No BBH I am not a Christian. I was born and raised Catholic but walked away from that faith years ago.
Iowa is my state of residence.
I am with you on the hope for never raising my arms because of oppression. I actually hope I never need my arms for more than sport shooting and hunting. However I would rather have them and not need them, than need them and not have them.
I don't like being on a list that shows what I have either. In Germany the first thing they did was take all the peoples guns saying "we will protect you" This was after they required everyone to register every firearm in their homes. It took only two years and as can be seen today it can be done with Executive orders now. Power has a way of doing that to a person, and I don't want to fear our Government.
Everyone I know says they would not comply with such a thing.
(12-27-2014, 09:43 AM)Maggot Wrote: [ -> ]I don't like being on a list that shows what I have either. In Germany the first thing they did was take all the peoples guns saying "we will protect you" This was after they required everyone to register every firearm in their homes. It took only two years and as can be seen today it can be done with Executive orders now. Power has a way of doing that to a person, and I don't want to fear our Government.
Everyone I know says they would not comply with such a thing.
That fear is why, I suspect, the US government explicitly states that neither it nor its agencies will create a national gun registry.
That assurance was at the top of the "Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act" (which is the universal background check bill that I posted upthread).
How does your fear that the US government is gonna try to come take your guns sometime in the future, like what happened in Nazi Germany 70 years ago, become more realistic by requiring private firearms transactions to go through the same background checking as dealer firearms transactions? It doesn't. No rational argument or connection between the two exists.
Problem there Maggot is that many talk a good story, but how man would actually do it ? I fear most would go along with the program fearing the consequences if the did not register. Then at that point it would be to late, the list would have ben made and the doors could be knocked upon.
There are many that say they would turn in a few broken old squirrel guns and bury the good ones. I say if it is time to bury them, it is time to use them.
I hope there never comes a day when we have to say
![[Image: 800px-Molon_labe_zpsdcd7d875.jpg]](http://i215.photobucket.com/albums/cc235/911JB/800px-Molon_labe_zpsdcd7d875.jpg)
Oh no, these guys would never register the guns they have now. Nobody knows about them, we don't screw around up here. They're not blabbermouths either and we have our ways. But I think new guns should be registered why not? People can still trade.
Since I am a FFL holder all my personal firearms are in the books somewhere Maggot,
.
(12-27-2014, 09:55 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]How does your fear that the US government is gonna try to come take your guns sometime in the future, like what happened in Nazi Germany 70 years ago, become more realistic by requiring private firearms transactions to go through the same background checking as dealer firearms transactions? It doesn't. No rational argument or connection between the two exists.
Let me use S.S. as an example. When it first started it was for widows of service members and their siblings, as the years went by and the pie grew it included disabled vets. Later to include adults and children born blind deaf etc. That was fine. Then LBJ turned it into a great place for the poor to get money that grew until people were getting disability for being drunks and drug addicts.
Today they are thinking of letting illegals get a piece of it as the original recipients it was started for get their balls sniped. Every year it becomes a burden. Not because they have no money but more people are added who never contributed.
Now when you say I have nothing to fear from the government and that the constitution is secure how can you guarantee that years down the road when a new President or Congress decides to change things or add to existing laws? I prefer to go by the past actions then by any hot air coming from any politicians mouth.
I just do not trust them, to many lies and smoke and mirrors out there.
I waffle on this subject all the time. What I thought yesterday may not apply today.
I don't want to sound looney & paranoid because that's not how I live my life, I don't see myself as that but the fact is I don't actually trust nor have any real faith in our government. Day to day living is fine, no worries but all these "lists" make me somewhat uncomfortable. On one hand I want guns kept out of the hands of unstable people and on the other I want my privacy, I don't think anyone needs to know what I own.
(12-27-2014, 10:19 AM)Maggot Wrote: [ -> ] (12-27-2014, 09:55 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]How does your fear that the US government is gonna try to come take your guns sometime in the future, like what happened in Nazi Germany 70 years ago, become more realistic by requiring private firearms transactions to go through the same background checking as dealer firearms transactions? It doesn't. No rational argument or connection between the two exists.
Let me use S.S. as an example. When it first started it was for widows of service members and their siblings, as the years went by and the pie grew it included disabled vets. Later to include adults and children born blind deaf etc. That was fine. Then LBJ turned it into a great place for the poor to get money that grew until people were getting disability for being drunks and drug addicts.
Today they are thinking of letting illegals get a piece of it as the original recipients it was started for get their balls sniped. Every year it becomes a burden. Not because they have no money but more people are added who never contributed.
Now when you say I have nothing to fear from the government and that the constitution is secure how can you guarantee that years down the road when a new President or Congress decides to change things or add to existing laws? I prefer to go by the past actions then by any hot air coming from any politicians mouth.
I just do not trust them, to many lies and smoke and mirrors out there.
I didn't say that you had nothing to fear from the government. I said that your fear of future US government attempts to come take your guns and implement Martial Law, using Nazi Germany 70+ years ago as a baseline, becomes no more realistic if private gun transactions become subject to the same background checking as dealer gun transactions. Read the bill/proposed law for universal background checks. If you can logically and specifically connect the two, I'm all ears.
I also didn't say that the Constitution can guarantee you that years down the road, laws won't change. The Constitution isn't meant to make time stand still -- though it's clear some wish that were the case.
I've got plenty of flaws -- gullibility, illogicality, and resistance to change based on fear are not amongst them.
I don't care if you all wanna bury guns in the ground waiting for the US government to spit out its supposed super secret list and come rob you of your arms. I don't care if people like F.U. wanna legally acquire and boast about an arsenal of guns -- loaded ones on hand at all times -- in preparation for that imagined day of reckoning. I don't care if you wanna teach your kids how to shoot and how to be ready to fight against the US government in preparation for "Big Brother" coming to take your guns. None of that bothers me and it's your business.
However, I did care to respond and challenge you (collective) when you tried to make your fear of a possible future governmental action a justification for affording children an opportunity to get a hold of loaded guns at home and for resisting measures to reduce the number of violent and unstable adults from getting a hold of guns. I care about society and safety, today and in the future.
Why do some self-proclaimed "survivalists" bother blowing hot air about supporting more enforcement of existing guns laws and supporting common sense measures to make those laws more all-encompassing, only to ultimately resist the implementation of such measures based on unsubstantiated claims that they introduce onerous new hoops for law-abiding gun-owners? That's some unproductive bullshit and backwards marching, IMO.
Anyway, seems we've gotten past that bullshit here yesterday and today. A couple of you wouldn't support any government-sponsored initiative or law designed to increase gun control/safety -- even if the initiatives or laws don't afford "Big Brother" any more opportunity to create a national gun registry than it has today -- because you don't trust the government. That's it -- your fear of government is your paramount concern. There's no reason to keep tossing about bullshit when that's all that needed to be said in the first place.
I don't wanna change your minds -- I just wanted to understand your changing claims and your mindsets. Now, I do.
I remember a time not too long ago when some people thought Obama was going to take their guns. Those people bordered on batshit crazy and traveled miles & miles to buy all the guns, gold & ammo they could. It was all over the internet. I don't believe there will ever come a time in the United States where citizens will be forced to give up their weapons. There would be a revolt of the American people.
(12-16-2014, 05:22 PM)Maggot Wrote: [ -> ]Both Bush and Romney better not run. It would be like voting for Nancy Pelosi. I would rather see Herman Cain, Rand Paul or even Tim Kaine or maybe even Marco Rubio. Hillary has a chance but only if the next 2 yrs plays out bad for the Republican majority. Time will tell.
I kid you not, a lot may change in the next two years, but as of today, Jeb Bush is the front-runner for 2016 GOP presidential candidacy.
Snip:
He takes nearly one-quarter — 23% — of Republicans surveyed in the new nationwide poll, putting him 10 points ahead of his closest competitor, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who tallied 13%.
Physician Ben Carson comes in third, with 7% support, and Sen. Rand Paul and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee are both tied for fourth with 6%.
Full story:
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/12/28/politi...?hpt=hp_t5
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bush got an A on the NRA's report card some time back for passing their Stand Your Ground-backed laws during his tenure as Florida Governor. But, he ruffled their feathers later when he supported instant background checks at gun shows.
Christie got a C on the NRA's report card after he ruffled their feathers by failing to advocate for allowing other states' CCW permits to be recognized in New Jersey.
Paul gets an A rating from the NRA consistently.
I couldn't find a score for Carson or Huckabee, but you can read about their stances on gun-related issues here:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Gun_Control.htm
Huckabee cooked a squirrel in a popcorn popper.
(12-28-2014, 04:10 PM)Duchess Wrote: [ -> ]Huckabee cooked a squirrel in a popcorn popper.
If he shot that squirrel with a high capacity semi-automatic that he purchased under Big Brother's radar -- via private transaction at a gun show (and then buried the "tool" in a secret hiding place in the nearby hills, just in case of you-know-what) -- he probably scores an A then!
P.s. I'm trying to be good and hold off on mocking/correcting some very inaccurate oft-repeated remarks in regards to Hitler/Nazis and gun control; letting it go and focusing on the here and now instead. Still, hard to resist poking altogether. I know that I'm an asshole sometimes.
(12-28-2014, 04:37 PM)Duchess Wrote: [ -> ] (12-28-2014, 04:25 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]I'm trying to be good and hold off on mocking/correcting some very inaccurate oft-repeated remarks in regards to Hitler/Nazi and gun control
Where the hell is the fun in THAT?!
Well...............if it's fun only for me, sometimes I just (almost) STFU and move on to some other kinda fun.
I can be an asshole, but I'm generally a considerate one.
(12-26-2014, 07:19 PM)F.U. Dont ask again Wrote: [ -> ]BBH, You need look no farther than current events around the world to see scenarios that might push Big Brother to a confiscation. If our country ever broke down like many around the world have, our gov would not want us to hold our arms. Marshal law would be much harder to uphold if the subjects are armed. You can also use New Orleans as another example. during Katrina common folk had their firearms confiscated for no reason. Most of those firearms were never returned to the owners.
You and anyone else can call me paranoid, that bothers me not. I look at it as prepared not paranoid. Once again, I guess that could be a difference of opinion.
If you have any doubt as to how many people feel just as I do just google survivalist forums and do some reading. Most will not talk about their feelings away from these groups, but there are many many more people that think as I do than you might think. Just for shits and giggles I just went to one group I am a member of and checked the member count. It is currently at 133,886 members. That's a lot of like minded folk at just one group.
Happy New Year BBH.
I think if your country broke down, law and order was lost, y'all are going to have bigger problems than needing to own a few firearms to defend your house.
133,886... Fifty odd thousand of them probably believe the CIA was behind the assassination of JFK and that the government took out the twin towers..
Space may be the final frontier but it's made in a Hollywood basement..?
I was just reading about this. I haven't seen yet whether or not the gun was legal. Not that it matters really. The gun/purse shouldn't have been out of the lady's possession.
They actually have purses with a gun pocket built right into them. The pocket has a locking zipper . Weather or not that is what she was using I cant say.
![[Image: 800px-Molon_labe_zpsdcd7d875.jpg]](http://s215.photobucket.com/user/911JB/media/800px-Molon_labe_zpsdcd7d875.jpg.html)