|
Post by D.E.E. on May 9, 2013 11:48:59 GMT -6
Absolutely! I want our government to do surveillance on any individual or group that may be plotting a terrorist attack. If someone is stockpiling weapons I want to know their intent, so the FED's can thwart a future attack. I don't mind phone taps, internet inquiries and occasional airborne recon or other surveillance methods. That is the only way for the government to keep the peace and keep security of the free state. They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin This says it all and needs nothing more to make the point.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on May 9, 2013 12:05:19 GMT -6
It did make me laugh,yet what in hades is wrong with people? The invasion of Zombies must be real afterall !!! Lord help us.....
|
|
|
Post by D.E.E. on May 9, 2013 12:14:58 GMT -6
These people need to listen to what he was saying. What is so frightening is how many people it showed who supported it.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on May 9, 2013 12:51:02 GMT -6
These people need to listen to what he was saying. What is so frightening is how many people it showed who supported it. I am not so sure they support it, they are not really listening and sign anyhow/anything??...Wonder if asked those who signed after the fact what did they just agree to...would be interesting.
|
|
|
Post by starbux on May 9, 2013 19:59:36 GMT -6
Absolutely! I want our government to do surveillance on any individual or group that may be plotting a terrorist attack. If someone is stockpiling weapons I want to know their intent, so the FED's can thwart a future attack. I don't mind phone taps, internet inquiries and occasional airborne recon or other surveillance methods. That is the only way for the government to keep the peace and keep security of the free state. you do realize there is NO reason for them to NOT include you in this surveillance, right? you do realize that if confiscation of weapons ever comes to pass they are going to search YOUR house also, right? They already have I am not doing anything nefarious, so if they want to waste their time on me they will figure out I am not a threat and move on. In fact I gave the government permission to periodically investigate me, in order to keep a DOD clearance. They dug into deep levels of my background, found people I associated that I had not seen in 7 years. So I already was under their microscope. Its no big deal. Being that I used to "spy" on people in Iraq and Afghanistan I can tell you it was not that exciting, when we realized someone was not a threat we moved on. I hate to say it, but chances are that no one on this board is important enough for the government to waste their time and effort to spy on, unless you are plotting something or doing something to grab their attention. I don't think the government is going to confiscate weapons anyway. Last I checked Harry Reid is a gun guy, so he is not calling for the end of them. They are only trying to tie up loose ends. Hell, even John McCain is supporting closing the loopholes as well.
|
|
|
Post by starbux on May 10, 2013 0:59:24 GMT -6
So I assume then you are for gun regestration as well as background checks? I am for the checks we have now and nothing more. Gun crime is down as is violent crime. We need to use the laws we have now not create more. The inconvenient truth for our gun-grabber brethren: latimes.comThe victims of gun killings are overwhelmingly male and disproportionately black, according to Bureau of Justice Statistics and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data. (Poster's comment: so are the perpetrators.) Compared with other parts of the country, the South had the highest rates of gun violence, including both murders and other violent gun crimes. Hmmm, doesn't the south embrace gun ownership like no other in our country?
|
|
|
Post by starbux on May 10, 2013 1:17:10 GMT -6
I believe if someone owns 20 guns of different types and makes, they are a gun collector. If someone is storing 20 AR-15's in the basement, well I want that person to be on the FBI and DHS terrorist watch list. I see…so you want the United States government to spy on law-abiding American citizens who are exercising their Constitutional Right to keep and bear arms. Now that is truly scary! If someone owns 20 AR-15's with 5000 rounds of ammo I have to question if they are a law abiding citizen. They are either a tin foil hat wearing christian bible thumper, waiting for their cosmic "Rapture" or a terrorist, sometimes all of the above.
|
|
|
Post by starbux on May 10, 2013 1:58:46 GMT -6
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin This says it all and needs nothing more to make the point. Thert ther sernds lerk terrererst terlk ter muyee. (My attempt at a hick accent) "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists, heh heh, hee" George "Dubya" Bush 43rd US President
|
|
|
Post by ltdc on May 10, 2013 8:01:05 GMT -6
you do realize there is NO reason for them to NOT include you in this surveillance, right? you do realize that if confiscation of weapons ever comes to pass they are going to search YOUR house also, right? In fact I gave the government permission to periodically investigate me, super. write back if and when they want something you don't particularly feel like giving permission to look for.
|
|
|
Post by Californian on May 10, 2013 9:04:25 GMT -6
If someone owns 20 AR-15's with 5000 rounds of ammo I have to question if they are a law abiding citizen. They are either a tin foil hat wearing christian bible thumper, waiting for their cosmic "Rapture" or a terrorist, sometimes all of the above. I have about a dozen guns, including rifles, shotguns and pistols, although I'm not a fan of AR-type weapons, having carried the M-16 in Vietnam (I think it's a Mickey Mouse POS.) A quick mental inventory of my ammunition situation comes up with a coupla bricks of .22 long rifle, (That's 1000 rounds) 4-500 rounds of 30-06 (I reload) and perhaps 400 shotgun rounds. Several of my firearms were inherited or bought before GCA1968 and so don't appear anywhere in any governmental databases. So, what's your opinion of my potential danger to society? Am I a criminal or potential terrorist?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2013 21:36:11 GMT -6
If someone owns 20 AR-15's with 5000 rounds of ammo I have to question if they are a law abiding citizen. They are either a tin foil hat wearing christian bible thumper, waiting for their cosmic "Rapture" or a terrorist, sometimes all of the above. I have about a dozen guns, including rifles, shotguns and pistols, although I'm not a fan of AR-type weapons, having carried the M-16 in Vietnam (I think it's a Mickey Mouse POS.) A quick mental inventory of my ammunition situation comes up with a coupla bricks of .22 long rifle, (That's 1000 rounds) 4-500 rounds of 30-06 (I reload) and perhaps 400 shotgun rounds. Several of my firearms were inherited or bought before GCA1968 and so don't appear anywhere in any governmental databases. So, what's your opinion of my potential danger to society? Am I a criminal or potential terrorist? My Grandfather used to collect weapons before he died. He had them nicely displayed in the house and would let us grandkids play with them. I shot my sister in the neck with a bow and arrow when I was 6. Fortunately it was only a scratch
|
|
|
Post by starbux on May 10, 2013 23:17:50 GMT -6
If someone owns 20 AR-15's with 5000 rounds of ammo I have to question if they are a law abiding citizen. They are either a tin foil hat wearing christian bible thumper, waiting for their cosmic "Rapture" or a terrorist, sometimes all of the above. I have about a dozen guns, including rifles, shotguns and pistols, although I'm not a fan of AR-type weapons, having carried the M-16 in Vietnam (I think it's a Mickey Mouse POS.) A quick mental inventory of my ammunition situation comes up with a coupla bricks of .22 long rifle, (That's 1000 rounds) 4-500 rounds of 30-06 (I reload) and perhaps 400 shotgun rounds. Several of my firearms were inherited or bought before GCA1968 and so don't appear anywhere in any governmental databases. So, what's your opinion of my potential danger to society? Am I a criminal or potential terrorist? On the surface I would say NO of course not.
On the surface your pattern of behavior and that would make you a gun enthusiast. you collect different types and use them for hunting and shooting at ranges, as well as overall collection, because you like to own different guns nothing wrong with that. (not my cup of tea, but I drink coffee instead) Any government agent doing surveillance on you would figure out that you are the standard former Vietnam vet, if I were to guess have an American Flag next to a POW/MIA one. They would write you off as a standard disgruntled senior citizen that wants to be left alone in his own castle and is harmless. They would move on to someone else. We called it patterns of life assessment. Chances are unless you were doing something to compel them they would not waste their time in the first place anyway. "You have nothing to fear but fear itself."
Someone who owns 20 new freshly minted AR's or Norinco SKS's....are not gun collectors. They are buying weapons for one of two possible reasons. One is they are massing weapons for standardization and conformity to train, equip and maintain a private assault force, with nefarious intentions like these guys Three disgraced former soldiers facing death penalty . Another possibility is that they would be attempting to sell in an underground market, such as the Mexican cartel. Either way the use could be super criminal. So this would get on the radar of the federal government. They would do legal surveillance on them wait for a compelling reason to get a warrent for a phone tap and internet scans to see if those individuals are plotting an attack or doing something illegal. If it turns out that they are just random nut jobs they would move on until something rears its head.
|
|
|
Post by starbux on May 10, 2013 23:31:45 GMT -6
In fact I gave the government permission to periodically investigate me, super. write back if and when they want something you don't particularly feel like giving permission to look for. I am sure I have volunteered several drunken Facebook and twitter posts, that they would already have a good pattern of life on my movements. There would be nothing more they would care to look into. I have no skeletons in my closet or things they already don't know. I am sure I would be fairly boring to the Intel analyst. They would see I go to coffee shops and bars and have conversations about physics, science and philosophy. Then they would see standard bar buffoonery, that's about it. If they tapped into my internet they would see I hate criminals from my posts on this site. I do not look at any inappropriate material on the web. They could read my E-mails and see that my correspondence is mostly business related. They would find me a complete waste of time.
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on May 11, 2013 1:01:49 GMT -6
They could read my E-mails and see that my correspondence is mostly business related. They would find me a complete waste of time. It is never a waste of time for a tyrant to make an example of a subject. Sometimes it is even better for them if they take out somebody who everybody knows is innocent. You think that fire cares who it burns.
|
|
|
Post by Californian on May 11, 2013 8:28:07 GMT -6
They would write you off as a standard disgruntled senior citizen that wants to be left alone in his own castle and is harmless. Please explain your "disgruntled" remark.
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on May 11, 2013 12:50:26 GMT -6
I would be fairly boring to the Intel analyst. Somehow I don't find that difficult to believe.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2013 23:22:20 GMT -6
They would write you off as a standard disgruntled senior citizen that wants to be left alone in his own castle and is harmless. Please explain your "disgruntled" remark. It is time to face up to reality, you are a grumpy old fart
|
|
|
Post by starbux on May 12, 2013 0:19:04 GMT -6
They could read my E-mails and see that my correspondence is mostly business related. They would find me a complete waste of time. It is never a waste of time for a tyrant to make an example of a subject. Sometimes it is even better for them if they take out somebody who everybody knows is innocent. You think that fire cares who it burns. Careful, you are almost sounding like a defense attorney that uses the same argument to defend a death row inmate.
|
|
|
Post by starbux on May 12, 2013 1:28:23 GMT -6
They would write you off as a standard disgruntled senior citizen that wants to be left alone in his own castle and is harmless. Please explain your "disgruntled" remark. Ok maybe disgruntled is not the right word maybe jaded is. Cylcone didn't beat around the bush and said it perfectly, I didn't Maybe you are jaded at the world because you see time get compressed, as the tyrant your guns won't ward off, will still meet you at your front door, i.e. the Reaper. Maybe you did not set out to do what you aspired to. Possibly, because you had the wrong birthday and got to go to Vietnam instead. Meantime, some of your high school cohorts went to college smoking pot and listening to "California Dreaming," while having free love on the beach at Point Dume. Then they went on to run highly successful companies. You could have too, but the damn government sent you to "Nam!" which you probably despised. Some of those snot nosed college hippies got their birthday present as well and went to Nam after OCS and you had to take an order from one. Now you wear the Nam badge on your sleeve, probably have the South East Asia campaign ribbons on your truck. You live in a world where the kid you told to "Get outa here" 30 years ago is running the government or is more successful. You hate cosmopolitan epicenters because that involves a world that you despise. You would rather live in your own sphere segregated from that populace. You want your sphere to limited to the like minded people of your era so you can have some commonality on how you all were screwed by the big government. If the government screwed you once they will do it again.IMO your the antithesis of someone who calls them self Californian. When I think of California, I think of hip trendy cosmopolitan people that live in one the two coolest cities on the west coast like LA and San Francisco. If I were to assess you by your posts and tone. I would say that you are the typical "Get off my dmn Lawn " xenophobic elderly American. You live in a rural area, you are, or were a garlic farmer. My guess, by your former Al Bundy avatar that you live in a secluded house with a nagging wife. You get fired up by listening to Rush and Beck. Anyone who does not think exactly in the narrow scope of their politics is a leftist socialist or straight up commie. When you are not hunting, cleaning your guns or working in your shop doing some hobby, like building bird houses or some other craft, you escape the nagging wife. You leave the homestead for a few hours to some local hangout for like minded seniors, such as "Maybles" Dinner or you enjoy a pint of "Natty" Lite at one of the local VFW or Legion posts. While you hangout with your close circle of other like minded seniors, you dominate the conversations when talking about your recent hunting expedition, or the new craft that are you working on. Otherwise you are discussing how the government and that African Communist Muslim is wrecking the country with the socialist crap. You probably be dammed if the socialist security check is a minute late. You think we should be an isolationist country, even though you enjoy probably several products in your house that were made by some damn commie Chinese guy. To hell with everyone else outside your sphere, you got what you want and need. If society falls apart, "screw them they can go work for a living." "I work for mine or I made it, go get your own, you damn commie ." I would picture you as Walter Matthau's character on grumpy old men, or Hank Hill's dad Cotton on "King of the Hill." If I was an intel analyst that would be my assessment
|
|
|
Post by yasgursfarm on May 15, 2013 7:12:20 GMT -6
A very good friend of mine was raped in her own apartment in her own bed. If she would have had a gun within reach where she was most vulnerable, things would have been much different. Can you imagine, waking up to find that you are being assaulted in your own home, in your own bed, with a gun within reach, that for 'safety reasons', is not loaded and has a lock on the trigger?
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on May 15, 2013 7:45:05 GMT -6
A very good friend of mine was raped in her own apartment in her own bed. If she would have had a gun within reach where she was most vulnerable, things would have been much different. Can you imagine, waking up to find that you are being assaulted in your own home, in your own bed, with a gun within reach, that for 'safety reasons', is not loaded and has a lock on the trigger? Keep in mind, even if access to the gun, he still could over power her and the gun used agains't her too...
|
|
|
Post by D.E.E. on May 15, 2013 9:21:52 GMT -6
A very good friend of mine was raped in her own apartment in her own bed. If she would have had a gun within reach where she was most vulnerable, things would have been much different. Can you imagine, waking up to find that you are being assaulted in your own home, in your own bed, with a gun within reach, that for 'safety reasons', is not loaded and has a lock on the trigger? Keep in mind, even if access to the gun, he still could over power her and the gun used agains't her too... Very True but in one situation you have a fighting chance in the other none. I will always take the fighting chance as the better way.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on May 15, 2013 9:39:33 GMT -6
Keep in mind, even if access to the gun, he still could over power her and the gun used agains't her too... Very True but in one situation you have a fighting chance in the other none. I will always take the fighting chance as the better way. Very true too but, the way Yas stated it in his post she was in bed and woke up to being assaulted, he already had her vulnerable and over powered. He also stated" the outcome could have been much different" I stated one way it could have been a much different outcome.
|
|
|
Post by ltdc on May 15, 2013 11:44:36 GMT -6
A very good friend of mine was raped in her own apartment in her own bed. If she would have had a gun within reach where she was most vulnerable, things would have been much different. Can you imagine, waking up to find that you are being assaulted in your own home, in your own bed, with a gun within reach, that for 'safety reasons', is not loaded and has a lock on the trigger? Keep in mind, even if access to the gun, he still could over power her and the gun used agains't her too... never say never, an ambush is hard to defend buuuuuut, the biggest misconception about women and guns (talk about a war on women) is the myth that the attacker will take the gun away. while anything is possible of course, the correct usage of said gun is IF you can touch the gun you can touch the trigger and therefore as soon as your hand touches the gun bullets should flying downrange and into target. this is not a time for threats, warnings or negotiation. always fight, always
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2013 3:06:04 GMT -6
Keep in mind, even if access to the gun, he still could over power her and the gun used agains't her too... never say never, an ambush is hard to defend buuuuuut, the biggest misconception about women and guns (talk about a war on women) is the myth that the attacker will take the gun away. while anything is possible of course, the correct usage of said gun is IF you can touch the gun you can touch the trigger and therefore as soon as your hand touches the gun bullets should flying downrange and into target. this is not a time for threats, warnings or negotiation. always fight, always I think a more realistic and worrying scenario would be that comparable to the Whitaker Family Murders. Thomas Whitaker hired 2 friends to kill his family and as you may remember Thomas' younger brother Kevin and Thomas' mother Tricia. The Whitaker family owned a gun, and this was used as the murder weapon. Whitaker had told his hired guns where to find the weapon. What I mean is the firearm being used by family members against each other. Numerically this probably occurs more often then the feared stranger rape
|
|
|
Post by ltdc on May 16, 2013 10:12:38 GMT -6
never say never, an ambush is hard to defend buuuuuut, the biggest misconception about women and guns (talk about a war on women) is the myth that the attacker will take the gun away. while anything is possible of course, the correct usage of said gun is IF you can touch the gun you can touch the trigger and therefore as soon as your hand touches the gun bullets should flying downrange and into target. this is not a time for threats, warnings or negotiation. always fight, always I think a more realistic and worrying scenario would be that comparable to the Whitaker Family Murders. Thomas Whitaker hired 2 friends to kill his family and as you may remember Thomas' younger brother Kevin and Thomas' mother Tricia. The Whitaker family owned a gun, and this was used as the murder weapon. Whitaker had told his hired guns where to find the weapon. What I mean is the firearm being used by family members against each other. Numerically this probably occurs more often then the feared stranger rape may well be true. I suspect a good deal, if not most, people who die in car accidents die in the FAMILY car driven by a FAMILY member. as I said an ambush is virtually impossible to defend against, and you're describing an ambush. you're also making the mistake of thinking a gun is a guarantee of safety. it is not. chemo is not a guarantee of cancer recovery but we don't stop using it because sometimes it didn't work. remember, when you are the ONE person in which a gun made the difference, "one" becomes a rather HUGE statistic, and ALL others quickly fade. for every gun owner that didn't fare well there are plenty that did. pick the best option or not, it's your call.
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on May 16, 2013 19:54:06 GMT -6
never say never, an ambush is hard to defend buuuuuut, the biggest misconception about women and guns (talk about a war on women) is the myth that the attacker will take the gun away. while anything is possible of course, the correct usage of said gun is IF you can touch the gun you can touch the trigger and therefore as soon as your hand touches the gun bullets should flying downrange and into target. this is not a time for threats, warnings or negotiation. always fight, always I think a more realistic and worrying scenario would be that comparable to the Whitaker Family Murders. Thomas Whitaker hired 2 friends to kill his family and as you may remember Thomas' younger brother Kevin and Thomas' mother Tricia. The Whitaker family owned a gun, and this was used as the murder weapon. Whitaker had told his hired guns where to find the weapon. What I mean is the firearm being used by family members against each other. Numerically this probably occurs more often then the feared stranger rape No, numerically there are far more rapes than murders. In addition there are many cases where unarmed people are beaten badly or stabbed by strangers and only survive because of major medical intervention. In some of those cases, the victim's quality of life is permanently reduced. As for the Whitaker case, that is probably the only case like that. It is, of course, absurd to claim that the Whitaker Family Murders would not have happened if the Whitakers did not have a gun.
|
|
|
Post by starbux on May 17, 2013 1:24:20 GMT -6
A very good friend of mine was raped in her own apartment in her own bed. If she would have had a gun within reach where she was most vulnerable, things would have been much different. Can you imagine, waking up to find that you are being assaulted in your own home, in your own bed, with a gun within reach, that for 'safety reasons', is not loaded and has a lock on the trigger? Its hard to say that as a matter of fact. If the intruder already had her subdued I doubt she would have had access to the weapon. Good home security involves layers. First being to prevent the interior from easily being penetrated in the first place. Second an alerting system that alarms the occupants of the house that an intruder is present. There are plenty cheap off the shelf products that will start screaming. In most cases this will force an intruder to leave said property. If it does not than it surely will alert the occupant to the house. The last line of defense will be a gun. Ideally the best home defense weapon is a shot gun. No questions asked it will have a higher probability to hit the target than a single round. Problem with shotguns are that some women maybe too petit to handle the recoil, not trying to sound chauvinistic, but 90 lbs 5.4 girl is probably not going to handle a shotgun well unless that person has been trained for years with one. So that leaves the hand gun. To fire a hand gun well requires constant training to do it well. They will want a double action weapon with a surefire light. A weapon where subsequent shots to be done smoother because the hammer and firing mechanism less of trigger pull. The ideal situation is that the person is alerted has time to get up out of a dead sleep, get their wits about them. Then they need to get the weapon ready get into a proper tactical stance, correct hand grip and stand where they can get a clear shot from the door, probably barricaded by a dresser or the bed. Then without any hesitation or warning to the perp, they need smoothly pull the trigger while keeping good aim and get off two three quality shots while adjusting their aim appropriately. Once the perp is down they need to add a couple extra kill shots to the skull ensure death is confirmed. Now the question. Can someone who is not proficient in firearms be able to act when that day comes to be able to precisely get off multiple rounds and kill the intended target? I do not believe so unless they are lucky. It takes a lot of practice for someone who has not been around guns to adequately handle them. They need to be trained on how to care and handle the weapon. In order to be proficient you need to know how to fire a gun in several different tactical scenarios. Even then, if you hesitate on that faithful day, you will be dead or captured. Ask Jessica Lynch, she was trained to kill with an M-16 as a result she was captured by the Iraqi Army. She was trained to kill with an M-16 and could not kill, she is lucky to be alive. I believe in home defense but it needs to be done smartly. Those were things that NRA used to believe. Now they just spam your mailbox with Christian religious bible thumping crap that has nothing to do with weapons and killing criminals. Then again I was told above that your second amendment was not about personal defense. It is about defending yourself from the government when they decide to roll down the main streets of small town America to take your guns and bibles away. I believe in self defense personally. I think the notion that the government will use arms against its people is a little out dated, oh say about 211 years. A well trained armed citizen is preferred to an untrained armed bafoon.
|
|
|
Post by D.E.E. on May 17, 2013 11:17:36 GMT -6
Then again I was told above that your second amendment was not about personal defense. It is about defending yourself from the government when they decide to roll down the main streets of small town America to take your guns and bibles away. I believe in self defense personally. I think the notion that the government will use arms against its people is a little out dated, oh say about 211 years. A well trained armed citizen is preferred to an untrained armed bafoon. No Government has used arms against its own people in the last 211 years. I guess I need to re-read history because I could have sworn that it has been done at least a few times since then. By the way it is not just our Government that the 2nd was put in place for, but since my history is not as current as yours I will check on it. Checked on it and I was right.
|
|
|
Post by ltdc on May 17, 2013 12:25:49 GMT -6
A very good friend of mine was raped in her own apartment in her own bed. If she would have had a gun within reach where she was most vulnerable, things would have been much different. Can you imagine, waking up to find that you are being assaulted in your own home, in your own bed, with a gun within reach, that for 'safety reasons', is not loaded and has a lock on the trigger? The last line of defense will be a gun. and sometimes reality dictates going straight to the gun as there is no time, nor are you required by law, to walk up the continuum ladder. heard your military, you should know that. I would agree if you said "double action only". if I were to design a gun and wanted to adversly affect accuracy, I would design a gun with TWO different trigger pulls, lengths and weights. evidence that marketing has more say in matters than they should. seriously? did you really just say that? maybe, maybe not. doesn't change my right to try. now I'm convinced you really don't know of what you speak. been a member forever, can't recall any bible thumping stories. it's about a number of things. study it, don't get "told" about it. primarily at the time is was to garauntee that citizens had their own arms and related gear (regulated) in order to help if needed. as it was in fact needed. could be, so is the third amendment. BUT, but, but, buuuuut, what you anti rights people NEVER seem to understand is that it is entirely irrelevant whether or not they are "outdated", it DOES NOT in any way change the meaning or validity. don't like it change it, but DO NOT tell me what it means. I have never, ever, ever needed the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments. not one time. but their meaning and validity remain intact.
|
|