PlanetChee Posted June 6, 2017 Group: Senior Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 791 Content Per Day: 0.31 Reputation: 547 Days Won: 1 Joined: 05/20/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted June 6, 2017 2 minutes ago, Saved.One.by.Grace said: Well said. I believe we will see a few Hollywood types converting to the Muslim religion soon, if they haven't already. Hollywood elites that are under studio contract will do what they're told if they expect to work. Those that are free thinkers and don't follow the whip don't work. That's part of what inspired Independent film stuhttp://ubdavid.org/advanced/great-salvation/great-salvation8.htmldios. Those artists just weren't going to have their art owned by one big syndicate. Hollywood elites think people follow them like they're guru's or something. That's why "Rock the Vote" came out years ago. Then movie and personality TV show celebs got on the program and started telling people to vote thinking the young demographic that follow them would. Paris Hilton was one of those celebs. Unfortunately, when asked about her promoting the vote and asked if she voted she answered yes! She's registered in two states. Two states. It's amazing how the world is turning now. Anything of truth about Islam is being overshadowed by the false propagandizers. When was the last time our own President uttered the words , Muslim terrorists ? I don't think it is him, I think it is what we've always heard about behind the curtain of power in the U.S. and the world. His handlers tell him what to say. And what not to say. Can't tick off people that explode when they're angry. Bad for business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PlanetChee Posted June 6, 2017 Group: Senior Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 791 Content Per Day: 0.31 Reputation: 547 Days Won: 1 Joined: 05/20/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted June 6, 2017 2 hours ago, other one said: The gunlaws shouldnt change unless the citizens want them changed. If the majority do not the laws changed they should not be changed.... however if. I lived there and they deny me the means to protect myself, they should be both physically and financially responsible for my safety. That's where civil disobedience comes in. Any government that attempts to disarm their population is worthy of being overthrown by that armed citizenry. Years ago in London a British soldier that served in their band was savagely attacked on a London street in broad daylight by two British born citizens who converted to Islam. Disarmed didn't mean unable to exact violence against an unarmed innocent man walking down the sidewalk. These two savages used a meat cleaver and a machete to murder this poor man. Ultimately they cut his head off. What did the citizens in that area do to help this screaming soul? They took out their phones and recorded the whole thing while waiting for cops armed with batons and mace to respond. Unable to do anything, those cops had to call armed cops. Response time is imperative in a life or death situation. It took long minutes before the second able to be armed by law bunch arrived. By then the poor mans head was on his back. Then one of these evil men walked up to a woman that was steady filming with her phone. And gave his message as to why they did this. No one tried to help in any way. But they did film it for what? And they uploaded it to the net. For what? Have that happen in America, in say Arizona where people are able to carry concealed, and I doubt the same outcome would occur. That's why gun registration in this country was a bad idea and should have been opposed. If the government knows what weapons you have, in a disarm campaign they can arrive at your home and know exactly what arms to take into custody. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
other one Posted June 6, 2017 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 29 Topic Count: 598 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 56,127 Content Per Day: 7.56 Reputation: 27,855 Days Won: 271 Joined: 12/29/2003 Status: Online Share Posted June 6, 2017 Personally at 70, I don't relish spending the next 5 to 10 years to make a point. And if I was 25, I would be very cautious about being tagged as a felon, for it totally screws up your life. It's one thing to be civilly disobedient in a group, but on the individual level a huge price can have to be paid. Be sure you are really ready to pay that price. Better to join groups to stop any laws that would take our guns. One should give very much thought to that "cold dead hand" thing. Is it really worth that price? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayin jade Posted June 6, 2017 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 44 Topic Count: 6,178 Topics Per Day: 0.88 Content Count: 43,795 Content Per Day: 6.21 Reputation: 11,243 Days Won: 58 Joined: 01/03/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted June 6, 2017 6 hours ago, Running Gator said: It is not about rumors, it is about facts. First, for Hitler to have made that statement he would have been praising the efforts of the previous leadership, the Weimar Republic as it was called. He would not have done this as his whole rise to power was fighting against them. Second, we know that once he had full power he basically undid all gun control laws with the exception of outlawing Jews from owning guns. It is not about rumors, it is about history. The only side I am on is the one of truth and accuracy. Hmm not quite as you portray it. The same arguments for and against (gun control) were made in the 1920s in the chaos of Germany’s Weimar Republic, which opted for gun registration. Law-abiding persons complied with the law, but the Communists and Nazis committing acts of political violence did not. In 1931, Weimar authorities discovered plans for a Nazi takeover in which Jews would be denied food and persons refusing to surrender their guns within 24 hours would be executed. They were written by Werner Best, a future Gestapo official. In reaction to such threats, the government authorized the registration of all firearms and the confiscation thereof, if required for “public safety.” The interior minister warned that the records must not fall into the hands of any extremist group. In 1933, the ultimate extremist group, led by Adolf Hitler, seized power and used the records to identify, disarm, and attack political opponents and Jews. Constitutional rights were suspended, and mass searches for and seizures of guns and dissident publications ensued. Police revoked gun licenses of Social Democrats and others who were not “politically reliable.” During the five years of repression that followed, society was “cleansed” by the National Socialist regime. Undesirables were placed in camps where labor made them “free,” and normal rights of citizenship were taken from Jews. The Gestapo banned independent gun clubs and arrested their leaders. Gestapo counsel Werner Best issued a directive to the police forbidding issuance of firearm permits to Jews. In 1938, Hitler signed a new Gun Control Act. Now that many “enemies of the state” had been removed from society, some restrictions could be slightly liberalized, especially for Nazi Party members. But Jews were prohibited from working in the firearms industry, and .22 caliber hollow-point ammunition was banned. Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/365103/how-nazis-used-gun-control-stephen-p-halbrook Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SchmaltzWeasel Posted June 6, 2017 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 1 Topic Count: 4 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 187 Content Per Day: 0.07 Reputation: 141 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/29/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted June 6, 2017 Hitler! How is it Hitler comes into this discussion? Oh that's right. He was the only dictator that ever made history. If Hitler wanted his Reich to live 1000 years he must have had a vision of the Internet and Godwin's law that would actually stand a chance of making that happen just by reference to Hitler and his Reich. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorningGlory Posted June 6, 2017 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1,022 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 39,193 Content Per Day: 6.11 Reputation: 9,977 Days Won: 78 Joined: 10/01/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted June 6, 2017 On 6/5/2017 at 2:43 PM, PlanetChee said: True. They don't have men like Churchill in Britain today. God be with the British people. Their government made them sitting ducks . Lambs to the slaughter for a terrorist cult intending to own their lands. I can't imagine parliament will convene and give guns to the citizens. They're going to let it be and suffer the consequences. The way to not have to wait for government to grant you weapons? Don't give them up in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PlanetChee Posted June 6, 2017 Group: Senior Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 791 Content Per Day: 0.31 Reputation: 547 Days Won: 1 Joined: 05/20/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted June 6, 2017 7 minutes ago, MorningGlory said: The way to not have to wait for government to grant you weapons? Don't give them up in the first place. Exactly! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Running Gator Posted June 6, 2017 Group: Royal Member * Followers: 8 Topic Count: 91 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 10,596 Content Per Day: 3.69 Reputation: 2,743 Days Won: 25 Joined: 06/16/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted June 6, 2017 2 hours ago, ayin jade said: Hmm not quite as you portray it. The same arguments for and against (gun control) were made in the 1920s in the chaos of Germany’s Weimar Republic, which opted for gun registration. Law-abiding persons complied with the law, but the Communists and Nazis committing acts of political violence did not. In 1931, Weimar authorities discovered plans for a Nazi takeover in which Jews would be denied food and persons refusing to surrender their guns within 24 hours would be executed. They were written by Werner Best, a future Gestapo official. In reaction to such threats, the government authorized the registration of all firearms and the confiscation thereof, if required for “public safety.” The interior minister warned that the records must not fall into the hands of any extremist group. In 1933, the ultimate extremist group, led by Adolf Hitler, seized power and used the records to identify, disarm, and attack political opponents and Jews. Constitutional rights were suspended, and mass searches for and seizures of guns and dissident publications ensued. Police revoked gun licenses of Social Democrats and others who were not “politically reliable.” During the five years of repression that followed, society was “cleansed” by the National Socialist regime. Undesirables were placed in camps where labor made them “free,” and normal rights of citizenship were taken from Jews. The Gestapo banned independent gun clubs and arrested their leaders. Gestapo counsel Werner Best issued a directive to the police forbidding issuance of firearm permits to Jews. In 1938, Hitler signed a new Gun Control Act. Now that many “enemies of the state” had been removed from society, some restrictions could be slightly liberalized, especially for Nazi Party members. But Jews were prohibited from working in the firearms industry, and .22 caliber hollow-point ammunition was banned. Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/365103/how-nazis-used-gun-control-stephen-p-halbrook Actually, that was exactly what I said. All your link did was add some opinion on why he loosened gun laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts