Gun registration starts tomorrow

[Alexcabbie]

imported post

Seems to me that instead of wringing our hands about what if, we should be focusing on keeping this from happening. Putting The Ubamanation in check with a Republican majority should be our top priority, (boy I'm a regular Robert Burns, ain't I ?) and equally important is screaming bloody murder at our Senators and reps to kill Obama's "cap and tax" and health care schemes, which have little actually to do with the climate or access to medical care and a LOT TO DO with getting the Federal Government more and more authiority to micromanage individual citizen's lives.

Scots Wae Hae ..........

 

[rodbender]

imported post

I agree, andI do these things on a regular basis.

This, however, is not a cap and tax or a health care or any type of political forum other than maybegun rights. So I take to it elsewhere.

 

[Nutczak]

imported post

I did not vote in the poll for the simle reason that the NRA has surprised me several times areadywith some of their decisions. (not surprised with a good feeling either) Lets look at their recent involvment in Illinois, the IL legislators tried to get a "License to carry" bill through so the people of IL could carry a firearm with licensing.
The NRA would not offer support forthat bill becuase it had a clause in it where certain cities could opt out of allowingpeople to carry (Schitcago) So basically the NRA screwed all the rest of the Illinois residents with their "All or nothing" stance on the issue.

Now lets look at what Chicago and some other large crime-ridden cities have done, they have had campaigns thatencouraged people to turn in their firearms for gift cards and cash incentives, no questions asked. totally amnesty and a reward or them doing so.
What did these people that took part in these gun turn-ins provide to the police? They turned in delapidated non-working relics and busted up peices of garbage and collected their gift cards, but you know as well as I do, they kept the working guns.

If I am asked to surrender my firearms, my reply would simply be "What firearms?, I do not own any firearms!" Are they going to search my home? What happened to the 4th amendment? did that and the 1st amendment disappear along with our 2nd amendment at the same time? surely they would, since I feel our 2A right is the only one keeping the others in place.

I refuse to be defenseless against the criminals of the world. If it ever came down to a choice of me surviving without firearms, I'll take my chances by keeping them.

.

 

[WheelGun]

imported post

1) I don't know if this is true, but did the NRA turn down compromise on the Clinton AWB regarding the AR-15? As I heard it, supporters of the AWB offeredto exclude the AR-15 in exchange for less resistance from the NRA. This would have done a lot for competition shooters since the AR-15 is popular at rifle matches while most other 'assault weapons' are not.

2) Gift cards can be exchanged at any street corner or crack house in the 'hood for drugs or working (stolen) weapons.

 

[wrightme]

imported post

rodbender wrote:

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.

If you were one of those, and had your family to protect, you would have had an instant decision to make.

1) Stand against tyranny and die,

or

2) Give up your guns and live to help save your family from the hurricane aftermath.

 

[wrightme]

imported post

Nutczak wrote:

I did not vote in the poll for the simle reason that the NRA has surprised me several times areadywith some of their decisions. (not surprised with a good feeling either) Lets look at their recent involvment in Illinois, the IL legislators tried to get a "License to carry" bill through so the people of IL could carry a firearm with licensing.
The NRA would not offer support forthat bill becuase it had a clause in it where certain cities could opt out of allowingpeople to carry (Schitcago) So basically the NRA screwed all the rest of the Illinois residents with their "All or nothing" stance on the issue..

In other words, the NRA is "damned if they do, damned if they don't."

You disliked a "no compromise" position they took, and others dislike the "compromise" positions they get accused of.

Further, is it the fault of the NRA that the bill did or didn't go through? Do they really have that power? No. The residents of Illinois hold that power. If enough Illinois residents want the CC bill, 'get er dun!' If enough residents of IL desired to remove the clause, remove it. Otherwise, blame the NRA?

 

[SlackwareRobert]

imported post

It would be nice if they would at least mail all their members the
boating accident reports all filled out for the government files.

Of course when congress see over 3,000,000 boating accidents, we will need
a boating safety czar.

 

[rodbender]

imported post

wrightme wrote:

rodbender wrote:

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.

If you were one of those, and had your family to protect, you would have had an instant decision to make.

1) Stand against tyranny and die,

or

2) Give up your guns and live to help save your family from the hurricane aftermath.

I have instructed my wife that should they come to confiscate our guns, she needs to make a decision. No matter what time of day or year, no matter what else was going on at the time. That decision was that she could leave and live or she could stay and load. She doesn't like it much but that is the only two choices she has. I WILL NOT live under tyranny.

Sounds like #1.

 

[wrightme]

imported post

rodbender wrote:

wrightme wrote:

If you were one of those, and had your family to protect, you would have had an instant decision to make.

1) Stand against tyranny and die,

or

2) Give up your guns and live to help save your family from the hurricane aftermath.

I have instructed my wife that should they come to confiscate our guns, she needs to make a decision. No matter what time of day or year, no matter what else was going on at the time. That decision was that she could leave and live or she could stay and load. She doesn't like it much but that is the only two choices she has. I WILL NOT live under tyranny.

Sounds like #1.

Which places the decision fully as a personal one. Creating a poll placing that decision at the level of a group such as the NRA creates a situation that is very unlikely. No matter if it is the NRA, GOA, or other national gun-rights group, it is very unlikely that ANY such group will advocate actual disobedience of a law. You created a false dilemma, that looked to be an attempt to get forum members to declare support or no for the NRA, based solely upon a premise that will likely never be seen.

 

[rodbender]

imported post

I created no such dilemma. I merely asked what one thinks the NRA would do. I was not trying to incite anyone to riot or break the law. Merely an opinion poll. Why do you insist that it is more than it is? If you are so into the NRA, that's fine with me. I don't particularly like any organization or person that attempts to take credit, even if only by implication, for something they had no hand in.

It appears to me that you are simply trying to start an argument for the sake of arguing, or defending the NRA. Well, OK, you win.

The NRA is the bitchin'est organization there ever was or will be, period. See, argument over. GAG, GAG, GAG. Damn, almost hurled my dinner on that one.

 

[Tomahawk]

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

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?

...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?

You have to pick your fights, take action on ground of your choosing, not your adversary's. Survive the confrontations in which you are at a disadvantage so that you can prevail later, preferably in a court room. Lots of thinking and writing out there on this, this forum is not the most appropriate place to get into it.

As for the census taker, that is a pickle, isn't it? Remember, he is backed up by the ame people who were collecting guns in New Orleans. But there are ways of driving bureaucrats insane without getting into too much hot water.

 

[wrightme]

imported post

rodbender wrote:

I created no such dilemma. I merely asked what one thinks the NRA would do. I was not trying to incite anyone to riot or break the law. Merely an opinion poll. Why do you insist that it is more than it is? If you are so into the NRA, that's fine with me. I don't particularly like any organization or person that attempts to take credit, even if only by implication, for something they had no hand in.

It appears to me that you are simply trying to start an argument for the sake of arguing, or defending the NRA. Well, OK, you win.

The NRA is the bitchin'est organization there ever was or will be, period. See, argument over. GAG, GAG, GAG. Damn, almost hurled my dinner on that one.

You miss the point. You presented the false premise that a national gun-rights group would incite others to break the law. I realize that YOU weren't doing that, but you presented the case for/against the NRA doing such.

It is not to start an argument, or to defend the NRA, but to point out how such items as you present have no basis in the real world.
With your "GAG, GAG, GAG" comment, you present yourself as very biased on this topic. Would you consider presenting the identical poll with another organization called out, such as the GOA? Do you think forum members will believe that the GOA will tell citizens to "lock and load?"

 

[Sonora Rebel]

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

Doug Huffman wrote:

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?

...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?

You have to pick your fights, take action on ground of your choosing, not your adversary's. Survive the confrontations in which you are at a disadvantage so that you can prevail later, preferably in a court room. Lots of thinking and writing out there on this, this forum is not the most appropriate place to get into it.

As for the census taker, that is a pickle, isn't it? Remember, he is backed up by the ame people who were collecting guns in New Orleans. But there are ways of driving bureaucrats insane without getting into too much hot water.

I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution... about 6 times asI recall. I never took any such oath to support and defend a political party or the temporary occupant of the White House. That oath was 'against all enemies, foreign and domestic'. I will not... under any circumstances reneg that oath.I don't care what the NRA does ordoesn't do. As for census takers... Here? :what:

Good luck with that... LOL! This ain't 'pavement' here... 'n most all property is posted at the fence. Many of the fences are backed with (and contain) large territorial free roaming dogs... 'n gun totin' homeowners.

 

[Washintonian_For_Liberty]

imported post

Sonora Rebel wrote:

Tomahawk wrote:

Doug Huffman wrote:

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?

...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?

You have to pick your fights, take action on ground of your choosing, not your adversary's. Survive the confrontations in which you are at a disadvantage so that you can prevail later, preferably in a court room. Lots of thinking and writing out there on this, this forum is not the most appropriate place to get into it.

As for the census taker, that is a pickle, isn't it? Remember, he is backed up by the ame people who were collecting guns in New Orleans. But there are ways of driving bureaucrats insane without getting into too much hot water.

I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution... about 6 times asI recall. I never took any such oath to support and defend a political party or the temporary occupant of the White House. That oath was 'against all enemies, foreign and domestic'. I will not... under any circumstances reneg that oath.I don't care what the NRA does ordoesn't do. As for census takers... Here? :what:

Good luck with that... LOL! This ain't 'pavement' here... 'n most all property is posted at the fence. Many of the fences are backed with (and contain) large territorial free roaming dogs... 'n gun totin' homeowners.

This is the right fight and the right time. We need to make it a grass roots effort and not just barricade ourselves up in our property somewhere. We need to get out there and remove the authoritarians from office and begin a caucus with Ron Paul to get rid of much of what is in government.

If I were elected to Congress, I'd beintroducing a billevery session to eliminate mostfederal government agencies, such as the U.S. Department of Education, the U.S. Department of Energy, the US Department of Commerce, the US Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Emergency Management Administration, the Interstate Commerce Commission, the Internal Revenue Service, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the U.S. Department of the Interior, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission, the U.S. Department of Labor, the US Department of Transportation, the US Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Defense (Department of the Navy can take back over) and the Department of Justice as the Department of Justice is an unconstitutional power-grab by the Executive branch into the Judicial branch's sphere of influence. Deleting these bureaucracies would decrease the budget by 1 trillion 280 billion dollars or $1,280,000,000,000.00.

I'd also introduce a bill to get rid of Social Security and any Welfare at all. All care for people who need it should be local. No faceless bureaucrat ever cared more than the people who are closest to the problem. People don't do anything now because they expect the government to do something... but in order for the government to do something, they must rob us of our money to do it. It's a messed up system.

Fight the system as best you can. But the only way you'll ever really get a change to happen is if you can convince those around you that Liberty is better than slavery.
And we better act fast before this government and the economy collapses. Because once that happens, all hell will break lose and all bets are off. My guess is that once people start starving... you'll see food riots that will make the Rodney King riots look mild. Gerald Celente has been very right on many of his predictions over the past30 years and his predictions for what will happen should this trend of Obamanomics continue, and the predictionsdo not paint apleasantimagine.

 

[R a Z o R]

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. 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.

I'm a great shot at pissing in the radiator . . . "Red Dawn "

 

[Alexcabbie]

imported post

rodbender wrote:

I agree, andI do these things on a regular basis.

This, however, is not a cap and tax or a health care or any type of political forum other than maybegun rights. So I take to it elsewhere.

The reason I mention these issues is that they are part and parcel of a Leftist Obama scheme to grab control of the economy and reduce us all to an abject state of dependence on the government, to the degree that the Second Amendment becomes almost pointless. By the time the American people behold the face of the beast to which they have allowed themselves to be sold it will be too late. At that point will come Feinstrin's "ripe time" to "revisit" gun control. The line must be held on these and particularlly on the "health care" scheme which has the greatest potential for establishing a new and entrenched bureaucracy to further eat out our substance. ("cap and tax" would not take effect until 2012, and the new Republican majority could repeal it before it did. Nonetheless it should be stopped sooner rather than later).

 

[rodbender]

imported post

wrightme wrote:

rodbender wrote:

I created no such dilemma. I merely asked what one thinks the NRA would do. I was not trying to incite anyone to riot or break the law. Merely an opinion poll. Why do you insist that it is more than it is? If you are so into the NRA, that's fine with me. I don't particularly like any organization or person that attempts to take credit, even if only by implication, for something they had no hand in.

It appears to me that you are simply trying to start an argument for the sake of arguing, or defending the NRA. Well, OK, you win.

The NRA is the bitchin'est organization there ever was or will be, period. See, argument over. GAG, GAG, GAG. Damn, almost hurled my dinner on that one.

You miss the point. You presented the false premise that a national gun-rights group would incite others to break the law. I realize that YOU weren't doing that, but you presented the case for/against the NRA doing such.

It is not to start an argument, or to defend the NRA, but to point out how such items as you present have no basis in the real world.
With your "GAG, GAG, GAG" comment, you present yourself as very biased on this topic. Would you consider presenting the identical poll with another organization called out, such as the GOA? Do you think forum members will believe that the GOA will tell citizens to "lock and load?"

Although the GOA and JPFO would probably do the same as NRA, the NRA is the most prominent and well known. That is the only reason I used the NRA. I could not have all three listed in the same poll and did not want to take up the space todo 3 separate polls.

I have my complaints about GOA and JPFO, just not nearly as many.

 

[wrightme]

imported post

rodbender wrote:

Although the GOA and JPFO would probably do the same as NRA, the NRA is the most prominent and well known. That is the only reason I used the NRA. I could not have all three listed in the same poll and did not want to take up the space todo 3 separate polls.

This is my point. NONE of those groups are likely to instruct citizens to break the law. Thus, it really is a false premise.

 

[hsmith]

imported post

Spam you with mailings begging you for money.

 

[wrightme]

imported post

hsmith wrote:

Spam you with mailings begging you for money.

The NRA is nothing in that regard compared to the RNC. :quirky