Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Hangtime on January 04, 2006, 11:07:39 AM
-
LOL.. ran into this.. just had ta share.
"September 1 issue
Kofi: “Before you step on the rattlesnake...”
This letter recently received:
Kofi Annan
Secretary-General of the United Nations
(Temporarily) New York, New York
United States of America
RE: The Blue Helmet Blues
Dear Kofi,
You may recall that a couple years back I sent you a souvenir of how some of us here in Alabama celebrated United Nations Day - a thoroughly perforated steel helmet (painted U.N. baby blue), the result of a few minutes effort at our local firing range. You certainly did not take this hint of our disdain for your globalist gun-grabbing proposals to heart, for the reason I take keyboard to hand this day is to comment upon your scheduled "gun burning" by the U.N. Conference on Small Weapons scheduled for July 9.
First, as you grew up in Kwame Nkrumah's socialist Ghana and have been a global government bureaucrat since you graduated from college, I would be willing to bet you have little understanding of American history or Americans beyond the Hudson River. Of course there was that stint at Macalester College in St. Paul, but that was for a short time and very long ago (c. 1961). Much has changed in America since then, but much has not.
Let me tell you what has not changed: we still have men and women who will fight and die if necessary to maintain their God-given and traditional liberties. We are fewer in percentage of the general population than we were when you were going to college in "Frostbite Falls", but there are still enough of us to take on any combination of globalists and treasonous American Quislings-- enough to take you on and win. I share this with you for you are unlikely to hear such sentiments from the likes of Ted Turner or any of the circle of elitists you are acquainted with in New York, and it is important for you to hear the warning buzz before you step on the rattlesnake. Afterward, let it not be said that you took your step without being first warned by the natives that you were about to do a very, very stupid thing.
It's been tried before, you know, as His Majesty's General Gage could tell you were he alive today. General Gage, like you, did not want to start a war. Like you, General Gage thought his efforts to disarm our forebears were "reasonable". Like General Gage, you are apparently set upon a course that will, at length, precipitate another war to once again secure our inalienable liberties-- liberties that we derive not from an international bureaucracy's whims, but from God.
I note from the attached story below [the “Security Threat at the UN” AP story printed in last column] that other "gunnies", as I affectionately call my free brothers-in-arms, have written you in a similar vein. I also note that your bureaucratic servants have been frightened by these letters and emails, and while your minions admit that the messages carry no individual threats of harm they will be forwarded to "security experts" including, presumably, the FBI for analysis. This distorts and misinterprets our intent, I assure you. We are not threatening anyone personally. To announce publicly that any thief who breaks into your home will be shot can only be perceived as a threat by thieves, named and unnamed, and not the honest. The threat is contingent upon the act. And despite your stupidity in announcing your intent to achieve universal civilian disarmament, I certainly bear you no ill will, nor your Swedish-born wife, nor your children. Nor I daresay do any of the "gunnies" who have written you similarly.
It's just that as Americans, we never like to have to shoot somebody, even criminals caught in the act, before we warn them of their errant ways and give them the opportunity to cease and desist before deadly force is brought down upon them. It is the direct expression of American fair play for our police or armed citizens to call out, "Halt or I'll shoot". The same sentiment was expressed by the flag flown in our struggle against the British elitist gun-grabbers: "Don't Tread On Me" writ large beneath a nasty looking rattlesnake.
You must understand that having announced your intention to deny us our ancestral, God-given and inalienable rights you have placed yourself in the category of "criminal suspect". And while we would not shoot you lest we found you in commission of a crime on our soil, you should thank us for attempting to warn you against such folly before the unintended consequences of it catches up to you.
I didn't used to be so blunt. For many years I have argued history, law, facts and logic with liberal gun-grabbers of my own country. I have come to the conclusion that such arguments are useless exercises. In the end it always boils down to a conversation I once had with a child psychiatrist just before a "gun violence seminar".
The psychiatrist announced boldly (he thought): "Well, I think ALL guns should be banned."
"Really?" I responded, "Do YOU have a gun?"
"WWWWW Well, NO!" he stammered, seemingly as shocked as a lesbian would be if asked about male anatomy or Dracula if asked to hold a crucifix.
"Well, then," I smiled, "How do you propose to get mine then?" I asked.
That one puzzled him, but only for a second: "Why, we'll pass a law and you'll have to turn them into the government."
"Wrong, sport," I replied, "let me tell you how this works: If you want my gun you're gonna have to kill me to get it. You're gonna have to kill my son. You're gonna have to kill my brother. You're gonna have to kill all my friends. And if even 10% of American gun owners feel the way I do, you're gonna have to kill upwards of eight and a half million people, and that doesn't count all the godless gungrabbers like you that we'll kill in righteous self-defense before we meet our Maker, and we intend to make that more than a one-to-one ratio, so you've got to ask yourself: 'Is it worth it?'"
The psychiatrist, somewhat nonplussed by my vehemence, started backing up about half way through this oration and responded by stammering: "WWWWWWhy you're paranoid!"
I smiled and said softly, "Well, let's accept the expertness of that snap judgement, you being a psychiatrist and all. Let's say I'm 'paranoid.'" I offered. "Let's say I'm crazy." I winked at him. "I'm still armed to the teeth, that just complicates your problem, doesn't it?"
He turned to flee but I hooked him with one last question: "Can you just do me one favor, sport?"
He turned, listening.
"Just do me this favor: you want my guns, YOU come get them. Have the courage of your convictions and YOU come get them. Don't send somebody else's son or daughter in federal service to come get them. YOU come get them. And hey, I may even let you have 'em after I unload 'em."
The psychiatrist, like me, was on the seminar panel, and he waited in the back of the room until I took a seat, and then found the chair as far away from me as he could get.[/b]
May I suggest Mr. Secretary-General, that if you're not prepared for the unintended consequences of your actions then it would perhaps be better if you did not send the UN down the American gun control road. It would also be wise to remember that a man who is willing to die for his country and liberty is most often also willing to kill for it. Just ask General Gage, another well intentioned gun-grabber, who fortunately for him escaped from this continent with his life after starting a long and costly war. A war, by the way, that we won.
May I also suggest that you step a little lightly when you're around free Americans like us, Mr. Annan. We don't take kindly to strangers trying to tell us which of our liberties meet the approval of the so-called "international community" and which do not. We may one day invite you to leave for your impolite temerity. We've whipped bigger and badder enemies than your globalist rabble before and we can do it again, any time you feel froggy.
MV, AL
P.S. We'll be celebrating July 9 by going to the range and perforating more blue helmets with 5.56mm, 7.62mm, 9mm, 11.4mm & 12.7mm holes. Just to keep our skills up, of course. No threat implied."
MV would not mind if we printed his name (or his address), but we omit it as a matter of practice.
----------------------------
There exists in this country a large contingient of 'paranoid' gun owning pain-in-the asses... and frankly, I'm happy to be one.
-
I guess the writer forgot that the UN can't legislate anything that affects the USA that isn't approved by the POTUS and ratified by Congress; either that or the article is an attack on a paranoia-induced straw man issued on a rare trip out of the proverbial bunker.
-
No doubt. I'm sure not concerned about Kofi, the UN or any other 'foreigin' threat here.
However, I did find the part I italicized and placed in bold print to be worthy of dissemenation.. because it mirrors my attitude pretty well. Most liberals are all for legislating guns outta the hands of American Riflemen. But, they don't have the testicles to take 'em themseleves.. they'd rather 'pass a law' and send somebody else to go get 'em.
Cowards. ;)
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Most liberals are all for legislating guns outta the hands of American Riflemen. But, they don't have the testicles to take 'em themseleves.. they'd rather 'pass a law' and send somebody else to go get 'em.
Hmmm... most?
-
Some libs think guns are A-OK.
-
Hmmm... some?
-
semantic nazi liberal bastage!
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Hmmm... some?
Not many, but they exist. I can name.. uh... 2 friends of mine that are gun owning liberals. 2 out of a few hundred is still more than 0 :)
-
Hmmm... not many?
Here's my point... The conservative/pro-gun versus liberal/anti-gun generality gets tossed around quite frequently. I'd like to see a poll asking people if they consider themselves to be liberal or conservative. Then, ask if they are for or against banning guns and see if there is a correlation.
Hell... it might as well happen here.
1. Do you consider yourself to be:
a. Conservative
b. Liberal
2. Do you believe that all guns should be banned?
a. Yes
b. No
You'll notice that each question is framed for maximum polarity. This is intentional. There is no gray.
I'll even go first.
1 = b
2 = b
-
Note that I said "MOST" liberals.. not "ALL" liberals. There are plenty of "anti-gun" conservatives too.. as well as anti-gun Libertarians.
Taking a stand on The Gun Issue by itself has had this kinda odd effect of coming with a PC label of 'Liberal' or 'Conservative' depending on which side of the fence you stand on.. which is foolish, really.
Good on Sandy for pointing that out. :aok
-
Shell casing's rights have been ignored too long.
Out of the chambers & into the streets!
-
Which leads to my other point. The so called anti-gun or pro-gun label paints the issue as if their are just two types... those that want guns banned and those that don't.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Which leads to my other point. The so called anti-gun or pro-gun label paints the issue as if their are just two types... those that want guns banned and those that don't.
Ahhh.. and there's the shades of Grey?? !!
-
as always it is
(http://petcaretips.net/daffy_elmer.jpg)
against
(http://www.nationmaster.com/wikimir/images/upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/a8/DaffyShot.jpg/360px-DaffyShot.jpg)
-
If you put enough restrictions on firearms ownership you have in effect created a defacto ban.
If you make a firearm cost $5,000 in taxes and fees and licence and the storage device needed for it... then for a lot of people it is a ban.
If you make everyone have a huge gun safe then... for people who live in apartments that don't allow 800 lb gun safes then.... for them it is a ban..
If you ban handguns then it is a ban.
If you ban any gun that can't be used for "sporting purposes" then you have banned guns for what they constitution intended them to be used for.
A better question would be....
Do you consider yourself to be.
a) conservative
b) liberal
Do you feel that we have in this country.
a) too much gun control
b) not enough gun control
It matters not.... most would not admit to being either liberal or conservative (glad sandie finaly came out of the closet)
It is a fight of incramentalism tho... the gun banners are trying to undermine the strength of the gun culture by making owning guns such a hassel and so restricted that a lot of people will just not bother... when they get to number they can crush they will. No gun restriction will ever be enough until they get a total ban.
My guess is that sandie would love to see even more restrictions on gun ownership and no restriction would ever seem unreasonable to him.... eroding rights a little at a time is the way of the gun grabbers.
I am positive that conservatives by and large favor less gun control than liberals...
In politics... the work of the poll has allready been done. The NRA polls the politicians running for every office and grades them A-F on their stand on gun control..more than 90% of democrats and liberals recieve failing grades. the reverse is true of Republican candidates. Sandies premis fails in the real world. Liberal candidates don't come from the republican ranks.
lazs
-
and sandie... there are only two types... those who want guns banned and those who don't.. It matters not what gun you choose... there will be those who want it banned and those who don't.
Within the context of the constitution "arms" those hand held small arms carried by troops... there is allways someone who will pick and choose which ones they think should be banned and those who think none should be infringed.... I peg you as the gun banning former. I am the "shall not be infringed" latter.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Sandies premis fails in the real world.
Let me clue you in. That was the point.
-
Gun Control is all about education, respect, and hitting what you are aimming at.
I label myself as a conservative and I feel that there is already to much gun control.
When I get into certain conversations with people that feel all guns should be banned, I reach over and tap them on the shoulder. As the conversation goes on I tap their shoulder again. After about 5 taps they ask why I keep tapping them. I walk away and tell them they have just been stabbed 5 times and they are dieing and why isnt your precious law enforcement here yet to protect you? I'm going to go find somebody else to stab. They seem to always shut up after that and stay quiet for the rest of the time I'm around them. Hope its not me they are scared of.
When the topic is of hunting and they say you dont need an automatic to hunt with, I tell them that they dont need the $100 Nikes they are wearing to go hunting in but that they would probably wear them because its the only pair of shoes they got. Just because I can pull a trigger real fast doesnt mean I have to use it to kill a deer. Its just may be all I have a the time to get some meat.
I find most Libs in my parts want to be spoon fed and anything that happens to them is always somebody elses fault. EVERYTHING is always somebody elses fault and the human race is beyond the barbarianisms that would require uss to need guns.
I hear the sale of glass houses are on the rise.
-
Originally posted by Wolf14
When I get into certain conversations with people that feel all guns should be banned, I reach over and tap them on the shoulder. As the conversation goes on I tap their shoulder again. After about 5 taps they ask why I keep tapping them. I walk away and tell them they have just been stabbed 5 times and they are dieing and why isnt your precious law enforcement here yet to protect you? I'm going to go find somebody else to stab. They seem to always shut up after that and stay quiet for the rest of the time I'm around them. Hope its not me they are scared of.
What....no ones pointed their finger back and said: "thats my thermonuclear warhead I've just dropped on your tapping finger knife"?
Tronsky
-
I don't think it is legal or a constitionaly protected right to own a thermonuke... I don't think that it should be. It would probly endanger the neighbors or firemen in a house fire... very reckless to own such a thing.
lazs
-
What Phaser has to do to buy a firearm (Pistol). (In Michigan)
A. Find the one I want.
B. Place a down payment on the firearm
C. Drive to the sheriff department to get a purchase permit. (30+ miles, background check, test on firearm safety every year).
D. Take the permit back to the firearms dealer and give it to him with the rest of the money. He then calls the FBI data center while I fill out the required forms (2 each). If the FBI says I’m a good boy I sign everything and he gives me the firearm and a copy of the permit.
E. Drive back to the sheriffs department (within 5 working days) with the signed permit, gun and $5 bucks. They take the firearm, permit and money. They register the firearm in the state database and give me a safety permit for the firearm. I must have this permit at all times when I’m using the firearm.
F. They tell me if I let a minor have unfettered access to the firearm and they use it in a crime, I’ll be prosecuted for the crime.
G. I now have a new firearm.
Is this not enough? I work for the government. I have to keep 2 different security clearances to keep my job. In the last 20 years (yes 20 years) I have received only 1 traffic ticket. That’s it. Never been in trouble with the law. I work for federal law enforcement!
I tell you for a fact. No bad guy will turn in his guns. NONE, NADA, ZIP.
Don’t punish me for other people being criminals.
-
No... not to the gun grabbers. No law is enough... even tho not one of the hoops you have been forced to jump through has ever been proven to have prevented even one death or crime or solved one crime.... they still make you do it...
The reasons are twofold.... If it is expensive and troublesome enough.... you might just say "the hell with it" and give up the whole idea and...
They now know where to go if they ever get to confiscate firearms like they really want.
lazs
-
Give'em an inch and they will take a mile and then some.
-
Would not a letter in Corruption Weekly magazine be a better way to reach Kofi?
that sounds like I fun way to spend july 9. I wonder if my mauser can punch all the through a surplus baby blue helmet. and how can we find out? :)
-
Hypothetical question -
If there was gun confiscation, how would it be done? And by whom? Would Americans do it?
I remember thinking about this subject 10 years ago while up in a tree stand 30 feet above the ground and along a power line (could see about 1000 yards in each direction.) The thought was prompted by 15 helicopters flying overhead in a line one after the other headed somewhere. They were up too high to see 'em very well, but when sitting out on a deer stand all kinds of things go through my mind. It's a good time to think because there's nothing else to do.
Anyhow, my imagination somehow got the better of me, and in accordance with a healthy paranoia (and the Art Bell show), I was thinking foreign UN soldiers would be the ones to seriously attempt an uninhibited confiscation where killing may come into play. But this would be too easy, I was thinking, cause then law abiding Americans would not hesitate to defend themselves and would consider such a thing as gun confiscation as an act of war against them. So there's no way that would work.
On the other hand, how many law abiding American law enforcement and military folks are going to be keen on the idea of bringing war to their own neighbors and countrymen? I just don't see that happening.
The idea of gun confiscation, as presented by the helmet example is completely untenable imo. No law enacting confiscation can constitutionally be passed here without doing away with the second amendment. So what next? The US has not and wil not sign a global small arms treaty (UN.) And a treaty would be the only legal way to do it.
The letter is to the point and the concerns are valid. It probably does reflect how people here in Alabama feel about gun confiscation. However if you don't want it to happen, the best way is to join the NRA (National Rifle Association) and support them. Money speaks louder than words unfortunately, but it's a much better way.
Les
-
There is a game released recently that touches on it. It's a really shoddy game with poor graphics and gameplay, but the plot is well thought through.
When the revolution comes (soon) USA breaks up into 5 or so factions, mainly based on geography. But the UN (in the interest of world peace and prosperity) come in and capture Washington by force.
While the idea is really out there, it probably is what will happen. When the revolution does happen, I'd put money down that the UN would try to step in. Take a wild guess as to which side.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I don't think it is legal or a constitionaly protected right to own a thermonuke... I don't think that it should be. It would probly endanger the neighbors or firemen in a house fire... very reckless to own such a thing.
lazs
Good point...perhaps pretending to be a Abrams tank would be more sufficient?
Tronsky
-
No reason a person shouldn't be able to own a tank. Any high explosive shells should be regulated so far as not being allowed in populated areas tho.
Until '68 we could buy hand held, portable (75 lbs) semi auto 20mm cannon thousands of em were sold for as little as $100 or as much as $200 ammo was about 50 cents a round.... millions of rounds have been sold and fired. Do you all recall all the mayhem and killing and mass murders such weapons caused? No? because.... they didn't.
finestein would not like em tho because they would devestate an armored limmo. Most of us don't ride around in armored limmos tho so have nothing to fear from the dentist down the street collecting one (I knew a dentist who had a lahti 20).
Leslie... they would offer amnesty for turning in guns... In the U.S. the compliance rate is about 0.001% for amnesty turn ins and most are inoperable or useless firearms... I have several trash guns that I would be willing to turn in for $500 each.
The amount of guns coming in and being made in garages and shops would exceed those turned in..
My guess is that the U.N. would have to step in once the only agency that would attack U.S. citizens, the BATF got their butts handed to em a few more times.
SWAT and police would not be effective even if their heart was in it which it wouldn't be... they ain't Texas Rangers (1 mob on ranger) they are SWAT tactics (1 wino, 600 swat)...
To use federal troops on U.S. citizens would require martial law.
It is a fact that if only 1% of gun owners resited with deadly force... That would be 800,000 or more seperate fights. We can't deal with 3 or four incidents per state at a time. Imagine ten Waco's at one time in Texas and another 10 in Arizona and another 10..... etc. Imagine that it would be near impossible to get police to kill women and children.
How many women and children could an adminestration sanction the murder of before support for it collapsed?
A riot about stops a state. A bombing.... a Hurricane kills the economy...
but you are right.... Join the NRA... they really are fighting the good fight for us and..... winning.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Sandman
1. Do you consider yourself to be:
a. Conservative
b. Liberal
2. Do you believe that all guns should be banned?
a. Yes
b. No
1 = b
2 = b
1 = b
2 = b
-
Originally posted by lazs2
If you ban any gun that can't be used for "sporting purposes" then you have banned guns for what they constitution intended them to be used for.
lazs
The constitution created this amendment so that ..oh nevermind, why even get into this?
-
Well red bottom... I have read the federalist papers on the second and the news articles of the time and the published works on the subject by the framers and the Department of Justices finding that the second is an individual right....
Is that what you mean?
Certainly it would be absurd to make an amendment to the constitution that allowed militia to be armed? What would be the point? An unarmed militia can not exist. By it's nature a militia is armed. Why would you guarentee the right of a militia, under the control of the government to keep and bear arms?
lazs
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
liberties that we derive not from an international bureaucracy's whims, but from God.
You must understand that having announced your intention to deny us our ancestral, God-given and inalienable rights
I must have missed the right to gun ownership when I used to read the bible.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Curval
I must have missed the right to gun ownership when I used to read the bible.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
I can't recall which section of the Bible deals in rights at all. ;)
-
I believe Laz nailed it down somewhere else..
A Democracy is 3 wolves and a sheep voting on whats for dinner. A constitutional democracy with a bill of rights assures the sheep he ain't gonna wind up on the wolves dinner table.
The second ammendment is tantamount to 'liberty's teeth'. I firmly believe the 'people' have the right to personal ownership of the same weapons the government issues to it's troops.
They've already taken THAT right away. Seems like they just won't be happy till they legislate even the paint ball guns outta the hands of kids.
-
Interesting article Hang.....thanks
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
I believe Laz nailed it down somewhere else..
A Democracy is 3 wolves and a sheep voting on whats for dinner. A constitutional democracy with a bill of rights assures the sheep he ain't gonna wind up on the wolves dinner table.
The second ammendment is tantamount to 'liberty's teeth'. I firmly believe the 'people' have the right to personal ownership of the same weapons the government issues to it's troops.
They've already taken THAT right away. Seems like they just won't be happy till they legislate even the paint ball guns outta the hands of kids.
They try and take my paintball gun I'll shoot every last one of them. Who knows what would happen if they came for my real guns.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
The second ammendment is tantamount to 'liberty's teeth'. I firmly believe the 'people' have the right to personal ownership of the same weapons the government issues to it's troops.
Praise the Lord and Hail JAY-sus!!!!
Can I get an amen brother Hang?
-
God invented man. Man invented the Gun and Americans invented the finest Battle Rifles ever produced.
Amen.
-
curval... guess we colonials are just different than you subjects... We don't trust our governments. We trust yours even less. If someone went around calling himself "lord" something we would laugh our butt off...
We hire british servants we don't become em.
Our founders wanted it that way. I want it that way. I will shoot up some blue helmets myself on that day.
While you get all teary about your lords and the queen... we belive in god and guns and individualism.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
We hire british servants we don't become em.
lazs
ROFL!!!
Gawd, that's priceless! .. or as a brit would put it: "I say, old man. Pithy. Very.. enh, wot?"
LOL!
-
Priceless?....stupid more like.
Lazs hires British servants? How...aristocratic of him. It's a very contradictory statement.
I think lazs is getting all confused...he must be stuck in the Founding Fathers era...he isn't a colonial at all anymore, he's an American. I'm a colonial though.
"we belive in god and guns and individualism"
lol....yes, when I see lazs claiming his individuality it reminds me of Monty Python's Life of Brian. Brian is trying to tell the crowd that they don't need to worship him...that the listeners are all individuals. Then the crowd chants in unison "YES we are all individuals."
-
well... I don't think any American here is surprised that you don't understand.
lazs
-
Well lazs you make it very tough. Americans hire servants, somehow British people ARE servants but yet worship the queen and the aristocracy (who aren't English, I assume) and this makes you individuals who are free.
Rrrright.
-
People all over the world hire british servants... they make the best ones... they even have schools to teach em how to be the best doormat they can be. Some rich aholes in the U.S. hire em too.
brit subjects do worship royalty and the upper class... they even call some people "lords"...
I really don't see anything about brit life or traditions or politics or dental care that I would want any part of.
lazs