• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A call for War.

LaMidRighter said:
It may have been consensus during the meetings. Associations rarely have individual signatories, I'm sure if any of the membership dissents from the statement it's going to come out. Usually the association signs as itself on behalf of the membership. I've never seen an association statement with all signatures personally anyway.
Click to expand...

You might be right but I would think most groups,associations, businesses, charities and such would have the signature of at least the person in charge of that organization on their letters.
 
BMCM said:
Ok, but i don't really consider that a signature. I think it would be taken more serious if the people that stood behind this letter would stand behind it enough to put their name's on it.
Click to expand...

They do stand behind it collectively as evidence by `Official` letterhead and signature being correct in this type letter.

`The Utah Sheriffs’ Association`
 
BMCM said:
You might be right but I would think most groups,associations, businesses, charities and such would have the signature of at least the person in charge of that organization on their letters.
Click to expand...
Maybe the association head. Who knows? I'm sure if an associate disagrees it'll be out there.
 
BMCM said:
You might be right but I would think most groups,associations, businesses, charities and such would have the signature of at least the person in charge of that organization on their letters.
Click to expand...

Not really needed when other appropriate information is present.

To wit:

UTAH SHERIFFS’ ASSOCIATION

P.O. Box 787
East Carbon City, Utah 84520
(435) 888-2004
Fax: (435) 888-0842
 
bicycleman said:
The only difference between socialism and communism is that communism occurs through violent overthrow of the government, something that won't need to happen right now since America has a communist president.
Click to expand...

Which in itself is a contradiction and historically inaccurate. Pick up a history book, would you?
 
Just received this on e-mail. How fitting when you compare it to Obama, Feinstein, Chuckie Schumer, and all the rest of the gun grabbers.




This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has
full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the
world will follow our lead into the future!"

~Adolph Hitler, 1935,
on The Weapons Act of Nazi Germany
 
bicycleman said:
Just received this on e-mail. How fitting when you compare it to Obama, Feinstein, Chuckie Schumer, and all the rest of the gun grabbers.




This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has
full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the
world will follow our lead into the future!"

~Adolph Hitler, 1935,
on The Weapons Act of Nazi Germany
Click to expand...

there is considerable doubt that Nazi boy actually said that though
 
More about the Hitler quote:

The "Hitler" Quote That Wouldn't Die: "1935 Will Go Down In History!"

"This year* will go down in history! For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!"
---Falsely attributed to Adolf Hitler, "Abschied vom Hessenland!" ["Farewell to Hessia!"], ['Berlin Daily' (Loose English Translation)], April 15th, 1935, Page 3 Article 2, Einleitung Von Eberhard Beckmann [Introduction by Eberhard Beckmann].

This quotation, often seen without any date or citation at all, suffers from several credibility problems, the most significant of which is that the date given (*in alternate versions, the words "This year..." are replaced by "1935..." has no correlation with any legislative effort by the Nazis for gun registration, nor would there have been a need for the Nazis to pass such a law, since gun registration laws passed by the Weimar government were already in effect. The Nazi Weapons Law (or Waffengesetz) which further restricted the possession of militarily useful weapons and forbade trade in weapons without a government-issued license was passed on March 18, 1938.

The citation usually given for this quote is a jumbled mess, and has only three major clues from which to work. The first is the date, which does not correspond (even approximately) to a date on which Hitler made a public speech, and a check of the texts of Hitler's speeches does not reveal a quotation resembling this (which is easily understandable when you realize that "Hitler" is commenting on a non-existent law). The second clue is the newspaper reference, which if translated into German resembles the title of a newspaper called Berliner Tageblatt, and a check of the issue for that date reveals that the page and column references given are to the arts and culture page! No Hitler speech appears in the pages of Berliner Tageblatt on that date, or dates close to it, because there was no such speech to report.

Finally, the citation includes a proper name "Eberhard Beckmann," which is sometimes cited as "by Einleitung Von Eberhard Beckmann," which is an important clue itself, because it reveals that the citation was fabricated by someone who had so little knowledge of the German language that they were unaware that "Einleitung" isn't the fellow's first name! The only "Eberhard Beckmann" which has been uncovered thus far did indeed write introductions, but he was a journalist for a German broadcasting company after WWII, and he wrote several introductions to photography books, one of which was photos of the German state of Hesse (or Hessia), which may be the source of the curious phrase "Abschied vom Hessenland!" which appears in the citation. This quotation, however effective it may be as propaganda, is a fraud.

[GunCite note: Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, a gun rights group, acknowledges the quote as bogus in the second item of their FAQ.]
Click to expand...

GunCite - Gun Control: Bogus gun control quotes

Then again, note how Germany and every other dictatorship, immediately goes after guns. See any similarities, here?
 
LaMidRighter said:
Nope, when the federal continues to assert powers it doesn't have, against direct constitutional prohibitions nonetheless it's a matter of time before state and local officials push back. Federal powers under the supremacy clause are only to apply to those specifically granted under the enumerated powers, I have NO issue with arresting and imprisoning federal officials in the interim, if the feds fire on the locals it's attempted murder and the locals have every right to defend themselves.
Click to expand...

I remember a time not so long ago, when Southern Governors like George Wallace thought the same way.
 
YoungConserv said:
Id argue you can't have one without the other.
Click to expand...

You would be wrong, actually what people call communism is actually fascism. In a true communism civilization there is no state. True communism is both stateless and classless. Which is why it can never truely exist as a form of human society. If we had no emotions and acted like robots it would be possible.
 
DiavoTheMiavo said:
I remember a time not so long ago, when Southern Governors like George Wallace thought the same way.
Click to expand...
Except Wallace was definitely on the wrong side of the constitution. The Civil Rights act was actually a proper bill, the federal does have the authority to enforce equality under the law and every single act in the U.S. Constitution hints that it was the ultimate goal. When a governer or other local official isn't constitutionally compliant there is every reason to enforce law against them, when the federal is simalarly not complying with founding law then local/state has every right to nullify. It's all about what is proper.

EDIT - By equality we aren't discussing the extended version where everyone has equal outcomes, but rather an equal standing under the law, everyone has the same fair starting point, what they do with that should dictate their successes and failures.
 
Last edited:
LaMidRighter said:
Except Wallace was definitely on the wrong side of the constitution. The Civil Rights act was actually a proper bill, the federal does have the authority to enforce equality under the law and every single act in the U.S. Constitution hints that it was the ultimate goal. When a governer or other local official isn't constitutionally compliant there is every reason to enforce law against them, when the federal is simalarly not complying with founding law then local/state has every right to nullify. It's all about what is proper.
Click to expand...

Big Government liberals don't care about what is right or wrong or constitutional. All that matters to them is thier belief that the Nanny State is the source of their rights and benevolent caretaker of the bird feeders upon which their existance depends.
 
blaxshep said:
Big Government liberals don't care about what is right or wrong or constitutional. All that matters to them is thier belief that the Nanny State is the source of their rights and benevolent caretaker of the bird feeders upon which their existance depends.
Click to expand...
Yep. I remember just before the 2010 elections some whack job in the Democrat party said "The constitution allows the federal government to do whatever it wants". That's one idiot who sorely needs a refresher course, or to be removed from office.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom