Gun registration starts tomorrow

[Chaingun81]

imported post

Double tap

 

[Chaingun81]

imported post

Triple tap, damn computer

 

[PT111]

imported post

rugerdon wrote:

One of the purposes of the Second Amendment is to give the States and Citizens a means to fight back against an overly ambitious Federal Government (Commentary #46 of The Federalist Papers). Therefore, a Federal Registration scheme is NOT logical. I WOULD NOT do it.

Some of my friends think thatthe Fedshavepassed the pointofus needing non-violent measures to deal with them. One said that if someone came up and said: "Let's take out Congress, come on!", he would be there with his rifle. Thisperson is a very calm, religious, family man who is over 65.

Madison made an assumption that the people would be on the sode of the state instad of the federal when he wrote this. Do you really think that the majority of Americans consider the state government to be their "sugar daddy"?

FEDERALIST No. 46
The Influence of the State and Federal Governments Compared



by: James Madison

It has been already proved that the members of the federal will be more dependent on the members of the State governments, than the latter will be on the former. It has appeared also, that the prepossessions of the people, on whom both will depend, will be more on the side of the State governments, than of the federal government. So far as the disposition of each towards the other may be influenced by these causes, the State governments must clearly have the advantage.

 

[wrightme]

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

wrightme wrote:

The question I asked was not what would have been the likely outcome if citizens were allowed to keep their firearms, but what would have been the likely outcome if the NRA told citizens to resist firearm confiscation. So far, no one has bothered to address this.

If the NRA told those people to resist, most of them probably wouldn't have. When it's you against 20 cops you have little chance.

Some people might have resisted. If they resisted alone as individuals, see above. 1 guy vs. 20 guys, maybe with SWAT gear, do the math.

If the resistors band together to confront the confiscators, things get more complicated. As Waco showed, prepared, armed people can repulse a SWAT team, provided the SWAT team are unprepared for real resistance, or are a bunch of mustachioed idiots like the BATF were.

But in the end, weight of numbers and time works against the resistors. Beat back one SWAT team, they return with more cops, perhaps from out of state, perhaps National Guardsmen or feds.

Worse, the media propaganda machine will shift into high gear and paint them as a bunch of right-wing nuts in about 2 seconds flat. The general American public will buy it completely, as with Waco. The jerk from America's Most Wanted will tell people how evil these people are.

And the NRA will get a publicity black eye, and some of it's leaders maybe arrested for fomenting rebellion or obstructing justice or some other nonsense.

No way would the NRA ever tell people to rebel or resist, ever, unless the thing is already done and won. NRA doesn't stick its neck out.

Exactly.

For the NRA to take the position proposed by the OP of this thread would be to lose whatever clout they have. I understand this. Those who wail that the NRA does not do such miss the reality.


Further, why is this topic in the "News and Political Alerts" forum? It is not news, nor political alert. It is simply an anti-NRA troll.

 

[Doug Huffman]

imported post

wrightme wrote:

Further, why is this topic in the "News and Political Alerts" forum? It is not news, nor political alert. It is simply an anti-NRA troll.

A 'troll' well fed by the NRA apologist Billy Goat Gruff.

 

[wrightme]

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

wrightme wrote:

Further, why is this topic in the "News and Political Alerts" forum? It is not news, nor political alert. It is simply an anti-NRA troll.

A 'troll' well fed by the NRA apologist Billy Goat Gruff.

I see you are here with your typical level of '0' input. Thanks.
So, what do YOU see as the likely outcome if the NRA did what the OP suggests?

 

[Doug Huffman]

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

wrightme wrote:

Under the circumstances of Katrina, what would have been the outcome...

Hypothetical and argumentative. Prescriptive and normative statements, characterized by 'would', 'should', and 'could', are without inherent truth value, are not falsifiable and are not scientific.

Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

 

[wrightme]

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

Doug Huffman wrote:

wrightme wrote:

Under the circumstances of Katrina, what would have been the outcome...

Hypothetical and argumentative. Prescriptive and normative statements, characterized by 'would', 'should', and 'could', are without inherent truth value, are not falsifiable and are not scientific.

Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

Yep. Nuttin but fluff.

wrightme wrote:

So, what do YOU see as the likely outcome if the NRA did what the OP suggests?

 

[marshaul]

imported post

Doug clearly doesn't see value in such speculation. So he isn't going to answer.

I tend to sympathize.

 

[FunkTrooper]

imported post

Come on really, this is such a silly hypothetical question the NRA is a political group well entrenched in the political debate about firearms they're not going to incite rebellion but I'm sure others may do so.

I can honestly say if the government came to my door threatened me with violence I would hand over my weapons I think it would be hard for me to justify leaving a family over worldly possessions. Besides do you think we could rise up with our guns and overthrow the government they are the best at using the media and violence to get what they want, I say non violence is the best approach when caught on film it gets others to see the brutality of government and wins you support. Of course once you have support it's time to move in for the kill.

 

[Doug Huffman]

imported post

FunkTrooper wrote:

Come on really, this is such a silly hypothetical question the NRA is a political group well entrenched in the political debate about firearms they're not going to incite rebellion but I'm sure others may do so.

I can honestly say if the government came to my door threatened me with violence I would hand over my weapons I think it would be hard for me to justify leaving a family over worldly possessions.

Thank you for the hypothetical question observation. I must disagree with your justification for kneeling to the threat of an overweening government, if not over Rights then what would justify violent resistance?

We will all be faced with the instant decision to be made on this narrow cusp; do you want to live, and your family to live, in a world where such a demand can be made? Start with the 'census taker' that you will soon meet, will you kneel to the unconstitutional demands of this Obamination made through this federal agent?

Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth.

 

[wrightme]

imported post

marshaul wrote:

Doug clearly doesn't see value in such speculation. So he isn't going to answer.

I tend to sympathize.

He saw value in speculation as in the OP. He seems to see value in it when it fits his world view. The "closed" sign is firmly in place on his mind.

 

[Doug Huffman]

imported post

wrightme wrote:

He seems to see value in it when it fits his world view. The "closed" sign is firmly in place on his mind.

As opposed to a "too open" mind allowing one's limited brains to fall through that nether orifice.

And, yes, I believe "nothing without verifying it yourself unless it is congruent with your Weltanschauung."

 

[wrightme]

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

wrightme wrote:

He seems to see value in it when it fits his world view. The "closed" sign is firmly in place on his mind.

As opposed to a "too open" mind allowing one's limited brains to fall through that nether orifice.

And, yes, I believe "nothing without verifying it yourself unless it is congruent with your Weltanschauung."

Yet you appear to believe the conjecture and speculation in the OP (which fits your world view), but not the equally valid (and more correct) conjecture and speculation that I presented (which does not fit your world view). You are a hypocrite.

 

[wrightme]

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

Tack, like sailing a course

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tact

I think your linky does not match the word you chose.

 

[rodbender]

imported post

wrightme wrote:

Further, why is this topic in the "News and Political Alerts" forum? It is not news, nor political alert. It is simply an anti-NRA troll.

Troll, I am not. Check out all of my posts here. I have simply scaled down my participation since the "incident". No, I will not elaborate on that. Just click on my username, if you have trouble figuring out how to do it.

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_user.php?list=1&letter=r&sort_by=&page=20

It is in "News and Political Alerts" either by accident or I wanted to get a more emotional response(Sorry Alex, didn't intend to give anyone a coronary response). You figure that one out on your own. BTW, The OPdoes not propose that the NRA would take any position at all. I haven't even cast a vote.

While the NRA does some good things, I find that they are more apt to try to act as if others ideas were their own. Take Heller for instance. They would have nothing to do with the law suit until they determined that it was likely to win. They then jumped in with both feet shoulder high. Listening to them talk now (although they don'tcome out and say it),one would think it was their idea from the very beginning.

Before Heller, the NRA would only tackle small minute problems with 2A infringement. After Heller, they are starting to attack the core of the problem. Of course, someone else did the major part of the footwork.

 

[wrightme]

imported post

rodbender wrote:

wrightme wrote:

Further, why is this topic in the "News and Political Alerts" forum? It is not news, nor political alert. It is simply an anti-NRA troll.

Troll, I am not. Check out all of my posts here. I have simply scaled down my participation since the "incident". No, I will not elaborate on that. Just click on my username, if you have trouble figuring out how to do it.

YOU are likely not a 'troll,' but the premise of the thread IS a "troll."

You presented the premise, so maybe you could elaborate on the answer to my question.

wrightme wrote:

N00blet45 wrote:

What was their reaction to the gun confiscation in New Orleans after Katrina? Yea, they won their case but did they tell the citizens to resist? If they did I don't remember it.

Under the circumstances of Katrina, what would have been the outcome of the NRA telling citizens to resist?

 

[rodbender]

imported post

wrightme wrote:

You presented the premise, so maybe you could elaborate on the answer to my question.

wrightme wrote:

N00blet45 wrote:

What was their reaction to the gun confiscation in New Orleans after Katrina? Yea, they won their case but did they tell the citizens to resist? If they did I don't remember it.

Under the circumstances of Katrina, what would have been the outcome of the NRA telling citizens to resist?

Being New Orleans, the result would probably been pretty much the same. The NRA nor anyone else had enough advance notice to even issue a statement whether to resist or not.

Had they tried to do this in the swamps of Louisiana, there would most definitely been some dead cops and some dead cajuns, that is if the cops were brave enough to attempt it. Most game wardens don't even mess with cajuns that live in the backwoods and swamps. Too many have tried, never to be seen again.

 

[wrightme]

imported post

rodbender wrote:

wrightme wrote:

You presented the premise, so maybe you could elaborate on the answer to my question.

wrightme wrote:

N00blet45 wrote:

What was their reaction to the gun confiscation in New Orleans after Katrina? Yea, they won their case but did they tell the citizens to resist? If they did I don't remember it.

Under the circumstances of Katrina, what would have been the outcome of the NRA telling citizens to resist?

Being New Orleans, the result would probably been pretty much the same. The NRA nor anyone else had enough advance notice to even issue a statement whether to resist or not.

Had they tried to do this in the swamps of Louisiana, there would most definitely been some dead cops and some dead cajuns, that is if the cops were brave enough to attempt it. Most game wardens don't even mess with cajuns that live in the backwoods and swamps. Too many have tried, never to be seen again.

So the premise presented would have been a useless position for the NRA to have taken.

 

[rodbender]

imported post

wrightme wrote:

So the premise presented would have been a useless position for the NRA to have taken.

Yes, possibly with a few exceptions.Is that what you wanted to hear?

The point of the poll was not toask whether the citizens or members of the NRA would do what the NRA said, but rather to get a take on what the members of this forum thinks the NRA would do.

I think it's pretty much agreed that the citizens of this country are cowards when it comes to protecting liberty. That is to say, that most would not risk life or imprisonment to protect it, or to stand against tyranny. They will simply take the crap dealt out by Big Brother and bitch about it until their last breath, as cold and bitteras that last breath may be. We saw this in the aftermath of gun confiscation in New Orleans. They simply allowed them to be taken, then cried like babies.

As it stands now, even ifsomeonewanted to physically overthrow the government, who would you talk to? Talk to the wrong person and they have you for conspiracy. So we are pretty much stuck with what we have, for now.

The government will have to make the first move in a physical confrontation. This will most likely be whenthe feds think theycan ban guns totally. Only aftera few (or many) patriots die for the cause of not giving them up will the citizens, or enough of them,revolt.