller and SCOTUS to prevent a gun ban, I would remind you of Andrew Jackson and the Cherokee Indians. Jackson wanted to remove the Cherokees from Georgia. The Cherokess fought Old Hickory in court. The case went to SCOTUS and Justice John Marshall ruled in the Cherokees favor. Jackson's reportedly said of Marshall,"He has made his ruling. Now let him enforce it."
The Cherokees were marched across the South and across the Mississippi at gun-point.

[dwtt]

Many people have said Obama and the Democrats in congress won't be pushing a gun ban because the economy is the top issue. They are right because the economy is the top issue and is what allowed Obama to win the election, just as it did for Clinton in 1992. However, the president has very little influence on the health of the economy and the economy will recover on it's own. We've seen this cycle twice since 1992 and Obama will be in office to take credit when the economy recovers.
Then, he and the Democrats will turn their attention to guns and pass a gun ban 2-3 years from now after the economy has recovered. They'll use the recovery as "proof" of their good leadership to help justify a new gun ban. There won't be a need for any catastrophic event like 9/11 or Waco to bring the Democrats to pass another gun ban.

[jamesob]

Socialism is defined as government or collective ownership of the means of production (industry). None of the things you've stated fall into that category.

We already have universal health care (they're called Emergency Rooms), wealth redistribution is part of a welfare state, not a socialist one, and gun control has nothing whatsoever to do with the type of government.

If Obama supports a nationalized healthcare system where the hospitals are owned by the government and the doctors work for the government then you can call him a Socialist. Until then he's not a socialist.
the entire government right now is leaning socialist. the banks they gave 300 billion to, basicly gives stock or a portion of ownership to them. i dont know about you but government has no business making money from banks using my money. auto industry well if you dont think they are going to have their hands in that, your dead wrong. granted this is not obamas doing but he will take it and run with it.

[rayra]

I'm torn as to whether Obama will be so stupid as to pursue anti-gun legislation in 2009. It's a sure way to lose his Democratic majority in Congress come the mid-terms, plus with the current makeup of the federal courts a ban is unlikely to stick.

If he's smart, he'll wait until his time in office is almost done to push gun control.

If Americans are smart, we'll do everything we can to make sure he doesn't have a compliant congress when it looks like Obama's career is almost done.

All of that said, the gun-grabbers have shown themselves to be arrogant, obsessive, compulsive, and (frankly) stupid where it comes to gun control legislation. So I think there's a chance Obama will bolt for gun control right away. Not that I think an AW ban, or anything like it, can stick given Heller.

There are smart ways for him to attack our gun rights. We're all going to get to see just how smart he is.

He's not smart, and Pelosi and Reid sure as hell have demonstrated they aren't over the last two years. Just look at all the naroowminded short-sighted self-serving ideologically-driven crapola they've tried to cram thru congress. And now they'll have no checks at all.
Hecl just look at all the anti-gun news articles, student paper editorials and Brady press releases flooding out. ALL the Democrat scumbags WANT gun bans and they want them NOW.
The 111th Congress is sworn on on Jan 3rd. They have two full weeks+ to have legislation ready for Obama to sign right away (as soon as he finishes issuing dozens of Executive Orders overturning anything of BUsh's they feel like.
The anti-gun cretins have been fulminating about handguns, "loopholes", ammo, registration and bans. The president-elect himself has time and time again issued clear statements about his intent to ban whole classes of firearms, in line with the worst such bans in Lib-dominated cities like Chicago and DC. The Obama Machine even re-published that craptastic ban promise at change.gov.
It's coming.

/and I didn't need any erroneous nonsense about 'nuclear winter' or Truther garbage to lay it out, either.

[MP301]

Thanks for your intelligent response grywlfbg. Other then questioning whether im level headed, it was an honest opinion that just happens to be different from mine.

Maybe our definition of what a Socialist is may be different, but I would at least hope you would admit that his well documented intentions and would be policies lean significantly in that direction? Read his website my friend. Bulgron is right...

What patently false information are you refering to? And you know this how?
Have you even read or objectively considered the information that we do know is correct?

Forget about where he was born, the fact that he was an indonesian citizen, a country that did not provide for dual citizenship, means that he lost his US citizenship. Is there a record of him reapplying to get his US citizenship back and would it matter if he did since "naturalized" citizens are still not eligible?

I dont know enough about these things to say his is definately not eligible, but there is enough information brought forward to make it a possibility, right? So, with that in mind, do you think it might be a good idea to have a little hearing on it ? Gee, if for no other reason but to shut people like me up who just want to know. You know, just get it out in the open, get it done and lets move on, right?

Why are the repubs not all over it? Thats probably the easiest question to answer. When Nixon lost to JFK after all of those accusations about democratic voter fraud (JFK barely won), Nixon felt that he would just be labeled as a poor sport and ruin his chances at another shot down the road. Remember When Gore complained publically about how the repubs stole the election and was labeled a poor sport, etc? Do you think he has a chance at another shot?

You have to remember, ater the last 8 years, The Obama machine is huge and its powerful. I dont think any repubs want to tackle that monter just yet..

BTW, im an independant, I think bot parties run our Government the same F'd up way....

Anyway, here is a link from a far left newspaper (we call it the yellow journal) about Obama. Incidently, this Journalist is African American... a must read!

http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081102/A_OPINION0614/811020316

[Glock22Fan]

Socialism is defined as government or collective ownership of the means of production (industry). None of the things you've stated fall into that category.

I define this as communism, not socialism. Britain is a socialist state, and (although hospitals are government owned, industry, on the whole, isn't.

Obama is pushing socialist policies. In my mind there is no doubt about this whatsoever.

[bulgron]

Socialism is defined as government or collective ownership of the means of production (industry). None of the things you've stated fall into that category.

I wrote a pretty long reply to this last night, but the site went down before I could hit 'reply'. I don't feel like writing all of that again, but I will say that your definition of socialism is far too simplistic. Socialism actually seeks an egalitarian society, one in which there isn't much material difference between any two members of society. Government controlling the means of production is just one goal of socialism.

Universal health care and wealth redistribution are both also goals of socialism because by these mechanisms the material differences between members of society are leveled.

Gun control is a symptom of socialism simply because the mugger always wants a disarmed victim. Make no mistake about it, those who are pushing socialism know very well that they're mugging society, which is why they want to disarm us.

Obama certainly has socialist impulses. Whether he is an out and out socialist is merely a matter of definition.

[Bruce]

Why do we need guns in the first place?

I know why, but there are some here who are "hobbists", or "Obama-ites", or children who don't.;)

[dwa]

Texan is absolutely correct....there are no line item veto's. If the majority of people are all for an important (maybe economic) bill, then all they have to do is tack on a bad gun bill at the last minute...its been done before.....

And for oddball and fast finger, you should have read the rest of it...I didnt say I thought that way, I was just pointing out others views. My whole point was that if there is a major incident... no matter if real terrorists do it, or its a false flag type of deal, there would be sweeping legislation under the guise of safety that would be hard, if not impossible, to stop. What if some dumb**s racist redneck tried to whack Obama? You think for a second S**t wouldnt hit the fan?

Are there any disagreements with this last paragraph? Guys, I dont care if you agree with me or not or have a different opinion, but at least have the courtesy to read the whole post if your going to comment. You can save your Jevenile Tin Foil hat comments as well....


there is zero evidence that the US was behind 9/11. i have a few friends who picked up pieces at the pentagon if you want to run your theories by them...

[getafterit]

And I smell someone who isn't planning on staying around long....


Kestryll, if the above is directed at me I do not quite understand where you are coming from. All I was pointing out is that Oddball's reply was denying that the government could have played a part in 911. But his sig line seems to support the fact that "we will destroy ourselves" from the inside. I believe that Abraham Lincoln might have been referring to the people becoming complacent and allowing our rights to be erroded out from under us.
Am I wrong? If your reply was not directed towards me then please forgive me.

[MP301]

Dwa, no evidence of our Government involvment in 911? You kidding right? In my humble opinion, a persons failure to consider the involvement of our Government in 911 (with all of the info available) tells me that you are intentionally blocking the possibility by choice. Not by lack of evidence.

This is a catagory where someone refuses to consider something they dont like, no matter where the evidence points.... or not considering information because they dont like the source (My mom hates Michael Moore so much that he could say the sky is blue and she wont beleive it ! haha)

Did you even read my original post or did you stop reading when you saw something you didnt like? Did you read the part about Operation Northwoods, where as OUR government (Joint Chiefs of Staff) made a smilar plan in the 1960's? They were to commit terrorist acts in Guantanamo and Florida, including flying plane into a building and make it look like the cubans did it so they would get popular support to invade! Sound familiar? Evidence? This plan came to light with an FOIA request and is proven by the Govs own documentation. NO ONE is arguing the fact that this isd a known truth.

So, is it safe to say that if something is tried once by a particular group, that the possibility exists that it may be tried again by the same group? They have already shown the willingness to do it? That kinda throws out the old "Our Government would never do that" theory, doesnt it? Yes they would do it, by their own admission and documentation.

This is getting way off subject and my only reason for starting this thread was because someone asked me what I thought it would take for the Obama administration to pull off some significant gun restriction or grab. My opinion is that if there is some major event, a major terrorist act..or civil unrest...of an assasination attempt on someone important ( look at how the brady folks got started)..either be real terrorists or nutjobs OR acts manufactured by our government, that would most likely be enough. Martial law equals no constitution or rights and if SCOTUS doesnt like it, then tough S**T.

In closing, I have zero problem discussing 911 with anyone, including your friends who picked up pieces at the Pentagon. What, Im somehow conspiracy theorist because I dont just swallow what Im told without questioning things that dont make sense? Ok, you can call me a conspiracy theorist if I can call you a coincidence theorist, deal?

Maybe I should start a thread about 911 and go over the available info with you and see where it leads? Ill PM you and let you know....

[otalps]

Dwa, no evidence of our Government involvment in 911? You kidding right? In my humble opinion, a persons failure to consider the involvement of our Government in 911 (with all of the info available) tells me that you are intentionally blocking the possibility by choice. Not by lack of evidence.


If you can find evidence of government involvement in 911 using all the evidence available it tells me that you're research and investigative skills might be a bit lacking.

[MP301]

If you can find evidence of government involvement in 911 using all the evidence available it tells me that you're research and investigative skills might be a bit lacking.

Really? Ok, then try this on. Take a moment, as a courtesy to a well meaning noob calgun member (thats me!), and go to this link. Read the whole page and click the links with it and then tell me how you feel then.

Keep in mind that other members, who had no idea this stuff existed, are gonna be shocked when they read this, so coming back with digs on my investigative and research skills may make you look bad. :tt2:

Would someone please tell me why its necessary for people to make personal attacks when the hear or read something they dont agree with?

[MP301]

And here is that link my friend..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

[Mute]

Compelling evidence? Seriously? None of this "evidence" is compelling. Keep trying to push that idea and your credibility is going to keep getting more and more questionable.

[MP301]

Hey Mute, did your questioning of my credibility come after going to the link on my previous post and actually reading it, OR did you just simply ignore it ? I didnt make that S**T up! Whats it got to do with my credibility?

Weak....

[DarthSean]

Research the conspiracy theory behind the Port Arthur massacre.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)

I currently don't have a link to better detail of the conspiracy theories specifically ATM.

[dfletcher]

The Democrats will get around to gun control soon enough. I don't see an issue so significant as this being tacked on to another (and unrelated bill) such as the "Omnibus Save Every Cash Strapped Company of 2009 Bill" but I do see it being dependent on the next college campus or Amish schoolgirls event. If I were in his shoes, I'd have the bill ready to go, waiting for the shooting and the go ahead. All tragedies are not created equal, nor do they present the same opportunities.

[AJD]

LOL at the government behind the 911 attacks. Those arguments are always good for a few laughs. Brilliant logic btw. I mean the government was able to get terrorists together to fly planes into buildings and sneek explosives into the WTC without anyone knowing in the most densly populated area of the US and keep it a total secret. All for the means of going to war with Iraq. Yet, our government was too inept or
never thought of planting chemical weapons in the middle of flipping nowhere Iraq to justify their claims.

As far as Obama not having the ability or the means right now to go after guns because of other pressing issues, that may be the case indirectly. Of course, with Eric Holder as AG he can us the ATF to make life even harder on FFLs. And as mentioned before by others,many times, the most important blow might not be any anti-gun legislation, but rather a left-wing Supreme Court Justice apointed because of the unfortunate death or illness of another member.

[anthonyca]

Unfortunately the ban bill is already written. All they have to do is tack it on to some huge multi-hundred-billion dollar economic bailout bill or emergency economic stimulus package. This could be done very quietly, they wouldn't have to make a big deal about it. Remember how the recent bailout bill had a bunch of pork added to it, to the tune of over a hundred billion dollars? Completely unrelated stuff? These bills are just waiting out there, already written, and ready to be added on.

This "tacking on" is how a lot of bad laws get passed. No congressman is going to vote against a feel-good "save the children" bill, but legislation is almost never presented for vote as a single issue. They always tack completely unrelated stuff on to the package at the last minute. I think that's how it will go down. It will be slipped in on the back of a large package that no one would vote against.

This tacking on of unrelated legislation has got to stop. It is the root of all evil.
This is right on. Also look when and how most draconian and gun ban bills were passed. 1934 the height of the depression NFA passed. 1968 Gun Control Act passed while we were at war and had MAJOR problems to deal with at home. 1986 FA ban, tacked on at the last minute to a bill that the NRA wanted passed. 1994 Clinton Ban, passed when they said that they were elected because it was "the economy stupid".

Now for a more dramatic and true history refresher. Hitler came to power during a hyper inflation and an economic problem much worse then this one is at this point. Did he have more important things to do then worry about than taking guns away? Well it depends on what his motives were. For his motives some of which were killing innocent people for whom they were, disarming and marking them was very important. History is filled with this script, that is just one that is famous and still most people don't know the whole truth about.

Tough times are when rights are stolen, not in good times. The more severe the crises the easier it is for government to oppress. Remember who these people are. It is a CORE belief of theirs' that we be unarmed. They want to control people. Some are evil and a few of them actually beliefs that we would be better off with government in control. The point is that they will not put a CORE principal of theirs on hold due to tough economic times. They WILL USE THIS TIME TO PUSH THROUGH MORE CONTROL. Just look at the script throughout time.

[Mute]

Hey Mute, did your questioning of my credibility come after going to the link on my previous post and actually reading it, OR did you just simply ignore it ? I didnt make that S**T up! Whats it got to do with my credibility?

Weak....

I looked at it and it's full of crap just like all the other similar "evidence" out there. If that's your best defense you better try again.

[MrLogan]

And here is that link my friend..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

If you want to be taken seriously, post a legitimate source. Wikipedia is not a legitimate source. Try to cite Wikipedia in a college paper, and see what happens.

[oddball]

"I do believe that it is the first time in history that fire has ever melted steel. I do believe that it defies physics for the World Trade Center Tower 7"

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b169/oddballphoto/2007-11-05Rosie.jpg

[dfletcher]

That Rosie can stand upright and walk up steps defies physics, but if there's a Twinkie on the landing she'll make it.

[bdsmchs]

I am a very level headed individual and I dont go around with "The sky is falling, the sky is falling" type of mentality.


Glad to hear that.


Side note - Many believe that our Government was responsible for or was somehow in on the 911 incident, and there is compelling evidence to that,

Ooooooh-kay...

Koo-koo..... Koo-koo....

[MindBuilder]

Operation Northwoods is a very disturbing revelation about the US government. It appears to be real. The Wikipedia article cites an ABC News article and the National Archives (nara.gov) among others.

Apparently the Joint Chiefs of Staff presented a plan to the Secretary of Defense suggesting a variety of plans to frame the Cuban government for terrorist attacks or other things to get a reluctant American public to support an invasion of Cuba.

Hopefully the current US government isn't that corrupt. I might point out that at the time the US still had segregation and thus was still a quite unethical country. As our most recent election has demonstrated, things have changed a lot since then. But then who knows? Maybe such plans are still being hatched.

As far as 9/11, the official story seems plausible to me. I haven't looked a lot, but I haven't seen any very suspicious evidence. The evidence I have seen tends to be like Rosie O'Donnell's misunderstanding about the vulnerability of steel to fire. I wrote up a debunking of her theory on steel here but decided to snip it because I don't think this is the place to rehash that debate.

Of course there's no way to disprove a conspiracy theory like this since any debunking can be claimed to be part of the cover up. And also when there is this much evidence, there will always be some evidence that will seem suspicious and is hard to explain.

[MP301]

LOL at the government behind the 911 attacks. Those arguments are always good for a few laughs. Brilliant logic btw. I mean the government was able to get terrorists together to fly planes into buildings and sneek explosives into the WTC without anyone knowing in the most densly populated area of the US and keep it a total secret. All for the means of going to war with Iraq. Yet, our government was too inept or
never thought of planting chemical weapons in the middle of flipping nowhere Iraq to justify their claims.


Yeah, I know...I used to think it was silly as well. BUt now im undecided because of actually reading about it. You know as well as I do, although you have to consider a source in research, you dont automatically discount the source because you dont like where it comes from. You have to confirm it on your own.

As far as planting the WMD's to bolster that position, I asked someone connected with the Lawrance Livermore Lab and he said that WMD's can be identified just like DNA or fingerprints. If they had planted WMD's, testing would have shown who made it down to the location and time frame. I dont know if thats true, thats just what I was told by someone who was supposed to know...


This is right on. Also look when and how most draconian and gun ban bills were passed. 1934 the height of the depression NFA passed. 1968 Gun Control Act passed while we were at war and had MAJOR problems to deal with at home. 1986 FA ban, tacked on at the last minute to a bill that the NRA wanted passed. 1994 Clinton Ban, passed when they said that they were elected because it was "the economy stupid".

Now for a more dramatic and true history refresher. Hitler came to power during a hyper inflation and an economic problem much worse then this one is at this point. Did he have more important things to do then worry about than taking guns away? Well it depends on what his motives were. For his motives some of which were killing innocent people for whom they were, disarming and marking them was very important. History is filled with this script, that is just one that is famous and still most people don't know the whole truth about.

Tough times are when rights are stolen, not in good times. The more severe the crises the easier it is for government to oppress. Remember who these people are. It is a CORE belief of theirs' that we be unarmed. They want to control people. Some are evil and a few of them actually beliefs that we would be better off with government in control. The point is that they will not put a CORE principal of theirs on hold due to tough economic times. They WILL USE THIS TIME TO PUSH THROUGH MORE CONTROL. Just look at the script throughout time.

Absolutely right! Tis the season!

I looked at it and it's full of crap just like all the other similar "evidence" out there. If that's your best defense you better try again.

So, the Government admitting to planning and trying to implement this operation, by their own admission and documentation is full of crap? How does that work? You obviously didnt read very far and explore the links showing the original documentation.... thats funny

If you want to be taken seriously, post a legitimate source. Wikipedia is not a legitimate source. Try to cite Wikipedia in a college paper, and see what happens.

I agree, but its linked to legitiment sources...I think I mentioned exploring the links.....Please try that and get back to me....

"I do believe that it is the first time in history that fire has ever melted steel. I do believe that it defies physics for the World Trade Center Tower 7"

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b169/oddballphoto/2007-11-05Rosie.jpg

Yeah, and if you watched the National Geographic episode where they were interviewing Silverstein (The guy who leased the towers a few months before for 10 milllion down) he told NG that he had spoken with the fire dept and due to the great loss of life, he gave the order to "pull" the building ( Building 7). How does that work when it takes approximately 6 weeks to set up a demolition and he did it on the spot? Any coincidence theorists out there have an answer to that one?

Glad to hear that.

Ooooooh-kay...

Koo-koo..... Koo-koo....

"sigh" Hey thanks for the personal attack...you really make a noob member feel right at home.


Operation Northwoods is a very disturbing revelation about the US government. It appears to be real. The Wikipedia article cites an ABC News article and the National Archives (nara.gov) among others.

Apparently the Joint Chiefs of Staff presented a plan to the Secretary of Defense suggesting a variety of plans to frame the Cuban government for terrorist attacks or other things to get a reluctant American public to support an invasion of Cuba.

Hopefully the current US government isn't that corrupt. I might point out that at the time the US still had segregation and thus was still a quite unethical country. As our most recent election has demonstrated, things have changed a lot since then. But then who knows? Maybe such plans are still being hatched.

As far as 9/11, the official story seems plausible to me. I haven't looked a lot, but I haven't seen any very suspicious evidence. The evidence I have seen tends to be like Rosie O'Donnell's misunderstanding about the vulnerability of steel to fire. I wrote up a debunking of her theory on steel here but decided to snip it because I don't think this is the place to rehash that debate.

Of course there's no way to disprove a conspiracy theory like this since any debunking can be claimed to be part of the cover up. And also when there is this much evidence, there will always be some evidence that will seem suspicious and is hard to explain.

Wow, someone who actually read the information! Thank you very much! My feelings are if someone or group has the propensity to do something....the possibility exists that tjey may try to do the same thing in the future. Doesnt mean they did, but the possibility is there.

And if your willing to have an open mind like it appears you do, then take a look at this link. I looked at it with the intent to debunk it and came up short. I would really like your opinion after you see it.

If nothing else, it will keep you entertained....

[MP301]

Here is the Link.......

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3719259008768610598

[getafterit]

Lets suppose that the current administration was headed by Bill Clinton. Would that sway anyone that believes the governemnt would never do such a thing to maybe believing that the governement just might consider it?
Look at the rumors of those that were murdered, on our own soil, when Clinton was in office.
Some also say there was evidence that we the government knew that the Japanese were off our coast before Pearl Harbor.
I try not to buy into much of anything. Way I see it is that things will be tough enough when the time comes to keep what most of us prize most, out firearms.
All I am saying, as is the OP's is that I am open to the idea that it is posible that our government had something to do with 911.

[getafterit]

Here is the Link.......

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3719259008768610598

Interesting stuff there. Makes One wonder to say the least.
I have to say that I think many of those that say "no way" are just not taking the time to read/listen to the evidence out there.
Good stuff MP301

[MindBuilder]

I watched about 40 minutes of the Loose Change video and it seemed to have many errors and little credibility. I could criticize it in detail but I'm sure that's already been done to death elsewhere.

If I was a real conspiracy theorist, I'd say Loose Change was made by the conspirators to discredit the "truthers".

[tcrpe]

Obama won't have to push or even mention anti-gun legislation.

Obama will just have to sign it when it hits his desk.


BINGO!

[Mute]

What's funny and a clear demonstration of a lack of critical thinking skill is the linking of a "what if" document from the 60's as compelling evidence that our own government was somehow involved with the 9/11 attacks.

[otalps]

Here is the Link.......

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3719259008768610598

Now there's some compelling evidence, a vid from a high school dropout:rolleyes:

[AJD]

As far as planting the WMD's to bolster that position, I asked someone connected with the Lawrance Livermore Lab and he said that WMD's can be identified just like DNA or fingerprints. If they had planted WMD's, testing would have shown who made it down to the location and time frame. I dont know if thats true, thats just what I was told by someone who was supposed to know...


And considering the government was able to keep the 911 attacks "real" truth a secret in some well thought out science fiction book plan and hide all the evidence you honestly think they would have allowed ANY of the WMD evidence they may have found to be tested by any independent lab? And if the US really wanted to go to war with Iraq why not just set it up to say Iraq and Hussein were directly involved? Again, they came up with this brilliant plan yet couldn't make up some evidence showing Hussein giving the order to do this? Just because everything is not crystal clear does not mean the whole thing was a giant conspiracy. The conspiracy 911 gang(well actually the conspiracy everything gang since most of the organizers believe in every conspiracy theory there is, in fact many are former JFK conspiracy book writers who have nothing else to do now) has yet to prove anything. Only speculation at best. Yet, with a few things that don't seem clear to the conspiracy gang that unequivicaly means it proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that it was government conspiracy. And everytime something is debunked, well, they come up with another reason to fill in the blank. "Oh well yeah I guess that wasn't true, but actually we can just jam some other random thought out of our heads to fill in the blank and now the conspiracy theory works again." In fact some of the producers of the government conspiracy "documentaries" have had to go back multiple times to edit their tape because of debunked evidence that is no longer valid.

[dfletcher]

If I were going to plan a 9/11 as a pretext to invading Iraq, I'd have made all the hijackers Iraqi and not Saudi then I wouldn't have to make that silly WMD connection. But if I needed WMDs in Iraq, I'd have them put there in advance and at the right moment - viola!! Found them. I think I would have planned it so Dick Cheney found them on a hunting trip.

If 9/11 and Dallas were conspiracies, they sure didn't plan out the specifics all that well -heck, his "handlers" could at least have given Lee Oswald a semi so that whole "how many shots could he do" question went away, right?

On the other hand, we're often told if there was a conspiracy someone would have talked. No talk = no conspiracy. On that basis, I guess one person killed Jimmy Hoffa?

Oh well, interesting stuff to talk about, maybe that's it's worth.

[oddball]

That Rosie can stand upright and walk up steps defies physics, but if there's a Twinkie on the landing she'll make it.


:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :

That made me laugh for a good 5 minutes. I almost hacked up my lunch :D Thanks....

[dwa]

mp301 i know that you have an extensive amount of knowledge on all of the conspiracies that you've gathered from the Internet and blogs. btw loose change has been debunked rather easily and in fact the creators admitted that they incorrect on a lot of their assumptions so i guess you not up to date(no i will not find a link for you find it yourself) as for plans to bomb us soil to frame Cuba i have no doubt they are true, we also had a program to weaponize lsd and a whole plethora of weird ideas. there's a video of lsd being tested on troops (again no i will not find it for you) if there's one thing the government loves doing it making bizarre plans. do you think fdr was behind pearl harbor too, the us had actionable Intel before the attack... i mean with all the things that didn't work out do you think there is a conspiracy this was already mentioned but if it was a conspiracy the hijacked would have been Iraqi and if wmds were still in play how hard it is to have a black helicopter deliver one to be found and then use the mind erasing thing from men in black on the crew. but seriously i guess you are easily swayed by an amateur video by college kids too afraid to enlist with too much time on their hands.

[dwtt]

Guys, why do some of you even take this stuff from MP301 even remotely seriously? It's almost like he was SemiautoSam.

[otalps]

Guys, why do some of you even take this stuff from MP301 even remotely seriously? It's almost like he was SemiautoSam.

SAS is that you? Someone sent me an email with a new vid about the Amero you might like...:D

[MP301]

Interesting stuff there. Makes One wonder to say the least.
I have to say that I think many of those that say "no way" are just not taking the time to read/listen to the evidence out there.
Good stuff MP301


Yeah, It did make me wonder as well. I agree with your view on those saying "no way". They made up there mind with out actually taking the time to really look into the info.

Let me know how you feel after seeing this video...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5386487651203625811


I watched about 40 minutes of the Loose Change video and it seemed to have many errors and little credibility. I could criticize it in detail but I'm sure that's already been done to death elsewhere.

If I was a real conspiracy theorist, I'd say Loose Change was made by the conspirators to discredit the "truthers".

Considering that the majority of the sources were from CNN, major news media and the like....and eye witnesses interviewed right after the event, im wondering how you could come to that conclusion if you really were not pre disposed at debunking. And watching only 40 minutes of a 2 hour documentary might mean you were not totally objective, interested in a different point of view.


What's funny and a clear demonstration of a lack of critical thinking skill is the linking of a "what if" document from the 60's as compelling evidence that our own government was somehow involved with the 9/11 attacks.


No, showing the Operation Northwood docs was only meant to show that our Government is not only capable, but willing to engage of that type of bahavior. Thats all. This shuts down those sheep mentality type people that say our Government would never try to do anything like that. For the sake of argument, lets overlook the simularities between the two....


Now there's some compelling evidence, a vid from a high school dropout:rolleyes:

Another example of someone more concerned about where the info comesd from then the info itself. If the person I dislike and distruct the most in the world tells me my house is on fire, Im going to at least check my house! I didnt know he was a high school drop out... wow, I guess that means he manufactured all of the news footage? And we all know high school drop outs are always less intelligent and never amount to anything, right?

List of famous drop outs....

http://www.angelfire.com/stars4/lists/dropouts.html


And considering the government was able to keep the 911 attacks "real" truth a secret in some well thought out science fiction book plan and hide all the evidence you honestly think they would have allowed ANY of the WMD evidence they may have found to be tested by any independent lab? And if the US really wanted to go to war with Iraq why not just set it up to say Iraq and Hussein were directly involved? Again, they came up with this brilliant plan yet couldn't make up some evidence showing Hussein giving the order to do this? Just because everything is not crystal clear does not mean the whole thing was a giant conspiracy. The conspiracy 911 gang(well actually the conspiracy everything gang since most of the organizers believe in every conspiracy theory there is, in fact many are former JFK conspiracy book writers who have nothing else to do now) has yet to prove anything. Only speculation at best. Yet, with a few things that don't seem clear to the conspiracy gang that unequivicaly means it proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that it was government conspiracy. And everytime something is debunked, well, they come up with another reason to fill in the blank. "Oh well yeah I guess that wasn't true, but actually we can just jam some other random thought out of our heads to fill in the blank and now the conspiracy theory works again." In fact some of the producers of the government conspiracy "documentaries" have had to go back multiple times to edit their tape because of debunked evidence that is no longer valid.

Obviously they didnt keep the whole thing secret or all this would have gone away. A few things that dont seem clear? Exactly how many un answered legitimate questions and exactly how many coincidents are necessary for you to cry foul? I have seen little or no information here debunked at all. Rationalizing does not equal debunking. I have looked at the other sides inoformation with just as much objectivity and most of what I see is distubing rationalization to attemp toi explain their postion.

If I were going to plan a 9/11 as a pretext to invading Iraq, I'd have made all the hijackers Iraqi and not Saudi then I wouldn't have to make that silly WMD connection. But if I needed WMDs in Iraq, I'd have them put there in advance and at the right moment - viola!! Found them. I think I would have planned it so Dick Cheney found them on a hunting trip.

If 9/11 and Dallas were conspiracies, they sure didn't plan out the specifics all that well -heck, his "handlers" could at least have given Lee Oswald a semi so that whole "how many shots could he do" question went away, right?

On the other hand, we're often told if there was a conspiracy someone would have talked. No talk = no conspiracy. On that basis, I guess one person killed Jimmy Hoffa?

Oh well, interesting stuff to talk about, maybe that's it's worth.

If you remember correctly, 911 was used as a reason to go into Afgahnistan, not Iraq. The threat of WMD'S was the Iraqi reason. The use of Sauidi's goes along with the fact that Osama is a Saudi. I dont know if you remember the Congressional hearings on building the pipeline through afgahnistan or not prior to 911, but all those that testified from all the oil companies said how imperative it was. The Taliban wasnt going to let us do it, so we needed to do it anyway, etc.

The Project for the New American Century(PNAC), a proported neo-con think tank, wrote about the need for changes to keep america on top, rebiuld our defenses, etc. On page 63, it says "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic or catalyzing event - like a new pearl harbor."

http://www.newamericancentury.org/defensenationalsecurity2000.htm

then click on the report and go to page 63. If that peaks your interest, then start looking into who these people are and what jobs they were given in the current administration.

Just like the Operation Northwoods, the idea is to get popular support to invade...911 sure did that!

[otalps]

Another example of someone more concerned about where the info comesd from then the info itself. If the person I dislike and distruct the most in the world tells me my house is on fire, Im going to at least check my house! I didnt know he was a high school drop out... wow, I guess that means he manufactured all of the news footage? And we all know high school drop outs are always less intelligent and never amount to anything, right?

List of famous drop outs....

http://www.angelfire.com/stars4/lists/dropouts.html


Your link doesn't work.

The info provided in that link is ****. If Dylan Avery told me my house was on fire I'd kick him in the nuts, just sayin...

He is either a liar or a friggin idiot to come to his conclusions with his so called evidence. Ask yourself why he has to put out so many revisions of his story everytime a claim gets debunked.

A high school dropout that said Popular Mechanics should stick to writing about tractors is obviously an expert on how buildings might collapse.:rolleyes: He obviously does have a talent for getting those that PT Barnum spoke about over to his side though, I'll give him that.

If the only thing you can find in researching opposing ideas is a "distubing rationalization" then my first post in this thread stands.

Look up Operation Judgement. Maybe it was the British that actually bombed Pear Harbor...:TFH:

[MP301]

Guys, why do some of you even take this stuff from MP301 even remotely seriously? It's almost like he was SemiautoSam.

Well I dont know who Semiautosam is, but the ones that are taking it seriously actually read and saw and digested the info....does that make them stupid or nuts too?


Your link doesn't work.

The info provided in that link is ****. If Dylan Avery told me my house was on fire I'd kick him in the nuts, just sayin...

He is either a liar or a friggin idiot to come to his conclusions with his so called evidence. Ask yourself why he has to put out so many revisions of his story everytime a claim gets debunked.

A high school dropout that said Popular Mechanics should stick to writing about tractors is obviously an expert on how buildings might collapse.:rolleyes: He obviously does have a talent for getting those that PT Barnum spoke about over to his side though, I'll give him that.

If the only thing you can find in researching opposing ideas is a "distubing rationalization" then my first post in this thread stands.

Look up Operation Judgement. Maybe it was the British that actually bombed Pear Harbor...:TFH:

This is funny. Ill tell you what, if you or anyone else wants to debunk any of this info, then debunk it. I have not heard one of you say anything of substance to debunk any of this...What I see is personal attacks (the sign of a really weak position) or vague information about someone revising something because someone else debunked what he said yada yada yada.

And did you see the debate with Popular Mechanics? I thought PM was gonna finally shoot things down, but i didnt know how they were going to do it.....What I saw was weak BS on PM's part...didnt have to be that smart to see that....Do you think their access to Government sourcesm whom they rely deeply on for their magazine might be affected if they dont tow the government line?

Why not debunk this using facts, not rationalzations.....Anyone can rationalize anything.... sound like a plan?

[MP301]

I chalange everyone to watch this...all of this

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5386487651203625811

[MP301]

mp301 i know that you have an extensive amount of knowledge on all of the conspiracies that you've gathered from the Internet and blogs. btw loose change has been debunked rather easily and in fact the creators admitted that they incorrect on a lot of their assumptions so i guess you not up to date(no i will not find a link for you find it yourself) as for plans to bomb us soil to frame Cuba i have no doubt they are true, we also had a program to weaponize lsd and a whole plethora of weird ideas. there's a video of lsd being tested on troops (again no i will not find it for you) if there's one thing the government loves doing it making bizarre plans. do you think fdr was behind pearl harbor too, the us had actionable Intel before the attack... i mean with all the things that didn't work out do you think there is a conspiracy this was already mentioned but if it was a conspiracy the hijacked would have been Iraqi and if wmds were still in play how hard it is to have a black helicopter deliver one to be found and then use the mind erasing thing from men in black on the crew. but seriously i guess you are easily swayed by an amateur video by college kids too afraid to enlist with too much time on their hands.

You think that loose change was enough to get my curiousity or that im easily swayed? You think I just saw some amatuer video and decided it must be true?

Id like to know your opinion of this video. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5386487651203625811

And if you want me to consider your info, next time provide a link out of courtesy....

And try not to spend all your time just trying to find dirt on the messeger....look at the actual information for a change...

[oddball]

I chalange everyone to watch this...all of this

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5386487651203625811

I've seen it before. Unfortunately.

Please.

[Glock22Fan]

Some also say there was evidence that we the government knew that the Japanese were off our coast before Pearl Harbor.

This is undisputed fact. The British, at their Bletchley Park facility, had intercepted an Enigma coded message from Tokyo to their ambassador in Washington, instructing him to present a war declaration to the US Government. The ambassador clearly found this hard to believe as a series of messages was intercepted asking Tokyo to confirm and clarify their instructions. Other messages intercepted refered to the imminent attack on Pearl Harbor. The British passed all this information on to the Americans, who found it so incredible that they ignored it. The declaration of war was never presented as, by the time the Ambassador got his ducks in a row, Pearl Harbor had already happened.

I believe that there were also reports from US aircraft of the Japanese fleet approaching Pearl Harbor, and that these reports were also ignored.

Bletchley Park has never been given the general credit it deserved. For most of the war, the British were reading most of our enemies' mail - both German and Japanese and (I think) Italian. They were tight with the distribution (to protect the knowledge that interception was happening) but things like this were shared.

Bletchley Park was the setting for an atrocious movie ("Enigma, 2002). However, the plot was typical hollywood drivel which did Bletchley Park no service whatsoever.

Anyone who wishes to do further research can google Bletchley Park, Enigma and Ultra (the code classification given to the intelligence gleaned.)

[pdq_wizzard]

And we all know high school drop outs are always less intelligent and never amount to anything, right?

List of famous drop outs....

http://www.angelfire.com/stars4/lists/dropouts.html



WOW this tells me not to let your kids drop out of school, most on this list are big time libs.

[Bugei]

Has there ever been a better time to attack our gun rights in a significant way then after the new administration takes control?

Yes. The last days of the current lame-duck president. He always said that he'd sign a renewal of the federal AW ban if it hit his desk, and the current House and Senate could land it there. He's already outraged his base and is concerned that his legacy with citizens not in his base is one of an unpopular war (or two), an economy that's in the tank, a huge budget deficit and an approval rating we usually reserve for Third World cannibal dictators.

It is at least conceivable that he would sign such a bill between now and January.

Nope. I don't think this will happen. But it would be a better time for the Universal Citizen Disarmament faction to make their play, in that...
1) the President-Elect couldn't be tarnished with it
2) the outgoing President wouldn't really take much of a hit, because he is just plain finished.

[Bruce]

Guys, why do some of you even take this stuff from MP301 even remotely seriously? It's almost like he was SemiautoSam.

He probably is. :eek:

[nick]

i believe it would be the biggest mistake of his carrer to try to push gun laws right now. with people loosing jobs left and right and the economy in the tank why would someone push laws that effect people that are already struggling. with crime and murder most likely to be on the rise with this crisis going on,it is my opinion that it is going to be a very volitile situation.

Well, that's how we got the NFA :)

[Gator Monroe]

15 YEARS (Tops) of Private firearms ownership left so enjoy :sleeping:

[MP301]

This is undisputed fact. The British, at their Bletchley Park facility, had intercepted an Enigma coded message from Tokyo to their ambassador in Washington, instructing him to present a war declaration to the US Government. The ambassador clearly found this hard to believe as a series of messages was intercepted asking Tokyo to confirm and clarify their instructions. Other messages intercepted refered to the imminent attack on Pearl Harbor. The British passed all this information on to the Americans, who found it so incredible that they ignored it. The declaration of war was never presented as, by the time the Ambassador got his ducks in a row, Pearl Harbor had already happened.

I believe that there were also reports from US aircraft of the Japanese fleet approaching Pearl Harbor, and that these reports were also ignored.

Bletchley Park has never been given the general credit it deserved. For most of the war, the British were reading most of our enemies' mail - both German and Japanese and (I think) Italian. They were tight with the distribution (to protect the knowledge that interception was happening) but things like this were shared.

Bletchley Park was the setting for an atrocious movie ("Enigma, 2002). However, the plot was typical hollywood drivel which did Bletchley Park no service whatsoever.

Anyone who wishes to do further research can google Bletchley Park, Enigma and Ultra (the code classification given to the intelligence gleaned.)

I have not really looked into the pearl harbor info very much, but it does not surprise me. But hey, you can tell by others that have posted on this thread that it cant be true! :confused:

WOW this tells me not to let your kids drop out of school, most on this list are big time libs.

Sorry, i didnt read it that close....maybe your right....scary! I wonder why Einstein wasnt on that list, he was a drop out too if memory serves.... Im thinking at least he was not a lib hopefully....

[Mute]

I have not really looked into the pearl harbor info very much, but it does not surprise me. But hey, you can tell by others that have posted on this thread that it cant be true! :confused:

No. The difference is there is actual, physical evidence to support the claims about pearl harbor (besides conjecture). Where is there ANY such evidence in regards to 9/11?

Sorry, i didnt read it that close....maybe your right....scary! I wonder why Einstein wasnt on that list, he was a drop out too if memory serves.... Im thinking at least he was not a lib hopefully....

Maybe you should try reading things more carefully before using them to support your argument.

[dwa]

You think that loose change was enough to get my curiousity or that im easily swayed? You think I just saw some amatuer video and decided it must be true?

Id like to know your opinion of this video. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5386487651203625811

And if you want me to consider your info, next time provide a link out of courtesy....

And try not to spend all your time just trying to find dirt on the messeger....look at the actual information for a change...

same crap different soundtrack, there is nothing you've said to refute, just amateur drivel by attention hungry Bigfoot hunters who saw a career opportunity. scum like you and your irrational ilk tarnish the memory of those who were lost. dont bother responding with your inevitable "ohh im so right you had to use name calling" act i wont be wasting my time with you.

[rbgaynor]

This is undisputed fact. The British, at their Bletchley Park facility, had intercepted an Enigma coded message from Tokyo to their ambassador in Washington, instructing him to present a war declaration to the US Government. The ambassador clearly found this hard to believe as a series of messages was intercepted asking Tokyo to confirm and clarify their instructions. Other messages intercepted refered to the imminent attack on Pearl Harbor. The British passed all this information on to the Americans, who found it so incredible that they ignored it. The declaration of war was never presented as, by the time the Ambassador got his ducks in a row, Pearl Harbor had already happened.


Enigma was a German cypher machine, not a Japanese cypher machine (although the Japanese did have something that was similar). The "undisputed" fact you mention is in fact widely disputed (by credible sources), here from an IEEE history:

Nor were the Germans the only targets for Station X -- the code breakers were able to monitor the Japanese preparations for war. The suggestion that they knew of the imminent attack on Pearl Harbor but kept quiet in order to ensure America joined the war is nonsense. But their expertise undoubtedly gave great assistance to the American code breakers.

http://www.ieee.org/web/aboutus/history_center/bletchleypark.html

[.454]

I chalange everyone to watch this...all of this

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5386487651203625811

Dude...I chalange you to perform an easy magic trick: disappear.



Go away troll.

[mvpatriot]

Blind faith is a dangerous thing....

:sits atop fence with grin:::

[Capt Jack]

To the OP, great post!

Gave me some things to think about. I also think it was pretty clear that you mentioned the "inside job" theory of 911 as being a widely held conspiracy theory. I hate to say it but it seems to be the norm on internet forums to resort to personal attacks when someone doesn't agree with a post and Calguns is sadly not immune to that.

You should have seen some of the posts in the Election forum! I actually had to take a break from Calguns for a while as I couldn't stand otherwise reasonable people spewing so much hate on both sides :rolleyes:

Oh and welcome to Calguns!

[Glock22Fan]

Enigma was a German cypher machine, not a Japanese cypher machine (although the Japanese did have something that was similar). The "undisputed" fact you mention is in fact widely disputed (by credible sources), here from an IEEE history:

http://www.ieee.org/web/aboutus/history_center/bletchleypark.html

Added: I checked that page. What the author said was that the idea that Britain knew about the impending attack and didn't tell the Americans (to drag them into the war) was nonsense. I said (based on official British government papers reported in non-fiction books I've read, written when the Ultra secret was first released in the 70's) that they did know and did tell. These two statements are not contradictory. (Hint: If I said that the idea that Bill Gates was rich but never gave anything to charity was nonsense, would that mean that Bill Gates was poor?)

Yes, Enigma was German, I didn't say it wasn't. They gave one, IIRC, to the Japanese to copy and the code breaking worked on the Japanese codes pretty well the same as on the German.

Enigma/Ultra was kept secret for some thirty years, resulting in a series of books in the late 70's about their achievements. I read a number of these, based on official British government releases, and they all related the story as I related it above.

[MP301]

same crap different soundtrack, there is nothing you've said to refute, just amateur drivel by attention hungry Bigfoot hunters who saw a career opportunity. scum like you and your irrational ilk tarnish the memory of those who were lost. dont bother responding with your inevitable "ohh im so right you had to use name calling" act i wont be wasting my time with you.

Why would you call me scum? You better remember that you dont know me, and although its easy to talk a lot of crap like some 8 year old sneaking onto moms computer, it is not very smart or mature. Im glad you will no longer be wasting your time here...good luck.

Dude...I chalange you to perform an easy magic trick: disappear.

Go away troll.

I didnt ask you to read post on this thread. Im sorry if you cant figure out how to get the video to play.... your more then welcome to go away yourself now


I 2nd that!
Blind faith is a dangerous thing....

:sits atop fence with grin:::

To the OP, great post!

Gave me some things to think about. I also think it was pretty clear that you mentioned the "inside job" theory of 911 as being a widely held conspiracy theory. I hate to say it but it seems to be the norm on internet forums to resort to personal attacks when someone doesn't agree with a post and Calguns is sadly not immune to that.

You should have seen some of the posts in the Election forum! I actually had to take a break from Calguns for a while as I couldn't stand otherwise reasonable people spewing so much hate on both sides :rolleyes:

Oh and welcome to Calguns!

Yeah, I see that Calguns is not immune to that type of behavior after this thread! Funny how easy it is behind the safety of a computer to make personal attacks.... I dont normaly get pesonal attacks in person! Oh well, hopefully those folks are not really as bad as they sound.