TexasCHLforum.com

TexasGal wrote:We already have re-education camps on a massive scale. It's the public school system. Your children come out of it rejecting your moral values and especially your political values. They have been taught to embrace the far left view and feel contempt and even hate for anyone who does not see it as the only way to go. My son and step-son are leftists. We try to stay off political discussions because the stuff that comes out of their mouths makes me physically ill. My stepson even said once that we needed a great plague to wipe out most of mankind so the planet could recover from all the damage we have done to it. And we needed to do away with "big oil" and if it meant widespread hunger and joblessness to force people to walk and bike instead of drive cars, then so be it. There is a profound belief that it does not matter how many would suffer as long as the ends were achieved. Public school and college is where they got these beliefs. They were re-educated faster than their parents and grandparents could educate them.

The sexualization of youth, especially females, is also going to have some devastating effects on the social contract. I can just about literally seeing the matrimonial bond disappearing before my eyes.

cb1000rider wrote:VM,
Thanks for making that clear.. That's a lot more reasonable than the way I was processing it at first. I agree with pretty much everything you said above.. I was just a bit taken aback if you thought that parts of the American government were promoting gun violence as a way to pass an anti-gun agenda.

Personally, I think that thanks to the media attention, if you want to get some attention in the US, we all know how to do it. Frequency of incidents is going to stay at the current level - or maybe increase. I just don't remember it being like this 20 or 30 years ago. And all this attention is bad for the 2nd amendment.

mamabearCali, Yea.. Canada is far from utopia.. And you point out some of the downfalls of socialized medicine. Seems like we either go there or continue a trend of healthcare that almost no one can afford in the future.

Yes, and while I'd prefer the media to clean up its own house, it's obvious they're are not going to do so, and it may be time for a law that prevents the name of individuals behind these killings from being published.

cb1000rider wrote:

VMI77 wrote: It just occurred to me to respond in a different way.....Fast and Furious. They, the leadership, sold guns to Mexican drug cartels. They not only knew that bloodshed would result, that was the whole point, in order to facilitate their anti-gun agenda.

For me, this is conspiracy theory and I don't think the sky is falling. And I get it - you can make it fit that way. Isn't it much more likely that this was a segment of the government trying to track the flow of guns to Mexico and they seriously boon-dogged it up? In other words, to me, it's much more likely that the government is simply incompetent versus having some uber-puppet master pulling strings to intentionally create more violence and pass anti-gun legislation? Is this a pretty good summary of what you're suggesting?


Sure, it's not impossible, but I need you to show me the strings before I jump to that kind of conclusion.
And before someone asks, I can't prove that there isn't a puppet master.

I'm not suggesting the presence of a puppet master or a conspiracy....at least not in the sense you're suggesting. How many "news" sources in this country are pro-gun? Is it a conspiracy that the news media is 99% anti-gun? What you have is a group of people who gravitate towards a profession that is filled with other like minded people. Noam Chomsky, no conservative, has a detailed explanation of how this works in his book "Manufacturing Consent." No one has to hold meetings or give orders because they all believe the same things.

It's possible Fast and Furious was due to incompetence, but testimony of ATF agents seems to suggest otherwise......that the guns were released and no attempt was made to trace or track them. I'm not saying that The One or even Holder said, hey ATF, send guns into Mexico and let's get some people killed so we can use that politically for gun control. What I am saying is that at the highest level it was approved knowing what the results would be bloodshed, because even if the followup was perfect, people were going to get killed with those guns before they could arrest the perps or round up the guns. At best, this was indifference to how their actions would affect the lives of others they obviously didn't consider important. Practically speaking, being pro bloodshed or indifferent to bloodshed is pretty much the same.

VMI77 wrote: Meanwhile, the administration is not only refusing to enforce immigration law, it is encouraging illegal immigration. The open borders that result enable the drug cartels and facilitate their "business." Drug cartels sell drugs but they produce bloodshed. It's not rocket science....if they're not pro-bloodshed why aren't they stopping the drug cartels at the border?

cb1000rider wrote:OK, tell me how these policies are a drastic shift from the Regan administration? We had less border protection then and allowed a period of "amnesty'" - which the current Democratic administration is trying to trigger again. Even if you don't like the border policy, Obama has substantially increased border security staffing... Although there seems to be some border patrol guards that are running pretty loose with the law.

Not sure what you mean by BP agents running loose. According the the association that represents BP agents they are being prevented by the administration from enforcing the law.

cb1000rider wrote:I can tell you exactly why we don't secure the border. It has nothing to do with a policy trying to take firearms from Americans. It has everything to do with protecting the businesses that fund politicians. Industries survive and thrive on that labor, so that keeps us looking the other way. And pretty soon, if the Republican party doesn't adjust and our demographics keep shifting, the majority of the population will want that border to be more open... Not less.

To me, this is a very dumb issue. We're again polarized by the loud extreme sides. And that prevents a realistic discussion on how we could solve it and prop up our economy.

I'm not a Reagan fan. He betrayed conservative/libertarian principles on at least two major decisions and his actions have cost the country dearly. 1) He cut an amnesty deal, a supposedly one time only amnesty, and future illegal immigration was in turn supposed to be stopped with increased border security. Not only did the amnesty encourage more illegal immigration the border security was never implemented. 2) He signed off on a tax cut deal that was supposed to include significant spending cuts. The spending cuts never happened thereby putting us on the road to ever increasing debt. And let's not forget, in spite of his supposed toughness, he got about 300 Marines killed in Lebanon due to the ridiculous ROE that left Marine sentries with unloaded weapons.

As far as why we don't secure the border, I agree. When Reagan got the Bill that was supposed to improve border security it was watered down at the behest of corporate interests, and these rent seekers are the ones pushing for more illegals, and it's driving down wages and taking jobs for the poorest Americans.

VMI77 wrote: They're calling 2nd Amendment supporters domestic terrorists and just launched a new task force to deal with them. How come they're not devoting resources to eliminating gang violence? Gang violence isn't domestic terrorism but supporting the Constitution is? They can spy on law abiding citizens but not gang bangers? They can lock down a whole city for one murdering nut job but they can't come down on MS-13?

cb1000rider wrote:They've condition the "sheeple" to respond to the word "terrorist". So now any administration or political faction can use that word for their own purpose. After all, who would stand up and support a "terrorist"? You can't have a rational discussion about it. You can't debate it. It's not just gun issues, it's any polarizing issue in America that has ever been associated with any type of violence.

Again, I agree.

cb1000rider wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote: I think VMI77's statement is accurate. The progressive leadership is well aware that they will not be the ones who force their dictate down our throats. It will be the front line men and women who are tasked to do it. The progressive leadership are cowards and are blind to what is on the horizon if they do not stop.

Anygunanywhere

This is not the same as indicating that they're pro-bloodshed.

It just occurred to me to respond in a different way.....Fast and Furious. They, the leadership, sold guns to Mexican drug cartels. They not only knew that bloodshed would result, that was the whole point, in order to facilitate their anti-gun agenda. Meanwhile, the administration is not only refusing to enforce immigration law, it is encouraging illegal immigration. The open borders that result enable the drug cartels and facilitate their "business." Drug cartels sell drugs but they produce bloodshed. It's not rocket science....if they're not pro-bloodshed why aren't they stopping the drug cartels at the border? And they obviously don't care about these children traveling from Central America on their own....a dangerous journey from which many will die....they're encouraging them to come illegally. They're calling 2nd Amendment supporters domestic terrorists and just launched a new task force to deal with them. How come they're not devoting resources to eliminating gang violence? Gang violence isn't domestic terrorism but supporting the Constitution is? They can spy on law abiding citizens but not gang bangers? They can lock down a whole city for one murdering nut job but they can't come down on MS-13?

cb1000rider wrote:

gthaustex wrote: If this is allowed to fly, I propose that we all submit the names of anyone on any protective detail for these politicians. I'm sure that the bill would make them exempt somehow, although one could argue that they could snap just as easily as anyone else....

Well before we throw them all under the bus, what are the details? Does this only apply to people that have been convicted of crimes? Does it only apply to the mentally ill? Or does it apply to everyone willy-nilly where they can simply choose who they take firearms from?

The proposal, which btw, is pretty much the same as the one proposed in the Commiefornia legislature, is to apply to everyone....so that your anti-gun neighbor can report you as being dangerous, and essentially get you SWATed. You need not be a convicted felon or have been adjudicated mentally ill. All a family member, neighbor, or acquaintance will have to do is tell the authorities that you said something you didn't say. I've only seen summaries at this point so I can't point you to any details. But then, we didn't have to know any details of the legislation for Obamacare to pass...just that if we liked our doctor we could keep our doctor.

cb1000rider wrote:

VMI77 wrote: The progressive leadership wants bloodshed to hasten their socialist utopia, and they know they can't achieve their goals as fast, or at all, as long as too many of us Constitutionalists are alive to oppose them. Hence, the 24/7 demonization of the Tea Party, Republicans, the NRA, southerners, rural Americans, gun owners, conservatives, Christians, ex military personnel, white males, homemakers, married mothers, and self-defense. They know exactly who stands in their way and like every other "progressive" before them that ever got control of a government, they intend to imprison and execute their opposition. I think the only part they don't get is that this isn't Germany, Cambodia, Uganda, Russia, or China, and their plans are not likely to yield their desired results.

Really, VM? The progressive (Obama) leadership WANTS bloodshed because it promotes their agenda? They're sitting a closed-door meetings figuring out what they can do to get more bloodshed, or at least make sure it's not prevented?

And if you stand in their way you'll be put in prison or executed?

Too much tin-foil for me, sir... I appreciate some good political dramatization, but I hope no one things this is the kind of thing that we really believe.

And women's groups aren't exactly praising the NRA and supporting pro-firearm legislation these days.. In fact, I'd say that a little too much conservatism has already started to cut some of that support out of the Republican party, which means more progressives...

Yes, really. Your response makes it sound like I'm talking about something happening the the immediate future. Also, I said that's what they want, not that they going to get what they want. All you have to do to see this is to go read the comments they leave after various articles on HuffPo or the Daily KOS. There are many many comments calling for the extermination of their opposition and very few dissenting comments.

Futhermore, no, they're not sitting in closed door meetings discussing the strategy to promote bloodshed. They don't have to because those strategies have already been laid out by Saul Alinsky and Cloward-Piven. They're just following the progressive play book. Also, I made a distinction between people like you who think they're liberals (and are really closer to being either a classical liberal or a libertarian) and the leadership....people like Holder, Obama, Reid, and Pelosi.

Here's what Obama's bud Bill Ayers and friends had to say on the subject: http://voices.yahoo.com/fbi-informant-r ... 94830.html

They also believed that their immediate responsibility would be to protect against what they called the 'counter revolution.' And um, they felt that this counter revolution could best be guarded against by creating and establishing reeducation centers in the Southwest, ah, where we would take all the people who needed to be reeducated into the new way of thinking and teach them how things were going to be."

Grathwohl continued on with "I asked 'Well what is going to happen to those people that we can't reeducate - that are die hard capitalist?' And the reply was that they'd have to be eliminated. And when I pursued this further they estimated they would have to eliminate 25 million people in these reeducation centers. And when I say eliminate I mean kill . . . 25 million people."

Grathwohl expressed shock that as he sat in a room hearing these words he was with 25 people with graduate degrees from Columbia and other institutions, and "hear them figuring out the logistics for the elimination of 25 million people, and they were dead serious." (All emphasis in quotes is mine).

They are slowly acquiring the means to implement their utopia. Stop looking at what Obama says and look at what he does. He and many in his administration, like Holder, are radical leftists and 100% driven by agenda and lust for power.

Then there is history. There has never been a "progressive" government that didn't mass murder its citizens.

The left is already pushing to ruin the lives of people they disagree with. They don't want anyone who isn't "progressive" enough to even hold a job, and have been unbelievably successful at sending their opposition to the unemployment line, forcing them to shut up, or destroying their business.

But these things don't play out overnight. I'd put the time frame at around 10 years from now before we see the full horror that is coming. But if you're paying attention it should be rather obvious by now that they're laying the groundwork and a good deal of the necessary legal and political infrastructure is already in place.

mamabearCali wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:

VMI77 wrote:http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/0 ... cate-guns/

BREAKING: Dianne Feinstein Introduces Federal Bill to Confiscate Guns
By Nick Leghorn on June 6, 2014

Dianne Feinstein and friend (courtesy humanevents.com)

We all saw this one coming. Two weeks after Elliot Roger stabbed three people and shot three more, a trio of legislators from California (including Dianne Feinstein) have proposed a new federal law called “The Pause for Safety Act” which would allow anyone at any time to seek a “firearms restraining order” against an individual to prevent them from purchasing any new firearms and also confiscate any firearms they may already own. From Barbara Boxer’s website, here are the details we have at the moment:

They will continue until one way or another they succeed in their goal. Whether it be by legislation or executive order, it will happen. It is inevitable.

Anygunanywhere

At which point they will violated the social contract they have with their people and can be removed by any means. If they don't get that pursuing this in the manner they are is setting this nation up for bloodshed then they are fools. If they do get it and think that yet again the ends justify the means....then they are simply evil.

Personally, I don't think the rank and file get it, but the progressive leadership does. Obama has vigorously attempted to stir up unrest and divide people since day one of his office. The progressive leadership wants bloodshed to hasten their socialist utopia, and they know they can't achieve their goals as fast, or at all, as long as too many of us Constitutionalists are alive to oppose them. Hence, the 24/7 demonization of the Tea Party, Republicans, the NRA, southerners, rural Americans, gun owners, conservatives, Christians, ex military personnel, white males, homemakers, married mothers, and self-defense. They know exactly who stands in their way and like every other "progressive" before them that ever got control of a government, they intend to imprison and execute their opposition. I think the only part they don't get is that this isn't Germany, Cambodia, Uganda, Russia, or China, and their plans are not likely to yield their desired results.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/0 ... cate-guns/

BREAKING: Dianne Feinstein Introduces Federal Bill to Confiscate Guns
By Nick Leghorn on June 6, 2014

Dianne Feinstein and friend (courtesy humanevents.com)

We all saw this one coming. Two weeks after Elliot Roger stabbed three people and shot three more, a trio of legislators from California (including Dianne Feinstein) have proposed a new federal law called “The Pause for Safety Act” which would allow anyone at any time to seek a “firearms restraining order” against an individual to prevent them from purchasing any new firearms and also confiscate any firearms they may already own. From Barbara Boxer’s website, here are the details we have at the moment: