TexasCHLforum.com

Paladin wrote:

nitrogen wrote:I think most anti-gun politicians actually, truly believe gun control can work.

I'm sure some anti-gun politicians do believe gun control can work. But the smarter politicians are more savvy than that. To them gun control is more about power.

This is a nice example:

http://www.jpfo.org/NaziLawEnglish.htm

I don’t for a second buy the story that Clinton and the Democratic party are using an anti-gun platform as a way to take over the government and form a dictatorship.

Equating them to a Nazi Germany law from 1938 is over the top in my book. First of all, the Nazi’s had already secured power by that year, and the “law� specifically targeted Jews, who in reality were no threat to the Nazi power at that time. There were many “laws� passed in that timeframe relating to Jews, and it had to do with the extermination of a race, not gaining power in Germany.

Not all countries that pass gun control end up as dictatorships, despite what some groups would like you to believe. Germany, England, and Australia are three good examples. They have all had recent changes in political leadership, and it all happened after gun control…it happened because of the ballot box, not firearms in the hands of civilians.

Now I am adamantly against gun control, and I am adamantly against Clinton, but not because I think she’s out to become the first queen of America, or the first “Leader for Life of the USA�.

I really dislike her politics in general, not just her stance on gun control…but she’s not Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot, or Joseph Stalin...and if I'm wrong, I don't think she could stay in power long. I don't like many things our press does, but they have a record of bringing down the high and mighty and even though it seems you can infringe on the second, the American public is pretty united on protecting the 1st. Trying to shut down the press is probably the fastest way to get yourself out of office.

So do I think Hilary believes that gun control will eliminate violence in our society and that criminals will give up their firearms? Not for a second…She’s a very skilled politician, and she’s primarily pandering to a certain voting block that does believe it’s a step in the right direction and ultimately will reduce violence. It’s called getting elected, and the conservatives are not immune to it…look at many of their stances/votes on Iraq…talk about CYA and backpedaling.

TX Rancher wrote: I don’t for a second buy the story that Clinton and the Democratic party are using an anti-gun platform as a way to take over the government and form a dictatorship.

Equating them to a Nazi Germany law from 1938 is over the top in my book. First of all, the Nazi’s had already secured power by that year, and the “law� specifically targeted Jews, who in reality were no threat to the Nazi power at that time. There were many “laws� passed in that timeframe relating to Jews, and it had to do with the extermination of a race, not gaining power in Germany.

Not all countries that pass gun control end up as dictatorships, despite what some groups would like you to believe. Germany, England, and Australia are three good examples. They have all had recent changes in political leadership, and it all happened after gun control…it happened because of the ballot box, not firearms in the hands of civilians.

Now I am adamantly against gun control, and I am adamantly against Clinton, but not because I think she’s out to become the first queen of America, or the first “Leader for Life of the USA�.

I really dislike her politics in general, not just her stance on gun control…but she’s not Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot, or Joseph Stalin...and if I'm wrong, I don't think she could stay in power long. I don't like many things our press does, but they have a record of bringing down the high and mighty and even though it seems you can infringe on the second, the American public is pretty united on protecting the 1st. Trying to shut down the press is probably the fastest way to get yourself out of office.

So do I think Hilary believes that gun control will eliminate violence in our society and that criminals will give up their firearms? Not for a second…She’s a very skilled politician, and she’s primarily pandering to a certain voting block that does believe it’s a step in the right direction and ultimately will reduce violence. It’s called getting elected, and the conservatives are not immune to it…look at many of their stances/votes on Iraq…talk about CYA and backpedaling.

You are a wise man. I agree completely. I dont like the clintons, I would be very worried (about my gun rights and socialized health care primarily) if she got elected but I do not think her rule would last more than 8 years and I think I would still have all of the guns I currently own at the end of it, if not more. I have suffered thru 8 years of bush, I can suffer thru 8 more of clinton.

I would love to see Ron Paul get elected, but I realize that wont happen. Someday maybe a candidate like him will be electable, but not yet.

tallmike wrote:Are you actually saying that you believe the clintons hired someone to go into this womans home to steal a copy of a manuscript that isnt even the only or final copy?

Who else would break in to steal a copy of the manuscript? It's not like most criminals read.

Beyond intimidation, it's pretty obvious that getting an 'advance' copy of the book would enable the Clinton's PR folks to have more time to 'spin' the facts.

You ever hear of Watergate?

TX Rancher wrote:I don’t for a second buy the story that Clinton and the Democratic party are using an anti-gun platform as a way to take over the government and form a dictatorship.

So you're disagreeing with yourself? Cause that's not what I said.

Clearly the Clintons do want power and the presidency. I never said anything about dictatorship:?:

I presented documentation that shows that the Nazi's used gun control to increase their power over the Jews in Germany. To the Nazi's gun control was a tool of power. I don't believe the Nazi's were the only government to use gun control as a tool of power either.

Ok...I misread your post...my mistake.

But would you please expand on what power Clinton gets if gun control passes...I'm still a little fuzzy on that.

TX Rancher wrote:Ok...I misread your post...my mistake.

But would you please expand on what power Clinton gets if gun control passes...I'm still a little fuzzy on that.

I think what he may have meant is that it's easier to break into private homes and commit other types of terror-inducing acts when the intended victims are almost guaranteed to be unarmed.

TX Rancher wrote:Ok...I misread your post...my mistake.

But would you please expand on what power Clinton gets if gun control passes...I'm still a little fuzzy on that.

With many people in politics everything is about power and control. An unarmed populace would more dependent on the the government. Hence more power to themselves and their friends. I do not pretend to understand what motivates the Clintons, but power is certainly a possibility.

Its all about POWER and CONTROL.
The Klintons are Communist and Marxist.
They want to the Power to Control the United States of America, its Wealth and People.

No less, no more.

Jungle Work