The Communist Origin of the Modern Conservative Movement VI

According to you the M-16 would not be an assault weapon either.

The M-16 is just an AR-15 modified to shoot automatically.

Assault weapons have one purpose and one purpose mass murder either on the battlefield or the high school.

Legal definition of assault weapons: semi-automatic firearm capable of accepting detachable magazine. That has AR-15 written all over it.

You keep pretending that reality doesn’t exist. When each of the policemen arrived at the high school did hey go running into the school or did they get organized outside first?

If each policeman just ran in on his own it is likely they would set up a circular firing squad and friendly fire would do the rest.

Did the police in Las Vegas blindly rush into the hotel room? Or did they wait outside the room and check for a camera?

I like Monday morning quarterbacking. It is so easy to say what should have happened.

The Sherriff was quick to criticize but if he was the lone policeman

on scene and he knew he would have to face a weapon of war with his pistol

The first paragraph of your link shows the imaginary cowboy mentality. Scot Peterson should have gone in there and shot and killed the shooter. That would be easy if the shooter was unarmed but the shooter was armed with a weapon of war. In a gun battle size matters all that would have happened is the cop would have been dead. You have to look at what actually happened instead of what they think should have happened.

No, it does not mean no guns as the school police officers have guns. No guns means no guns period.

A link is not necessary. If you have the title of the article a simple google search will find the article. The two hours was work that was lost and time spent trying to find the post on the computer.

With all the worlds knowledge you can only follow a small portion of it. You have to pick your battles and while gay marriage might be a major concern to the radical right it was not a major concern to many liberals.

Creditable pollsters try to design questions that are neutral If they don’t they will not stay in business long.

Political campaigns use push polls that are not designed to get results but to push information. Baby Bush’s campaign used push polls to kill McCain’s chances in the South Carolina primary when they called an asked how they felt about John McCain’s black daughter? The idea was to make voters aware McCain had a black daughter.
You might want to read a book about the 2000 election and the dirty tricks by the Bush campaign.

I have never made up a single thing there are just things that you are too lazy to look up. I am sure there is a library near you, but it does take some effort on your part to get informed.

I believe all guns should be registered along with a fired bullet that could be used to trace the guns used in crimes. Like the DNA data base or the finger prints kept on file.

Ah but you have Clint Eastwood and Mel Gibson.

Eastwood even appears at the Republican convention.

The Dirty Harry films took a radical right view of crime. Just shoot em.

But then according to you, movies don’t influence people.

The information on what Reagan did during the war comes from a Racheal Maddow book. The US government would not have been making propaganda movies if they didn’t work.

Hunting is a big sport and of course if you are going most people use a gun. Hunting is declining, at one time people hunted to put meat on the table but now it is just a sport.

It attracts people who just enjoy killing.

Those 2 million no longer have a reason to buy a gun.

Reference: “Number of Hunters on the Decline, According to New Federal Survey”

The advantage to a google search over a link is that it will return many
articles on the same subject.

Why would people buy a gun to defend their home?

Because they are their family are many more times likely to be shot with the gun than a burglar. If you know you or your family members is more likely to be shot why buy a gun in the first place? It defies logic.

Sorry Charlie but 600,000 guns are stolen every year. That is one every minute. It looks like thieves don’t subscribe to your theory nor are they afraid to steal from houses with guns. There is your fantasy and then there is reality.

Reference: “Up to 600,000 Guns Are Stolen Every in the US, That Is One a Minute”

Not only is gun ownership going down but the number of people who realize the reality that guns are a real and present danger in the home.

Reference: “American Gun Ownership Drops to Lowest in Nearly 40 Years.”

Gun ownership has fallen from a high of 53% in January of 1994 to 36% in June of 2016. Gun ownership has fallen 32% in just 22 years. You can see the writing on the wall, bang, bang.

There might be a tiny minority who still hunt for food. Wild meat can and does cause diseases.

Hunting is still the primary reason for gun ownership.

That one factor, masculinity symbol, is responsible for most of the non-hunting guns.

You don’t know a whole lot about movies do you.

The box office receipts are often a minor part of what a movie makes.

Some movies are released directly to pay TV and DVD. Publicity is often a determining factor on how much box office a movie makes.

The only important thing to know about guns is how many people they kill and how quickly they kill them.

The mass murderers have educated the public about guns far more than you will ever know.

Knowing the size of the barrel or the make of the gun is not near as important as the number people killed per second and mass murderers are the real experts.

An atomic bomb could have been used in all the situations the AR-15s were used but it would be over kill as the AR-15s were.

With loaded AR-15s laying around in each of these incidents and each incident required a loaded AR-15 in easy reach of a child or teenager.

There are bound to be many incidents where innocent bystanders were shot by gun nuts with AR-15s or similar weapons.

Any statistic that has a range between 500,000 and 2,500,000 is completely worthless. If you can’t get within 2 million something is wrong. There should be a number an error range between 1% and 2%. Your statistic has a 500% error rate. It is like someone decided to pull it out of mid-air.

This is the same LEO that put a notch on his gun for a suicide. Since he didn’t hit the shooter the question is what the hell did he hit.

How about the rapist who uses a gun to rape women? Is he a hero or a coward?

In states with more guns there are more rapes not less. Are robbers that use guns heroes or cowards? People carry guns because they are paranoid and scared of the world around them. People carry guns because they think that is the only solution to a problem.

Someone under the bed? Nothing beats a good knife for close up and personal. She did not have to have a gun a ball bat would have put him on his knees a second blow would put him out. A gun is not the only solution to a problem. If history has taught us one thing if someone decides to kill someone no amount of guns can stop them. Presidents with an army of secret service agents armed to the teeth can be killed. If someone shoots you it is to late for the Police department to anything but take the report. If someone decides to kill you he is not going to give you twenty seconds to get your gun. Most likely you will never even hear the shot that kills you. You will not place any calls to police.

The dog and pony show the gun manufacturers have been putting on for years to sell death to the stupid is at the center of this debate.

The gun manufacturers have tried to convince the public for years that guns are for their safety

when in fact they know guns are far more likely to kill their owner or his family than any robber.

You watch ID how many gun owners end up dead by their own gun?

If I had recorded the gun manufacturers infomercials I would send you a copy but I didn’t know I would need one at the time. Check out: “Infomercial With a Bang; NRA Buys on Chanel. 9 to”

The sad thing is it works. The NRA would buy television time prior to elections and not commercial time but 30 minute blocks of program time. These 30-minute infomercials would claim the sky was falling and to make sure you vote for the most corrupt politician who was taking the gun manufacturers money. The problem with the dog and pony show is that in 242 years the country has existed no one has ever passed a bill to take guns but it sure makes a nice straw man to attack.

Try the French Revolution where they roasted the rich pigs and fed them to their wives.

You have no idea of world history or the economic forces that cause revolutions. You think world history began in the twentieth century.

It does not matter when they got their money greed is greed.

It is like it doesn’t matter when you got cancer you still have cancer.

Try the French Revolution where they roasted the rich pigs and fed them to their wives.

I will move this one to the top of the list and answer it out of order. That is not a phrase it is a report of an actual historical event that has been repeated throughout human history and unfortunately will be repeated again.

It won’t likely be in my lifetime or yours but within a hundred or a hundred and fifty years unless something drastically changes America’s current course they may be serving up a future Gordon Geko.

This post has nothing to do with socialism or communism it is about a sickness called greed that and it is been a terminal sickness to societies throughout history.

When the distribution of wealth of a country no longer reflects the contribution of its population but the power of greed the country has gone into a tailspin and the crash is inevitable.

You have not lived long enough to see the radical decline in the middle-class standard of living over the last 50 years.

In 1970 a CEO made 20 times what their average employee made in 2016 the average CEO made 300 times what their average employee made.

During this period wages remained stagnant.

Most of mankind will always look for a way to destroy greed.

The distribution of wealth in Russia made it ripe for revolution if not communism it would have been another ism.

Once the ungodly greedy in a country secure the vast majority of wealth revolution will always follow.

“Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”

America is not unending greed.

While certain things are listed as crimes in society other things that are just as immoral have not been made a crime.

To get rich in America you either steal from the stock holders or from the employees or both.

If someone steals your car there is a law against it but if a CEO gets rich from stealing the employs pensions and gets rich in the process his admired as a good businessman.

There is no comparison between the value of a car and a lifetime pension.

Destroying the pensions systems of millions in one of the reasons CEOs salaries went from 20 times what their average employee made in 1970 to 300 times what their average employee made in 2016.

Some CEOs make 50% of what the companies make.

Cubic dollars that translates into cubic political power which is the gun held to the middle classes head that allows them to rob them. Political power allows the ungodly greedy to change the laws that allowed them to steal a lifetime of work.

That is exactly what is happening in America now.

Studies of congress show the vast majority of Americans have less than 1% of the political power in congress while the top 1% has used their money to purchase 99% of the political power in America.

Never ever under estimate self-interest as a motive. The 1% is using that power not only to eliminate the pension system in America

they are going to use that power to eliminate social security and Medicare and when that 1% holds 99% of the political power the chances that social security will go the way of the pension systems are extremely good.

You are correct, people such as yourself have failed to learn the lesson of Communism and how evil it truely is. You failed to learn the lessons from the Stalin, Mao, Minh and the countless Communist death squads that roamed South American lead by people such a Che.

A more equitable distribution of wealth was exactly what our democracy was designed to do.

The founding fathers were well aware of governments of Europe where an aristocracy of wealth ruled.

The agenda in America was to get away from the distribution of wealth in the old world.

They hoped to achieve this goal by evenly distributing political power because in their time vast wealth was a direct product of political power.

Every solution creates its own problems. What the founding fathers didn’t realize was that vast wealth creates political power.

In the beginning America was very egalitarian with the country’s wealth pretty evenly distributed the founding fathers could not even imagine the lopsided distribution of wealth corruption of their government would bring.

When the Constitution was written the founding fathers were worried that the majority control of the country would simply end in the masses voting themselves the assets of the rich, but they badly underestimated the power of the wealthy.

The founding fathers didn’t realize how easily the government they designed could be corrupted by the wealthy.

For instance, the Republican Party has not only tried to eliminate social security since it became law they want to eliminate the minimum wage.

There are a lot of references to fictional characters like god for color.

The book was a book written by a world-famous economist and had absolutely nothing to do with communism.

The wealth of any company is not earned solely by the CEO the majority of wealth is generated by the workers who actually make the products.

Without strong unions the CEO is free to take the lion’s share of the wealth for himself, think 300 times more than their average worker, that does not represent the CEO’s contribution to the product.

You might make an argument for 20 times their average worker, that was standard up until 1970.

Where has socialism or communism failed in the USA?

When was it established? How was it overthrown?

Pointing to historical examples in poor non-industrialized countries which suffered long under the misrule of monarchs despots hardly serves as an effective argument against developing a modern socialist society in the USA.

If you're wedded to capitalism, fine, but incessantly bringing up the failed revolutions of the past as examples of "socialism" does nothing to address the economic and cultural conditions in our country, today.