Trump — or Clinton — Will Decide Fate of the Second Amendment
Whether Americans will continue to have a Second Amendment right to own guns now depends on whether Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton wins the White House.
The Supreme Court will soon have an opportunity to review a federal appeals court’s decision Thursday that the government can ban all concealed firearms outside the home.
No Fly No Buy: Obama's Last Ditch Effort To Cripple The Second Amendment
There’s one thing that all gun grabbing politicians have in common. They are all quite adamant that they don’t want to take your guns. They’ll tell you over and over again that all they want is a few reasonable regulations. Every once in a blue moon they’ll let their guard down in front of an reporter, and reveal their true long-term intentions, but by and large they’re always trying to put a reassuring face on their gun grabbing agenda.
Obama for instance, has consistently claimed throughout his presidency that all he wants is a few “reasonable” restrictions, and that all he intends to do is keep guns out of the hands of “bad guys.” Whenever he talks about it however, you can read between the lines and find his ulterior motives.
At a recent Town Hall meeting, Obama was put on the spot by gun store owner, who asked him why he wants to restrict gun use for law-abiding citizens. The video has since gone viral among liberals who think that the president gave a stellar response. In reality, he merely showed us his true colors.
One of the questions over at the link was, why did the Germans send Enver Pasha, of Turkey, to negotiate their desires of secret re-armament with the Soviets? Enver Pasha was of infamous Armenian massacre fame, and he had two goals. Re-arm Turkey, which had lost most of it's empire in WW1, and evade trouble back home and abroad concerning Armenia. Germany had Turkey on its side in the war, and had close cooperation with German military/industrial support then, and later. With a strong/resurgent military, Turkey would also be able to brush aside international criticism and interference with their country. Recall if you will, that in 1913 Turkey lost Greece, BEFORE WW1, in a short independence war, Greece not being that much of a power at the time, was still able to kick the Ottomans out. This was more than an embarrassment, it's why Turkey was referred to as the "sick man of Europe". A lot of hungry neighbors were looking to gain from Turkeys' losses, and Pashas' mission was to make Turkey look a lot less weak. OPSEC wise, if he was exposed, Germany could deny the whole thing. He almost was exposed, but got away, thanks to a junior German officer.
The designs of tyranny are frequently preceded by long decades of preparation in secret, and in retrospect it becomes hard to fathom how such enormous conspiracies were able to radically change the world without tipping their intentions in advance.
The answer is that most normal people adjust to the world they live in and have no dramatic plans to change it, and are thus incapable of taking seriously the idea of anyone else forming or carrying out such plans. It is only when the vast majority of people have their very survival threatened daily by the status quo that they will want it changed enough to even believe that change might be possible.
History is largely the contest of determined minorities, though secrecy is not always perceived to be advantageous to such designs. These individuals are not (usually) aberrations from humanity, they may not be ordinary but they still have reasons for what they attempt and natural imitations on what they can accomplish. The masses accept or resist various contestants for dominance of society based on observable historical factors.
It takes time to lay the groundwork for successful tyranny at the national level, what we think of as face of a tyrannical regime may not have been there at the founding. In any case, the eventual singular tyrant did not rise to power without assistance, there are numerous others who chose to aid and support rather than resist the regime.
We cannot hold such entirely guiltless. Even though we understand the historical factors which they allowed to dictate their choice, the fact is that it was their choice and others did not abdicate it to 'society' but accepted personal responsibility.
5 comments:
BREAKING: 9th Circuit Court Rules Americans Have No Right To Carry Concealed Firearms Outside Their Home…
http://www.weaselzippers.us/276166-breaking-9th-circuit-court-rules-americans-have-no-right-to-carry-concealed-firearms-outside-their-home/
Trump — or Clinton — Will Decide Fate of the Second Amendment
Whether Americans will continue to have a Second Amendment right to own guns now depends on whether Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton wins the White House.
The Supreme Court will soon have an opportunity to review a federal appeals court’s decision Thursday that the government can ban all concealed firearms outside the home.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/06/09/second-amendment-trump-clinton-will-decide-fate/
No Fly No Buy: Obama's Last Ditch Effort To Cripple The Second Amendment
There’s one thing that all gun grabbing politicians have in common. They are all quite adamant that they don’t want to take your guns. They’ll tell you over and over again that all they want is a few reasonable regulations. Every once in a blue moon they’ll let their guard down in front of an reporter, and reveal their true long-term intentions, but by and large they’re always trying to put a reassuring face on their gun grabbing agenda.
Obama for instance, has consistently claimed throughout his presidency that all he wants is a few “reasonable” restrictions, and that all he intends to do is keep guns out of the hands of “bad guys.” Whenever he talks about it however, you can read between the lines and find his ulterior motives.
At a recent Town Hall meeting, Obama was put on the spot by gun store owner, who asked him why he wants to restrict gun use for law-abiding citizens. The video has since gone viral among liberals who think that the president gave a stellar response. In reality, he merely showed us his true colors.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-08/no-fly-no-buy-obamas-last-ditch-effort-cripple-second-amendment
One of the questions over at the link was, why did the Germans send Enver Pasha, of Turkey, to negotiate their desires of secret re-armament with the Soviets? Enver Pasha was of infamous Armenian massacre fame, and he had two goals. Re-arm Turkey, which had lost most of it's empire in WW1, and evade trouble back home and abroad concerning Armenia. Germany had Turkey on its side in the war, and had close cooperation with German military/industrial support then, and later. With a strong/resurgent military, Turkey would also be able to brush aside international criticism and interference with their country. Recall if you will, that in 1913 Turkey lost Greece, BEFORE WW1, in a short independence war, Greece not being that much of a power at the time, was still able to kick the Ottomans out. This was more than an embarrassment, it's why Turkey was referred to as the "sick man of Europe". A lot of hungry neighbors were looking to gain from Turkeys' losses, and Pashas' mission was to make Turkey look a lot less weak. OPSEC wise, if he was exposed, Germany could deny the whole thing. He almost was exposed, but got away, thanks to a junior German officer.
The designs of tyranny are frequently preceded by long decades of preparation in secret, and in retrospect it becomes hard to fathom how such enormous conspiracies were able to radically change the world without tipping their intentions in advance.
The answer is that most normal people adjust to the world they live in and have no dramatic plans to change it, and are thus incapable of taking seriously the idea of anyone else forming or carrying out such plans. It is only when the vast majority of people have their very survival threatened daily by the status quo that they will want it changed enough to even believe that change might be possible.
History is largely the contest of determined minorities, though secrecy is not always perceived to be advantageous to such designs. These individuals are not (usually) aberrations from humanity, they may not be ordinary but they still have reasons for what they attempt and natural imitations on what they can accomplish. The masses accept or resist various contestants for dominance of society based on observable historical factors.
It takes time to lay the groundwork for successful tyranny at the national level, what we think of as face of a tyrannical regime may not have been there at the founding. In any case, the eventual singular tyrant did not rise to power without assistance, there are numerous others who chose to aid and support rather than resist the regime.
We cannot hold such entirely guiltless. Even though we understand the historical factors which they allowed to dictate their choice, the fact is that it was their choice and others did not abdicate it to 'society' but accepted personal responsibility.
Post a Comment