Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
12/6/2019 7:27:02 PM
Posted: 2/23/2007 4:26:34 PM EST
[Last Edit: 2/23/2007 4:33:53 PM EST by orkan]
I read that article in its entirety.

If you are lazy, just read the last paragraph and you'll get his message.

I am currently drafting a letter to F&S. If this guy isn't unemployed by tuesday this week... I'm going to make him famous.

I ask for your help. PLASTER this guy all over the place and lets wake him up like we did zumbo.


F&S Petzals 1994 (Ban the Assault Rifle article) Field & Stream (West ed.), June 1994 v99 n2 p26(2)

Reveille. (gun control laws) David E. Petzal.

THE BUGLE CALL KNOWN AS REVEILLE IS A CHEERFUL, energetic tune that, when I was in the Army, few soldiers actually got to hear. The real reveille was something quite different; it consisted of the NCOIC (noncommissioned officer in charge) snapping on the overhead lights at 4:30 A.M. and slamming a sawed-off broom handle around the inside of a garbage can. That is about the least cheerful experience that you can have, but it wakes you up for fair, and brings you face to face with reality.

Real-world reveille came for gun owners this February in the form of a single sentence buried deep in the 1994 Federal Budget. On page 201 of that document, under the heading "Passing Effective Crime Control Legislation," there is this sentence: "The administration also supports a ban on semiautomatic firearms; limitations on access to handguns by juveniles; and the creation of a crime control fund to pay for eligible crime control initiatives."

The key phrase, the one that turns on the overhead lights and crashes the broom handle around in the GI can, is "a ban on semi-automatic firearms." Not "assault weapons," but semi-automatic firearms. All of them. It is simple English, and there is nothing else it can mean. It means all semi-autos.

It also means that the NRA has been right all along when it warned us that an "assault weapon" bill was only one of a series of steps in a much more ambitious plan to outlaw many types of firearms. If you would like to dismiss the NRA's warning as paranoid and hysterical, you must ignore the fact that the White House has put us on notice: All semi-autos are going to go if the Clinton Administration has its way.

In January, President Clinton included the following in his State of the Union Address to Congress:

"Hunters must always be free to hunt. Law-abiding adults should always be free to own guns and protect their homes. I respect that part of our culture. I grew up in it. . . . But I want to ask the sportsmen and others to join us in this campaign to stop gun violence. I say to you: I know you didn't create this problem, but we need your help to solve it. There is no sporting purpose on earth that should stop the United States Congress from banning assault weapons that out-gun police and cut down children."

Will the real Clinton policy please stand up? Before Congress and the United States, the President said he wants to get rid of assault weapons. In the Federal Budget, it's semi-automatic firearms. Which is the real agenda?

There are a couple of possibilities. One is that some overreaching functionary was confused by the terms "semi-automatic firearm" and "assault weapon" and assumed they were interchangeable. This. is given support by Barry Toiv, a spokesman for the Office of Management and the Budget, who was quoted as follows in the March 14th edition of The Washington Times: "The language in the budget is a mistake. It made its way through without being fixed."

A more likely scenario is somewhat simpler. The Administration wants to ban semi-automatic firearms, judged the political climate to be favorable, and decided to put its intent on the public record, albeit not in a forthright manner.

Let us now consider the legislation submitted to Congress by Senator Diane Feinstein (D/CA). Amendment No. 1152 would, if ratified, be applied to the Omnibus Crime Bill (which was passed late in 1993 by the Senate), and appears to be the type of "reasonable" gun bill that "reasonable" gun owners should support. Amendment 1152 would ban, by name, a number of firearms (or duplicates of same) such as the Colt AR-15, MAC-10 and NRC-11, Galu, Uzi, Street Sweeper, and others of this ilk [e.g., the FN-FAL]. It would also ban guns by description; i.e., firearms that incorporate folding or telescoping stocks, flash suppressors, threaded muzzles, bayonet lugs, grenade launchers, and "conspicuous" pistol grips.

Also included are semi-auto shotguns with magazines that hold more than five rounds, and any large-capacity magazines (tubular magazines for .22 rimfires exempted), which means those that hold more than ten rounds.

The Feinstein Amendment would, upon passage, allow the present owners of proscribed guns to keep them, provided that they obtained and maintained Form 4473s documenting their ownership. However, no new guns of the types described could be bought, sold, or owned by civilians.

The Amendment contains a sunset clause, meaning that it expires after ten years. It also contains a lengthy list of firearms that are exempt. These guns include bolt, pump, and lever-actions, and many semi-automatic rifles and shotguns of the sporting variety.

If you are a gun owner who is looking for the middle ground, it is very hard to argue against legislation such as this. Senator Feinstein, it seems, has made every effort to prescribe "assault weapons" and protect "legitimate firearms."

So what's wrong with supporting--or at least not opposing--this amendment? Perhaps nothing--except that the reveille sounded by the 1994 Federal Budget warns us we can't think of Amendment 1152 as a final step. Anti-gunners see it as an interim measure, paving the way for much wider prohibitions. Sarah Brady, Senator Metzenbaum, and others, have been quite honest about what they have in mind. The Feinstein Amendment is, in their view, just one in a series of steps to outlaw other types of firearms. The next step, without doubt, is handguns. In the lengthy list of "legitimate" guns protected by Amendment 1152, not one handgun is mentioned.

There's more. President Clinton, in a lengthy interview in the December 9, 1993 issue of Rolling Stone was asked by national editor William Greider:

"Is it conceivable that the country. . . could entertain the possibility of banning handguns? Is that a cockamamie idea in your mind? Or is that in the future?"

President Clinton answered: "I don't think the American people are there right now [emphasis mine]. But with more than 200 million guns in circulation, we've got so much more to do on this issue before we reach that. I don't think that's an option now [emphasis mine]. But there are certain kinds of guns that can be banned and a lot of other reasonable regulations that can be imposed. The American people's attitudes are going to be shaped by whether things get better or worse."

You are at liberty to interpret this any way you wish. My interpretation is: "We haven't got the votes for a handgun ban right now. In the future, if I think the votes are there, well go for it."

Judging by the letters we get at Field & Stream, and the people I talk to within the firearms industry, there are many of us who would like to rid the United States of assault weapons. It is true that these weapons account for only a miniscule percentage of armed crime, but the crimes they are used in tend to be horrific.

The classic example of this is the schoolyard massacre in Stockton, California, in 1989, when a deranged man named Patrick Purdy used an AK-47 clone to kill five children and wound twenty-nine others [in fact, most were shot with Purdy's 15-shot, 9mm handgun]. The fact that Purdy was at liberty with a gun of any kind was due to a catastrophic failure of the California justice system, but the question we have to ask is, if Purdy had not had a thirty-shot semi-automatic rifle that was designed for the express purpose of taking human life, would the carnage have been so great?

Much is made about the difficulty involved in defining an "assault weapon." However, firearms such as the AK-47, AKM, Uzi, Street Sweeper, and others [like the Fn-FAL] have two things in common: They are designed for killing people, and they enable a person who is unskilled in the use of firearms to do an extraordinary amount of damage in practically no time at all.

Assault weapons are designed to be produced quickly and cheaply, and in huge numbers. They are designed to operate under conditions that would destroy civilian small arms. They are designed to put out a high volume of fire with a high degree of controllability. It is these characteristics that prevent assault weapons from being us as anything but what they are. (The AR-15/M-16, and the M1A in modified form, are highly accurate, and have a legitimate place in organized target competition.) You can remove the flash suppressors and the bayonet lugs; you can change the shape of the stocks; you can sell "sporting" ammunition for them; but they remain guns for killing people.

Gun owners--all gun owners--pay a heavy price for having to defend the availability of these weapons. The American public--and the gun-owning public; especially the gun-owning public--would be better off without the hardcore military arms, which puts the average sportsman in a real dilemma. We have received a wake-up call that clearly warns us that gun ownership is under siege. On the other hand, the public at large has been sent another kind of reveille: that guns are the root of most present-day evil, and the NRA is somehow to blame for the guns.

MOST AMERICANS HAVE LITTLE FAITH IN THE promises that politicians make, and with reason. Most gun owners are uneasy about making concessions of any kind, and with reason. But it may be time to consider shifting from an absolute opposition to any ban on any guns to an effort to get lawmakers to include a guarantee that will safeguard our handguns, and other arms--something not subject to the whims of the BATF or the Secretary of the Treasury or Sarah Brady. If the Feinstein Amendment included a list of "protected" handguns, and did away with its prohibition on magazines that hold more than ten shots, that would be something for us to think about. If Senator Fienstein is willing to meet gun owners halfway, we should think about her amendment very hard indeed.

For at some point we must face the fact that an Uzi or an AKM or an Ak-47 should no more be generally available than a Claymore mine or a block of C4 explosive. It is time for these guns to be limited to people with Treasury Department licenses, just as with fully automatic arms. I doubt if anyone would suffer much without assault weapons. Surely, we will suffer with them.



Link Posted: 2/23/2007 4:34:25 PM EST
If they ban guns I'm writing to congress to ban cars they kill more people.
Link Posted: 2/23/2007 4:40:58 PM EST
height=8
Originally Posted By BigFoffy723:
If they ban guns I'm writing to congress to ban cars they kill more people.


You should be writing them to tell them that NOW. After they ban guns it will be too late. Don't be lazy. DO IT.
Link Posted: 2/23/2007 4:49:50 PM EST
1994!
Link Posted: 2/23/2007 4:54:06 PM EST
good luck complaining about something that happened 13 years ago. The guy who wrote the article probably doesn't even work there anymore.
Link Posted: 2/23/2007 4:59:30 PM EST
[Last Edit: 2/23/2007 5:00:45 PM EST by TOL1488]

Originally Posted By BigFoffy723:
If they ban guns I'm writing to congress to ban cars they kill more people.



It has nothing to do with what kills people many things rank above guns... it is about power those with it want more.


ETA - the quote
Link Posted: 2/23/2007 5:07:50 PM EST
[Last Edit: 2/23/2007 5:15:22 PM EST by RockyMountainSlings]
Link Posted: 2/23/2007 5:18:34 PM EST

Originally Posted By RockyMountainSlings:

Originally Posted By OFCJAX:
1994!


The same guy who wrote that in '94 just posted this blog DEFENDING Zumbo...



He's trying to make a comeback.

Danny
Link Posted: 2/23/2007 5:21:03 PM EST

Originally Posted By RockyMountainSlings:
If Sarah Brady is smart—and she is very smart—she will comb through the same blogs and chatrooms I’ve been reading, excerpt some of the most vicious and foul-mouthed entries, print them up, and distribute them to Congress. Then it will be interesting to see how the men and women who wrote that stuff enjoy seeing their efforts being put to use by every anti-gunner in America.


So 'WE, THE PEOPLE' are supposed to be afraid of Congress. It's supposed to be the other way around.
Link Posted: 2/23/2007 5:41:53 PM EST
Link Posted: 2/23/2007 6:00:33 PM EST
[Last Edit: 2/23/2007 6:01:57 PM EST by Bumblebee_Bob]
And they even called it Arfkom!

crap! I can't even spell arfkom right tonight!
Link Posted: 2/23/2007 6:03:04 PM EST

Originally Posted By txgp17:
ARFCOM mentioned on National Review.com
corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MWI0Y2YwNTMzNjVhM2Y0YmYwM2UyZDllOWE3MGRiM2Y=
awesome


Great read!
Link Posted: 2/23/2007 6:25:43 PM EST
So....AKs and Uzis = claymore and plastic explosives.
This is news to me.
Link Posted: 2/23/2007 6:51:32 PM EST
[Last Edit: 2/23/2007 6:59:11 PM EST by CK]

Originally Posted By kap_x:
So....AKs and Uzis = claymore and plastic explosives.Better yet = Nuke Bombs! But in reality sticking a Q-tip in your ear that draws blood should be banned also. All it really is, is a popularity contest of what the "FAD" of the day is......ie, ban SUV's, ban alcohol, and so on........The person (senator/congressman) that's out to make a name for themselves are noted to be the founder of this and that noble cause, which later will be found un-popular by the political party, and later will do an about face, such as Iraq~! The real winners of this BS are the PR firms - It's all about money.........IMHO
This is news to me.
Link Posted: 2/23/2007 7:11:51 PM EST
I say we ban refried beans and salsa aswell, they are causing global warming while producing mass amounts of methane gas which is destroying our environment
Link Posted: 2/23/2007 7:37:16 PM EST
The guy does indeed still call himself one of us... and still works in the hunting industry.

Everybody was up in arms and completely DESTROYED zumbo over this deal... I expected a slightly more robust response toward yet another wolf in sheeps clothing.
Link Posted: 2/23/2007 7:38:15 PM EST

Originally Posted By orkan:
I read that article in its entirety.

If you are lazy, just read the last paragraph and you'll get his message.

I am currently drafting a letter to F&S. If this guy isn't unemployed by tuesday this week... I'm going to make him famous.

I ask for your help. PLASTER this guy all over the place and lets wake him up like we did zumbo.


F&S Petzals 1994 (Ban the Assault Rifle article) Field & Stream (West ed.), June 1994 v99 n2 p26(2)

Reveille. (gun control laws) David E. Petzal.

THE BUGLE CALL KNOWN AS REVEILLE IS A CHEERFUL, energetic tune that, when I was in the Army, few soldiers actually got to hear. The real reveille was something quite different; it consisted of the NCOIC (noncommissioned officer in charge) snapping on the overhead lights at 4:30 A.M. and slamming a sawed-off broom handle around the inside of a garbage can. That is about the least cheerful experience that you can have, but it wakes you up for fair, and brings you face to face with reality.

Real-world reveille came for gun owners this February in the form of a single sentence buried deep in the 1994 Federal Budget. On page 201 of that document, under the heading "Passing Effective Crime Control Legislation," there is this sentence: "The administration also supports a ban on semiautomatic firearms; limitations on access to handguns by juveniles; and the creation of a crime control fund to pay for eligible crime control initiatives."

The key phrase, the one that turns on the overhead lights and crashes the broom handle around in the GI can, is "a ban on semi-automatic firearms." Not "assault weapons," but semi-automatic firearms. All of them. It is simple English, and there is nothing else it can mean. It means all semi-autos.

It also means that the NRA has been right all along when it warned us that an "assault weapon" bill was only one of a series of steps in a much more ambitious plan to outlaw many types of firearms. If you would like to dismiss the NRA's warning as paranoid and hysterical, you must ignore the fact that the White House has put us on notice: All semi-autos are going to go if the Clinton Administration has its way.

In January, President Clinton included the following in his State of the Union Address to Congress:

"Hunters must always be free to hunt. Law-abiding adults should always be free to own guns and protect their homes. I respect that part of our culture. I grew up in it. . . . But I want to ask the sportsmen and others to join us in this campaign to stop gun violence. I say to you: I know you didn't create this problem, but we need your help to solve it. There is no sporting purpose on earth that should stop the United States Congress from banning assault weapons that out-gun police and cut down children."

Will the real Clinton policy please stand up? Before Congress and the United States, the President said he wants to get rid of assault weapons. In the Federal Budget, it's semi-automatic firearms. Which is the real agenda?

There are a couple of possibilities. One is that some overreaching functionary was confused by the terms "semi-automatic firearm" and "assault weapon" and assumed they were interchangeable. This. is given support by Barry Toiv, a spokesman for the Office of Management and the Budget, who was quoted as follows in the March 14th edition of The Washington Times: "The language in the budget is a mistake. It made its way through without being fixed."

A more likely scenario is somewhat simpler. The Administration wants to ban semi-automatic firearms, judged the political climate to be favorable, and decided to put its intent on the public record, albeit not in a forthright manner.

Let us now consider the legislation submitted to Congress by Senator Diane Feinstein (D/CA). Amendment No. 1152 would, if ratified, be applied to the Omnibus Crime Bill (which was passed late in 1993 by the Senate), and appears to be the type of "reasonable" gun bill that "reasonable" gun owners should support. Amendment 1152 would ban, by name, a number of firearms (or duplicates of same) such as the Colt AR-15, MAC-10 and NRC-11, Galu, Uzi, Street Sweeper, and others of this ilk [e.g., the FN-FAL]. It would also ban guns by description; i.e., firearms that incorporate folding or telescoping stocks, flash suppressors, threaded muzzles, bayonet lugs, grenade launchers, and "conspicuous" pistol grips.

Also included are semi-auto shotguns with magazines that hold more than five rounds, and any large-capacity magazines (tubular magazines for .22 rimfires exempted), which means those that hold more than ten rounds.

The Feinstein Amendment would, upon passage, allow the present owners of proscribed guns to keep them, provided that they obtained and maintained Form 4473s documenting their ownership. However, no new guns of the types described could be bought, sold, or owned by civilians.

The Amendment contains a sunset clause, meaning that it expires after ten years. It also contains a lengthy list of firearms that are exempt. These guns include bolt, pump, and lever-actions, and many semi-automatic rifles and shotguns of the sporting variety.

If you are a gun owner who is looking for the middle ground, it is very hard to argue against legislation such as this. Senator Feinstein, it seems, has made every effort to prescribe "assault weapons" and protect "legitimate firearms."

So what's wrong with supporting--or at least not opposing--this amendment? Perhaps nothing--except that the reveille sounded by the 1994 Federal Budget warns us we can't think of Amendment 1152 as a final step. Anti-gunners see it as an interim measure, paving the way for much wider prohibitions. Sarah Brady, Senator Metzenbaum, and others, have been quite honest about what they have in mind. The Feinstein Amendment is, in their view, just one in a series of steps to outlaw other types of firearms. The next step, without doubt, is handguns. In the lengthy list of "legitimate" guns protected by Amendment 1152, not one handgun is mentioned.

There's more. President Clinton, in a lengthy interview in the December 9, 1993 issue of Rolling Stone was asked by national editor William Greider:

"Is it conceivable that the country. . . could entertain the possibility of banning handguns? Is that a cockamamie idea in your mind? Or is that in the future?"

President Clinton answered: "I don't think the American people are there right now [emphasis mine]. But with more than 200 million guns in circulation, we've got so much more to do on this issue before we reach that. I don't think that's an option now [emphasis mine]. But there are certain kinds of guns that can be banned and a lot of other reasonable regulations that can be imposed. The American people's attitudes are going to be shaped by whether things get better or worse."

You are at liberty to interpret this any way you wish. My interpretation is: "We haven't got the votes for a handgun ban right now. In the future, if I think the votes are there, well go for it."

Judging by the letters we get at Field & Stream, and the people I talk to within the firearms industry, there are many of us who would like to rid the United States of assault weapons. It is true that these weapons account for only a miniscule percentage of armed crime, but the crimes they are used in tend to be horrific.

The classic example of this is the schoolyard massacre in Stockton, California, in 1989, when a deranged man named Patrick Purdy used an AK-47 clone to kill five children and wound twenty-nine others [in fact, most were shot with Purdy's 15-shot, 9mm handgun]. The fact that Purdy was at liberty with a gun of any kind was due to a catastrophic failure of the California justice system, but the question we have to ask is, if Purdy had not had a thirty-shot semi-automatic rifle that was designed for the express purpose of taking human life, would the carnage have been so great?

Much is made about the difficulty involved in defining an "assault weapon." However, firearms such as the AK-47, AKM, Uzi, Street Sweeper, and others [like the Fn-FAL] have two things in common: They are designed for killing people, and they enable a person who is unskilled in the use of firearms to do an extraordinary amount of damage in practically no time at all.

Assault weapons are designed to be produced quickly and cheaply, and in huge numbers. They are designed to operate under conditions that would destroy civilian small arms. They are designed to put out a high volume of fire with a high degree of controllability. It is these characteristics that prevent assault weapons from being us as anything but what they are. (The AR-15/M-16, and the M1A in modified form, are highly accurate, and have a legitimate place in organized target competition.) You can remove the flash suppressors and the bayonet lugs; you can change the shape of the stocks; you can sell "sporting" ammunition for them; but they remain guns for killing people.

Gun owners--all gun owners--pay a heavy price for having to defend the availability of these weapons. The American public--and the gun-owning public; especially the gun-owning public--would be better off without the hardcore military arms, which puts the average sportsman in a real dilemma. We have received a wake-up call that clearly warns us that gun ownership is under siege. On the other hand, the public at large has been sent another kind of reveille: that guns are the root of most present-day evil, and the NRA is somehow to blame for the guns.

MOST AMERICANS HAVE LITTLE FAITH IN THE promises that politicians make, and with reason. Most gun owners are uneasy about making concessions of any kind, and with reason. But it may be time to consider shifting from an absolute opposition to any ban on any guns to an effort to get lawmakers to include a guarantee that will safeguard our handguns, and other arms--something not subject to the whims of the BATF or the Secretary of the Treasury or Sarah Brady. If the Feinstein Amendment included a list of "protected" handguns, and did away with its prohibition on magazines that hold more than ten shots, that would be something for us to think about. If Senator Fienstein is willing to meet gun owners halfway, we should think about her amendment very hard indeed.

For at some point we must face the fact that an Uzi or an AKM or an Ak-47 should no more be generally available than a Claymore mine or a block of C4 explosive. It is time for these guns to be limited to people with Treasury Department licenses, just as with fully automatic arms. I doubt if anyone would suffer much without assault weapons. Surely, we will suffer with them.





ORKAN:

Thank you for this as I was looking into the accusations of Petzal's "'94 betrayal" rumors.

I am a little suspicious af low posters here and especially now--nothing personal. We are all a bit wired--or at least I am and we need to be careful about witch hunts.

A LOUD and serious message was sent this past week to the gun/ hunt community. I do hope that the otherwise respectable Jim Zumbo will do what he said and learn and support his fellow gun owners. It is this mentality, apparent in Petzal's previous statements which cause the most harm. It is short sighted and dangerous.

Petzal, who foolishly decided to comment on Zumbo, has now closed the discussion on his blog. Smart move.

I hope the hunting community does some soul searching and hard core researching on this and sees the writing on the wall.

I hope the AR/AK owners are forceful and civilized when making statements that represents the genuine patriots and lovers of American freedoms that we all are.

We need all gun owners--hunters, sportsmen, target shooters, defenders of home, hobbyists, etc. to stand on the common ground of understanding that this fight will never end. There is no such thing as compromise. THEY EVEN WANT TO BAN SCOPES (as sniper tools to kill innocents).

I challenge anyone that has posted here or on any of the Zumbo/ Petzal/ HR1022 threads to take action. Contact your representatives, pro gun or not, join the NRA (like em or not they are our strongest defense) and talk to the people in your sphere of influence.

Educate our people.
Link Posted: 2/23/2007 7:54:24 PM EST
Mods, can we move this to GD?
Link Posted: 2/23/2007 8:16:46 PM EST
height=8
Originally Posted By defenderhome:
ORKAN:

Thank you for this as I was looking into the accusations of Petzal's "'94 betrayal" rumors.

I am a little suspicious af low posters here and especially now--nothing personal. We are all a bit wired--or at least I am and we need to be careful about witch hunts.

A LOUD and serious message was sent this past week to the gun/ hunt community. I do hope that the otherwise respectable Jim Zumbo will do what he said and learn and support his fellow gun owners. It is this mentality, apparent in Petzal's previous statements which cause the most harm. It is short sighted and dangerous.

Petzal, who foolishly decided to comment on Zumbo, has now closed the discussion on his blog. Smart move.

I hope the hunting community does some soul searching and hard core researching on this and sees the writing on the wall.

I hope the AR/AK owners are forceful and civilized when making statements that represents the genuine patriots and lovers of American freedoms that we all are.

We need all gun owners--hunters, sportsmen, target shooters, defenders of home, hobbyists, etc. to stand on the common ground of understanding that this fight will never end. There is no such thing as compromise. THEY EVEN WANT TO BAN SCOPES (as sniper tools to kill innocents).

I challenge anyone that has posted here or on any of the Zumbo/ Petzal/ HR1022 threads to take action. Contact your representatives, pro gun or not, join the NRA (like em or not they are our strongest defense) and talk to the people in your sphere of influence.

Educate our people.


No problem! :)

I know its hard, but you gotta look past the post count sometimes. I have been shooting AR's for 20 years, and have read arfcom since about 2002. I am one of those guys that lurks in the shadows, gleaning information but not really saying anything. :) I didn't even register here until a month or so ago.

This whole zumbo thing has got me so pissed off I can barely breath normally.

I have been doing everything I can to fight these bastards who would like to see us in a comunistic society. Here is a couple good flashes into history for you:

"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!"
---Adolph Hitler, 15 April 1935

"Our main agenda is to have all guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn't matter if you have to distort facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed."
---Sarah Brady Chairman, Handgun Control Inc, The National Educator, January 1994

"We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
---Hillary Clinton, June 2004


Hitler did exactly what these anti's are trying to do every day. Look how that ended up?

REALITY:

A lifetime of good service followed by ONE misdeed shall render you helpless.

A man in good service to his country for 20 years that sells information to our enemy is still a TRAITOR. It doesn't matter who he is or what he has done. He betrayed us and is a TRAITOR.

This situation is no different. We are at WAR with the anti's. Every day, every night. If you think of it in any other fassion, you have my pitty


Rembember I said that... ;)
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 4:21:20 AM EST
Good post Orkan, thanks for the reality check.

The other side does not get it, and probably never will.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 5:20:01 AM EST
Maybe we should compile a list of things the anti's hold dear and lobby our legislators to ban them
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 5:41:00 AM EST

Originally Posted By orkan:


"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!"
---Adolph Hitler, 15 April 1935

"Our main agenda is to have all guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn't matter if you have to distort facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed."
---Sarah Brady Chairman, Handgun Control Inc, The National Educator, January 1994


Both of these are bogus quotes.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 7:12:27 AM EST

Originally Posted By orkan:
"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!"
---Adolph Hitler, 15 April 1935


Continuing to perpetuate this BS makes us look like liars and idiots.

I beg everyone here; please drop this fake ass Hitler quote.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 7:43:20 AM EST
[Last Edit: 2/24/2007 7:49:48 AM EST by orkan]
I pulled these from the predator masters forum, so I did not research them before I posted them here.

Sorry if I was off with two of the quotes. The hillary quote is VERY real. :)

Regardless whether the hitler quote is true or not... Gun registration was the first step in the process of DISARMING the entire country so they could do whatever they want.

Just because the quote is flase (if it is false) doesn't mean you shouldn't think of it as serious. It is a historical fact that the nazi's disarmed germany before they slaghtered a few million people.

Use your heads people. I'm not the one you should be attacking.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 7:49:31 AM EST
Here is a few hitler quotes that ARE real. Strange how most of them apply to many "pro-AWB" political leaders in ths country today. I have bolded the ones that seemed to have the most pertinent influence on todays leaders. I have heard some of our so-called leaders spout nearly the same garbage.

Generals think war should be waged like the tourneys of the Middle Ages. I have no use for knights; I need revolutionaries.
Adolf Hitler


How fortunate for leaders that men do not think.
Adolf Hitler

Strength lies not in defence but in attack.
Adolf Hitler

Success is the sole earthly judge of right and wrong.
Adolf Hitler

The broad masses of a population are more amenable to the appeal of rhetoric than to any other force.
Adolf Hitler


The great masses of the people will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one.
Adolf Hitler


The great strength of the totalitarian state is that it forces those who fear it to imitate it.
Adolf Hitler

The leader of genius must have the ability to make different opponents appear as if they belonged to one category.
Adolf Hitler

The victor will never be asked if he told the truth.
Adolf Hitler

Universal education is the most corroding and disintegrating poison that liberalism has ever invented for its own destruction.
Adolf Hitler

What good fortune for governments that the people do not think.
Adolf Hitler


What luck for rulers, that men do not think.
Adolf Hitler

Who says I am not under the special protection of God?
Adolf Hitler
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 7:54:39 AM EST
it does seem these yahoos get lots of air time and print space , i can only hope they are as "stupid" as the rest of the democrats running for office that were so neatly fooled by that bumbling george bush into voting for the iraqi invasion that the smartest woman in the worlds husband had pushed for
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 8:55:46 AM EST
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.


Pastor Martin Niemöller

We could probably substitute 50 cal shooters for the Jews. Maybe Ar-15/AK shooters for something else. Reading Petzals '94, unless his thinking has changed recently, reveals a fundamental difference in interpretation of the Second Amendment. It looks to me that they both (Zumbo and Petzal) seem to fall into the reason to keep and bear arms in the Second Amendment for hunting reasons. Let's give them the benefit of the doubt and say they would probably be okay with personal defense, but it seems clear that the original intent of the Second Amendment wasn't to preserve firearm hunting rights, but rather to be used by The People to protect themselves against a tyrannical, power usurping government. The same people Petzal quotes in his original '94 support for Clinton's "assault weapons" ban.
Top Top