# Coming to a town or city near us sooner or later.



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

12 dead in 'terrorist' attack at Paris paper


----------



## NGIB (Jun 28, 2008)

France, like most of Europe, has opened their borders to Islam - this is the price to be paid.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

NGIB said:


> France, like most of Europe, has opened their borders to Islam - this is the price to be paid.


So has the US. Just go to Detroit. It is actually pretty scary to drive through Deerborn.


----------



## hud35500 (May 8, 2010)

Our borders are just as open as France. The only difference here is that the majority of Americans are armed. The terrorist will strike here again, it's just a matter of time. Now more than ever we must defeat the liberals who are trying to disarm us. It should be easy as we heavily outnumber them, but to many of us live our lives thinking it couldn't happen here! Australia, and now France have paid the price for their misguided policies! The same policies that we are allowing to be enacted here!!


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

hud35500 said:


> Our borders are just as open as France. The only difference here is that the majority of Americans are armed. The terrorist will strike here again, it's just a matter of time. Now more than ever we must defeat the liberals who are trying to disarm us. It should be easy as we heavily outnumber them, but to many of us live our lives thinking it couldn't happen here! Australia, and now France have paid the price for their misguided policies! The same policies that we are allowing to be enacted here!!


In some circles that whole "defeat liberals - we heavily outnumber them" [email protected] could be seen as a direct threat. Are you REALLY that paranoid about an opposing political view?
Do I have to post the "Fifth Annual 'Obama's Coming For My Guns' Sale" cartoon again?

Get a grip.


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

SailDesign said:


> In some circles that whole "defeat liberals - we heavily outnumber them" [email protected] could be seen as a direct threat. Are you REALLY that paranoid about an opposing political view?
> Do I have to post the "Fifth Annual 'Obama's Coming For My Guns' Sale" cartoon again?
> 
> Get a grip.


I must have missed that cartoon. Post that sucker up, I could use a laugh.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

Apparently it only wants to be a link...


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

Thanks!


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

It goes very well with the one (no picture required, really) of two guys talking - "For someone who believes in personal responsibility you spend a lot of time blaming government"


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

SailDesign said:


> ...Do I have to post the "Fifth Annual 'Obama's Coming For My Guns' Sale" cartoon again?...


Well, he's gonna come for 'em _eventually._
Just be patient.



SailDesign said:


> It goes very well with the one...of two guys talking - "For someone who believes in personal responsibility you spend a lot of time blaming government"


Well, I blame government for encouraging parents to abdicate their responsibility, and for helping to teach kids that they have no personal responsibility.

The recent massacre in France happened all because Americans cling so to their guns.
It's all America's fault. Oh, yes...and guns. Don't forget the guns.

A world without guns would be a peaceful place, where it would be perfectly safe to insult Islam and Mohammad.

"OK, folks, turn 'em all in." -Diane Feinstein

(Am I being too snarky here?)


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> <snip-de-dip big-time>
> 
> (Am I being too snarky here?)


Probably - but go right ahead. Can't think of a better thing to be snarky over.


----------



## Goldwing (Nov 5, 2014)

A RELIGION OF PEACE. THE VAST MAJORITY ARE GOOD PEOPLE. THOSE DAMNED ISRAELIS ARE WAR CRIMINALS. bull$h1t! We should treat them with the same respect for human life as they do to the people who do not worship the Non-profit Muhammed. These people act like animals and should be treated as such.
GW


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

Is Muhammad really non-prophet?

Does the IRS know?


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> Well, he's gonna come for 'em _eventually._
> Just be patient.
> 
> Well, I blame government for encouraging parents to abdicate their responsibility, and for helping to teach kids that they have no personal responsibility.
> ...


Depends on what your definition of snarky...........is. :smt033


----------



## Goldwing (Nov 5, 2014)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> Is Muhammad really non-prophet?
> 
> Does the IRS know?


They do but they lost the darned E-Mail. 
GW


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

goldwing said:


> They do but they lost the darned E-Mail.
> GW


Maybe, but I don't think Lois had anything to do with it.

I bet she was hot when she was younger. :lol:


----------



## denner (Jun 3, 2011)

One very good reason why our forefathers wished to arm the law abiding populace against foreign and domestic threats. It is a force indeed, unlike in France where currently they have terrorist cells of unknown numbers highly trained and armed in the art of murder running around amongst the unarmed mouton.:watching:


----------



## tony pasley (May 6, 2006)

oh how people forget the history of the last century. The U.S. was not invaded because our enemies feared the populace more than the military. They expected the people to rise up and fight them and knew the people were armed.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

denner said:


> *One very good reason why our forefathers wished to arm the law abiding populace against foreign and domestic threats.* It is a force indeed, unlike in France where currently they have terrorist cells of unknown numbers highly trained and armed in the art of murder running around amongst the unarmed mouton.:watching:


Please excuse me but they didn't arm the populace. They were already armed. If you're speaking of the Founders, what they did was to recognize an inherent right then to codify it in our Bill of Rights. Governments do not grant rights.


----------



## Cait43 (Apr 4, 2013)

SailDesign said:


> Do I have to post the "Fifth Annual 'Obama's Coming For My Guns' Sale" cartoon again?
> 
> Get a grip.


Just as stereotypes are based in fact the cartoon you posted is amusing but is also based in fact....... President Obama attempted to start the "coming for your guns" he was unsuccessful... The so called gun control laws on the books and those proposed are just the prelude to "coming for your guns"..... There is a movement to ban guns to law abiding America citizens.... And more than likely some future presidents will advocate such a ban......

The fight to keep the right to keep and bear arms will be a never ending uphill battle in America.........


----------



## denner (Jun 3, 2011)

SouthernBoy said:


> Governments do not grant rights.


Oh yes they do, or at least guarantee them and likewise they can take them away, move to Australia or England with it's history and find out..

Why is it named the "Bill of Rights" and just who do you suppose granted them, or better yet guaranteed them? I do agree it was a preexisting right. They did not arm the populace in a literal sense, but they sure as hell granted/guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms how ever you wish to codify it.

* James Madison: Americans have "the advantage of being armed" -- unlike the citizens of other countries where "the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

* Patrick Henry: "The great objective is that every man be armed. . . . Everyone who is able may have a gun."

* George Mason: "To disarm the people [is] the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

* Samuel Adams: "The Constitution shall never be construed . . . to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."

* Alexander Hamilton: "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."

* Richard Henry Lee: "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."


----------



## hud35500 (May 8, 2010)

Hey Saildesign, you are entitled to an opinion as am I, but is it necessary to be an ass as well? My "grip" is just fine, thank you very much.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

tony pasley said:


> oh how people forget the history of the last century. The U.S. was not invaded because our enemies feared the populace more than the military. They expected the people to rise up and fight them and knew the people were armed.


It was supposed to have been Admiral Yamamoto who said that the Japs couldn't invade the west coast of the US and win because, "there's a rifle behind every blade of grass."

How far we have come!
(We've evidently passed zero, and are into the negative numbers.)

_Qui desiderat pacem, præparet bellum._ ("If you want peace, prepare for war.") -Vegetius


----------



## Cait43 (Apr 4, 2013)

Misquoting Yamamoto


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

OK.
(I did qualify my remark by stating that "It was _supposed_ to have been Admiral Yamamoto...")

*Commentary*:
[FactCheck.org] contacted Donald M. Goldstein, sometimes called "the dean of Pearl Harbor historians"...He is a professor at the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Pittsburgh. He told us the supposed Yamamoto quote is "bogus."
In an exchange of e-mails he said: "I have never seen it in writing. It has been attributed to the Prange files [the files of the late Gordon W. Prange, chief historian on the staff of Gen. Douglas MacArthur] but no one had ever seen it or cited it from where they got it. Some people say that it came from our work but I never said it...As of today it is bogus until someone can cite when and where." [The entire passage above is a redacted quote from the FactCheck.org website.]


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

denner said:


> Oh yes they do, or at least guarantee them and likewise they can take them away, move to Australia or England with it's history and find out..
> 
> Why is it named the "Bill of Rights" and just who do you suppose granted them, or better yet guaranteed them? I do agree it was a preexisting right. They did not arm the populace in a literal sense, but they sure as hell granted/guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms how ever you wish to codify it.
> 
> ...


You, sir, are confusing rights with privilege, authority, and power. Government cannot grant rights. What they can and do do is to grant privilege, authority, and power; one of these or a combination of them to whomever they deem it necessary. And in this country, they get that authority and power to do these things from We the People, not from themselves.

We the People are the ones who invented government in this country and who hold the power and authority of being the supreme sovereign. You need to separate the concept of rights versus privilege, authority, and power which government only has through our authority and our power.

The Bill of Rights both recognizes and guarantees rights reserved by the People to themselves. These rights are not granted by the Bill of Rights since they already existed. The BOR recognizes this fact and was installed as part of the Constitution to protect them against government. We have George Mason and Patrick Henry to thank for this and for convincing James Madison of this absolute need.

Governments do not grant rights.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

SouthernBoy said:


> <snip> ... arm the populous. <snip>


"Populace."

Sorry - had to,


----------



## shootbrownelk (May 18, 2014)

goldwing said:


> They do but they lost the darned E-Mail.
> GW


 Evidently Al Sharpton's 4+million tax bill was unfortunately lost as well.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

SailDesign said:


> "Populace."
> 
> Sorry - had to,


Don't mind at all. I do tend to make too many typos... must edit my content before distribution.


----------



## high pockets (Apr 25, 2011)

There will never be another "terrorist" incident here in the U.S. as long as the current administration is in office.

There may well be several "incidents of workplace violence," but there will be no "terrorist" incidents here.

There now! Don't we all feel better?


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

*SouthernBoy* and *denner*;

While the power of our government is supposed to be granted to it by the people, in practical terms that is no longer true. We, the people, have long ago ceded our power over our government to the government, and I cannot foresee our taking it back in the near term.

Thus, I think, you are both equally correct:
Our government cannot bestow liberties upon us, because our liberties are "natural rights" which preëxisted the formation of our government and, indeed, any government.
On the other hand, we having foolishly ceded our power to our government, the government can now both bestow and deny our essential liberties...and does.

The point of all this? We need to take our power back.
But, as I just wrote, I don't see this happening in the near term...or even in your lifetimes.


----------



## BigCityChief (Jan 2, 2013)

^Agreed.. I recommend everyone dust off their copy of Animal Farm to revisit the manner in which we surrendered our precious liberties to a creature of our own creation.^


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> *SouthernBoy* and *denner*;
> 
> While the power of our government is supposed to be granted to it by the people, in practical terms that is no longer true. We, the people, have long ago ceded our power over our government to the government, and I cannot foresee our taking it back in the near term.
> 
> ...


I completely agree with this. However the design of our form of government is as how I described it. One can easily determine the purpose and intent of the Bill of Rights by the simple elegance and precision of the language. For example I offer;

*"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."*

Had the Founders intended to "give" rights to the people, the wording would have been something like this;

*"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right to keep and bear Arms shall be granted to the people."*

Note the difference between these two sentences is clear and unequivocal. In the first case, a pre-existing right is recognized and the proof is in the phrase, "the right of the people" with "the right" part specifically pointing to a known and accepted right. In the second sentence, it is quite clear that the document is giving a right to the people which is NOT recognized as having any history or pre-existence. Big difference.

Steve, you are correct in your post and for me this is most sad. We as a people and a nation have abrogated out responsibility to pass on what was passed down to us. Each generation fails to pass on to the next generation that which was created in the beginning. It gets lost along the way. Jefferson feared this and knew it was going to happen and he wrote about it.

I have to wonder at what time in the not-to-distant future it will all come crumbling down and just become an historical memory.


----------



## RK3369 (Aug 12, 2013)

The anti gunners will never understand the need to be armed until they are enslaved or killed by Islam. By that time, it will be too late. We are talking about the right of law abiding citizens to defend themselves. It appears that Jihad is coming to a town near you (and you, and you, and you...........) sooner than we all may be willing to believe. 

As I hear the reporting, there are "no go" zones in France where the police don't even want to go, enclaves where the immigrant Muslims have instituted Shiriah law and will not tolerate any interference from the outside. If that begins in this country, we are all going to be in a world of shit. I'm an old Boy Scout. I adhere to "Be Prepared".


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

BigCityChief said:


> ^Agreed.. I recommend everyone dust off their copy of Animal Farm to revisit the manner in which we surrendered our precious liberties to a creature of our own creation.^


And throughout history, this is what has happened before the collapse and subjugation of nations. History is awash in the blood of fools who followed dreamers to their own demise.


----------



## RK3369 (Aug 12, 2013)

SouthernBoy said:


> History is awash in the blood of fools who followed dreamers to their own demise.


Agreed, the anti gunners need to wake up and smell the coffee. Why are people so foolish as to believe that this wouldn't or couldn't happen here? This is exactly why Pearl Harbor and 911 happened. Everybody in power ignored the warning signs, or didn't want to admit that they existed, which is exactly what our "fool" in chief is doing currently. The radical element of Islam has repeatedly said that their goal is to kill all non believers. Why do our politicians think that the Jihadists are inviting us to a tea party? Idiots.


----------



## hotchilipowder (Jan 5, 2015)

I just hate to say this but one of these days soon the Islamo-Nazis will hit the US again. I feel it will be a "soft" target such as a school or hospital or occupied church. We need to be much more concerned about radical Islam then our present bumbling govt is. All of us MUST protect our freedom and 2nd Amendment rights and NEVER give these radical animals an inch......period.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

hotchilipowder said:


> I just hate to say this but one of these days soon the Islamo-Nazis will hit the US again. I feel it will be a "soft" target such as a school or hospital or occupied church. We need to be much more concerned about radical Islam then our present bumbling govt is. All of us MUST protect our freedom and 2nd Amendment rights and NEVER give these radical animals an inch......period.


We MUST also remember the difference between the radical side and the "regular" side.


----------



## hud35500 (May 8, 2010)

Pretty sure most of us understand the difference between radical/regular Islam. The same could be said of the radical/regular elected official. Radicals by their very nature try to force their beliefs upon what they view as weak or misguided individuals. Some use a pen, others a gun. The end result can of either can be just as devastating. Personally, I think I have a pretty good grip on the situation.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

hud35500 said:


> Pretty sure most of us understand the difference between radical/regular Islam. The same could be said of the radical/regular elected official. Radicals by their very nature try to force their beliefs upon what they view as weak or misguided individuals. Some use a pen, others a gun. The end result can of either can be just as devastating. Personally, I think I have a pretty good grip on the situation.


Just checking... Sometimes a rant against radicals turns into a damnation of all.

On the subject - I found this today. Gave me hope.

Here's How Arab Papers Reacted to the 'Charlie Hebdo' Massacre - Mic


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

SailDesign said:


> We MUST also remember the difference between the radical side and the "regular" side.


Yeah but how do you tell them apart... they all look alike what with their beards. Even the women and you have to know I do NOT like hairy women.

(heh, heh)


----------



## Goldwing (Nov 5, 2014)

SouthernBoy said:


> Yeah but how do you tell them apart... they all look alike what with their beards. Even the women and you have to know I do NOT like hairy women.
> 
> (heh, heh)


From what I've seen of the girls without their Casper the Friendly Ghost outfits on they are rather attractive. I wouldn't mind being a sheik with a half dozen of them, I'm talking palm frond fans and peeled grapes since I'm dreaming.
GW


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

SouthernBoy said:


> Yeah but how do you tell them apart... they all look alike what with their beards...


So tell me: Are you writing about Arabs? Or Jews?

("They all look alike" strikes an unpleasant chord in my memory.)



goldwing said:


> From what I've seen of the girls without their Casper the Friendly Ghost outfits on they are rather attractive. I wouldn't mind being a sheik with a half dozen of them, I'm talking palm frond fans and peeled grapes since I'm dreaming.
> GW


Hey-with a little, um, luck, you might be awarded 72 of 'em.

Here: Try on this vest...


----------

