Assault Weapon Ban Expired !

ARE Americans practicing Communism?
Read the 10 Planks of The Communist Manifesto to discover the truth and learn how to know your enemy...

Karl Marx describes in his communist manifesto, the ten steps necessary to destroy a free enterprise system and replace it with a system of omnipotent government power, so as to effect a communist socialist state. Those ten steps are known as the Ten Planks of The Communist Manifestoâ?¦ The following brief presents the original ten planks within the Communist Manifesto written by Karl Marx in 1848, along with the American adopted counterpart for each of the planks. From comparison it's clear MOST Americans have by myths, fraud and deception under the color of law by their own politicians in both the Republican and Democratic and parties, been transformed into Communists.

Another thing to remember, Karl Marx in creating the Communist Manifesto designed these planks AS A TEST to determine whether a society has become communist or not. If they are all in effect and in force, then the people ARE practicing communists.

Communism, by any other name is still communism, and is VERY VERY destructive to the individual and to the society!!

The 10 PLANKS stated in the Communist Manifesto and some of their American counterparts are...

1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes.
Americans do these with actions such as the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (1868), and various zoning, school & property taxes. Also the Bureau of Land Management (Zoning laws are the first step to government property ownership)

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
Americans know this as misapplication of the 16th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, 1913, The Social Security Act of 1936.; Joint House Resolution 192 of 1933; and various State "income" taxes. We call it "paying your fair share".

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
Americans call it Federal & State estate Tax (1916); or reformed Probate Laws, and limited inheritance via arbitrary inheritance tax statutes.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
Americans call it government seizures, tax liens, Public "law" 99-570 (1986); Executive order 11490, sections 1205, 2002 which gives private land to the Department of Urban Development; the imprisonment of "terrorists" and those who speak out or write against the "government" (1997 Crime/Terrorist Bill); or the IRS confiscation of property without due process. Asset forfeiture laws are used by DEA, IRS, ATF etc...).

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
Americans call it the Federal Reserve which is a privately-owned credit/debt system allowed by the Federal Reserve act of 1913. All local banks are members of the Fed system, and are regulated by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) another privately-owned corporation. The Federal Reserve Banks issue Fiat Paper Money and practice economically destructive fractional reserve banking.

6. Centralization of the means of communications and transportation in the hands of the State.
Americans call it the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Department of Transportation (DOT) mandated through the ICC act of 1887, the Commissions Act of 1934, The Interstate Commerce Commission established in 1938, The Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Communications Commission, and Executive orders 11490, 10999, as well as State mandated driver's licenses and Department of Transportation regulations.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
Americans call it corporate capacity, The Desert Entry Act and The Department of Agricultureâ?¦ Thus read "controlled or subsidized" rather than "owned"â?¦ This is easily seen in these as well as the Department of Commerce and Labor, Department of Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Mines, National Park Service, and the IRS control of business through corporate regulations.

8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
Americans call it Minimum Wage and slave labor like dealing with our Most Favored Nation trade partner; i.e. Communist China. We see it in practice via the Social Security Administration and The Department of Labor. The National debt and inflation caused by the communal bank has caused the need for a two "income" family. Woman in the workplace since the 1920's, the 19th amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, assorted Socialist Unions, affirmative action, the Federal Public Works Program and of course Executive order 11000.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries, gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of population over the country.
Americans call it the Planning Reorganization act of 1949 , zoning (Title 17 1910-1990) and Super Corporate Farms, as well as Executive orders 11647, 11731 (ten regions) and Public "law" 89-136. These provide for forced relocations and forced sterilization programs, like in China.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.
Americans are being taxed to support what we call 'public' schools, but are actually "government force-tax-funded schools " Even private schools are government regulated. The purpose is to train the young to work for the communal debt system. We also call it the Department of Education, the NEA and Outcome Based "Education" . These are used so that all children can be indoctrinated and inculcated with the government propaganda, like "majority rules", and "pay your fair share". WHERE are the words "fair share" in the Constitution, Bill of Rights or the Internal Revenue Code (Title 26)?? NO WHERE is "fair share" even suggested !! The philosophical concept of "fair share" comes from the Communist maxim, "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need! This concept is pure socialism. ... America was made the greatest society by its private initiative WORK ETHIC ... Teaching ourselves and others how to "fish" to be self sufficient and produce plenty of EXTRA commodities to if so desired could be shared with others who might be "needy"... Americans have always voluntarily been the MOST generous and charitable society on the planet.

Do changing words, change the end result? ... By using different words, is it all of a sudden OK to ignore or violate the provisions or intent of the Constitution of the united States of America?????

The people (politicians) who believe in the SOCIALISTIC and COMMUNISTIC concepts, especially those who pass more and more laws implementing these slavery ideas, are traitors to their oath of office and to the Constitution of the united States of America... KNOW YOUR ENEMY ...Remove the enemy from within and from among us.

VOTE LIBERTARIAN, the only political party in America that still firmly supports and diligently abides by the Constitution of the united States of America.


None are more hopelessly enslaved, as those who falsely believe they are free....


we are a socialist country.

I dont really care dude. Torog is the one who loves america but is insulting socialism at the same time when you me to say we are socialist. You saying socialism doesnt work and we are socialist but it does work for us. I dont know how well but we're still the most powerful nation and everyone is pretty much our bitch. I personally think very few political systems work (rome was pretty good, besides all the slaves and christians getting thrown into pits of lions, but the morals back then were alot different then they are now, The UK has pretty good laws now (hey they did alot of bad shit a long time ago too). The police dont even have to carry guns because guns arent a big problem there at all.

we aren't a socialist country , we are a constiututional republic.

there's a history with socialism, and the elites who implement it usually don't share their wealth, it's a command and control system, period. it's dictatorship.

guns aren't a big problem in the UK? you've got to be kidding.

all one has to do is look at the history of gun control.

not as bad in england as they are here

Interesting points Pisshead. :cool:

Quote:

---

If a head shot is so easy, why would the swat team and police need semi-auto, and even full auto weapons? If all law abiding people gave up their guns, why would the police need fully automatic weapons? I'll tell ya why, because like now with all the laws against guns, criminals still have guns. As with the drug war, prohibition only creats more crime, not less. The more you prohibit, the bigger the black market gets. Violence levels follow right along with that. Gun laws are creating more violence then they are trying to get rid of.

---

the normal police dont need semi-auto guns. The swat team does incase they need to deal with a terrorist threat or some kind of gang packing some serious illegal heat. S.W.A.T. Special weapons and tactics. The swat team would only be deployed if the situation possibly required the kind of force and heat that they are packing, like actually needing to take out a group of SOB's. Just because it would make those kind of situation less common doesn't mean the violence and those kind of situation would just disapear. The police would only take on things that wouldn't need that kind of shit. I never said the police needed fully auto and semi-auto weapons. I said they should have the guns. Like the colt 45. with rubber bullets that they have now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GHoSToKeR

i got half way down this thread, and couldnt read anymore


torog, you think its ok to fuckin shoot someone whos tryin to rob your house? fuck no, why are you possessions more important than a persons life?

you people think u need guns to protect yourself from people who have guns? come on u fuckin idiots think about it logically.. fuck

as for ur right to have a gun, and that ur rights r non negotiable, thats bullshit.. i think peoples right to livin in a gun free society is more important than ur right to carry guns

but fuck it, none of u listen, ur all fuckin narrow-minded, twats who think theyre gonna get attacked and murdered by a bunch o fuckin muslims, grow the fuck up and go torture a cat or sumthin

peace, to those who deserve it

---

Told. I'm gonna toast to you next time i'm smoking a fatty Ghost ;) !

For individual protection and protection from their own government. Rights to Firearms were not only Granted. They were encouraged.

You make a nice addition to these boards BB.

Ed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Button Basher

Told. I'm gonna toast to you next time i'm smoking a fatty Ghost ;) !

---

lol appreciated

peace

"torog, you think its ok to fuckin shoot someone whos tryin to rob your house? fuck no, why are you possessions more important than a persons life?"

So defending yourself is no good? I see. So when a dick head picks up your bag of weed, your stereo, takes a turn with your wife, smacks your kid, kicks your dog, your saying you would do nothing and hope the intruder didn't kill you? What if he did kill? What if he killed your wife, and then started for the kids? What if you could not stop him? What if he wanted to take a turn with you? Guns are not always life takers. I had a guy come in on me and my old lady, and had I not had a gun to subdue him with it more then likely would have been a lot uglier then it was. As it was, I was able to make him leave rather quickly. A naked man with a 45 will make a criminal reconsider very fast.

"you people think u need guns to protect yourself from people who have guns? come on u fuckin idiots think about it logically.. fuck"

Guns don't kill, people do. That's not just a catch phrase. It really has meaning if you think about it. Long before there was guns, people killed each other. People would still kill today even if you got rid of every last gun.

"as for ur right to have a gun, and that ur rights r non negotiable, thats bullshit.. i think peoples right to livin in a gun free society is more important than ur right to carry guns"

What right do you have to live in a gun free society? I have a right to defend myself. What right do you have to tell me I can't defend myself?

"but fuck it, none of u listen, ur all fuckin narrow-minded, twats who think theyre gonna get attacked and murdered by a bunch o fuckin muslims, grow the fuck up and go torture a cat or sumthin"

Well, now theres some constructive BS. I think I'll return the favor. You anti-gunnuts are a bunch of constitution hating, Freedom loathing, fuckwits that think an object can kill all on it's own without any help from a human. Grow the fuck up and go stone a christian or something.

"peace, to those who deserve it"

Bang bang! Ben Franklin once said that those that would give up Freedom for a little temporary safety deserve neither. I believe that your call for peace for only those that agree with you is a sign that you really don't deserve peace yourself.

Toker

dude, fuck it, go shoot whoever the hell you want

and i'll stay over here, thankin the powers that be for being born in the UK and not the US

I don't want to shoot anyone. I don't want to lose the Freedom to defend myself either. Don't let your emotions over power your reason. In other words, don't close your mind.

Toker

Toker, I didn't and don't wanna get into an arguement with you.. I may not agree with everything you say, but you're a cool guy.. I was just in an extremely bad mood when I posted that, as you may have gathered from that post along with many others. Anyway, I just don't like guns. I'm not an "Anti-gun nut", I just don't like them.. Sure, guns don't kill people, people kill people, but guns were designed to kill!.. anyway, I know where you're coming from


the laws on guns are similiar to the drugs laws.. its a question of "well, its dangerous if used irresponsibly, so do we let them have the right to choose and to take responsibility for their own actions, or do we take that freedom of choice away from them??" It's a tricky subject, one that the governments often get wrong..

And one more thing, if I had a gun and someone tried to break into my house, i'd do my best to stop them taking my stuff.. but if I couldn't stop them, I'd let them take the stuff because I wouldnt want to shoot them.. I would still value their life over my possessions.. BUT, and it's a big BUT, if they put my life or the life of someone else in danger, then I would use 'any means necessary' to protect them... So, again. I see where you're coming from

peace :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ed Ward MD

You make a nice addition to these boards BB.

Ed

---

Great, and what's that supposed to mean?

toker, some people obviously are totally ignorant of history. they think the world started when they were born, and don't know that the tyranny we're facing is classical, it goes back hundreds and thousands of years.

textbook tyranny.

history is repeating. but some people don't take the time to learn history and to recognize corruption and scams and be well informed about what's going on, like during the founding of the country. and it didn't take long for people to forget.

the national bank for instance, and then the federal reserve. these are concepts people who've gone through the socialized, commie, world government detention centers (public schools) who've been so dumbed down with vaccines and TV, they'll probably never understand.

no shit history has been fucked up. I dont recall ever saying it wasn't. I'm talking about the present.

and i said that history is presently repeating itself.

"Toker, I didn't and don't wanna get into an arguement with you."

No worries mate. Just remember that if i get on ya over an issue it is not personal. Arguing is a good way to learn about things from different perspectives. It doesn't mean anything on a personal level, and I would gladly smoke my last joint with anyone, or everyone on this thread.

Toker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Libertarian Toker

"Toker, I didn't and don't wanna get into an arguement with you."

No worries mate. Just remember that if i get on ya over an issue it is not personal. Arguing is a good way to learn about things from different perspectives. It doesn't mean anything on a personal level, and I would gladly smoke my last joint with anyone, or everyone on this thread.

Toker

---

hey thats nice to hear.. i wish more people were like that.. i generally prefer to agree to disagree, but not all people can do that :)

If we agree to disagree, does that mean we agree or disagree? I disagree that we agree if we agree to disagree, do you agree?

Toker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sedater18

the normal police dont need semi-auto guns. The swat team does incase they need to deal with a terrorist threat or some kind of gang packing some serious illegal heat. S.W.A.T. Special weapons and tactics. The swat team would only be deployed if the situation possibly required the kind of force and heat that they are packing, like actually needing to take out a group of SOB's. Just because it would make those kind of situation less common doesn't mean the violence and those kind of situation would just disapear. The police would only take on things that wouldn't need that kind of shit. I never said the police needed fully auto and semi-auto weapons. I said they should have the guns. Like the colt 45. with rubber bullets that they have now.

---

News flash for you. Normal police officers carry semi-auto firearms all the time. Over 90% of police forces have switched to them from revolvers. What do you think a colt .45 is!? It's a semi-automatic pistol. Police have been using the colt .45 since 1911! It's obvious now that you don't know what you are talking about. SWAT teams are deployed for all sorts of BS now, from guys trying to kill themselves to people like us smoking a joint on the porch. How often do you hear of SWAT teams battling terrorists and gangs on the news? Are you saying they should use rubber bullets so as to not kill anyone. Rubber bullets are lethal at close ranges. And most cops are concerned with stopping power. They look for the most powerful devestating ammo. They want a round to stop and kill with the minimum amount of shots. A dead criminal is not a threat to them in court. This is why most officers are switching from 9mm to .45 as their choice of ammo. A lot of officers also carry so called "assault weapons" in their squad car trunks as a backup weapon if needed. I think it is good that they are better armed. I am not concerned, I am not a criminal so I'll keep my weapons, thank you.

Guns don't kill, people do. That's not just a catch phrase. It really has meaning if you think about it. Long before there was guns, people killed each other. People would still kill today even if you got rid of every last gun.

Actually, it's the bullets that kill people.
If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns!
Restrictions on weapons, strick control over people entering and leaving the country, propaganda in the media, civil liberties out the door, and the government spying on it's own people, all these happened in germany in the 20's-40's, geeee isn't that what is happening here now too?
Time to revolt.
peace
heart

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Libertarian Toker

If we agree to disagree, does that mean we agree or disagree? I disagree that we agree if we agree to disagree, do you agree?

Toker

---

ummmmm yes





:confused:

lol I just meant we may disagree on alot of stuff, but we can lok past our differences and not have to fight and argue and hod grudges, and agree that we dont err agree....... (hopefully) lol

peace :)

There was a documentary on Sky One (that's the UK equivalent to Fox) yesterday called 'Lethal obssession: Why Americans love guns' and it really changed my opinion on the subject.

It would indeed seem that there are a select group of Americans who buy a single gun for protection, store it somewhere away from their kids but close by just in case of an emergency, and a group who watch an action movie, charge into their local gun store and shout 'GIMME THAT GUN THAT MEL GIBSON WAS USING IN THAT THAR LETHAL WEAPON PIK-CHUR' or whatever, then go home and cap their wife by accident.

I think the only reason gun violence is so high in America is simply because guns can be obtained just as easily as a CD album or computer game. It's definitely wrong to say 'Jesus, Americans are so dumb, why do they love guns?'. Everyone loves guns, that's why we have movies of people shooting eachother to shit, and if the wrong person get's influenced by said movies, they're gonna want a gun simply for the cool factor they just experienced in a make believe film, and then accidents happen. If guns were legal and readily available in the UK, we'd be exactly the same. The decision to make guns legal and easily obtainable in America can't be solely blamed for the gun violence, it takes an idiot to want to buy one so he can be Bruce Willis and end up killing someone by accident.

I wouldn't really consider the protection factor an argument on the other hand, after all, what do you need a gun to protect yourself from but another person with a gun?

True Button Basher, a lot of people love guns. America does have a love of guns. There are a lot of stupid people, but there are also a lot of smart, law abiding people as well. I see no reason to punish the law abiding citizens for the actions of the few stupid ones out there. I have quite a few firearms in my collection. 2 are for security and the rest are just fun to shoot. A gun for protection and home security is a tool that gives you an advantage over an intruder, whether they are armed with a firearm or not. Of course I don't advocate shooting first and ask questions later. Using deadly force should only come as a last ditch effort after all other resources have been used. You have no right to shoot someone that is not an imediate threat to your life. This means you can't shoot someone that is running through your living room with your TV. Let them take the damn TV. It is not worth a death on your hands or standing infront of a judge. There is a stereotype of gun owners in america as redneck idiots, militia people, or right wing crazy nuts, all eager to shoot someone. Yeah there are people like that out there, but 90% of gunowners I've met are your average everyday people. I am not against anyone's beliefs, but I am against people trying to take away from me and infringe upon my rights. Just like I am against people trying to claim I am a criminal for smoking cannabis. Some laws are unjust and need to be removed or disobeyed. :)

Cool Sawleaf, your the kind of sensible American that I think is given a bad rap by the few dumbasses that want a gun to turn the TV on with ¬.¬ !
But then again, after I posted I remembered the original topic of this thread, assault weapons.
Now if you want or need a gun for protection, you DEFINITELY don't need a fucking M16 or SPAS12 propped up against your wardrobe. One of the interviews in the documentary I spoke of was with some proper weird, fat, redneck dude who owned a gun shop in Nevada. When the interviewer asked him what the most powerful gun he sold was he pulled out some huge rifle and started talking about how it could take down elephants and hippos. I couldn't believe it! Where are you gonna find elephants and hippos in Nevada?? It's ridiculous. Presumeably if you shot a human with it it would just fucking destroy them, what kind of reason would you ever have for wishing that upon another human being? The interviewer asked the store owner what he'd do if he tried to take his gun off him and his exact reply was 'it'd be the last thing you ever did'! These are the kind of people that are considered just your average, gun-thirsty American by most people here in the UK and that's a sad fact.

Handguns? Sure, but your kidding yourself if you think you need some fucking AK for security.

historically, people are not disarmed for their safety by the loving government, it's usually because they're slaves.

look at the cities in the US with gun bans, and compare the crime statistics with those with the most lax gun laws. far more people use their guns for protection and aren't gun nuts than those who are.

there's a good UN quote, try looking it up, where someone stated that 'gun ownership threatens the legitimate power monopoly of the state' (unidir)...gun ownership threatens the dictatorship.

http://www.gunowners.org/

the assault weapons ban bans more than just assault weapons. we should all realize by now that just because legislation has a fluffy name, doesn't mean it just pertains to what the title is...patriot act (the opposite of what a patriot would do), partial birth abortion, assault weapons...federal reserve...

what the assault weapons ban does

http://www.gunowners.org/fs9403.htm

fact sheet:
http://www.gunowners.org/fstb.htm

http://www.gunowners.org

2004 gun control facts:
http://www.gunowners.org/fs0404.htm

what will it take for peole to understand that control doesn't work. how many hundreds of years of this type of action will it take.

Button Basher, it's cool to talk to someone that isn''t going to scream and say I'm evil because I have firearms. Though our opinions are different, we can still hear each other out without anger and insulting posts that seem to be too common on the boards. You are right about the assault weapon for security in my opinion. It is funny, because I actually own an AK-47 and a AR-15(the civilian version of the M-16), both are semi-auto and not the military versions, but would never think of using them for home security. I never want to see the day that I have to pull out my pistol and point it at another person let alone think of shooting someone. And I can imagine that I'd be crapping my pants if I had a situation on my hands where I had to use the AK-47 instead. It just doesn't seem possible in the neighborhood I live in and the current life we live here. But I am not against anyone owning them as long as they are not criminals. It is certainly tons of fun to go shooting on my friends land. No I don't hunt with "assault weapons", but it is a hobby of mine to shoot them. What is so wrong with that? Here in the USA, we have many gun laws on the books already, that are not inforced strictly at all. With continued problems people see more laws as the answer when the current laws are being ignored. My problem with the assault weapon ban was that it didn't ban anything really but weapon cosmetics. It didn't do anything to stop criminals from getting guns. I am against gun control, but for enforcing current gun laws and harsher laws that punish misuse of firearms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pisshead

2004 gun control facts:
http://www.gunowners.org/fs0404.htm

what will it take for peole to understand that control doesn't work. how many hundreds of years of this type of action will it take.

---

Thanks for the fact post Pisshead. Another fact that I didn't read on that page is that most of the situations where criminals were stopped with firearms, the firearm was not even shot. Displaying a gun can stops most crimes. But a firearm should never be pulled out unless there is full intent to use it. Also adding a laser sight to a firearm can double the intimidation factor of a firearm. Situations resolved with no violence are the best ones. That's why next to my security .45 is a huge can of pepper spray. Non-lethal force is always the best, but you should go into any encounter prepared for the worst. :)

exactly, that's why we need to repeal all gun laws. you'd watch the crime rate go straight down. it's one of the reasons why we have the 2nd amendment.

check out the whole 2004 fact sheet, and it should be clear why. gun control has never worked and will never work, ever.

history isn't repeating itself to the full extreme.

I was going to reply but im to lazy to read all the shit you guys said. You guys are hardcore with this shit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sedater18

history isn't repeating itself to the full extreme.

I was going to reply but im to lazy to read all the shit you guys said. You guys are hardcore with this shit.

---

Well you should at least click on the links Pisshead posted and read some facts about firearms. Damn right I'm hardcore about firearms. The same as I am about cannabis. Though I never go shooting high at all. I treat all firearms with a high degree of respect. If I can give a rat's ass about what the government says about me using cannabis, why the hell would I care what people have to say about my gun ownership? I am not a criminal. I didn't purchase my firearms to rob or kill people. Therefore why should anyone say what I can or cannot own? Why should I be punished for what others do?