Topic: The Line in the Sand

[Libertas]

More resistance!   

Indiana County says Backoff!

65% say FMCDH!

They actually start confiscation, that 65% could rise dramatically.  Let us pray it does not get to that point, but I would be less than honest if I said the Democrats don't intend to try.

[Glock32]

The JBTs would get the drop on the first phase of resisters, but once that cat is out of the bag their advantage will be nullified. At that point it will not merely be people defensively resisting in their own homes, there will be small groups who begin actively engaging agents of the state at times and places of their choosing. And speaking of choosing, it will also at that point be incumbent upon all agents of the state to decide what side they're on. Remaining one of the state's willing enforcers will be to announce oneself a legitimate target.

[Pandora]

The New Lexicon

"Since the unpleasantness last month in Newtown, Connecticut, our rulers and their myrmidons in the media, never wanting to allow a crisis to be "wasted" are all atwitter over the possibility of further voiding the second amendment to the Constitution by outlawing "assault" weapons. Indeed, the Vampire state in an apparent trifecta race with Kalifornia and Illinois has won first place by enacting a comprehensive attack on the ownership by mere mundanes of so called "assault" rifles including the AR 15 and all weapons of the Kilashnakov design. These scary appearing rifles, while having no functional distinction from ordinary semiautomatic weaponry are considered by our "Progressive" bettors to be evil by virtue of their "military style" and are therefore officially designated as "assault" weapons.

On the other-hand, the Department of Homeland Security via the General Services Administration has issued a solicitation for bids to supply 7000 "Personal Defense Weapons" for members of the Immigration & Customs Enforcement bureau. The weapons to be delivered are described as AR-15 platform rifles but containing the option of a selector switch enabling them to fire as either semiautomatic or full automatic as in machine gun.

Please note, gentle reader, that our government defines these items as "Personal Defense Weapons" whereas the version of this rifle sans the full automatic capability in the possession of an ordinary citizen is defined by the same government as an "assault weapon".

You simply can't make this sh*t up."

[charlesoakwood]

Automatic fire, that's a little indiscriminate isn't it?

[IronDioPriest]

The New Lexicon

"Since the unpleasantness last month in Newtown, Connecticut, our rulers and their myrmidons in the media, never wanting to allow a crisis to be "wasted" are all atwitter over the possibility of further voiding the second amendment to the Constitution by outlawing "assault" weapons. Indeed, the Vampire state in an apparent trifecta race with Kalifornia and Illinois has won first place by enacting a comprehensive attack on the ownership by mere mundanes of so called "assault" rifles including the AR 15 and all weapons of the Kilashnakov design. These scary appearing rifles, while having no functional distinction from ordinary semiautomatic weaponry are considered by our "Progressive" bettors to be evil by virtue of their "military style" and are therefore officially designated as "assault" weapons.

On the other-hand, the Department of Homeland Security via the General Services Administration has issued a solicitation for bids to supply 7000 "Personal Defense Weapons" for members of the Immigration & Customs Enforcement bureau. The weapons to be delivered are described as AR-15 platform rifles but containing the option of a selector switch enabling them to fire as either semiautomatic or full automatic as in machine gun.

Please note, gentle reader, that our government defines these items as "Personal Defense Weapons" whereas the version of this rifle sans the full automatic capability in the possession of an ordinary citizen is defined by the same government as an "assault weapon".

You simply can't make this sh*t up."

Answer: They are in the last preparatory stages of their final totalitarian push, and they know there will be fierce resistance.

[Dan]

Sorry to get technical, especially where it may give cover to "them", but a PDW is, in fact a class of weapon. A rifle has a barrel of 18"+ inches, a carbine down to 16", and a PDW is typically 10" - under 16". Shorter bbls are classified as pistols, even though some AR receivers are still chambered for rifle cartridges.
That crap notwithstanding, it's still a glaring example of a)Hypocrisy and b)One hand not having a clue as to what the other is doing. Although I'd concede that, considering the mass purchases of ammo by all the cabinet agencies, it's at least a tacit, unspoken plan for when the bell sounds.

[charlesoakwood]

"...Personal Defense Weapons" for members of the Immigration & Customs Enforcement bureau. The weapons to be delivered are described as AR-15 platform rifles..."

"A rifle has a barrel of 18"+ inches, a carbine down to 16", and a PDW is typically 10" - under 16"."

So, they are buying PDW's built on an AR-15 platform that have barrels between 10 and 16".  Very interesting.

[charlesoakwood]

The gNewt illustrates how to draw a line in the sand and aggressively defend it.  Bless him.

Newt Gingrich on Thursday night interrogated the gun-grabbing Piers Morgan, pushing the CNN host as to what his real motives are. An aggressive Gingrich insisted, "So, why don't you share your real view?...Isn't your real view that you would ban pistols if you could?" [See video below. MP3 audio here.] The Republican also told the British anchor why the Founding Fathers were able to defeat "your army."

Morgan swore that his concern was "the high-powered guns of any variety which can fire 30 or 40 or more rounds in less than a minute." He added, "...That would be my primary concern right now." The former Speaker pounced, "Right now? Okay, right now." Gingrich lectured, "The reason you find so many of us very reluctant to go down this road is we believe each step down this road leads to the next step and the next step and the next step."

More text plus video.

[Libertas]

Barrrels under 16" serve only one purpose - greater manueverability in urban combat situations. . . gosh, who could the Fed's be thinking of engaging in urban combat?   

   Duh!  US!

And 30-40 rounds per minute with a civilian AR in the hands of an average shooter?  An average shooter probably needs 2-3 seconds to get their target, allow another second for the sphincter factor and a few seconds of scan time and the average shooter would probably do good to engage a target every 6-7 seconds, so maybe he gets off 6-10 rounds on average, some may be better than that, maybe people fresh out of front line military units can process targets that fast...

Morgan ought to be more concerned about automatic fire out of sub-16" barrels into civilians but he's aligned himself with the forces of tyranny so I would have just gone after him and dispensed with any attempt at a logical rational discussion.

[Glock32]

The answer to their "Come on, how many rounds do you really need?" is "It's not incumbent upon me to answer because the entire question is disingenuous. You ask the question already knowing that your answer to it is 'zero', so we can stop pretending this is any sort of reasoned debate right here and now."

[ChrstnHsbndFthr]

The answer to their "Come on, how many rounds do you really need?" is "It's not incumbent upon me to answer because the entire question is disingenuous. You ask the question already knowing that your answer to it is 'zero', so we can stop pretending this is any sort of reasoned debate right here and now."

Any response I give is PURE speculation. However, I KNOW that one less round than I need in my defense of myself and my family is a death sentence for the innocent. Why would YOU want to take responsiblity for the deaths of innocents by limiting me to potentiallly one less than needed to survive?

[Pandora]

The answer to their "Come on, how many rounds do you really need?" is "It's not incumbent upon me to answer because the entire question is disingenuous. You ask the question already knowing that your answer to it is 'zero', so we can stop pretending this is any sort of reasoned debate right here and now."

Any response I give is PURE speculation. However, I KNOW that one less round than I need in my defense of myself and my family is a death sentence for the innocent. Why would YOU want to take responsiblity for the deaths of innocents by limiting me to potentiallly one less than needed to survive?

They don't and they won't.  "Call the po-po".

[ChrstnHsbndFthr]

The answer to their "Come on, how many rounds do you really need?" is "It's not incumbent upon me to answer because the entire question is disingenuous. You ask the question already knowing that your answer to it is 'zero', so we can stop pretending this is any sort of reasoned debate right here and now."

Any response I give is PURE speculation. However, I KNOW that one less round than I need in my defense of myself and my family is a death sentence for the innocent. Why would YOU want to take responsiblity for the deaths of innocents by limiting me to potentiallly one less than needed to survive?

They don't and they won't.  "Call the po-po".

I can attest first-hand that the police do not prevent crime.....they take reports after the fact.....and they do not even clean up the blood stains. That is YOUR problem as the victim. Sometimes they MIGHT arrest the person later....IF....you can give them the name, address, and social security number of the person who robbed and killed your family.......BUT....that assumes that a witness LIVES ....and not only lives, but HAS all the information necessary to the arrest and conviction of the assailant. 

[Libertas]

The answer to their "Come on, how many rounds do you really need?" is "It's not incumbent upon me to answer because the entire question is disingenuous. You ask the question already knowing that your answer to it is 'zero', so we can stop pretending this is any sort of reasoned debate right here and now."

 

[Libertas]

The answer to their "Come on, how many rounds do you really need?" is "It's not incumbent upon me to answer because the entire question is disingenuous. You ask the question already knowing that your answer to it is 'zero', so we can stop pretending this is any sort of reasoned debate right here and now."

Any response I give is PURE speculation. However, I KNOW that one less round than I need in my defense of myself and my family is a death sentence for the innocent. Why would YOU want to take responsiblity for the deaths of innocents by limiting me to potentiallly one less than needed to survive?

They don't and they won't.  "Call the po-po".

I can attest first-hand that the police do not prevent crime.....they take reports after the fact.....and they do not even clean up the blood stains. That is YOUR problem as the victim. Sometimes they MIGHT arrest the person later....IF....you can give them the name, address, and social security number of the person who robbed and killed your family.......BUT....that assumes that a witness LIVES ....and not only lives, but HAS all the information necessary to the arrest and conviction of the assailant. 

Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

[ChrstnHsbndFthr]

http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/529775_10151315200873481_1364852712_n.jpg

[Libertas]

http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/529775_10151315200873481_1364852712_n.jpg

Sounds good to me (even though my Southern brothers and sisters might not be too happy with the authors actions towards them!  For which I can sympathize with.).

[benb61]

http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/529775_10151315200873481_1364852712_n.jpg

Sounds good to me (even though my Southern brothers and sisters might not be too happy with the authors actions towards them!  For which I can sympathize with.).

Hate to say it, but this man took no actions directly on anyone currently alive, today's southerners may be angry at what Lincoln did to their ancestors but they probably were not directly impacted.  What you said gives credence to the blacks in America demanding reparations from the whites today.  You are not saying that Americas white population owes anything to Americas black population are you?

 
 

[charlesoakwood]

An observer may say that the anger is more at events post Lincoln.  The humility of losing a fight is much less than adulterous occupation.  


ETA: They are directly impacted.  Today there are, I believe, seven states whose election laws must be approved by the Federal government before they can be amended.

[Glock32]

I'm not going to go any further into this can of worms other than to point out that those directly impacted would include any who believe the current Leviathan in DC is drunk with power, reckless, and openly flaunting and disdainful of any attempts to rein it in. Prior to the Civil War the constitutional relationship between the states and the Federal government that they themselves created was basically observed. After the Civil War the Federal government has been on its continual trajectory leading to the here and now. Having shown itself willing to wage war against those states' Declaration of Independence, and having done so successfully, the pretense of government by consent of the governed was over. We now enjoy the happy fruits.

Nobody wants to be in a position of being an implicit apologist for the institution of slavery, and you can by virtue of that fact make the argument that the Civil War was not as simplistic as states withdrawing their consent to be governed, I certainly grant that; and I will likewise argue that it is not simplistic in any other direction either. I point out only that the very fact that we, here in the second decade of the 21st century, are again hearing not-entirely-unserious talk of secession as proof that the Civil War left many philosophical questions not so much settled as merely fatigued into submission for a while.