DOJ Memo: Outlaw and Confiscate All Guns

reply to post by macman


Was it or was that what you drew from it? I don't need to explain again but that "official" document looks like a sped student made it on MSWord sorry you missed my point. I'm sure such a spectacular piece would've been dealt with a bit more care... not a minute in such a incoherent fashion. Plus I'm still waiting for a PDF of this, you got one?

reply to post by Darkphoenix77


Yes you saying the information needs to be verified would lead me to believe that you don't actually think this is a "official" document. If you were to write that then think otherwise then I'd question quite a bit about you. Is there anything constructive you wanted to add? Or are you still trying to say you may be that gullible?

reply to post by hawkiye


It's actually not BS. This is indeed what they do. However, I'm not buying into the idea that this is just a "put everything on the table" process. It's the "let's see what we can get away with to empower us even more" process.

Our evil president has been quoted as saying he doesnt think anybody should own a gun.
Thats his belief so he will continually try to implement.

This memo isnt anything. What we need to be cautious of is the upcoming UN gun treaty in March.

Watch out for a major False Flag around that time as a diversion.

Originally posted by fishy6
Our evil president has been quoted as saying he doesnt think anybody should own a gun.
Thats his belief so he will continually try to implement.

This memo isnt anything. What we need to be cautious of is the upcoming UN gun treaty in March.

Watch out for a major False Flag around that time as a diversion.

While the memo isn't a surprise, it is important in that it puts to paper the implications that have been made about the Obummer administration for years. It's corroboration. And while it's not a law, it is from the DOJ which advises on laws and interprets them.

But you're right - because I think Mr. Soetoro or whatever his real name is knows he probably can't pass sweeping federal gun bans he wants to try the backdoor (Larry Page will attest to this) and use treaties.

Originally posted by NoJoker13
reply to post by HattoriHanzou

 

So prove that it's real, it lacks a national seal and anything to actually make it credible. If you want a document to be 'official' it needs to be notarized as far as I can tell this document isn't. So I'm waiting for how you can prove to me this is 'real' other then the fact that it's there and looks like someone made it on MSWord.

The Obama administration has already confirmed that it's real. Please look into this yourself, I'm not your lil chore boy.

Originally posted by NoJoker13
reply to post by macman

 

Didn't say they didn't I stated that I could make the same. I did although say that "official" documents require a notary seal and a signature. Two of which this "official" document is lacking.

Are you suggesting that all internal memos circulated within the federal government are sealed and notarized?

Originally posted by NoJoker13
reply to post by macman

 

Was it or was that what you drew from it? I don't need to explain again but that "official" document looks like a sped student made it on MSWord sorry you missed my point. I'm sure such a spectacular piece would've been dealt with a bit more care... not a minute in such a incoherent fashion. Plus I'm still waiting for a PDF of this, you got one?

It always helps to actually read the OP and the article it references and check the links. The DOJ confirmed the document was theirs to the Washington Times (also linked in the OP) and tried to downplay it, And there is a link to the PDF of it in the OP....

Originally posted by NoJoker13
reply to post by Darkphoenix77

 

Yes you saying the information needs to be verified would lead me to believe that you don't actually think this is a "official" document. If you were to write that then think otherwise then I'd question quite a bit about you. Is there anything constructive you wanted to add? Or are you still trying to say you may be that gullible?

Yeah, meaning if Alex Jones is the ONLY source of the info it needs to be taken with a grain of salt. In this case he is not the only source, there is the NRA, The Washington Times, and the fact that they have not only not issued a statement denouncing the document but have actually confirmed that it is an internal memo.

And so now you resort to saying I have nothing constructive to add and call me gullible......typical.

reply to post by HattoriHanzou


O really and no where in the article it says that or sites a source interesting...

reply to post by Darkphoenix77



O really and do they site an official source? Or does it just link to infowars?

Originally posted by NoJoker13
reply to post by Darkphoenix77

 

O really and do they site an official source? Or does it just link to infowars?

It's pretty clear that you haven't bothered to even read anything in this thread.

The DOJ memo is real, according to the Washington Times and the DOJ itself. The citation for this IS IN THE FIRST POST OF THE THREAD!

Click here for more information.

reply to post by NoJoker13


So now you're admitting it's real?

This is just one more piece of the puzzle confirming every thinking person's suspicion that Obama intends to round up guns door to door, because compliance would be low with a paper ban.

The current head of the DOJ is a traitor against the Constitution and people of the US, who has advocated the favored Communist technique of brainwashing, specifically brainwashing people into being anti-gun.

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by NoJoker13
reply to post by HattoriHanzou

 

[snip]

"Progress" has always been a code word for Communism, ever since the Communists here in the USA changed their name to Progressive Democrats in the early 20th century.

This kind of "progress" will be halted.

As far as free thinkers go, I find the use of that term to be especially ironic.

reply to post by HattoriHanzou


O I was wondering when the labels were going to start flying... For shame for shame. Again I could go into labeling you but you'd be lost in the explanation anyway or just draw some other type of conclusion from it. Are you religious?

Originally posted by NoJoker13
reply to post by HattoriHanzou

 

O I was wondering when the labels were going to start flying... For shame for shame. Again I could go into labeling you but you'd be lost in the explanation anyway or just draw some other type of conclusion from it. Are you religious?

The idea that 'Progressivism" isn't just code for Communism is busted. The idea that Obama isn't a Communist is busted by himself in his own book, where he writes with adoration of his main influences, Frank Marshall Davis, Saul Alinsky, and Bill Ayers. All are self-admitted Commies and Ayers is a convicted terrorist to boot.

Whether or not I'm religious is nobody's business, especially when the individual in question has shown that they are not interested in an actual conversation but mere invective.

reply to post by HattoriHanzou


It isn't anyone's business you say but yet my political leanings are? Hmmmm we've reached a cliff Batman! When you'd like to discuss your religious leanings we'll discuss my political ones, which usually 99.9% of the time run hand in hand. Also you spelled your name wrong and Quentin Tarantino wants some royalties, I wonder what they call those who idolize themselves??? Hmmmm.