I could not have imagined how completely devoid of assault rifles Houston gun shelves are right now... it's really incredible. My stepdad wanted one. Friday we went looking.
They were charging $1900 for a stock Sig 556 at Carter's Country (usually about $1100). They had 9 remaining on Friday and said they would sell them all that day. Ridiculous! But they were the only place that had any Sig 556s.
No ARs at small gun shops, Academy, Carter's Country, or Gander Mountain on Friday. No AK-47s anywhere. Mini-14s were selling out (old-school military rifle).
We went home empty-handed.
Saturday (about lunch time) I went back into Gander Mountain with my father-in-law, and they had 2 Bushmaster Patrolman AR-15s for $1100 each (usually about $850). I had them take the one out of the case, as another guy came right behind me and bought the other. The shipment had come in that morning. They put it behind the counter, my stepdad came and bought it. While he was doing the paper work, 6 people tried to buy it.
I was utterly astonished at all of this. 2 months ago you could've bought anything you wanted at any of those places with no problem. Ammo prices have literally doubled in Houston since then as well.
I have to say, I like that so many people are buying them. As Patrick Henry said, "the goal is for everyone to be armed."
My sister went to a gun show this weekend. She bought a stun gun. She didn't tell me how the real guns were selling (in San Antonio). I'll have to ask her.
Whats funny is that most of those guns were never even banned under the Clinton ban. Only certain ak-47's and AR-15 with certain recievers were banned, and it was hardly the ones people buy at academy.
Hey we talked about court cases in reference to privacy today.. Interesting how basically what happened was the government was saying what was right and wrong.. That won't come back to bite us will it?
1.) Guns are used in self-defense over 2 million times a year. However, this makes the attempted crime a "non-event," which necessarily complicates the Police investigation. Without civilian ownership of guns, these Police investigations would not have been compromised. Civilians should leave crime prevention to the Police, who are properly equipped to investigate following the crime's completion.
2.) Some .004 percentage (4/1000 of 1%) of guns are used in crime each year. This is way too high. All guns should be banned
3.) Guns are unnecessary. In 98% of civilian gun defenses, no shot is fired. If you are not going to fire a shot, you clearly don't need a gun. This proves that the guns are unnecessary. Banning guns will prevent these unnecessary defenses.
4.) Guns cause criminal migration. In tough gun-law Washington, D.C., violent crime rates are very high. This high crime rate is caused by the migration of criminals from gun havens like Virginia. This migration is caused by the criminal's cowardly avoidance of armed householders and concealed-carry civilians. This criminal migration is detrimental to helpless unarmed citizens in no-gun areas and must be stopped. Guns should be banned everywhere.
5.) Most gun crimes are committed by inner city gangs and drug dealers. These relatively small and geographically restricted groups consistently commit the majority of gun crimes, which usually peak as turf wars erupt over Drug War changes. The best way to prevent this is by denying guns to all law abiding people everywhere.
6.) No woman needs to protect herself from rape, assault or murder. The Police will protect them by investigating the crime after the fact. Remember, Police paperwork is all the protection anyone really needs.
7.) Gun owners are disrespectful of authority. Good citizens should completely rely on the authorities. A failure to do so is an invariable sign of improper and overly independent attitudes. Failure to completely and absolutely trust and depend on the authorities is excessive democracy and sends a bad message to children.
8.) Gun owners engaging in self-defense are taking the law into their own hands. This is wrong. Only the Police and Criminals have the right to take the law into their own hands. It should be kept out of the hands of citizens.
9.) Children and young people should remain ignorant about guns. Real guns and real gun knowledge dissipate the fantasies created by violent video games and TV. Ignorance, once lost, can never be restored and needs to be protected.
10.)Guns reduce people's reliance on the Police and Government. This fosters a mistaken belief in "rights". No person has the right to question authority. No person should be less than 100% dependent on authority. This is fundamental to social order. Banning guns will help to establish the Order the authorities want. This is good.
I'm going to Houston to protest the fed and listen to Dr. Paul. You should join me!
On an unrelated (and yet, VERY related) note, take a listen to Peter Schiff. He's proven himself to be right now before, and his projections should be interesting to everyone that uses the dollar to buy, sell, or save.
I can't believe that one guy said out loud what others were thinking about the Chinese money not being as good because it was communist... People are idiots and never cease to amaze me...
We are going to hang out soon. I have a lot of ideas swimming around in my head that I'm going to talk to you about. I just have to get through this semester
Good video... but what kind of rubbed me was the liberal use of a dollar. I think Peter Schiff understands, but he should have explained to them the difference between a dollar and a federal reserve note, becuase all they were talking about was the FRN.
What are you doing tomorrow night? I would like you to pencil me in for that time if you are not already taken with a prior engagement... and if Kelly says its ok
Check out endthefed.us- There are 39 simultaneous protests taking place this Saturday at Federal Reserve banks around the country. Ron Paul will be speaking at the one in Houston. I will be there (the Lord willing), along with several other brethren, and also hopefully my father-in-law (his first protest ever), and many other concerned Americans. Protesting the fed is beginning to become a mainstream idea!
Are you concerned about the dollar's value? Were you a supporter of the bailout, and now find your premises for supporting it undermined? Hopefully this will help to wake up a few more Americans!
Education is priceless (at least when speaking in terms of the dollar)...
your tone was fine, i know you plenty well enough lol.
i seriously dont think that the government is gonna let him blow 700 billion on whatever...theres not much proof for that, especially when banks are already receiving part of that money. It just doesnt add up.
When it comes to the economy, this is the man. He and Peter Schiff know what they are talking about. Yet all we hear is how jokers like Sarah Palin, Rick Perry, Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee are the future of the republican party. Those guys will only continue to bankrupt this county....
I am not purposely trying to anger anyone, but I think these thoughts are worthy of consideration.
Writes Phil Hensley:
On a day like today it is important to be thankful for all the freedoms we enjoy in this country:
In America, we enjoy the freedom of giving half our income to the government through various forms of taxes. We have the freedom to participate in a Ponzi scheme known as Social Security. We have the freedom to vote for the president. Unlike the voters of Iraq under Saddam Hussein, who only had one choice for president, we have two choices! We have the freedom to choose between Republican-led big government programs and Democrat-led big government programs. We have the freedom to use government-controlled money, which loses value every year. We have the freedom to subsidize the poltically-connected agricultural, automotive, and banking industries. We have the freedom of sending children through the compusory government-run education system, and then pay for job training for those that get through 12 years of schooling and still don't know how to do anything. We have the freedom to own guns, provided that said gun is approved by the government and we pass the government-mandated background check. If we get the appropriate permits and stand in then proper free-speech zone, we have the freedom to protest.
Thanks to all the veterans that defended these freedoms and kept them from being taken away!
end quote.
What do you think?
Here's another interesting comment to think about:
"At 11 a.m. on the 11th day of the 11th month of 1918, 90 years ago today, the fighting on the Western Front stopped. What most people do not know is that because the generals wanted the 11-11-11 slot, there was another 11 on 11-11-1918: 11,000 men, including my great uncle, Ralph Cowell, fell that day. Ralph was one of 320 Americans to lose his life before 11 a.m.
There needed to be no fighting that day. The Germans had agreed to pull back, and everyone was anxious for the fighting to end. But that was not good enough for the powers that be, who wanted to do something cute with the number 11." (From LewRockwell.com)
That surely was not a way to honor the vets.
And just to make a comment about the first article (as I posted in the comments below), it does not seem to me to be reflecting any disrespect towards vets but rather questioning the rhetoric we use in regards to "defending freedom." The author is questioning our freedom, not our vets.
btw justin, I know you are done arguing...but history is my favorite hobby subject...so I did want to inform you that the consitution does NOT require a formal declaration of war. Infact, the constitution in Article One, Section 8 says "Congress shall have the power to declare war." Also, for note to Afghanistan, the constitution says, "leaving to the Executive the power to repel sudden attacks"...its possible the war in Afghanistan fits within this (possible). The vietnam war, Persian gulf war, war in Afghanistan and war in iraq were all approved by congress and thereby constitutional.
it should also be noted the War Powers Resolution of 1973 allows for the President to commit troops for up to 60 days without congressional approval if the country is under attack or serious threat.
i definitely dont agree with congress running over us, myself or you...but then again I believe the Supreme Court proves the Constitution is a living document that changed with times and society. This is why we have amendments and such. Realistically though, if we want to get down to it, the states have most of these rights inherntly..and have, conrguently, given them over to the U.S. federal government. These changes are constitutional.
Also, Phil Hensly is belittling the vets and sacrifices they have made. I agree with his whole point, and quote, about the erosion of our liberties, but the last line is a swipe at the vets, and a very unwarranted one. I hope your passion for the truth of his points on liberty are not clouding your judgement on his last line about the vets.
The vets have failed us in no way, but rather the American people have failed our Vets. Our Vets have stood and lived and died so we as Americans could have the right and liberty to make the RIGHT choices in the voting booth. That's why our thanks belongs to them and that's why Phil Hensley is at best, careless in his comment, or at worst, a jerk, and never should've made the statement he did there regarding what the soldiers have done. As a whole, it is the American people's fault for the failure of each and everyone of the erosion of the liberties that Phil accurately illustrated. But the last line of his quote should read, "Thank you to our soldiers, for maintaining our rights and liberties to freely vote, and we as the American people are sorry we have let you down by continuing to vote for politicians who honor you with one voice; while destroying the fabric of America with another voice - their votes; which they cast in our name."
Is was interesting. But the head of state of Iran has certainly made his ambitions known, and the reports of them providing financial backing for terrorism and unrest in the middle east and abroad, I don't think is a fraud.
Very interesting conversation, although some would argue that World War II was not a necessary war. Ron Paul talked about this at length, how US involvement in WW2 was based around our interventionism in World War I. Instead of being neutral like Wilson said he would be when elected, we had to have a seat at the Treaty of Vers. So because of that, we helped to wreck the German economy. Not only that, but we did not remain neutral before WW2 either, as we put down an oil embargo concerning the Japanese. Now of course not many would argue with the intervention to stop the Holocaust, but our policies laid the groundwork for the ordeal after WW1.
Did we put an oil embargo on Japan just for the fun of it? Why is it okay to interven with other nations when it comes to trade for the expansion and prosperity of commonwealth, yet wrong to intervene to protect those same interests?
Intervention is not the problem, it's the type of intervention that is the problem. If a woman is being assualted and I intervene to save her, that would be a noble cause. Europe was assaulted, and yes, we intervened. If we hadn't we might all be speaking German right now. America didn't lay the groundwork for WW1 or WW2. The violence that was initiated did not have to be. There were other ways to deal with the problem.
Disagree with that assessment. First off, I did not advocate non intervention. As a matter of fact, I stated that no one would argue with intervention to stop the Holocaust. However, if you really want to believe that our policies did not lead to WW2, you are mistaken. World War 1 was supposed to be a completely neutral event for America. Woodrow Wilson was elected by running on a platform of keeping us out of war. Then he got into office and was led astray. Why did we get into World War 1? Who attacked us? No one, we just jumped in when a British "merchant" ship (that was actually carrying arms) was attacked by the Germans. Then the US intervenes, and helps to place all the blame of World War 1 on the Germans, when in reality they did not start the war, the war started due to the murder of Archduke Franz Fernindand which had nothing to do with Germany. But we assisted in the treaty that not only crippled Germany's military, but also took their lands and crippled their economy to the point they would elect (with 98% of the vote) Hitler, to a lower office based on his promises to repair the economy. Hitler then decides to take over and the rest is history. Had the United States remained neutral in World War 1, the war would have ended as a stalemate, the German economy would not have been utterly gutted and thus no world war 2. The issue is not intervention, the issue is bad policy.
The issue is intervention, because the only bad policy you are referencing is interventionism.
It takes two to tango, it takes more to war. The peoples didn't start the wars. Just some people who wanted to Tango, dragged their countries into these things as is historically the case. And to declare WWI would've ended in a stalemate is rather prophetic isn't it? Had events no occurred the way they did, we honestly have no idea what other scenario would have played out, and if it would or would not have laid a growndwork for a WWII and/or III and/or IV, etc.
I get that America is not perfect, but what Ron Paul said in his debate about "just listen to what they (the terrorists) are telling us..." (about why they attack us). The terrorists are liars. They lie, BECAUSE they think it brings glory to their god. What word that they say can we believe. They are haters. They've hated each other, killed each other, been at war with each other for over 1,000 years. Their heart is the same as all terrorists and warmongers... they are in it for the power, resources, and riches. Religion is their excuse. These are terrorists who strap bombs to men, women, children, and even retareded (I'm not being condescending, but referring to actual people with mental retardation) and go blow them up in the name of their god, to the glory of their god. And I'm supposed to just listen to what they say and believe every word. If Ron Paul honestly believes we were attacked on 9/11 because the U.S. has a presence over there then he is deceived by these terrorists. The founder of Islam, Muhammad, had world domination on the mind, and it has not the left the hearts of his devoted followers since.
Do I disagree that we have some bad policies that lead to bad consequences, who doesn't? But intervention, when done right and for the right reasons, has helped infinitely more (in my opintion) than it has hurt... regardless of what the terrorists "say".
And if we laid the groundwork for WWII, that is also indicting FOR the Holocaust. While you did say that "not many would argue with the intervention to stop the Holocaust..." the very next part of your sentence blames us (in part) for the Holocaust. While I'm sure we agree on more than we disagree, this is where I can't stand on your side. Evil is evil and will do evil and always be seeking to do evil. WWII's groundwork was laid in the hearts of evil men, and the cause for their evil hearts was not the United States.
^^^^Sorry for the numerous spelling errors, but don't have time to go back fix them sometimes. I trust it won't hinder the comprehension of what I was trying to say.
It seems that if the true motivation behind the terrorists' actions were solely religious, then why in the world aren't they attacking Canada, Switzerland, etc? They are "democratic" nations that aren't muslim. Come on! We've been sticking our nose into their countries business for 60 years! We overthrow their governments when we don't like them (even if they are democratically elected), we put our military on their perceived "sacred ground" (i.e. Saudi Arabia), and we bully them around at every oppurtunity! If you and I were living in any one of their countries (even if we were still Christians), we would HATE the U.S.!
They hated us before we were us. And I said before, their religion is their excuse. They are in it for power, resources, and riches. They were on the side of the Nazi's for a reason, and it wasn't because of our "presence" over there. They have warred with each other for thousands of years. They hate each other just as much as they hate us.
They weren't on the side of the Nazis, they were conquered by the Nazis. Then we, through Lawrence of Arabia, helped them to rebel against the Nazis after promising to give them the land after the war was over (instead we gave the Jews part of their land, thus having convinced them to sacrifice their lives for an agreement that we broke).
And as far as them killing one another, didn't the "Christians" (not real Christians, but you get the idea) kill one another like crazy for a while as well? (All except the Anabaptists, ofcourse.)
Yes, that is the evil I speak of. Many evil men use "religion" as the rallying cry and front for their bitter evil. But the heart of the evil is not the USA and where we are or aren't. It is from within the hearts of men. Plenty of people have peacefully and effectively protested against evils and done so victoriously. My point, is that the cause of their terrorism is not the U.S. in the terrorists hearts, it is the evil in their hearts.
Then you might want to research. I do not buy your arguments that our policies didn't lay the groundwork because there religion dictates they kill us. THere are plenty of people who took the name of christian in this country in order to go to foreign lands and murder many people. Plato is right here, if the idea is their religion causes it, why is it that we are the only target? Why are they not seeking out all nations that have high numbers of christians and killing them? Why is it that it is only us for the most part? Could it be that we have the biggest army and we go around getting into everyone's business? I say yes. Plus if you don't know what US terrorism has done in the world, check out Iran in 53, our overthrow of an elected government and installing of a puppet government. Or Chile. Or Guatemala. Go see what we did with Guzman. How about Gulf of Tonkin? I mean just the fact that a high ranking official like McNamera would have considered Operation Northwoods in the 60's shows where the US government's heart really was. There is no need to blame all these other countries and say they are religious freaks. They don't attack us because of what we think (barring maybe a few crazy wackos, but you find those in every religion, don't believe me, google Westboro Baptist Church) but for the most part they are attacking us because we are in their countries bombing them, putting on sanctions, killing their people and pilliaging their resources.
So I guess the whole London bombing thing was a farce? At the bombing in Spain? And the highjacking of aircraft, and cruise liners, and Olympics in the 70's; that just never happened. Russia, India, Indonesia; yeah all of these countries haven't experienced any terrorism. It's just all the USA. We are only ones the come after. We are the supreme evil! Give me a break.
I've posted at least three times religion is their "excuse", it is the mask, it is robe of deception. I've stated multiple times it is their evil desire for power, resources, and riches that fuels their actions and their hatred.
I'm not saying the U.S. is perfect, or even above reproach, but it is not the evil that so many make it out to be. And while our intervention in other nations affairs are propagandized to show us as a horrible people; where are the reports of the aid that we send to countries. Where is the outcry of intervention for the BILLIONS of people we have helped and the millions we have saved and the BILLIONS more that we have helped lead to better lives. The medecines we've sent, the technology we have given away, the money we have poured out to assist time and time again, and yes, even our most precious gift, the lives of our own soldiers to defend and die for the assistance of others... a.k.a. intervening to save them.
Which gets back to my original point about Phil Hensley - he got it wrong. We do owe ours soldiers thanks. A genuine thanks, just as we owe them a genuine apology for policies that have been put in place that undermine their work in preserving our freedoms.
It seems in this world within which we now live, ther is no greater reviled being than the American Soldier. That many are willing to justify terrorists over our own soldiers, or worse, say they are the same. It amazes me, that these men and women are the same soldiers who are first on the line to assist not only at home, but abroad.
Just to interject one comment, I'm pretty sure he does not despise the troops, and nor do I. Actually, I believe that the best way to support the troops is to do exactly what we are doing right now; Debating to make sure that the way they are being used is 1.) Constitutional and 2.) Moral.
I agree. I don't think he does either. But many throughout the world do, and equate them to terrorists, even in the midst of troops providing massive aid and intervening to save their very lives.
Say dude... I always come over here and you've got someone else you're discussing with. In regards to the comment.. I'm learning more and more man haha.
