Anti-Neocons Forum

proposition H passed yesterday... handguns are now illegal inside city limits, and everybody with one must turn it in to the police by april 1, 2006. The sale, manufacture, transfer, and/or distribution of ALL firearms and ammunition is now illegal inside san francisco.

well guys, get ready for a huge upsurge in violence and crime in San Francisco in the coming years. now, law abiding citizens who are responsible enough to own a weapon are denied the right... yet criminals and gang members will still have theirs. it is foolish to think that criminals will turn in their weapons in the face of this new legislation.

thank you very much san francisco... not only have you essentially taken a fat shit on the Constitution of the United States of America AND taken away our city's defense against an oppressive federal government, but you have handed over control of our streets over to criminals and gangs.

Gun control is a huge step toward control, oppression, and a police state. I would like to thank you again, san francisco citizens, for handing our lives over to the criminals... not only on the steets, but also in the police force and in Washington DC.


-Scott

okay that sucks!

i'm beginning to think we all need to go the other way and all get guns, which is quite a departure for me but something i'm seeing as more and more necessary these days. so this is not good news at all.

i'm also still very bothered that they took guns away in NOLA.

I'm not a huge gun fan. I think that we DO need sensible gun control. Now, having said that, I think that San Francisco's new law will be challenged in court and it will be overturned based on the second ammendment. Plain and simple. I'm not against guns, I am, however, against the neocon gun industry and gun lobbyists...like everything else, there are extremists to the issue, and then there is me. haha..don't worry, brimofinsanity, this law will not stand.

Left of Larry wrote:I'm not a huge gun fan. I think that we DO need sensible gun control. Now, having said that, I think that San Francisco's new law will be challenged in court and it will be overturned based on the second ammendment. Plain and simple. I'm not against guns, I am, however, against the neocon gun industry and gun lobbyists...like everything else, there are extremists to the issue, and then there is me. haha..don't worry, brimofinsanity, this law will not stand.

the NRA has already sued the city... we can only hope the law will be overturned

brimofinsanity wrote: the NRA has already sued the city... we can only hope the law will be overturned

It will be overturned based on constitutional grounds. The city has tried this before I believe and it has failed in the court system. From what I understand, people are pissed that tax dollars are even spent on this, cause it is a basic violation of the 2nd ammendment. Even from a lefty like me, I understand that.

"sensible gun control"

Just be careful here. This is clever spin.

I say this not to debate the issue, but to make you aware that it's the only thing protecting the people from a tyrannical government.

It's not about going hunting with a bazooka. It's about making sure the government doesn't over-step. Take away the standing army, take away guns from cops, and I'll listen to "sensible gun control", although I'd lend more of an ear to sensible gun ownership.

Politicians are in the busines to obtain votes. How do you obtain votes if you say, "I'm just going to govern and stay out of people's business"?

You must present a "cause", then you will obtain "voters". Sensible gun control, abortion, outlaw smoking, outlaw alchohol, outlaw anything that will get you "votes". There are many that will vote if you take up their "cause". Most people just don't want to be bothered and prefer that you "mind your business".

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



"Mind your business" is always good advice. In fact, this was the motto on the very first coins of the United States of America. These copper cents were authorized on April 21, 1787.

Starting in colonial days and continuing through revolutionary times, coins were struck by private individuals. The governments of New Jersey, Massachusetts, and a few other states also issued coins. It wasn't until 1787 that Congress got around to creating truly national, truly American cents.

This was two years before the present Constitution was adopted. We were still operating under the Articles of Confederation in those days. Therefore, it is not surprising that these first American coins were humble tokens of a hesitant central government. The idea of honoring the president of Congress -- or anyone else -- on the coppers would have been an abhorrent reminder of the British monarchy. The eagle was not yet the national emblem.

The first coins of the United States showed a sundial with the legend "Fugio", meaning "I fly." The sundial refers to time, so the message was that "Time flies." Under the sundial is the motto, "Mind your business." On the reverse of these cents is a chain with 13 links. The legend on the reverse says, "We are one." All of these mottos are attributed to Benjamin Franklin and collectors call these "Fugio cents" or "Franklin cents."

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

When we look at ruby ridge or more at WACO, this was an attempt to paint a religious group as paramilitary dissidents. Wich was not true. They used this event as a way to endorse not only the BATF but, "sensible gun control". Yet it was the BATF and FBI that committed the crimes.

During the late 90's, there was another group, "The free-men of Montana". This was another standoff due in part to what they saw at waco, but also because they challenged the federal reserve.

In any case, you should watch the emmy award winning documentary "WACO: Rules of Engagement" for some sensible gun ownership background...I don't like guns either, but without them, nothing stops DHS from kicking down your door and sending you to gitmo. Knowing there is a gun behind the door, makes them think twice.(although at WACO they didn't care and the branch davidians had some heavy firepower.)

Do you think DHS will stop at your door if they know you have .22, while they turn your home into swiss cheese? This is what happened at ruby ridge/waco.

Once you give an inch, they want a yard, you give them a yard, and they want a mile. Somewhere you must draw the line between freedom and tyranny...if that means guns, then so be it. It's a deterrent, just like Nukes, it's called MAD, mutually assured destruction.(politicians love invading third world countries without nukes, because they have nothing to worry about). Look at Iraq.

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion of your walks." --Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785. ME 5:85, Papers 8:407

"One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them." --Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796. ME 9:341

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it. " Thomas Jefferson

"The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." -James Madison

---------------------
ATF: a mixed heritage

THE U.S. GOVERNMENT LIED, AND LIED AGAIN
The waco holocaust

Waco: The Rules of Engagement
http://www.waco93.com/

ect wrote:"sensible gun control"

Just be careful here. This is clever spin.

I say this not to debate the issue, but to make you aware that it's the only thing protecting the people from a tyrannical government.

It's not about going hunting with a bazooka. It's about making sure the government doesn't over-step. Take away the standing army, take away guns from cops, and I'll listen to "sensible gun control", although I'd lend more of an ear to sensible gun ownership.

Politicians are in the busines to obtain votes. How do you obtain votes if you say, "I'm just going to govern and stay out of people's business"?

You must present a "cause", then you will obtain "voters". Sensible gun control, abortion, outlaw smoking, outlaw alchohol, outlaw anything that will get you "votes". There are many that will vote if you take up their "cause". Most people just don't want to be bothered and prefer that you "mind your business".

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



"Mind your business" is always good advice. In fact, this was the motto on the very first coins of the United States of America. These copper cents were authorized on April 21, 1787.

Starting in colonial days and continuing through revolutionary times, coins were struck by private individuals. The governments of New Jersey, Massachusetts, and a few other states also issued coins. It wasn't until 1787 that Congress got around to creating truly national, truly American cents.

This was two years before the present Constitution was adopted. We were still operating under the Articles of Confederation in those days. Therefore, it is not surprising that these first American coins were humble tokens of a hesitant central government. The idea of honoring the president of Congress -- or anyone else -- on the coppers would have been an abhorrent reminder of the British monarchy. The eagle was not yet the national emblem.

The first coins of the United States showed a sundial with the legend "Fugio", meaning "I fly." The sundial refers to time, so the message was that "Time flies." Under the sundial is the motto, "Mind your business." On the reverse of these cents is a chain with 13 links. The legend on the reverse says, "We are one." All of these mottos are attributed to Benjamin Franklin and collectors call these "Fugio cents" or "Franklin cents."

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

When we look at ruby ridge or more at WACO, this was an attempt to paint a religious group as paramilitary dissidents. Wich was not true. They used this event as a way to endorse not only the BATF but, "sensible gun control". Yet it was the BATF and FBI that committed the crimes.

During the late 90's, there was another group, "The free-men of Montana". This was another standoff due in part to what they saw at waco, but also because they challenged the federal reserve.

In any case, you should watch the emmy award winning documentary "WACO: Rules of Engagement" for some sensible gun ownership background...I don't like guns either, but without them, nothing stops DHS from kicking down your door and sending you to gitmo. Knowing there is a gun behind the door, makes them think twice.(although at WACO they didn't care and the branch davidians had some heavy firepower.)

Do you think DHS will stop at your door if they know you have .22, while they turn your home into swiss cheese? This is what happened at ruby ridge/waco.

Once you give an inch, they want a yard, you give them a yard, and they want a mile. Somewhere you must draw the line between freedom and tyranny...if that means guns, then so be it. It's a deterrent, just like Nukes, it's called MAD, mutually assured destruction.(politicians love invading third world countries without nukes, because they have nothing to worry about). Look at Iraq.

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion of your walks." --Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785. ME 5:85, Papers 8:407

"One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them." --Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796. ME 9:341

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it. " Thomas Jefferson

"The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." -James Madison

---------------------
ATF: a mixed heritage

THE U.S. GOVERNMENT LIED, AND LIED AGAIN
The waco holocaust

Waco: The Rules of Engagement
http://www.waco93.com/

I agree in part, because I do believe in the constitution. Believe me my views on "sensible gun control/ownership" etc..are moderating to the center as opposed to the far left, where they used to be not too long ago. I blame gun problems on what I blame just about everthing else...corporate greed. And I do hate the NRA, I will never, ever associate myself to the NRA they are too extreme on the far right and are run by a bunch of neocons who use the gun issue just to get votes. And ironically they want to tout the 2nd ammendment while at the same time shit on the 1st ammendment. And if these neocons want government to stay out of guns they why do they support government getting between you and your sexual partner and have government between you and your docotor's medical decisions?

The part I don't understand is this..do you really think...that no matter how many guns are in people's hands that a civil war or a governmnet take over will actually happen, realistically? Even though we have much corruption and many problems to deal with, do people really think that an oklahoma like mentality is the way to go? See, that is the difference between me and most gun rights extreme activists, they keep touting this, we got to protect ourselves against the government...uh..seriouly now...do you really think you are going to start a civil war? I talk to a libertarian here at work, huge gun nut, and all he talks about is a civil war...civil war...ARM YOURSELVES CAUSE A CIVIL WAR IS LOOMING. I just dont think that is a healthy mentality to have, especially when you're packing enough heat to start a war anyway.

Left of Larry wrote:
I agree in part, because I do believe in the constitution. Believe me my views on "sensible gun control/ownership" etc..are moderating to the center as opposed to the far left, where they used to be not too long ago. I blame gun problems on what I blame just about everthing else...corporate greed. And I do hate the NRA, I will never, ever associate myself to the NRA they are too extreme on the far right and are run by a bunch of neocons who use the gun issue just to get votes. And ironically they want to tout the 2nd ammendment while at the same time shit on the 1st ammendment. And if these neocons want government to stay out of guns they why do they support government getting between you and your sexual partner and have government between you and your docotor's medical decisions?

The part I don't understand is this..do you really think...that no matter how many guns are in people's hands that a civil war or a governmnet take over will actually happen, realistically? Even though we have much corruption and many problems to deal with, do people really think that an oklahoma like mentality is the way to go? See, that is the difference between me and most gun rights extreme activists, they keep touting this, we got to protect ourselves against the government...uh..seriouly now...do you really think you are going to start a civil war? I talk to a libertarian here at work, huge gun nut, and all he talks about is a civil war...civil war...ARM YOURSELVES CAUSE A CIVIL WAR IS LOOMING. I just dont think that is a healthy mentality to have, especially when you're packing enough heat to start a war anyway.

Does civil war really seem that far out of question? Hearing the governments plans for the bird flu which involves city quarintines and other fun measures, how long will it be till the governement goes so far over the line that the general population notices? And when that happens its going to be some big shit, and considering the people I met every day, violence will solve anything as far as theyre concerned.

I think civil war is inevitable, though I have no real time frame on the subject and I dont own any guns, just lots of metal baseball bats and hatchets. I guess Ill have to mooch if it comes to that. "Hey buddy, can I borrow your 12 gauge?"

King Kento wrote:

Left of Larry wrote:
I agree in part, because I do believe in the constitution. Believe me my views on "sensible gun control/ownership" etc..are moderating to the center as opposed to the far left, where they used to be not too long ago. I blame gun problems on what I blame just about everthing else...corporate greed. And I do hate the NRA, I will never, ever associate myself to the NRA they are too extreme on the far right and are run by a bunch of neocons who use the gun issue just to get votes. And ironically they want to tout the 2nd ammendment while at the same time shit on the 1st ammendment. And if these neocons want government to stay out of guns they why do they support government getting between you and your sexual partner and have government between you and your docotor's medical decisions?

The part I don't understand is this..do you really think...that no matter how many guns are in people's hands that a civil war or a governmnet take over will actually happen, realistically? Even though we have much corruption and many problems to deal with, do people really think that an oklahoma like mentality is the way to go? See, that is the difference between me and most gun rights extreme activists, they keep touting this, we got to protect ourselves against the government...uh..seriouly now...do you really think you are going to start a civil war? I talk to a libertarian here at work, huge gun nut, and all he talks about is a civil war...civil war...ARM YOURSELVES CAUSE A CIVIL WAR IS LOOMING. I just dont think that is a healthy mentality to have, especially when you're packing enough heat to start a war anyway.

Does civil war really seem that far out of question? Hearing the governments plans for the bird flu which involves city quarintines and other fun measures, how long will it be till the governement goes so far over the line that the general population notices? And when that happens its going to be some big shit, and considering the people I met every day, violence will solve anything as far as theyre concerned.

I think civil war is inevitable, though I have no real time frame on the subject and I dont own any guns, just lots of metal baseball bats and hatchets. I guess Ill have to mooch if it comes to that. "Hey buddy, can I borrow your 12 gauge?"

Well, I think that no matter (uh oh..is this the moderate in me coming out?) how bad things are here, this country is still a great country and without going into nationalism, I am proud to be part of this. That is why I think change should come politically not violently. There are good things in this country lets not forget it. I am as much of an anti-2 party system, anti-neocon as everyone else, however, I dont' think that violence (and I am being hypocriticla to my Marxist views here, as I said, the moderate in me comes out everyonce in a while) is the answer. Change can happen, but we need education not guns to do it. And when I say education, I don't mean Intelligent Designe either.

And as far as the gun comment. I don't own a gun either, I would have to borrow one myslef it shit really did hit the fan..lol

Well, you'll be happy to know that I am not a member of the NRA. heheh.

I did not advocate civil war, nor do I advocate violence against government...only in self-defence do I advocate using guns against criminals and/or a tyrannical goverrment. This is the beauty of the second amendment. It's based on trust. It's true people will violate that trust, including the government. This is why I advocate sensible gun ownership. I just have a problem with "control", because once you accept that term, you might here in the future..."sensible free speech control". Free speech zones?

The liberterian you speak of thinks he is a liberterian, and only uses that as a launching point to "make his case" for his perticular party faction.

You don't have to worry about civil war, or "gun nuts", it's about using fear to get votes...This is my point about MAD.

Would you call me crazy if I told you that I think OKC was "a failure of imagination", in order to save face on "waco".

"see, see, we have nuts that will use waco to justify bombing FBI buildings and killing children....WE MUST HAVE SENSIBLE GUN CONTROL".

Like I said, just be careful here. Just because one guy uses waco as justification for civil war and/or bombing buildings...doesn't mean it's true. Would you think I was crazy if I told you that a good way to get what you want is by using...problem, reaction, solution methods.

This is an old trick used throughout history.

How do you know your co-worker isn't a fed? Looking to provoke you into doing something "crazy". This is how COINTEL worked. Start or join a group, then call out the leader as soft, and take it over. From that point you can direct, manipulate, and/or watch them.

There was an old joke, the only people who join political groups are the fbi. This is not to say that ALL groups are being directed by the feds, but there is documented factual evidence and investigations...and this is exactly what they did. From the KKK to the "new left" movement.

What if the current regime would like to see a civil war...then they would be able to justify a military police state and detention of the "crazies"(wich is what they are doing). Who are the crazies(terrorists)? Anyone they say.

Like I said, be careful here. Sometimes things are not always the way they seem. In order to catch criminals and/or stop a fascist regime, you must think like a criminal or fascist. Failure to look at fascist tactics and methods, will hinder you in looking things at differen't angles. If it weren't for conspiracy theories, cops could never catch criminals.

By openly discussing this, by not being afraid to discuss these things, it will create awareness, and it will start a revolution...a revolution of ideas. If you don't change the way people think, expect more of the same. This is what an open free society is about, it's not about FEAR.

Thus, if my plan was to take away guns, I would begin by creating the problem, expecting the reaction, and subsequently...provide the solution.

We already had a civil war and we already had a revolution. All the tools are provided to stop government from the slow encroachment of civil liberties and rights. You just need to be aware of them and know how to use them in a way that doesn't scare people, like your libertarian friend.

I suggest you watch the documentary and tell your friend to look deeper into OKC..

Would you be surprised if I told you the same clean up crew at OKC, was the same one at the WTC....FEMA & controlled demolition inc.

SURPRISE!

This is not to scare you, it's to make you aware, that things are not always the way they seem. This is critical thinking, fascist governments hate that more then guns. As we can see.

"The advancement and diffusion of knowledge is the only guardian of true liberty." -James Madison

"I was bold in the pursuit of knowledge, never fearing to follow truth and reason to whatever results they led, and bearding every authority which stood in their way. " - Thomas Jefferson