# Pelosi: "We want registration"



## KenpoTex (Apr 10, 2009)

not that this should come as a surprise to anyone...
http://www.examiner.com/x-4525-Seat...-made-it-official-to-ABC-We-want-registration


----------



## Deaf Smith (Apr 10, 2009)

We sent that to all our IDPA, CMP, and IPSC club members. Just to give them a heads up. 

I sure hope 'duck hunters' and all those fancy rich skeet shooters see that Pelosi will try to do to us what was done in England. Slow but sure banning of everything AFTER they register them all.

Deaf


----------



## KenpoTex (Apr 10, 2009)

oops...looks like this is already running in the politics section
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=75227


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Apr 11, 2009)

Deaf Smith said:


> We sent that to all our IDPA, CMP, and IPSC club members. Just to give them a heads up.
> 
> I sure hope 'duck hunters' and all those fancy rich skeet shooters see that Pelosi will try to do to us what was done in England. Slow but sure banning of everything AFTER they register them all.
> 
> Deaf


 That daffy broad is planning on using the 'Boiling Frog' principle of gun control.......sadly it's effective.


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 11, 2009)

Somehow I don't envision a hell of a lot of compliance with this if it does happen.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Apr 11, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> Somehow I don't envision a hell of a lot of compliance with this if it does happen.



Probably not at first....but they'll makes sure to make it a federal crime not to register your firearms.  After they send a few folks to prison for 10 years, the rest of us will get their message. 

And the registration is just the necessary first step to a confiscation anyway......they need a registry first to go after these guns.


----------



## searcher (Apr 11, 2009)

To get compliance all they have to do is get the ones that are scared to fight, to turn in their guns.    Then they offer food or $$ for the people who are to hungry to fight(works good with this economy).     Then they send out the troops to collect the rest.    If the troops don't want to comply, they have the _National Service_ group go do it.  http://www.nationalservice.gov/Default.asp   They are the ones that many of us suspect will be trained in weapons and tactics for O's little secret police.


----------



## KenpoTex (Apr 11, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> Somehow I don't envision a hell of a lot of compliance with this if it does happen.



I really wish I could agree...

Unfortunately, I think most gun owners are going to knuckle under just as they did in other countries.


----------



## grydth (Apr 11, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> Somehow I don't envision a hell of a lot of compliance with this if it does happen.



Nor do I.... and that's where a full scale civil war could begin. A lot of people are not going to turn their guns in to the likes of Nancy Pelosi or Al Franken. So then you and the other LEOs here get sent to shoot it out with the rest of us. I'm guessing most LEOs will refuse, and so will many military units... your idea of "serve and protect" and the soldiers' view of upholding the Constitution doesn't square with the violent imposition of a Peoples' Republic.

But unlike most here, I give Obama credit for more intelligence.

 The Kalifornia Kommisars (Pelosi,Feinstein,Boxer) have long been hostile to gun ownership..... look at Feinstein's comment *years ago* that, if she could, she would order," Mr and Mrs America, turn them all in" <Author's note: why don't *you* personally come to get mine?> This position from the extreme left is not news.

Obama has far more important things on his agenda. He will recall that the Klintons lost Congress after the 1990's gun bill, and he will know we never had 'President Gore' because of the NRA. Obama was not elected on a gun control platform. Obama knows the country is a tinderbox and is in deep economic trouble...... you guys really think he's gonna throw that match into it??


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 11, 2009)

The fact is that firearms are durable - many are in working condition and safe to fire even a century after they were made.  So no one really knows how many firearms there are in the USA, estimates are all over the place.  The FBI estimates nearly 200 million guns in private hands - compared to 350 million citizens.  That's a lot of guns.

I believe it would be impossible to register them all.

However, one way to begin would be to require registration of all guns sold commercially, and to forbid private sales (not that the latter attempt would work, but it would stop some sales).

Second, the government could begin the process of pulling all the Form 4473's that are either in the hands of licensed gun dealers or in a government warehouse, due to an FFL dealer going out of business or losing their license.  I had an FFL back in the days when you could run a 'garage' business, and my 4473's were all mailed in when my license expired and I could not renew without a 'storefront' location.

Once the 4473's were all digitized, police officers could be given street addresses and names to begin to try to force registration of those firearms, or just enter them all into a database and consider them 'registered'.

However, there is no practical way for the nation to register all the guns.  Which is a very good thing.

And as I've said before, I'll never register my guns.  Never.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Apr 11, 2009)

KenpoTex said:


> I really wish I could agree...
> 
> Unfortunately, I think most gun owners are going to knuckle under just as they did in other countries.


 With the threat of federal prison looming over their heads, i'm certain they will.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 11, 2009)

*Dear Ms. Pelosi....*


----------



## Guardian (Apr 11, 2009)

Hhhmmm, being retired military, I swore to uphold the Constitution and the Laws of this land whereas the laws of this land are not specifically mentioned in the Enlistment Oath, there is a moral obligation for me to do so since it say follow the orders of the President or those appointed over me.  I sit here and ponder would I really resist and refuse to register my firearms or cache them know that I would be putting my family in harms way right way, were not the only ones that watch TV or read, criminals, thieves, crooks, druggies do also.

Ok, thought about it long enough, family and country come first, no registration for this man.


----------



## CuongNhuka (Apr 11, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> And as I've said before, I'll never register my guns. Never.


 
Stay out of NE then. We already require firearm registration. And we have for quite awhile. Atleast 30 years. By the way, NE has made no attempt to confiscate firearms.


----------



## Thesemindz (Apr 11, 2009)

Guardian said:


> Ok, thought about it long enough, family and country come first, no registration for this man.


 
And when they target your family? When the government agents who _do_ choose to enforce this legislation come to your home and threaten your children or your wife? When they surround your home, or the homes of your neighbors, and attack you with flammable toxic gases, or sniper fire? When you hear about someone's wife being murdered by a government sniper, or someone's children being strafed from overhead by machine gun fire from government helicopters? When they burn someone alive in their own home and fire round after round into anyone trying to flee the inferno?

Or how about when they just show up in a neighborhood of people they don't like and choose to seize every single child from every single home based on an anonymous tip that they *know* originated from a disturbed prank phone caller?

Ah hell, those people were all weirdos anyway. They probably had it coming. Who cares if their families were violated, or *murdered* by government agents. After all, it wasn't me an mine. We toe the line.

And as long as we keep toeing the line, I'm _sure_ they won't come kill us next.


-Rob


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 11, 2009)

* Chilling Words. *

"_Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA  _
_ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve _
_the state_."     - Heinrich Himmler.


Himmler was one of most powerful men in Nazi Germany. As Reichsführer-SS he oversaw all police and security forces, including the Gestapo.  Wonder why he didn't want regular citizens armed?


Hmmmm....has Nancy, Hillary and their buddies been reading more of their hero's works?

*Nazi Weapons Act of 1938 (Translated to English)*​ 


[*]*Classified guns for "sporting purposes".  *
[*]*All citizens who wished to purchase firearms had to register with the Nazi officials and have a background check. *
[*]*Presumed German citizens were hostile and thereby exempted Nazis from the gun control law. *
[*]*Gave Nazis unrestricted power to decide what kinds of firearms could, or could not be owned by private persons. *
[*]*The types of ammunition that were legal were subject to control by bureaucrats. *
[*]*Juveniles under 18 years could not buy firearms and ammunition.*
 http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id14.html


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 11, 2009)

Examples of Registration leading to confiscation:

1930's & 1940's


> Himmler, head of the Nazi terror police, would become an architect of the Holocaust, which consumed six million Jews. It was self evident that the Jews must be disarmed before the extermination could begin.
> 
> Finding out which Jews had firearms was not too difficult. The liberal Weimar Republic passed a Firearm Law in 1928 requiring extensive police records on gun owners. Hitler signed a further gun control law in early 1938.
> 
> ...


Source: http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id14.html

2000
*CALIFORNIA ORDERS STATE-WIDE CONFISCATION 



* *Gun Confiscation in Democratic Societies* 


> *New Zealand* has had some form of firearms registration since 1921. In 1974, all revolvers lawfully held for personal security were confiscated. [SIZE=-1](Same source as previous paragraph)[/SIZE]
> 
> In May of 1995, *Canada*'s Bill C-68 prohibited previously legal and registered small-caliber handguns. Current owners of such guns were "grandfathered," which means the guns are to be forfeited upon death of the owner. Bill C-68 also authorizes the Canadian government to enact future weapons prohibitions.
> 
> ...


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Apr 11, 2009)

CuongNhuka said:


> Stay out of NE then. We already require firearm registration. And we have for quite awhile. Atleast 30 years. By the way, NE has made no attempt to confiscate firearms.


 Well then it will be easier to got all the guns from NE......since you already have the lists.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Apr 11, 2009)

Thesemindz said:


> And when they target your family? When the government agents who _do_ choose to enforce this legislation come to your home and threaten your children or your wife? When they surround your home, or the homes of your neighbors, and attack you with flammable toxic gases, or sniper fire? When you hear about someone's wife being murdered by a government sniper, or someone's children being strafed from overhead by machine gun fire from government helicopters? When they burn someone alive in their own home and fire round after round into anyone trying to flee the inferno?
> 
> Or how about when they just show up in a neighborhood of people they don't like and choose to seize every single child from every single home based on an anonymous tip that they *know* originated from a disturbed prank phone caller?
> 
> ...


 I hate to use the 'R' word........or 'CW'.......I shudder to even think about it.....but in the purely hypothetical.......it was said  better by someone else than I could ever say it......



> "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,  That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."


----------



## CuongNhuka (Apr 12, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> Well then it will be easier to got all the guns from NE......since you already have the lists.


 
We've had registration for atleast 30 years, and there has been no attempt to seize our weapons. I've even heard we're consired to be one of the least regulated states in the Union. Right after Texas.

And you know, if you guys are THAT afraid of what the government does, I think the simple solution would be to move. I hear Mexico is lovely this time of year, and I doubt they have too many fire arms regulations. Iraq seems nice in the fall, and I know they have it (in the law) that any male citizen is allowed to own an AK47.


----------



## chinto (Apr 12, 2009)

yep, true.. learn from history.. if they try to register guns refuse to comply. I think if they do that the wheels will come off folks.. it will be a very unhappy thing!


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 13, 2009)

CuongNhuka said:


> We've had registration for atleast 30 years, and there has been no attempt to seize our weapons. I've even heard we're consired to be one of the least regulated states in the Union. Right after Texas.



That strikes me as odd.  Your profiles says you live in NE, by which I presume you mean Nebraska?  I lived in Omaha for a couple years, and that doesn't sound right to me.  I used to go to gun shows in Beatrice all the time, there were no registration laws then.  So I checked...

Gun Law Nebraska:


> *Rifles and Shotguns*
> 
> Permit to purchase rifles and shotguns? No
> Registration of rifles and shotguns? No
> ...



If you're talking about Instant Background Check, that's nationwide, and that's specifically NOT registration.



> And you know, if you guys are THAT afraid of what the government does, I think the simple solution would be to move. I hear Mexico is lovely this time of year, and I doubt they have too many fire arms regulations.



Mexico has some of the strictest gun control laws of any nation in North or Central America (you might note that this is a good example of how gun laws don't stop criminals from having them).

http://www.panda.com/mexicoguns/


> Article 11 of  Ley Federal de Armas de Fuego y Explosivos lists prohibited "military firearms" in Mexico.  They include:
> 
> 
> anything full-auto
> ...





> Iraq seems nice in the fall, and I know they have it (in the law) that any male citizen is allowed to own an AK47.



Well, that seems reasonable.  So if the government should begin to restrict free speech or the free practice of religion or the press, the solution should be not to try to fix it, but to move to another country.  Is that it?


----------



## KenpoTex (Apr 13, 2009)

CuongNhuka said:


> We've had registration for atleast 30 years, and there has been no attempt to seize our weapons. I've even heard we're consired to be one of the least regulated states in the Union. Right after Texas.
> 
> And you know, if you guys are THAT afraid of what the government does, I think the simple solution would be to move.



I find these comments (and the ones you've made in the thread on the same subject in the study) pretty disturbing.  You're okay with registration because "no attempts have been made to seize our weapons."  You're also okay with banning certain types of weapons for no reason other than what might happen if they were allowed (making reference to the thread in the Study).  Finally, your recommendation for those unhappy with the unconstitutional actions of the government is "move."  

Seriously dude...WTF?  You're a Marine right?  If so, the sentiments expressed above are pathetic coming from someone who swore an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."

What happens when/if you get the order to confiscate firearms from American citizens?  Are you going to follow the oath you swore or are you just going to use the "Nuremberg defense" when you're committing treason?


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Apr 13, 2009)

Marine or no, he's still 18.

Remember what we were like at 18?

Exactly. We were indestructible young pesky know it alls too. It's the way of things. the next 3 or so years will see some changes in him just as they did us.


----------



## searcher (Apr 13, 2009)

He does not sound very much like a Marine to me or even an American citizen.   I find it disturbing, but also sickening that they can warp your mindset into thinking that way.

He will make a good little Gestapo.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 13, 2009)

Gents, friendly notice, lets drop the shots and digs. Thank you.


----------



## CuongNhuka (Apr 13, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> That strikes me as odd. Your profiles says you live in NE, by which I presume you mean Nebraska? I lived in Omaha for a couple years, and that doesn't sound right to me. I used to go to gun shows in Beatrice all the time, there were no registration laws then. So I checked...
> 
> Gun Law Nebraska:
> 
> If you're talking about Instant Background Check, that's nationwide, and that's specifically NOT registration.


 
Hu... I've never tried to buy a firearm, so I don't personnally know. My mom tried to buy a rifle about 30 years ago, and she needed a permit. They might have repealed it, or something. I don't know. I'll stop using that as a point though.



Bill Mattocks said:


> Mexico has some of the strictest gun control laws of any nation in North or Central America (you might note that this is a good example of how gun laws don't stop criminals from having them).
> 
> http://www.panda.com/mexicoguns/
> 
> Well, that seems reasonable. So if the government should begin to restrict free speech or the free practice of religion or the press, the solution should be not to try to fix it, but to move to another country. Is that it?


 
And with a government which largely does nothing, it effectivly has no real gun laws. Kinda like 'if a law is never enforced, is it really a law at all?'

No, but these so called attmepts to destroy your rights and take your firearms seem to be more like the paranoid ravings of someone from Wako. They will not and cannot take your firearms wholesale from you. They can do that with some, but not all. It will never happen wholesale. Oh, and 'why don't you leave' is kinda my reply to anyone who likes to complain our country. Don't like, leave.



> Seriously dude...WTF? You're a Marine right? If so, the sentiments expressed above are pathetic coming from someone who swore an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."


 
OK.... I don't see any action against the Constitution. When I do, trust me, I'll be one of the leaders of the revolt against the government. 



> What happens when/if you get the order to confiscate firearms from American citizens? Are you going to follow the oath you swore or are you just going to use the "Nuremberg defense" when you're committing treason?


 
If for some reason I am ordered to confiscate weapons wholesale, I'm pretty sure my platoon sgt would say something like 'lets just go re-capture this country for America'. He's already told me he owns like 5 rifles and a couple hand guns. Almost every Marine I know own atleast 1 firearm. Most own more then that. You can count on the fact that _if_ the military is ordered to confiscate American weapons, most would end up being the leaders of the revolt.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 13, 2009)

Ah, Waco, where rather than arrest someone during their many trips into town, the FBI chose to burn innocent women and children alive.  Gotcha.

If we're going to focus on the Constitutionality of a gun ban/seizure, understanding the meaning behind the 2nd might be in order, and an awareness of several more recent court cases, including SCUS cases which affirmed the rights of individuals to own guns.  

No where in the USC does it authorize the Federal government to create or maintain a list of who owns what. Therefore, the Federal does not have that authority. The States do.


----------



## Deaf Smith (Apr 13, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> No where in the USC does it authorize the Federal government to create or maintain a list of who owns what. Therefore, the Federal does not have that authority. The States do.


 
*Or to the people*. That's also in the Constitution.

Deaf


----------



## BLACK LION (Apr 13, 2009)

2 words......













WHAT GUNS???? 





They wont be getting anything from me. I have told my wife and my family what to expect and they understand.  I also took the oath to support and defend the constitution from ALL enemies.  I refuse to stand for a tyranical gov or system that infringes on our basic liberties as specified by our forefathers.  Thats the reason that all able bodied males from 17-45 are required by law to be a part of the militia.  It the peoples job, its societies job to protect and preserve ourselves and each other from tyranny-oppression-or any such infringement on basic rights and liberties. 
Some bring up the argument that things were different then... stfu! 
The basic principle stands regardless if its 1776 or 3076... You will not deny me my right to protect and preserve myself, my family and my fellow citizens.. you are not authorized to do such and any indication that this is taking place of any kind is immediate cause for revolt.  
Thats just the way it is and it has nothing to do with being against the govt or domestic terror or anything of the sort.  I love my country so much that I served it in uniform with the full knowledge that I am sacrificing my life and limb so that my fellow citizens can enjoy the freedom and liberties promised to the people by the people and for the people. I bleed red...my eyes are white... and my gun is blue...I am nothing but American through and through. You dont need to come get me... I should come get you!   I believe in the constitution and I will die for that belief... that does not make me a threat to national security or a terrorist... it makes me a free citizen of the united states and a memeber of our society.    So if the .gov is monitoring this...dont mind me I am just a concerned citizen as you should be also....  besides... 

WHAT GUNS???


----------



## Gordon Nore (Apr 13, 2009)

BLACK LION said:


> Some bring up the argument that things were different then... stfu!



BL,

This is the only point of your thread that I would challenge. It's a discussion forum. Furthermore, it is not specifically a US discussion forum, even in the US Politics section. Anyone can participate. 

While on the subject of the Constitution, it has a First Amendment, as well as a Second. The Second, to my knowledge, isn't twice as important as the First. But the First, if I understand it correctly, is big enough to talk about everything -- including the second.


----------



## Thesemindz (Apr 13, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Ah, Waco, where rather than arrest someone during their many trips into town, the FBI chose to burn innocent women and children alive. Gotcha.
> 
> If we're going to focus on the Constitutionality of a gun ban/seizure, understanding the meaning behind the 2nd might be in order, and an awareness of several more recent court cases, including SCUS cases which affirmed the rights of individuals to own guns.
> 
> No where in the USC does it authorize the Federal government to create or maintain a list of who owns what. Therefore, the Federal does not have that authority. The States do.


 
Waco? 2nd amendment? State's rights?

Careful Bob, you're starting to sound like a militia member.


-Rob


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 13, 2009)

I'm a Jeffersonian Libertarian.  Which today is probably enough to get me on a dozen lists as a suspicious person. lol


----------



## yorkshirelad (Apr 14, 2009)

Thesemindz said:


> Waco? 2nd amendment? State's rights?
> 
> Careful Bob, you're starting to sound like a militia member.
> 
> ...


No, he's sounding like a concerned American and he should be concerned. I'm originaly from England and kissed the ground when I arrived here in the States. It's a shame however, that the US is becoming more and more like the UK. The first amendment is at risk with recent talk of the "fairness" doctrine, which by the way is designed to target talk radio and therefore the Conservative/Libertarian movement. I wonder if this will extend to the leftists at MSNBC and people like Bill Moyers at PBS (which we tax payers partially pay for). In Britain there is freedom of speech, but only if you say what the government wants you to say. A slip of the tongue can get you a stint in jail. It reminds me of Lenin's famous quote to the people of Russia. "You have the right to say anything you want, as long as I have the right to shoot you for it".

Then there is the push to tighten gun control laws, especially in California. It's almost as if the legislature wants decent Americans to be at the mercy of thugs, gangbangers and creeps who own weapons because they have no respect for the law. Again this reminds me of the UK. You shoot a guy on your property who wants to kill you and then rape your wife and guess what, your going to prison. 

With draconian taxes and and a push for universal health care, we may as well hand the federal reigns over to Gordon Brown and have the US run out of Whitehall. I don't know about you, but I want control of my life and want minimal government interfeerance.

If you want a taste of things to come here, go live in the UK, especially the North and you'll see what I mean.


----------



## Hudson69 (Apr 14, 2009)

I am anti-registration, I feel that it is a way to side step the 2nd amendment and if it gets in place how long would it be before they took away the right to transfer ownership thus allowing a slow, patient disarming of America.

I do not know if I could disarm anyone as a Police Officer; I probably could not based off of the person I was contacting.  I am a very strong proponent of the the right to keep and bear arms and I do not want the Fed's taking my guns away either.

Whenever these topics are broached it troubles me to no end but I do feel that the citizens of this country will not hold still for a tyrant government no matter how long they draw it out in an attempt to make it socio-facist entity a slow in coming reality.  I do have faith in our country and we have suffered poor leadership in the past let us all just hope that the current administration is not as socialist as the conservative media makes it out to be although at the current time those hopes seem to be wishful thinking.  

Nancy Pelosi's views really do scare me and I really believe that the Democratic Party, especially those in power honestly believe that what they do is what is best for the country because they are "smarter" than us simple citizens and because they see guns as bad and not as tools then a document written centuries ago should be able to be re-written by those enlightened individuals who are so much smarter than the commen men and women of this country.

This coming from a woman whose state needed almost 10 billion dollars in bail-out money and is getting ready to release a third of their prison population (a high majority of which are illegal immigrants).  

This is frustrating.......


----------



## celtic_crippler (Apr 14, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I'm a Jeffersonian Libertarian. Which today is probably enough to get me on a dozen lists as a suspicious person. lol


 
You and me both, brother! Remember when they just called us "Americans?"


----------



## BLACK LION (Apr 14, 2009)

Gordon Nore said:


> BL,
> 
> This is the only point of your thread that I would challenge. It's a discussion forum. Furthermore, it is not specifically a US discussion forum, even in the US Politics section. Anyone can participate.
> 
> While on the subject of the Constitution, it has a First Amendment, as well as a Second. The Second, to my knowledge, isn't twice as important as the First. But the First, if I understand it correctly, is big enough to talk about everything -- including the second.


 
Allow me to pump my brakes a bit... I wasnt referring to anyone in this forum or this thread when I stated that...although it does not come across like that.  I was referring to previous arguments that I have had with anti-gun or neutral people in the past in other places regarding this issue and the militia and the 2nd amendment as well as the oath... the argument that times were different back then and there was a threat of invasion and all the blah blah has been thrown at me plenty elsewhere and thats why I threw it in there (in case there were any anti-gun lurkers) 
that is all... I respect all of you and would not present my convictions or opinions in that manner on this forum...


----------



## Gordon Nore (Apr 14, 2009)

BLACK LION said:


> ...thats why I threw it in there (in case there were any anti-gun lurkers)...


 
No one here would do anything like that.:angel:


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Apr 15, 2009)

CuongNhuka said:


> We've had registration for atleast 30 years, and there has been no attempt to seize our weapons. I've even heard we're consired to be one of the least regulated states in the Union. Right after Texas.
> 
> And you know, if you guys are THAT afraid of what the government does, I think the simple solution would be to move. I hear Mexico is lovely this time of year, and I doubt they have too many fire arms regulations. Iraq seems nice in the fall, and I know they have it (in the law) that any male citizen is allowed to own an AK47.


 Mexico is a gun control paradise.

And i'm not going anywhere.....that's where you're confused.


----------



## CuongNhuka (Apr 15, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> Mexico is a gun control paradise.
> 
> And i'm not going anywhere.....that's where you're confused.


 
If a law goes unenforced, is it even a law?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 15, 2009)

CuongNhuka said:


> If a law goes unenforced, is it even a law?


Yep.  Somewhere, sometime, some lawyer will dust it off and use it to bugger some one hard way. Like the RIAA controled Obama Justice Department.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Apr 15, 2009)

Gordon Nore said:


> BL,
> 
> This is the only point of your thread that I would challenge. It's a discussion forum. Furthermore, it is not specifically a US discussion forum, even in the US Politics section. Anyone can participate.
> 
> While on the subject of the Constitution, it has a First Amendment, as well as a Second. The Second, to my knowledge, isn't twice as important as the First. But the First, if I understand it correctly, is big enough to talk about everything -- including the second.


 A few quotes from the AUTHOR of the Bill of Rights, James Madison, should clarify any confusion.

On the issue of the right to keep and bear arms.....



> "A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained in arms, is the best most natural defense of a free country."
> 
> Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." -James Madison



On the issue of potential threats to liberty.....



> I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." -James Madison



On why individual liberty is built around an armed citizenry, as opposed to a standing army.....



> "The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home."
> 
> "The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted."
> 
> "Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions."


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Apr 15, 2009)

CuongNhuka said:


> If a law goes unenforced, is it even a law?


 The very question shows a degree of naivety that illustrates the point.....the fact that it IS a law, means that it can be enforced at ANY TIME against anyone.....so it very much IS A LAW!

And the funny thing about rarely enforced laws, is that they are often dusted off and used against political enemies of those in power.

Tell you what, Marine......i'll quote a famous Marine with a whole lot more experience on that matter than your 18 years......you should listen to him....



> "The conclusions seem inescapable that in certain circles a tendency has          arisen to fear people who fear government. Government, as the Father of          Our Country put it so well, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.          People who understand history, especially the history of government, do          well to fear it. For a people to express openly their fear of those of          us who are afraid of tyranny is alarming. Fear of the state is in no          sense subversive. It is, to the contrary, the healthiest political          philosophy for a free people.&#8221; Col. Jeff Cooper USMC


----------



## BLACK LION (Apr 16, 2009)

That was an extremely good post with those quotes from the bill of rights...  the latter, hitting home the most... 

thank you


----------



## Deaf Smith (Apr 16, 2009)

Say did any of you hear what Gov. Rick Perry said about Texas and the right to secede from the union?


http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/APStories/stories/D97J48IO2.html

Would be interesting to see Obama's face if we did say we split. Heck without our $$$ the U.S. would go bankrupt... but wait, I think we pretty much have only we keep printing paper money.

Deaf


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 16, 2009)

I'm staring to really like Texas, and I haven't moved there yet.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Apr 17, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I'm staring to really like Texas, and I haven't moved there yet.


 
Move over, you got company.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 17, 2009)

Step 1 buy land
Step 2 drop a couple double wides on it
Step 3 invite all my freedom loving friends to move in
Step 4 repel invasion by FBI because we're a "cult" who "worships freedom"
Step 5 try and look good on TV news, remember to say "Hi Mom!" as led away in handicuffs.


----------



## Thesemindz (Apr 17, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Step 1 buy land
> Step 2 drop a couple double wides on it
> Step 3 invite all my freedom loving friends to move in
> Step 4 repel invasion by FBI because we're a "cult" who "worships freedom"
> *Step 5 try and look good on TV news, remember to say "Hi Mom!" as led away in handicuffs.*


 
You won't get led away in cuffs. You'll get burned alive and your flaming corpse will be repeatedly shot at with automatic weapons from helicopters flying overhead.

Your children and wives will be massacered and your friends will be persecuted for the remainder of their lives.

Your property will be siezed, your homes raized, and your reputation destroyed. History will remember you as a monster, and schoolchildren will curse your name.

In the decades to come, people all over the world will see the story of your death as a morality play. They will learn to never resist the state, and that crazy people get the destruction they invite. Your story will be brought up repeatedly by those objecting to any revolutionary ideas as the deserved fate of all who question the authority of the state.

And if, some day, the truth comes out? That you were nothing more than a small group of people who lived peacefully with your neighbors and wanted nothing more than to be left alone? That you were singled out, tortured, and murdered by an oppressive state? That the state and their friends in the media desperately twisted the truth in order to cast you as the villian? Well, that truth won't get far anyway. And anyone who tries to speak of it will simply be painted with the same broad brush. 

Then they too can fear for their lives.


-Rob


----------



## chinto (Apr 18, 2009)

call her office and your own representatives and senators and tell them you will not vote for them in any way if they even think about voting for this kind of BS!! 

I really am scarred of these idiots.  IF they try such a thing I am afraid the wheels will come off folks.  It really is Frightening!!   especially since the wording of her statement is almost word for word the one of the NAZI registration act of 1938 from what I understand! that is Frightening!!


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Apr 18, 2009)

Thesemindz said:


> You won't get led away in cuffs. You'll get burned alive and your flaming corpse will be repeatedly shot at with automatic weapons from helicopters flying overhead.
> 
> Your children and wives will be massacered and your friends will be persecuted for the remainder of their lives.
> 
> ...


----------



## Deaf Smith (Apr 18, 2009)

Andy, Bob....

Let me fill you in on Texas and Texican history.

See long before the Alamo we had LOTS of fights with the Mexicans under Santa Anna. It came to a head when a whole bunch of Texicans (both white and Spanish) went down to San Antonio, to the Mission Conception, and kicked alot of Mexican bootie. Then, about a 1000 of them took San Antonio forcing Gen. Cos to drop his saber and leave. Not only was Jim Bowie there, but so was Capt. Fannin and my name sake, Deaf Smith (in fact, except for the Alamo, Deaf was in just about every fight we had with the Mexicans.)

But being a volunteer army most of them went home and kind of forgot Santa Anna was still out there and really mad now.

So Houston really did tell Travis to go down there, Jim Bowie to. THEY WERE TO DESTORY IT. But, seeing a cool way to mess up Anna's plans they stayed. And they partied like no tomorrow for a month. They did not do much to improve the fort. And were shocked, I say shocked, when Santa Anna's army showed up in Feb. (and a real cold February to.)

To make a short story shorter, all 185 Alamo defenders were wiped out. And Fannin, in Goliad, dithered so much Gen. Urrea caught him with his pants down. Killed 400+ of the Texicans by murder (over 20 of them ran off while the Mexicans we shooting.) Deaf Smith and his party found Mrs. Dickensons party who had left the Alamo after it fell.

Sometimes I wonder how we succeeded. Anyway, Houston kept retreating hoping for an opening. Sure enough, Santa Anna sent his cavalry off on a wild goose chase (making the error of dividing his forces when he didn't know the size nor disposition of the enemy's forces.) So, this time HE was surprised when Houston showed up and rushed his encamped troops before they could get their act together. And yep, Deaf was there.

So you see, us Texicans fight well, and die well, but sometimes we just sit there till it's pretty late in the day.

Oh, and Santa Anna was actually an early Col. Klink and did so much to help the U.S. Three times he bungled it and lost or sold land to the U.S. And thats how we got most of the southwest! He screwed Mexico royally.

Here is a huge source of history of Texas. Most of it is what people who lived there actually saw.

http://www.tamu.edu/ccbn/dewitt/dewitt.htm

Deaf


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Apr 19, 2009)

You know what?

Whatever happens or doesn't happen, my basic point remains the same:

It is better worth dying in Texas than living in Massachusetts.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 19, 2009)

or New York


----------



## tellner (Apr 19, 2009)

Hell, the Right wanted the death penalty for gays and registration for Muslims. It doesn't mean there's any chance of it. According to Snopes the latest anti-gun measure hasn't gotten a single co-sponsor in the Senate. Not one. Feinstein went on the record saying she's not going to introduce any gun control bills because it would be political suicide. The Republicans tried to slide a back-door anti-gun measure through Congress under Gonzales. It would have given the AG the power to decide who could and could not own firearms. It failed to get any traction among the Democrats. 

Even if you believe that anyone who isn't a lock-step True Believing witch-burning Manifest Destiny-spouting worker-hating Know Nothing is the Devil - the standard Greedy Old Plutocrat Party Line - give them some credit for basic political sense. With all the other stuff they need to deal with like running the country the Democrats put political suicide low on the list. But the rank and file Republicans can be relied on to salivate like Pavlov's dogs on the issue. So even if there's no chance in hell of legislation getting out of committee your Masters keep whipping it out to keep you scared.


----------

