Very Refreshing
 

On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 3:39:57 PM UTC-8, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 2/1/15 6:23 PM, Tim wrote:
On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 5:57:16 AM UTC-8, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/31/15 10:18 PM, Tim wrote:
On Saturday, January 31, 2015 at 6:16:24 PM UTC-8, Wayne. B wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jan 2015 20:55:23 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/31/15 7:50 PM, Tim wrote:
On Saturday, January 31, 2015 at 4:28:42 PM UTC-8, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/31/15 6:03 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jan 2015 16:49:29 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

3. Three of the times I "stood up to authority" to help the oppressed
resulted in me getting shot at, once while reporting on and
participating in a black voter registration drive in the 1960s in the
deep south, once while working for land reform in Central America, and
once while helping organize oil rig supply ship crews.

===

Tell us more about this "land reform" in Central America. Does that
mean that you were trying to take land away from whom it legally
belonged and give it to someone else? That sounds like some kind of
Robin Hood adventure to me although it's hard to imagine your fat ass
in green tights and carrying a bow and arrow. Sounds like you were
ahead of your time and should have waited for Hugo Chavez in
Venezuela. His little adventure in socialism and seizing the assets
of others isn't turning out very well though.


Legally belonged? That's funny. In much of Central America, land was
stolen from the indigent people by the oligarchy, aided by the military
and sometimes aided by the good old USA, not unlike it was done in this
country, eh?

Tell me all about it, white eyes...


So, you have no compassion for these abused indigent people? Sad.

===

Whoosh... :-)

yeah. woosh...


I had no idea you were a Native American, Tim. Are you the last of the
Mohicans?

--
Proud to be a Liberal.

Harry, that's not worth a reasonable reply.


Tim, I have no idea what your ethnic background might be, nor does it
matter to me. I was wondering about your "white eyes" comment, though.

--
Proud to be a Liberal.

Speaking of championing 'injustice' - Well lets just say that there's probably a good chance that you are living freely on land stolen from my ancestry.

Very Refreshing
 

On 2/1/15 6:53 PM, Tim wrote:
On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 3:39:57 PM UTC-8, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 2/1/15 6:23 PM, Tim wrote:
On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 5:57:16 AM UTC-8, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/31/15 10:18 PM, Tim wrote:
On Saturday, January 31, 2015 at 6:16:24 PM UTC-8, Wayne. B wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jan 2015 20:55:23 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/31/15 7:50 PM, Tim wrote:
On Saturday, January 31, 2015 at 4:28:42 PM UTC-8, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/31/15 6:03 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jan 2015 16:49:29 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

3. Three of the times I "stood up to authority" to help the oppressed
resulted in me getting shot at, once while reporting on and
participating in a black voter registration drive in the 1960s in the
deep south, once while working for land reform in Central America, and
once while helping organize oil rig supply ship crews.

===

Tell us more about this "land reform" in Central America. Does that
mean that you were trying to take land away from whom it legally
belonged and give it to someone else? That sounds like some kind of
Robin Hood adventure to me although it's hard to imagine your fat ass
in green tights and carrying a bow and arrow. Sounds like you were
ahead of your time and should have waited for Hugo Chavez in
Venezuela. His little adventure in socialism and seizing the assets
of others isn't turning out very well though.


Legally belonged? That's funny. In much of Central America, land was
stolen from the indigent people by the oligarchy, aided by the military
and sometimes aided by the good old USA, not unlike it was done in this
country, eh?

Tell me all about it, white eyes...


So, you have no compassion for these abused indigent people? Sad.

===

Whoosh... :-)

yeah. woosh...


I had no idea you were a Native American, Tim. Are you the last of the
Mohicans?

--
Proud to be a Liberal.

Harry, that's not worth a reasonable reply.


Tim, I have no idea what your ethnic background might be, nor does it
matter to me. I was wondering about your "white eyes" comment, though.

--
Proud to be a Liberal.

Speaking of championing 'injustice' - Well lets just say that there's probably a good chance that you are living freely on land stolen from my ancestry.


Well, in the early 17th Century, John Smith wrote that the few “native
Americans” he encountered were Pawtuxunt, Mattapenient and
Acquintanacksnak, but there have been very few excavations that have
yielded definitive results. Apparently some of the earlier tribes
considered ancestral bones sacred and moved them when they moved. The
sites near where we live might be underwater, because the sea levels in
the Bay and other shorelines have risen dramatically in the last few
thousand years.

There doesn’t seem to be much evidence of displacement by “white eyes”
of native peoples right around here.

--
Proud to be a Liberal.

Very Refreshing
 

On 2/1/2015 6:48 PM, Tim wrote:
On Saturday, January 31, 2015 at 3:59:07 AM UTC-8, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/30/15 11:32 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 14:55:59 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/30/15 2:32 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 13:10:06 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/30/15 12:52 PM, wrote:

Bloomberg isn't spending his money to promote voter suppression,
backwards, overly religious candidates, and regressive legislation as
the Kochs are.

No, he wants to take your assault rifles away from you.

I support most of Bloomberg's
efforts to tighten up firearms laws on illegal possession,

One of them is eliminating civilian ownership of guns like your ARs.


So? If it came to pass, I'd do what was required. I'm a gun hobbyist,
not a crazed NRA gun nutsie.

So you would just turn it in and take the $50 the government said was
just compensation?


I'm certainly *not* going to try to hold off federal or local law
enforcement agents...I'll leave that to Wayne, who said here he would in
order to retain possession of his firearms.

I'd rather give them up and then go to the beach. Firearms are a hobby
for me.

--
Proud to be a Liberal.



I agree with Thomas Jefferson

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in Government... The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed"
Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)


Tim, that's a wonderful historical statement, true for it's time. It's
more of a tradition now though. I don't care how many guns are
privately owned, there's no way they could be used to fend off the US
military if our government somehow decided to become "tyrannical".
Heck, they can't agree on how many sugars to put in a coffee.

Very Refreshing
 

On 2/1/15 7:15 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/1/2015 6:48 PM, Tim wrote:
On Saturday, January 31, 2015 at 3:59:07 AM UTC-8, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/30/15 11:32 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 14:55:59 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/30/15 2:32 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 13:10:06 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/30/15 12:52 PM, wrote:

Bloomberg isn't spending his money to promote voter suppression,
backwards, overly religious candidates, and regressive
legislation as
the Kochs are.

No, he wants to take your assault rifles away from you.

I support most of Bloomberg's
efforts to tighten up firearms laws on illegal possession,

One of them is eliminating civilian ownership of guns like your ARs.


So? If it came to pass, I'd do what was required. I'm a gun hobbyist,
not a crazed NRA gun nutsie.

So you would just turn it in and take the $50 the government said was
just compensation?


I'm certainly *not* going to try to hold off federal or local law
enforcement agents...I'll leave that to Wayne, who said here he would in
order to retain possession of his firearms.

I'd rather give them up and then go to the beach. Firearms are a hobby
for me.

--
Proud to be a Liberal.



I agree with Thomas Jefferson

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and
bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny
in Government... The constitutions of most of our States assert that
all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and
duty to be at all times armed"
Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)


Tim, that's a wonderful historical statement, true for it's time. It's
more of a tradition now though. I don't care how many guns are
privately owned, there's no way they could be used to fend off the US
military if our government somehow decided to become "tyrannical". Heck,
they can't agree on how many sugars to put in a coffee.





In most reasonably populated counties, the gun guys couldn't fend off
the sheriff's department.

Even in my "heavily gun controlled state," the Staties aren't interested
with my plan to build a semi-auto rifle in a caliber heavier than .223/5.56.


--
Proud to be a Liberal.

Very Refreshing
 

On 2/1/15 7:20 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 01 Feb 2015 18:39:54 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 2/1/15 6:23 PM, Tim wrote:

I had no idea you were a Native American, Tim. Are you the last of the
Mohicans?

--
Proud to be a Liberal.

Harry, that's not worth a reasonable reply.


Tim, I have no idea what your ethnic background might be, nor does it
matter to me. I was wondering about your "white eyes" comment, though.


It is fairly safe to assume anyone with fairly deep midwestern roots
has some Cherokee blood. Other tribes will laugh at white guys who
talk about it tho.
It was hard to find a pure blooded Cherokee 100 years ago according to
the "indian affairs" people who analysed my father's family during the
depression. Most people's computations are flawed about how "Cherokee"
they really are. They had been mixing it up long before they left the
Carolinas.


Yeah, my wife definitely has Cherokee ancestors from and a few relatives
still living in northwestern North Carolina. The ancestors married into
her English, Irish, German lines.

--
Proud to be a Liberal.

Very Refreshing
 

On 2/1/2015 6:53 PM, Tim wrote:
On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 3:39:57 PM UTC-8, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 2/1/15 6:23 PM, Tim wrote:
On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 5:57:16 AM UTC-8, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/31/15 10:18 PM, Tim wrote:
On Saturday, January 31, 2015 at 6:16:24 PM UTC-8, Wayne. B wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jan 2015 20:55:23 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/31/15 7:50 PM, Tim wrote:
On Saturday, January 31, 2015 at 4:28:42 PM UTC-8, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/31/15 6:03 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jan 2015 16:49:29 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

3. Three of the times I "stood up to authority" to help the oppressed
resulted in me getting shot at, once while reporting on and
participating in a black voter registration drive in the 1960s in the
deep south, once while working for land reform in Central America, and
once while helping organize oil rig supply ship crews.

===

Tell us more about this "land reform" in Central America. Does that
mean that you were trying to take land away from whom it legally
belonged and give it to someone else? That sounds like some kind of
Robin Hood adventure to me although it's hard to imagine your fat ass
in green tights and carrying a bow and arrow. Sounds like you were
ahead of your time and should have waited for Hugo Chavez in
Venezuela. His little adventure in socialism and seizing the assets
of others isn't turning out very well though.


Legally belonged? That's funny. In much of Central America, land was
stolen from the indigent people by the oligarchy, aided by the military
and sometimes aided by the good old USA, not unlike it was done in this
country, eh?

Tell me all about it, white eyes...


So, you have no compassion for these abused indigent people? Sad.

===

Whoosh... :-)

yeah. woosh...


I had no idea you were a Native American, Tim. Are you the last of the
Mohicans?

--
Proud to be a Liberal.

Harry, that's not worth a reasonable reply.


Tim, I have no idea what your ethnic background might be, nor does it
matter to me. I was wondering about your "white eyes" comment, though.

--
Proud to be a Liberal.

Speaking of championing 'injustice' - Well lets just say that there's probably a good chance that you are living freely on land stolen from my ancestry.


Well then... Harry should give you all of his imaginary stuff :)

Very Refreshing
 

On 2/1/15 7:28 PM, KC wrote:
On 2/1/2015 6:53 PM, Tim wrote:
On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 3:39:57 PM UTC-8, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 2/1/15 6:23 PM, Tim wrote:
On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 5:57:16 AM UTC-8, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/31/15 10:18 PM, Tim wrote:
On Saturday, January 31, 2015 at 6:16:24 PM UTC-8, Wayne. B wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jan 2015 20:55:23 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/31/15 7:50 PM, Tim wrote:
On Saturday, January 31, 2015 at 4:28:42 PM UTC-8, Keyser Söze
wrote:
On 1/31/15 6:03 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jan 2015 16:49:29 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

3. Three of the times I "stood up to authority" to help the
oppressed
resulted in me getting shot at, once while reporting on and
participating in a black voter registration drive in the
1960s in the
deep south, once while working for land reform in Central
America, and
once while helping organize oil rig supply ship crews.

===

Tell us more about this "land reform" in Central America.
Does that
mean that you were trying to take land away from whom it legally
belonged and give it to someone else? That sounds like some
kind of
Robin Hood adventure to me although it's hard to imagine your
fat ass
in green tights and carrying a bow and arrow. Sounds like
you were
ahead of your time and should have waited for Hugo Chavez in
Venezuela. His little adventure in socialism and seizing the
assets
of others isn't turning out very well though.


Legally belonged? That's funny. In much of Central America,
land was
stolen from the indigent people by the oligarchy, aided by the
military
and sometimes aided by the good old USA, not unlike it was
done in this
country, eh?

Tell me all about it, white eyes...


So, you have no compassion for these abused indigent people? Sad.

===

Whoosh... :-)

yeah. woosh...


I had no idea you were a Native American, Tim. Are you the last of the
Mohicans?

--
Proud to be a Liberal.

Harry, that's not worth a reasonable reply.


Tim, I have no idea what your ethnic background might be, nor does it
matter to me. I was wondering about your "white eyes" comment, though.

--
Proud to be a Liberal.

Speaking of championing 'injustice' - Well lets just say that there's
probably a good chance that you are living freely on land stolen from
my ancestry.


Well then... Harry should give you all of his imaginary stuff :)


Can't control yourself, eh? Too bad.

--
Proud to be a Liberal.

Very Refreshing
 

Keyser Söze wrote:
On 2/1/15 6:48 PM, Tim wrote:
On Saturday, January 31, 2015 at 3:59:07 AM UTC-8, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/30/15 11:32 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 14:55:59 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/30/15 2:32 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 13:10:06 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 1/30/15 12:52 PM, wrote:

Bloomberg isn't spending his money to promote voter suppression,
backwards, overly religious candidates, and regressive legislation as
the Kochs are.

No, he wants to take your assault rifles away from you.

I support most of Bloomberg's
efforts to tighten up firearms laws on illegal possession,

One of them is eliminating civilian ownership of guns like your ARs.


So? If it came to pass, I'd do what was required. I'm a gun hobbyist,
not a crazed NRA gun nutsie.

So you would just turn it in and take the $50 the government said was
just compensation?


I'm certainly *not* going to try to hold off federal or local law
enforcement agents...I'll leave that to Wayne, who said here he would in
order to retain possession of his firearms.

I'd rather give them up and then go to the beach. Firearms are a hobby
for me.

--
Proud to be a Liberal.

I agree with Thomas Jefferson

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and
bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in
Government... The constitutions of most of our States assert that all
power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to
be at all times armed"
Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)


Good. You and Wayne hold off the police/military forces as long as you
can while I enjoy the beach.


Do not have to shoot the lower level people.

Very Refreshing
 

wrote:
On Sun, 01 Feb 2015 19:15:13 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


Tim, that's a wonderful historical statement, true for it's time. It's
more of a tradition now though. I don't care how many guns are
privately owned, there's no way they could be used to fend off the US
military if our government somehow decided to become "tyrannical".
Heck, they can't agree on how many sugars to put in a coffee.


Considering the number of conservative southerners and westerners who
are actually the ones to join the military, why would you think they
would fight the citizens if the government became tyrannical?
You would be more likely to have a military coup.

I agree a few thousand guys in a compound somewhere will not stand
much of a chance but a million well armed guys could cause some
serious problems. Particularity if the military was less than
enthusiastic in quelling them.

Our military is yet to win a single "asymmetric" war even when they
were motivated to do it..

Because it worked out so well for the South the last time southerners took
on the Union army.
--
Sent from my iPhone 6+

Very Refreshing
 

On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 7:26:48 PM UTC-8, wrote:
On Sun, 01 Feb 2015 19:09:26 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

There doesn't seem to be much evidence of displacement by "white eyes"
of native peoples right around here.

Who do you think was living on the East coast in the early 17th
century? It certainly wasn't a bunch of Europeans.

Do you really think they left of their own volition?

Yeah, Greg. Somebody stole it from somebody else

Very Refreshing
 

On 2/1/2015 10:33 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 01 Feb 2015 19:15:13 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


Tim, that's a wonderful historical statement, true for it's time. It's
more of a tradition now though. I don't care how many guns are
privately owned, there's no way they could be used to fend off the US
military if our government somehow decided to become "tyrannical".
Heck, they can't agree on how many sugars to put in a coffee.


Considering the number of conservative southerners and westerners who
are actually the ones to join the military, why would you think they
would fight the citizens if the government became tyrannical?
You would be more likely to have a military coup.


I agree a few thousand guys in a compound somewhere will not stand
much of a chance but a million well armed guys could cause some
serious problems. Particularity if the military was less than
enthusiastic in quelling them.
Our military is yet to win a single "asymmetric" war even when they
were motivated to do it..


I think your hypotheticals originate in la-la land. By it's nature and
governmental structure it is impossible to even imagine a military
"coup" in the USA today and we aren't going to have another Civil War.

Very Refreshing
 

On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 7:53:26 PM UTC-8, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/1/2015 10:33 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 01 Feb 2015 19:15:13 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


Tim, that's a wonderful historical statement, true for it's time. It's
more of a tradition now though. I don't care how many guns are
privately owned, there's no way they could be used to fend off the US
military if our government somehow decided to become "tyrannical".
Heck, they can't agree on how many sugars to put in a coffee.


Considering the number of conservative southerners and westerners who
are actually the ones to join the military, why would you think they
would fight the citizens if the government became tyrannical?
You would be more likely to have a military coup.


I agree a few thousand guys in a compound somewhere will not stand
much of a chance but a million well armed guys could cause some
serious problems. Particularity if the military was less than
enthusiastic in quelling them.
Our military is yet to win a single "asymmetric" war even when they
were motivated to do it..


I think your hypotheticals originate in la-la land. By it's nature and
governmental structure it is impossible to even imagine a military
"coup" in the USA today and we aren't going to have another Civil War.


Richard, a coup is one thing, disarmament of the free citizen is another. an overthrow would be hard to pull off, and a disarmament would be even harder. I dont' think it would be that easy for US soldiers to willingly fire on US citizens. especially on such a basis. Few kids are gonna fire on people from their home town regardless of who wrote the orders.

Not really sure, but round where I live, If disarmament of the public came push and shove, I'd say things might get pretty bloody. On both sides.

Very Refreshing
 

On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 8:13:49 PM UTC-8, Tim wrote:
On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 7:53:26 PM UTC-8, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/1/2015 10:33 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 01 Feb 2015 19:15:13 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


Tim, that's a wonderful historical statement, true for it's time. It's
more of a tradition now though. I don't care how many guns are
privately owned, there's no way they could be used to fend off the US
military if our government somehow decided to become "tyrannical".
Heck, they can't agree on how many sugars to put in a coffee.


Considering the number of conservative southerners and westerners who
are actually the ones to join the military, why would you think they
would fight the citizens if the government became tyrannical?
You would be more likely to have a military coup.


I agree a few thousand guys in a compound somewhere will not stand
much of a chance but a million well armed guys could cause some
serious problems. Particularity if the military was less than
enthusiastic in quelling them.
Our military is yet to win a single "asymmetric" war even when they
were motivated to do it..


I think your hypotheticals originate in la-la land. By it's nature and
governmental structure it is impossible to even imagine a military
"coup" in the USA today and we aren't going to have another Civil War.


Richard, a coup is one thing, disarmament of the free citizen is another. an overthrow would be hard to pull off, and a disarmament would be even harder. I dont' think it would be that easy for US soldiers to willingly fire on US citizens. especially on such a basis. Few kids are gonna fire on people from their home town regardless of who wrote the orders.

Not really sure, but round where I live, If disarmament of the public came push and shove, I'd say things might get pretty bloody. On both sides.

"It is interesting to hear certain kinds of people insist that the citizen cannot fight the government. This would have been news to the men of Lexington and Concord, as well as the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan. The citizen most certainly can fight the government, and usually wins when he tries. Organized national armies are useful primarily for fighting against other organized national armies. When they try to fight against the people, they find themselves at a very serious disadvantage. If you will just look around at the state of the world today, you will see that the guerillero has the upper hand. Irregulars usually defeat regulars, providing they have the will. Such fighting is horrible to contemplate, but will continue to dominate brute strength."

- Col. Jeff Cooper

Very Refreshing
 

On 2/1/2015 11:13 PM, Tim wrote:
On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 7:53:26 PM UTC-8, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/1/2015 10:33 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 01 Feb 2015 19:15:13 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


Tim, that's a wonderful historical statement, true for it's time. It's
more of a tradition now though. I don't care how many guns are
privately owned, there's no way they could be used to fend off the US
military if our government somehow decided to become "tyrannical".
Heck, they can't agree on how many sugars to put in a coffee.


Considering the number of conservative southerners and westerners who
are actually the ones to join the military, why would you think they
would fight the citizens if the government became tyrannical?
You would be more likely to have a military coup.


I agree a few thousand guys in a compound somewhere will not stand
much of a chance but a million well armed guys could cause some
serious problems. Particularity if the military was less than
enthusiastic in quelling them.
Our military is yet to win a single "asymmetric" war even when they
were motivated to do it..


I think your hypotheticals originate in la-la land. By it's nature and
governmental structure it is impossible to even imagine a military
"coup" in the USA today and we aren't going to have another Civil War.


Richard, a coup is one thing, disarmament of the free citizen is another. an overthrow would be hard to pull off, and a disarmament would be even harder. I dont' think it would be that easy for US soldiers to willingly fire on US citizens. especially on such a basis. Few kids are gonna fire on people from their home town regardless of who wrote the orders.

Not really sure, but round where I live, If disarmament of the public came push and shove, I'd say things might get pretty bloody. On both sides.



Who's talking "disarmament"?

Personally (and no offense) I think the people shouting the most about
gun ownership to protect themselves against their government in the USA
have been drinking too much NRA juice.

Very Refreshing
 

On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 8:22:05 PM UTC-8, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/1/2015 11:13 PM, Tim wrote:
On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 7:53:26 PM UTC-8, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/1/2015 10:33 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 01 Feb 2015 19:15:13 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


Tim, that's a wonderful historical statement, true for it's time. It's
more of a tradition now though. I don't care how many guns are
privately owned, there's no way they could be used to fend off the US
military if our government somehow decided to become "tyrannical".
Heck, they can't agree on how many sugars to put in a coffee.


Considering the number of conservative southerners and westerners who
are actually the ones to join the military, why would you think they
would fight the citizens if the government became tyrannical?
You would be more likely to have a military coup.


I agree a few thousand guys in a compound somewhere will not stand
much of a chance but a million well armed guys could cause some
serious problems. Particularity if the military was less than
enthusiastic in quelling them.
Our military is yet to win a single "asymmetric" war even when they
were motivated to do it..


I think your hypotheticals originate in la-la land. By it's nature and
governmental structure it is impossible to even imagine a military
"coup" in the USA today and we aren't going to have another Civil War.


Richard, a coup is one thing, disarmament of the free citizen is another. an overthrow would be hard to pull off, and a disarmament would be even harder. I dont' think it would be that easy for US soldiers to willingly fire on US citizens. especially on such a basis. Few kids are gonna fire on people from their home town regardless of who wrote the orders.

Not really sure, but round where I live, If disarmament of the public came push and shove, I'd say things might get pretty bloody. On both sides.



Who's talking "disarmament"?

Personally (and no offense) I think the people shouting the most about
gun ownership to protect themselves against their government in the USA
have been drinking too much NRA juice.

I thought this tread evolved into a citizens right to bear arms, instead of a coup. Hmmm, I mighta missed something.

I don't yell that much do i Richard?


?;^)

Though I may contribute from time to time, I actually cant remember ever starting a firearm thread.

Very Refreshing
 

On Sun, 01 Feb 2015 22:53:25 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Considering the number of conservative southerners and westerners who
are actually the ones to join the military, why would you think they
would fight the citizens if the government became tyrannical?
You would be more likely to have a military coup.


I agree a few thousand guys in a compound somewhere will not stand
much of a chance but a million well armed guys could cause some
serious problems. Particularity if the military was less than
enthusiastic in quelling them.
Our military is yet to win a single "asymmetric" war even when they
were motivated to do it..


I think your hypotheticals originate in la-la land. By it's nature and
governmental structure it is impossible to even imagine a military
"coup" in the USA today and we aren't going to have another Civil War.

===

Hopefully all of that is hypothetical and a determined electorate
could eventually vote the rascals out. That's the fundamental
premise of democracy. If all else failed however I would not
underestimate the power of a determined group of people to set things
right, nor would I underestimate the possibility of the military
helping out. It has happened many times in many different places.

Of course all of that would be accompanied by massive civil
insurrection, and whether or not you called it a civil war or not is
mostly a matter of semantics. I hope it never happens but I don't
think you can rule it out. People in the hinterlands are really fed
up with the Washington power elite. What if the farmers decided to
withhold their output, burn the wheat fields and kill the cattle? The
city folk would starve in no time at all and they would quickly learn
that food does not come from the grocery store.

Very Refreshing
 

On 2/2/2015 12:13 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 01 Feb 2015 22:53:25 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Considering the number of conservative southerners and westerners who
are actually the ones to join the military, why would you think they
would fight the citizens if the government became tyrannical?
You would be more likely to have a military coup.


I agree a few thousand guys in a compound somewhere will not stand
much of a chance but a million well armed guys could cause some
serious problems. Particularity if the military was less than
enthusiastic in quelling them.
Our military is yet to win a single "asymmetric" war even when they
were motivated to do it..


I think your hypotheticals originate in la-la land. By it's nature and
governmental structure it is impossible to even imagine a military
"coup" in the USA today and we aren't going to have another Civil War.

===

Hopefully all of that is hypothetical and a determined electorate
could eventually vote the rascals out. That's the fundamental
premise of democracy. If all else failed however I would not
underestimate the power of a determined group of people to set things
right, nor would I underestimate the possibility of the military
helping out. It has happened many times in many different places.

Of course all of that would be accompanied by massive civil
insurrection, and whether or not you called it a civil war or not is
mostly a matter of semantics. I hope it never happens but I don't
think you can rule it out. People in the hinterlands are really fed
up with the Washington power elite. What if the farmers decided to
withhold their output, burn the wheat fields and kill the cattle? The
city folk would starve in no time at all and they would quickly learn
that food does not come from the grocery store.



I really think (or at least hope) that as a civilization we are far more
advanced to think that kind of thing can happen. A farmer can't survive
in today's world without a market for his crops. He needs the benefits
of other industries and businesses to live and he needs the revenues
received for his produce. There might be temporary holdouts as a form
of demonstration but it can't last for forever.

One thing nice about a competitive, capitalistic society. If one group
or business gets too demanding or greedy there are others ready to grab
a bigger share of the market.

Very Refreshing
 

On 2/2/2015 3:18 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 01 Feb 2015 22:53:25 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 2/1/2015 10:33 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 01 Feb 2015 19:15:13 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


Tim, that's a wonderful historical statement, true for it's time. It's
more of a tradition now though. I don't care how many guns are
privately owned, there's no way they could be used to fend off the US
military if our government somehow decided to become "tyrannical".
Heck, they can't agree on how many sugars to put in a coffee.


Considering the number of conservative southerners and westerners who
are actually the ones to join the military, why would you think they
would fight the citizens if the government became tyrannical?
You would be more likely to have a military coup.


I agree a few thousand guys in a compound somewhere will not stand
much of a chance but a million well armed guys could cause some
serious problems. Particularity if the military was less than
enthusiastic in quelling them.
Our military is yet to win a single "asymmetric" war even when they
were motivated to do it..


I think your hypotheticals originate in la-la land. By it's nature and
governmental structure it is impossible to even imagine a military
"coup" in the USA today and we aren't going to have another Civil War.

Harry was the one who brought up this civil war thing.


Actually I mentioned it just in case someone brought it up. :-)

Very Refreshing
 

On 2/2/15 2:53 AM, wrote:
On 2 Feb 2015 03:39:54 GMT, Keyser Söze wrote:

wrote:
On Sun, 01 Feb 2015 19:15:13 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


Tim, that's a wonderful historical statement, true for it's time. It's
more of a tradition now though. I don't care how many guns are
privately owned, there's no way they could be used to fend off the US
military if our government somehow decided to become "tyrannical".
Heck, they can't agree on how many sugars to put in a coffee.


Considering the number of conservative southerners and westerners who
are actually the ones to join the military, why would you think they
would fight the citizens if the government became tyrannical?
You would be more likely to have a military coup.

I agree a few thousand guys in a compound somewhere will not stand
much of a chance but a million well armed guys could cause some
serious problems. Particularity if the military was less than
enthusiastic in quelling them.

Our military is yet to win a single "asymmetric" war even when they
were motivated to do it..

Because it worked out so well for the South the last time southerners took
on the Union army.

Different time, different issues different economic model.
If they fought that war again, it might be New England and Coastal
California against the rest of the country.
http://media.cq.com/elections/2014/



Wishful "libertarian" thinking.

--
Proud to be a Liberal.

Very Refreshing
 

On 2/2/15 3:24 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 02 Feb 2015 00:13:43 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Sun, 01 Feb 2015 22:53:25 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Considering the number of conservative southerners and westerners who
are actually the ones to join the military, why would you think they
would fight the citizens if the government became tyrannical?
You would be more likely to have a military coup.


I agree a few thousand guys in a compound somewhere will not stand
much of a chance but a million well armed guys could cause some
serious problems. Particularity if the military was less than
enthusiastic in quelling them.
Our military is yet to win a single "asymmetric" war even when they
were motivated to do it..


I think your hypotheticals originate in la-la land. By it's nature and
governmental structure it is impossible to even imagine a military
"coup" in the USA today and we aren't going to have another Civil War.

===

Hopefully all of that is hypothetical and a determined electorate
could eventually vote the rascals out. That's the fundamental
premise of democracy. If all else failed however I would not
underestimate the power of a determined group of people to set things
right, nor would I underestimate the possibility of the military
helping out. It has happened many times in many different places.

Of course all of that would be accompanied by massive civil
insurrection, and whether or not you called it a civil war or not is
mostly a matter of semantics. I hope it never happens but I don't
think you can rule it out. People in the hinterlands are really fed
up with the Washington power elite. What if the farmers decided to
withhold their output, burn the wheat fields and kill the cattle? The
city folk would starve in no time at all and they would quickly learn
that food does not come from the grocery store.

I think we went a long way towards doing that (voting, not shooting)
as evidenced by the election map I linked. It is actually amazing how
small the pockets of liberal democrats really are.

http://media.cq.com/elections/2014/



Isn't it amazing how easy it is to push Americans to vote for
Republicans against their own interests when the only thing the GOP has
to offer is fear and hate?

--
Proud to be a Liberal.

Very Refreshing
 

On Sun, 01 Feb 2015 23:22:03 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 2/1/2015 11:13 PM, Tim wrote:
On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 7:53:26 PM UTC-8, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/1/2015 10:33 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 01 Feb 2015 19:15:13 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


Tim, that's a wonderful historical statement, true for it's time. It's
more of a tradition now though. I don't care how many guns are
privately owned, there's no way they could be used to fend off the US
military if our government somehow decided to become "tyrannical".
Heck, they can't agree on how many sugars to put in a coffee.


Considering the number of conservative southerners and westerners who
are actually the ones to join the military, why would you think they
would fight the citizens if the government became tyrannical?
You would be more likely to have a military coup.


I agree a few thousand guys in a compound somewhere will not stand
much of a chance but a million well armed guys could cause some
serious problems. Particularity if the military was less than
enthusiastic in quelling them.
Our military is yet to win a single "asymmetric" war even when they
were motivated to do it..


I think your hypotheticals originate in la-la land. By it's nature and
governmental structure it is impossible to even imagine a military
"coup" in the USA today and we aren't going to have another Civil War.


Richard, a coup is one thing, disarmament of the free citizen is another. an overthrow would be hard to pull off, and a disarmament would be even harder. I dont' think it would be that easy for US soldiers to willingly fire on US citizens. especially on such a basis. Few kids are gonna fire on people from their home town regardless of who wrote the orders.

Not really sure, but round where I live, If disarmament of the public came push and shove, I'd say things might get pretty bloody. On both sides.



Who's talking "disarmament"?

Personally (and no offense) I think the people shouting the most about
gun ownership to protect themselves against their government in the USA
have been drinking too much NRA juice.


Or listening to Bloomberg, et al.
--

Guns don't cause problems. The behavior
of certain gun owners causes problems.

Very Refreshing
 

On 2/2/2015 7:43 AM, Mucho Loco wrote:
On Sun, 01 Feb 2015 23:22:03 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 2/1/2015 11:13 PM, Tim wrote:
On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 7:53:26 PM UTC-8, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/1/2015 10:33 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 01 Feb 2015 19:15:13 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


Tim, that's a wonderful historical statement, true for it's time. It's
more of a tradition now though. I don't care how many guns are
privately owned, there's no way they could be used to fend off the US
military if our government somehow decided to become "tyrannical".
Heck, they can't agree on how many sugars to put in a coffee.


Considering the number of conservative southerners and westerners who
are actually the ones to join the military, why would you think they
would fight the citizens if the government became tyrannical?
You would be more likely to have a military coup.


I agree a few thousand guys in a compound somewhere will not stand
much of a chance but a million well armed guys could cause some
serious problems. Particularity if the military was less than
enthusiastic in quelling them.
Our military is yet to win a single "asymmetric" war even when they
were motivated to do it..


I think your hypotheticals originate in la-la land. By it's nature and
governmental structure it is impossible to even imagine a military
"coup" in the USA today and we aren't going to have another Civil War.


Richard, a coup is one thing, disarmament of the free citizen is another. an overthrow would be hard to pull off, and a disarmament would be even harder. I dont' think it would be that easy for US soldiers to willingly fire on US citizens. especially on such a basis. Few kids are gonna fire on people from their home town regardless of who wrote the orders.

Not really sure, but round where I live, If disarmament of the public came push and shove, I'd say things might get pretty bloody. On both sides.



Who's talking "disarmament"?

Personally (and no offense) I think the people shouting the most about
gun ownership to protect themselves against their government in the USA
have been drinking too much NRA juice.


Or listening to Bloomberg, et al.



I am talking about those who hang on the "necessary militia" stuff and
are fearful that the government will someday conspire and use the
military against it's citizens to justify *no* reasonable gun control
laws. Those concerns were true when written but not relevant today.
We have better ways to resolve differences and they've worked fine
so far. Most people can have any firearm they want (within reason)
for their sporting, competition or self defense reasons.

Very Refreshing
 

On 2/2/15 8:41 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/2/2015 7:43 AM, Mucho Loco wrote:
On Sun, 01 Feb 2015 23:22:03 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 2/1/2015 11:13 PM, Tim wrote:
On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 7:53:26 PM UTC-8, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/1/2015 10:33 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 01 Feb 2015 19:15:13 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"

wrote:


Tim, that's a wonderful historical statement, true for it's
time. It's
more of a tradition now though. I don't care how many guns are
privately owned, there's no way they could be used to fend off
the US
military if our government somehow decided to become "tyrannical".
Heck, they can't agree on how many sugars to put in a coffee.


Considering the number of conservative southerners and westerners who
are actually the ones to join the military, why would you think they
would fight the citizens if the government became tyrannical?
You would be more likely to have a military coup.


I agree a few thousand guys in a compound somewhere will not stand
much of a chance but a million well armed guys could cause some
serious problems. Particularity if the military was less than
enthusiastic in quelling them.
Our military is yet to win a single "asymmetric" war even when they
were motivated to do it..


I think your hypotheticals originate in la-la land. By it's nature
and
governmental structure it is impossible to even imagine a military
"coup" in the USA today and we aren't going to have another Civil War.


Richard, a coup is one thing, disarmament of the free citizen is
another. an overthrow would be hard to pull off, and a disarmament
would be even harder. I dont' think it would be that easy for US
soldiers to willingly fire on US citizens. especially on such a
basis. Few kids are gonna fire on people from their home town
regardless of who wrote the orders.

Not really sure, but round where I live, If disarmament of the
public came push and shove, I'd say things might get pretty bloody.
On both sides.



Who's talking "disarmament"?

Personally (and no offense) I think the people shouting the most about
gun ownership to protect themselves against their government in the USA
have been drinking too much NRA juice.


Or listening to Bloomberg, et al.



I am talking about those who hang on the "necessary militia" stuff and
are fearful that the government will someday conspire and use the
military against it's citizens to justify *no* reasonable gun control
laws. Those concerns were true when written but not relevant today.
We have better ways to resolve differences and they've worked fine
so far. Most people can have any firearm they want (within reason)
for their sporting, competition or self defense reasons.




I bought some longer pants so I can stuff a Mosin Nagant down one leg as
my "concealed carry" firearm. :)

--
Proud to be a Liberal.

Very Refreshing
 

On Monday, February 2, 2015 at 5:48:29 AM UTC-8, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 2/2/15 8:41 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/2/2015 7:43 AM, Mucho Loco wrote:
On Sun, 01 Feb 2015 23:22:03 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 2/1/2015 11:13 PM, Tim wrote:
On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 7:53:26 PM UTC-8, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/1/2015 10:33 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 01 Feb 2015 19:15:13 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"

wrote:


Tim, that's a wonderful historical statement, true for it's
time. It's
more of a tradition now though. I don't care how many guns are
privately owned, there's no way they could be used to fend off
the US
military if our government somehow decided to become "tyrannical"..
Heck, they can't agree on how many sugars to put in a coffee.


Considering the number of conservative southerners and westerners who
are actually the ones to join the military, why would you think they
would fight the citizens if the government became tyrannical?
You would be more likely to have a military coup.


I agree a few thousand guys in a compound somewhere will not stand
much of a chance but a million well armed guys could cause some
serious problems. Particularity if the military was less than
enthusiastic in quelling them.
Our military is yet to win a single "asymmetric" war even when they
were motivated to do it..


I think your hypotheticals originate in la-la land. By it's nature
and
governmental structure it is impossible to even imagine a military
"coup" in the USA today and we aren't going to have another Civil War.


Richard, a coup is one thing, disarmament of the free citizen is
another. an overthrow would be hard to pull off, and a disarmament
would be even harder. I dont' think it would be that easy for US
soldiers to willingly fire on US citizens. especially on such a
basis. Few kids are gonna fire on people from their home town
regardless of who wrote the orders.

Not really sure, but round where I live, If disarmament of the
public came push and shove, I'd say things might get pretty bloody.
On both sides.



Who's talking "disarmament"?

Personally (and no offense) I think the people shouting the most about
gun ownership to protect themselves against their government in the USA
have been drinking too much NRA juice.


Or listening to Bloomberg, et al.



I am talking about those who hang on the "necessary militia" stuff and
are fearful that the government will someday conspire and use the
military against it's citizens to justify *no* reasonable gun control
laws. Those concerns were true when written but not relevant today.
We have better ways to resolve differences and they've worked fine
so far. Most people can have any firearm they want (within reason)
for their sporting, competition or self defense reasons.




I bought some longer pants so I can stuff a Mosin Nagant down one leg as
my "concealed carry" firearm. :)

--
Proud to be a Liberal.

why would you do that Harry??

Very Refreshing
 

On 2/2/15 8:52 AM, Tim wrote:
On Monday, February 2, 2015 at 5:48:29 AM UTC-8, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 2/2/15 8:41 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/2/2015 7:43 AM, Mucho Loco wrote:
On Sun, 01 Feb 2015 23:22:03 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 2/1/2015 11:13 PM, Tim wrote:
On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 7:53:26 PM UTC-8, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/1/2015 10:33 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 01 Feb 2015 19:15:13 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"

wrote:


Tim, that's a wonderful historical statement, true for it's
time. It's
more of a tradition now though. I don't care how many guns are
privately owned, there's no way they could be used to fend off
the US
military if our government somehow decided to become "tyrannical".
Heck, they can't agree on how many sugars to put in a coffee.


Considering the number of conservative southerners and westerners who
are actually the ones to join the military, why would you think they
would fight the citizens if the government became tyrannical?
You would be more likely to have a military coup.


I agree a few thousand guys in a compound somewhere will not stand
much of a chance but a million well armed guys could cause some
serious problems. Particularity if the military was less than
enthusiastic in quelling them.
Our military is yet to win a single "asymmetric" war even when they
were motivated to do it..


I think your hypotheticals originate in la-la land. By it's nature
and
governmental structure it is impossible to even imagine a military
"coup" in the USA today and we aren't going to have another Civil War.


Richard, a coup is one thing, disarmament of the free citizen is
another. an overthrow would be hard to pull off, and a disarmament
would be even harder. I dont' think it would be that easy for US
soldiers to willingly fire on US citizens. especially on such a
basis. Few kids are gonna fire on people from their home town
regardless of who wrote the orders.

Not really sure, but round where I live, If disarmament of the
public came push and shove, I'd say things might get pretty bloody.
On both sides.



Who's talking "disarmament"?

Personally (and no offense) I think the people shouting the most about
gun ownership to protect themselves against their government in the USA
have been drinking too much NRA juice.


Or listening to Bloomberg, et al.



I am talking about those who hang on the "necessary militia" stuff and
are fearful that the government will someday conspire and use the
military against it's citizens to justify *no* reasonable gun control
laws. Those concerns were true when written but not relevant today.
We have better ways to resolve differences and they've worked fine
so far. Most people can have any firearm they want (within reason)
for their sporting, competition or self defense reasons.




I bought some longer pants so I can stuff a Mosin Nagant down one leg as
my "concealed carry" firearm. :)

--
Proud to be a Liberal.

why would you do that Harry??


For grins, Tim...for grins. Didn't you see the little smiley face?



--
Proud to be a Liberal.

Very Refreshing
 

On Mon, 02 Feb 2015 08:41:30 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 2/2/2015 7:43 AM, Mucho Loco wrote:
On Sun, 01 Feb 2015 23:22:03 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 2/1/2015 11:13 PM, Tim wrote:
On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 7:53:26 PM UTC-8, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/1/2015 10:33 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 01 Feb 2015 19:15:13 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


Tim, that's a wonderful historical statement, true for it's time. It's
more of a tradition now though. I don't care how many guns are
privately owned, there's no way they could be used to fend off the US
military if our government somehow decided to become "tyrannical".
Heck, they can't agree on how many sugars to put in a coffee.


Considering the number of conservative southerners and westerners who
are actually the ones to join the military, why would you think they
would fight the citizens if the government became tyrannical?
You would be more likely to have a military coup.


I agree a few thousand guys in a compound somewhere will not stand
much of a chance but a million well armed guys could cause some
serious problems. Particularity if the military was less than
enthusiastic in quelling them.
Our military is yet to win a single "asymmetric" war even when they
were motivated to do it..


I think your hypotheticals originate in la-la land. By it's nature and
governmental structure it is impossible to even imagine a military
"coup" in the USA today and we aren't going to have another Civil War.


Richard, a coup is one thing, disarmament of the free citizen is another. an overthrow would be hard to pull off, and a disarmament would be even harder. I dont' think it would be that easy for US soldiers to willingly fire on US citizens. especially on such a basis. Few kids are gonna fire on people from their home town regardless of who wrote the orders.

Not really sure, but round where I live, If disarmament of the public came push and shove, I'd say things might get pretty bloody. On both sides.



Who's talking "disarmament"?

Personally (and no offense) I think the people shouting the most about
gun ownership to protect themselves against their government in the USA
have been drinking too much NRA juice.


Or listening to Bloomberg, et al.



I am talking about those who hang on the "necessary militia" stuff and
are fearful that the government will someday conspire and use the
military against it's citizens to justify *no* reasonable gun control
laws. Those concerns were true when written but not relevant today.
We have better ways to resolve differences and they've worked fine
so far. Most people can have any firearm they want (within reason)
for their sporting, competition or self defense reasons.


So Bloomberg, et al, are just ****in' in the wind?
--

Guns don't cause problems. The behavior
of certain gun owners causes problems.

Very Refreshing
 

On Mon, 02 Feb 2015 08:48:27 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 2/2/15 8:41 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/2/2015 7:43 AM, Mucho Loco wrote:
On Sun, 01 Feb 2015 23:22:03 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 2/1/2015 11:13 PM, Tim wrote:
On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 7:53:26 PM UTC-8, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/1/2015 10:33 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 01 Feb 2015 19:15:13 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"

wrote:


Tim, that's a wonderful historical statement, true for it's
time. It's
more of a tradition now though. I don't care how many guns are
privately owned, there's no way they could be used to fend off
the US
military if our government somehow decided to become "tyrannical".
Heck, they can't agree on how many sugars to put in a coffee.


Considering the number of conservative southerners and westerners who
are actually the ones to join the military, why would you think they
would fight the citizens if the government became tyrannical?
You would be more likely to have a military coup.


I agree a few thousand guys in a compound somewhere will not stand
much of a chance but a million well armed guys could cause some
serious problems. Particularity if the military was less than
enthusiastic in quelling them.
Our military is yet to win a single "asymmetric" war even when they
were motivated to do it..


I think your hypotheticals originate in la-la land. By it's nature
and
governmental structure it is impossible to even imagine a military
"coup" in the USA today and we aren't going to have another Civil War.


Richard, a coup is one thing, disarmament of the free citizen is
another. an overthrow would be hard to pull off, and a disarmament
would be even harder. I dont' think it would be that easy for US
soldiers to willingly fire on US citizens. especially on such a
basis. Few kids are gonna fire on people from their home town
regardless of who wrote the orders.

Not really sure, but round where I live, If disarmament of the
public came push and shove, I'd say things might get pretty bloody.
On both sides.



Who's talking "disarmament"?

Personally (and no offense) I think the people shouting the most about
gun ownership to protect themselves against their government in the USA
have been drinking too much NRA juice.


Or listening to Bloomberg, et al.



I am talking about those who hang on the "necessary militia" stuff and
are fearful that the government will someday conspire and use the
military against it's citizens to justify *no* reasonable gun control
laws. Those concerns were true when written but not relevant today.
We have better ways to resolve differences and they've worked fine
so far. Most people can have any firearm they want (within reason)
for their sporting, competition or self defense reasons.




I bought some longer pants so I can stuff a Mosin Nagant down one leg as
my "concealed carry" firearm. :)

Thought it would be a Swedish Mauser.
--

Guns don't cause problems. The behavior
of certain gun owners causes problems.

Very Refreshing
 

On 2/2/15 8:59 AM, Mucho Loco wrote:
On Mon, 02 Feb 2015 08:48:27 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 2/2/15 8:41 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/2/2015 7:43 AM, Mucho Loco wrote:
On Sun, 01 Feb 2015 23:22:03 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 2/1/2015 11:13 PM, Tim wrote:
On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 7:53:26 PM UTC-8, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/1/2015 10:33 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 01 Feb 2015 19:15:13 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"

wrote:


Tim, that's a wonderful historical statement, true for it's
time. It's
more of a tradition now though. I don't care how many guns are
privately owned, there's no way they could be used to fend off
the US
military if our government somehow decided to become "tyrannical".
Heck, they can't agree on how many sugars to put in a coffee.


Considering the number of conservative southerners and westerners who
are actually the ones to join the military, why would you think they
would fight the citizens if the government became tyrannical?
You would be more likely to have a military coup.


I agree a few thousand guys in a compound somewhere will not stand
much of a chance but a million well armed guys could cause some
serious problems. Particularity if the military was less than
enthusiastic in quelling them.
Our military is yet to win a single "asymmetric" war even when they
were motivated to do it..


I think your hypotheticals originate in la-la land. By it's nature
and
governmental structure it is impossible to even imagine a military
"coup" in the USA today and we aren't going to have another Civil War.


Richard, a coup is one thing, disarmament of the free citizen is
another. an overthrow would be hard to pull off, and a disarmament
would be even harder. I dont' think it would be that easy for US
soldiers to willingly fire on US citizens. especially on such a
basis. Few kids are gonna fire on people from their home town
regardless of who wrote the orders.

Not really sure, but round where I live, If disarmament of the
public came push and shove, I'd say things might get pretty bloody.
On both sides.



Who's talking "disarmament"?

Personally (and no offense) I think the people shouting the most about
gun ownership to protect themselves against their government in the USA
have been drinking too much NRA juice.


Or listening to Bloomberg, et al.



I am talking about those who hang on the "necessary militia" stuff and
are fearful that the government will someday conspire and use the
military against it's citizens to justify *no* reasonable gun control
laws. Those concerns were true when written but not relevant today.
We have better ways to resolve differences and they've worked fine
so far. Most people can have any firearm they want (within reason)
for their sporting, competition or self defense reasons.




I bought some longer pants so I can stuff a Mosin Nagant down one leg as
my "concealed carry" firearm. :)

Thought it would be a Swedish Mauser.



The Swede I want is a carbine, and is about the same length - 37" - as
my existing rifles. I'd need shorter longer pants! :)

--
Proud to be a Liberal.

Very Refreshing
 

On Mon, 02 Feb 2015 09:06:02 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 2/2/15 8:59 AM, Mucho Loco wrote:
On Mon, 02 Feb 2015 08:48:27 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 2/2/15 8:41 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/2/2015 7:43 AM, Mucho Loco wrote:
On Sun, 01 Feb 2015 23:22:03 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 2/1/2015 11:13 PM, Tim wrote:
On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 7:53:26 PM UTC-8, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/1/2015 10:33 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 01 Feb 2015 19:15:13 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"

wrote:


Tim, that's a wonderful historical statement, true for it's
time. It's
more of a tradition now though. I don't care how many guns are
privately owned, there's no way they could be used to fend off
the US
military if our government somehow decided to become "tyrannical".
Heck, they can't agree on how many sugars to put in a coffee.


Considering the number of conservative southerners and westerners who
are actually the ones to join the military, why would you think they
would fight the citizens if the government became tyrannical?
You would be more likely to have a military coup.


I agree a few thousand guys in a compound somewhere will not stand
much of a chance but a million well armed guys could cause some
serious problems. Particularity if the military was less than
enthusiastic in quelling them.
Our military is yet to win a single "asymmetric" war even when they
were motivated to do it..


I think your hypotheticals originate in la-la land. By it's nature
and
governmental structure it is impossible to even imagine a military
"coup" in the USA today and we aren't going to have another Civil War.


Richard, a coup is one thing, disarmament of the free citizen is
another. an overthrow would be hard to pull off, and a disarmament
would be even harder. I dont' think it would be that easy for US
soldiers to willingly fire on US citizens. especially on such a
basis. Few kids are gonna fire on people from their home town
regardless of who wrote the orders.

Not really sure, but round where I live, If disarmament of the
public came push and shove, I'd say things might get pretty bloody.
On both sides.



Who's talking "disarmament"?

Personally (and no offense) I think the people shouting the most about
gun ownership to protect themselves against their government in the USA
have been drinking too much NRA juice.


Or listening to Bloomberg, et al.



I am talking about those who hang on the "necessary militia" stuff and
are fearful that the government will someday conspire and use the
military against it's citizens to justify *no* reasonable gun control
laws. Those concerns were true when written but not relevant today.
We have better ways to resolve differences and they've worked fine
so far. Most people can have any firearm they want (within reason)
for their sporting, competition or self defense reasons.




I bought some longer pants so I can stuff a Mosin Nagant down one leg as
my "concealed carry" firearm. :)

Thought it would be a Swedish Mauser.



The Swede I want is a carbine, and is about the same length - 37" - as
my existing rifles. I'd need shorter longer pants! :)

Well....shorter.

But at least there'd be something there.
--

Guns don't cause problems. The behavior
of certain gun owners causes problems.

Very Refreshing
 

On 2/2/2015 8:58 AM, Mucho Loco wrote:
On Mon, 02 Feb 2015 08:41:30 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 2/2/2015 7:43 AM, Mucho Loco wrote:
On Sun, 01 Feb 2015 23:22:03 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 2/1/2015 11:13 PM, Tim wrote:
On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 7:53:26 PM UTC-8, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/1/2015 10:33 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 01 Feb 2015 19:15:13 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


Tim, that's a wonderful historical statement, true for it's time. It's
more of a tradition now though. I don't care how many guns are
privately owned, there's no way they could be used to fend off the US
military if our government somehow decided to become "tyrannical".
Heck, they can't agree on how many sugars to put in a coffee.


Considering the number of conservative southerners and westerners who
are actually the ones to join the military, why would you think they
would fight the citizens if the government became tyrannical?
You would be more likely to have a military coup.


I agree a few thousand guys in a compound somewhere will not stand
much of a chance but a million well armed guys could cause some
serious problems. Particularity if the military was less than
enthusiastic in quelling them.
Our military is yet to win a single "asymmetric" war even when they
were motivated to do it..


I think your hypotheticals originate in la-la land. By it's nature and
governmental structure it is impossible to even imagine a military
"coup" in the USA today and we aren't going to have another Civil War.


Richard, a coup is one thing, disarmament of the free citizen is another. an overthrow would be hard to pull off, and a disarmament would be even harder. I dont' think it would be that easy for US soldiers to willingly fire on US citizens. especially on such a basis. Few kids are gonna fire on people from their home town regardless of who wrote the orders.

Not really sure, but round where I live, If disarmament of the public came push and shove, I'd say things might get pretty bloody. On both sides.



Who's talking "disarmament"?

Personally (and no offense) I think the people shouting the most about
gun ownership to protect themselves against their government in the USA
have been drinking too much NRA juice.


Or listening to Bloomberg, et al.



I am talking about those who hang on the "necessary militia" stuff and
are fearful that the government will someday conspire and use the
military against it's citizens to justify *no* reasonable gun control
laws. Those concerns were true when written but not relevant today.
We have better ways to resolve differences and they've worked fine
so far. Most people can have any firearm they want (within reason)
for their sporting, competition or self defense reasons.


So Bloomberg, et al, are just ****in' in the wind?



What success has Bloomberg, et al, have to show for themselves? It
takes votes and they can't get any.

Very Refreshing
 

On Mon, 02 Feb 2015 09:16:10 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 2/2/2015 8:58 AM, Mucho Loco wrote:
On Mon, 02 Feb 2015 08:41:30 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 2/2/2015 7:43 AM, Mucho Loco wrote:
On Sun, 01 Feb 2015 23:22:03 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 2/1/2015 11:13 PM, Tim wrote:
On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 7:53:26 PM UTC-8, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/1/2015 10:33 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 01 Feb 2015 19:15:13 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


Tim, that's a wonderful historical statement, true for it's time. It's
more of a tradition now though. I don't care how many guns are
privately owned, there's no way they could be used to fend off the US
military if our government somehow decided to become "tyrannical".
Heck, they can't agree on how many sugars to put in a coffee.


Considering the number of conservative southerners and westerners who
are actually the ones to join the military, why would you think they
would fight the citizens if the government became tyrannical?
You would be more likely to have a military coup.


I agree a few thousand guys in a compound somewhere will not stand
much of a chance but a million well armed guys could cause some
serious problems. Particularity if the military was less than
enthusiastic in quelling them.
Our military is yet to win a single "asymmetric" war even when they
were motivated to do it..


I think your hypotheticals originate in la-la land. By it's nature and
governmental structure it is impossible to even imagine a military
"coup" in the USA today and we aren't going to have another Civil War.


Richard, a coup is one thing, disarmament of the free citizen is another. an overthrow would be hard to pull off, and a disarmament would be even harder. I dont' think it would be that easy for US soldiers to willingly fire on US citizens. especially on such a basis. Few kids are gonna fire on people from their home town regardless of who wrote the orders.

Not really sure, but round where I live, If disarmament of the public came push and shove, I'd say things might get pretty bloody. On both sides.



Who's talking "disarmament"?

Personally (and no offense) I think the people shouting the most about
gun ownership to protect themselves against their government in the USA
have been drinking too much NRA juice.


Or listening to Bloomberg, et al.



I am talking about those who hang on the "necessary militia" stuff and
are fearful that the government will someday conspire and use the
military against it's citizens to justify *no* reasonable gun control
laws. Those concerns were true when written but not relevant today.
We have better ways to resolve differences and they've worked fine
so far. Most people can have any firearm they want (within reason)
for their sporting, competition or self defense reasons.


So Bloomberg, et al, are just ****in' in the wind?



What success has Bloomberg, et al, have to show for themselves? It
takes votes and they can't get any.


Look at the ridiculous laws in Maryland and your home state, for example. You think
Bloomberg, et al, had nothing to do with those?
--

Guns don't cause problems. The behavior
of certain gun owners causes problems.

Very Refreshing
 

On 2/2/2015 9:24 AM, Mucho Loco wrote:
On Mon, 02 Feb 2015 09:16:10 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 2/2/2015 8:58 AM, Mucho Loco wrote:
On Mon, 02 Feb 2015 08:41:30 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 2/2/2015 7:43 AM, Mucho Loco wrote:
On Sun, 01 Feb 2015 23:22:03 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 2/1/2015 11:13 PM, Tim wrote:
On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 7:53:26 PM UTC-8, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/1/2015 10:33 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 01 Feb 2015 19:15:13 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


Tim, that's a wonderful historical statement, true for it's time. It's
more of a tradition now though. I don't care how many guns are
privately owned, there's no way they could be used to fend off the US
military if our government somehow decided to become "tyrannical".
Heck, they can't agree on how many sugars to put in a coffee.


Considering the number of conservative southerners and westerners who
are actually the ones to join the military, why would you think they
would fight the citizens if the government became tyrannical?
You would be more likely to have a military coup.


I agree a few thousand guys in a compound somewhere will not stand
much of a chance but a million well armed guys could cause some
serious problems. Particularity if the military was less than
enthusiastic in quelling them.
Our military is yet to win a single "asymmetric" war even when they
were motivated to do it..


I think your hypotheticals originate in la-la land. By it's nature and
governmental structure it is impossible to even imagine a military
"coup" in the USA today and we aren't going to have another Civil War.


Richard, a coup is one thing, disarmament of the free citizen is another. an overthrow would be hard to pull off, and a disarmament would be even harder. I dont' think it would be that easy for US soldiers to willingly fire on US citizens. especially on such a basis. Few kids are gonna fire on people from their home town regardless of who wrote the orders.

Not really sure, but round where I live, If disarmament of the public came push and shove, I'd say things might get pretty bloody. On both sides.



Who's talking "disarmament"?

Personally (and no offense) I think the people shouting the most about
gun ownership to protect themselves against their government in the USA
have been drinking too much NRA juice.


Or listening to Bloomberg, et al.



I am talking about those who hang on the "necessary militia" stuff and
are fearful that the government will someday conspire and use the
military against it's citizens to justify *no* reasonable gun control
laws. Those concerns were true when written but not relevant today.
We have better ways to resolve differences and they've worked fine
so far. Most people can have any firearm they want (within reason)
for their sporting, competition or self defense reasons.


So Bloomberg, et al, are just ****in' in the wind?



What success has Bloomberg, et al, have to show for themselves? It
takes votes and they can't get any.


Look at the ridiculous laws in Maryland and your home state, for example. You think
Bloomberg, et al, had nothing to do with those?



I have no problem with the gun control laws here or in Maryland (for
what I know about them). My only complaint here is the conflict between
the certification agency and the Attorney General. They need to be on
the same page.

I can understand why you feel the way you do. I've read the gun laws in
Virginia. Basically, there aren't any.

Very Refreshing
 

On Mon, 02 Feb 2015 09:28:56 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 2/2/2015 9:24 AM, Mucho Loco wrote:
On Mon, 02 Feb 2015 09:16:10 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 2/2/2015 8:58 AM, Mucho Loco wrote:
On Mon, 02 Feb 2015 08:41:30 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 2/2/2015 7:43 AM, Mucho Loco wrote:
On Sun, 01 Feb 2015 23:22:03 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 2/1/2015 11:13 PM, Tim wrote:
On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 7:53:26 PM UTC-8, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/1/2015 10:33 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 01 Feb 2015 19:15:13 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


Tim, that's a wonderful historical statement, true for it's time. It's
more of a tradition now though. I don't care how many guns are
privately owned, there's no way they could be used to fend off the US
military if our government somehow decided to become "tyrannical".
Heck, they can't agree on how many sugars to put in a coffee.


Considering the number of conservative southerners and westerners who
are actually the ones to join the military, why would you think they
would fight the citizens if the government became tyrannical?
You would be more likely to have a military coup.


I agree a few thousand guys in a compound somewhere will not stand
much of a chance but a million well armed guys could cause some
serious problems. Particularity if the military was less than
enthusiastic in quelling them.
Our military is yet to win a single "asymmetric" war even when they
were motivated to do it..


I think your hypotheticals originate in la-la land. By it's nature and
governmental structure it is impossible to even imagine a military
"coup" in the USA today and we aren't going to have another Civil War.


Richard, a coup is one thing, disarmament of the free citizen is another. an overthrow would be hard to pull off, and a disarmament would be even harder. I dont' think it would be that easy for US soldiers to willingly fire on US citizens. especially on such a basis. Few kids are gonna fire on people from their home town regardless of who wrote the orders.

Not really sure, but round where I live, If disarmament of the public came push and shove, I'd say things might get pretty bloody. On both sides.



Who's talking "disarmament"?

Personally (and no offense) I think the people shouting the most about
gun ownership to protect themselves against their government in the USA
have been drinking too much NRA juice.


Or listening to Bloomberg, et al.



I am talking about those who hang on the "necessary militia" stuff and
are fearful that the government will someday conspire and use the
military against it's citizens to justify *no* reasonable gun control
laws. Those concerns were true when written but not relevant today.
We have better ways to resolve differences and they've worked fine
so far. Most people can have any firearm they want (within reason)
for their sporting, competition or self defense reasons.


So Bloomberg, et al, are just ****in' in the wind?



What success has Bloomberg, et al, have to show for themselves? It
takes votes and they can't get any.


Look at the ridiculous laws in Maryland and your home state, for example. You think
Bloomberg, et al, had nothing to do with those?



I have no problem with the gun control laws here or in Maryland (for
what I know about them). My only complaint here is the conflict between
the certification agency and the Attorney General. They need to be on
the same page.

I can understand why you feel the way you do. I've read the gun laws in
Virginia. Basically, there aren't any.


Damn, I wonder why I've been paying the fees and completing the paperwork? Then
again, maybe Virginia is smart enough not to make a bunch of stupid laws a la
Maryland, Washington DC, Chicago, et al.

Besides, if what Harry says is true the hordes of folks coming from those places to
buy guns (out of trunks) is good for tourism.
--

Guns don't cause problems. The behavior
of certain gun owners causes problems.

Very Refreshing
 

On Mon, 02 Feb 2015 07:07:28 -0500, wrote:

Isn't it amazing how easy it is to push Americans to vote for
Republicans against their own interests when the only thing the GOP has
to offer is fear and hate?

Yeah Fear of an over reaching government and hate of wasteful
spending.

===

Well said. Vast government over reach is what I'm seeing.

Very Refreshing
 

On 2/2/15 9:28 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/2/2015 9:24 AM, Mucho Loco wrote:
On Mon, 02 Feb 2015 09:16:10 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 2/2/2015 8:58 AM, Mucho Loco wrote:
On Mon, 02 Feb 2015 08:41:30 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 2/2/2015 7:43 AM, Mucho Loco wrote:
On Sun, 01 Feb 2015 23:22:03 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 2/1/2015 11:13 PM, Tim wrote:
On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 7:53:26 PM UTC-8, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/1/2015 10:33 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 01 Feb 2015 19:15:13 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"

wrote:


Tim, that's a wonderful historical statement, true for it's
time. It's
more of a tradition now though. I don't care how many guns are
privately owned, there's no way they could be used to fend
off the US
military if our government somehow decided to become
"tyrannical".
Heck, they can't agree on how many sugars to put in a coffee.


Considering the number of conservative southerners and
westerners who
are actually the ones to join the military, why would you
think they
would fight the citizens if the government became tyrannical?
You would be more likely to have a military coup.


I agree a few thousand guys in a compound somewhere will not
stand
much of a chance but a million well armed guys could cause some
serious problems. Particularity if the military was less than
enthusiastic in quelling them.
Our military is yet to win a single "asymmetric" war even when
they
were motivated to do it..


I think your hypotheticals originate in la-la land. By it's
nature and
governmental structure it is impossible to even imagine a military
"coup" in the USA today and we aren't going to have another
Civil War.


Richard, a coup is one thing, disarmament of the free citizen is
another. an overthrow would be hard to pull off, and a
disarmament would be even harder. I dont' think it would be
that easy for US soldiers to willingly fire on US citizens.
especially on such a basis. Few kids are gonna fire on people
from their home town regardless of who wrote the orders.

Not really sure, but round where I live, If disarmament of the
public came push and shove, I'd say things might get pretty
bloody. On both sides.



Who's talking "disarmament"?

Personally (and no offense) I think the people shouting the most
about
gun ownership to protect themselves against their government in
the USA
have been drinking too much NRA juice.


Or listening to Bloomberg, et al.



I am talking about those who hang on the "necessary militia" stuff and
are fearful that the government will someday conspire and use the
military against it's citizens to justify *no* reasonable gun control
laws. Those concerns were true when written but not relevant today.
We have better ways to resolve differences and they've worked fine
so far. Most people can have any firearm they want (within reason)
for their sporting, competition or self defense reasons.


So Bloomberg, et al, are just ****in' in the wind?



What success has Bloomberg, et al, have to show for themselves? It
takes votes and they can't get any.


Look at the ridiculous laws in Maryland and your home state, for
example. You think
Bloomberg, et al, had nothing to do with those?



I have no problem with the gun control laws here or in Maryland (for
what I know about them). My only complaint here is the conflict between
the certification agency and the Attorney General. They need to be on
the same page.

I can understand why you feel the way you do. I've read the gun laws in
Virginia. Basically, there aren't any.



I don't have any issues with the Maryland gun laws. I've never been
unable to buy any firearm I wanted, and usually for a handgun, I get the
"no reason not to approve" response from the state in three or four days.

The federal regs to get a tax stamp for a silencer are an entirely
different matter. I went the "trust" route and have two co-trustees, so
three different notaries were involved. Armed with the 15-page trust, I
went to my dealer and he collected the sales price for the silencer and
the $200 that goes to the feds for a stamp that took about four months
to get. During that period, the silencer sat in the dealer's safe. The
"trust" route, I have been told, is a bit faster than going through the
local sheriff and filing a different set of paperwork.

The process certainly helps me understand why some guys buy an adaptor
and screw on an oil filter as a suppressor. :)

--
Proud to be a Liberal.

Very Refreshing
 

On 2/2/15 11:39 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 02 Feb 2015 08:41:30 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Most people can have any firearm they want (within reason)
for their sporting, competition or self defense reasons.

That depends on where you live. HCI/Brady is trying to get New Jersey
to enforce a law that would only allow ONE type of pistol to be sold
in the state. (Armatix IP1 .22rf) There are a number of democratic
lawmakers who agree. It is the only gun in current production that
comes close to meeting their criteria.


"Enforce"?

--
Proud to be a Liberal.

Very Refreshing
 

On 2/2/2015 9:28 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/2/2015 9:24 AM, Mucho Loco wrote:
On Mon, 02 Feb 2015 09:16:10 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 2/2/2015 8:58 AM, Mucho Loco wrote:
On Mon, 02 Feb 2015 08:41:30 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 2/2/2015 7:43 AM, Mucho Loco wrote:
On Sun, 01 Feb 2015 23:22:03 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 2/1/2015 11:13 PM, Tim wrote:
On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 7:53:26 PM UTC-8, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/1/2015 10:33 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 01 Feb 2015 19:15:13 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"

wrote:


Tim, that's a wonderful historical statement, true for it's
time. It's
more of a tradition now though. I don't care how many guns are
privately owned, there's no way they could be used to fend
off the US
military if our government somehow decided to become
"tyrannical".
Heck, they can't agree on how many sugars to put in a coffee.


Considering the number of conservative southerners and
westerners who
are actually the ones to join the military, why would you
think they
would fight the citizens if the government became tyrannical?
You would be more likely to have a military coup.


I agree a few thousand guys in a compound somewhere will not
stand
much of a chance but a million well armed guys could cause some
serious problems. Particularity if the military was less than
enthusiastic in quelling them.
Our military is yet to win a single "asymmetric" war even when
they
were motivated to do it..


I think your hypotheticals originate in la-la land. By it's
nature and
governmental structure it is impossible to even imagine a military
"coup" in the USA today and we aren't going to have another
Civil War.


Richard, a coup is one thing, disarmament of the free citizen is
another. an overthrow would be hard to pull off, and a
disarmament would be even harder. I dont' think it would be
that easy for US soldiers to willingly fire on US citizens.
especially on such a basis. Few kids are gonna fire on people
from their home town regardless of who wrote the orders.

Not really sure, but round where I live, If disarmament of the
public came push and shove, I'd say things might get pretty
bloody. On both sides.



Who's talking "disarmament"?

Personally (and no offense) I think the people shouting the most
about
gun ownership to protect themselves against their government in
the USA
have been drinking too much NRA juice.


Or listening to Bloomberg, et al.



I am talking about those who hang on the "necessary militia" stuff and
are fearful that the government will someday conspire and use the
military against it's citizens to justify *no* reasonable gun control
laws. Those concerns were true when written but not relevant today.
We have better ways to resolve differences and they've worked fine
so far. Most people can have any firearm they want (within reason)
for their sporting, competition or self defense reasons.


So Bloomberg, et al, are just ****in' in the wind?



What success has Bloomberg, et al, have to show for themselves? It
takes votes and they can't get any.


Look at the ridiculous laws in Maryland and your home state, for
example. You think
Bloomberg, et al, had nothing to do with those?



I have no problem with the gun control laws here or in Maryland (for
what I know about them). My only complaint here is the conflict between
the certification agency and the Attorney General. They need to be on
the same page.

I can understand why you feel the way you do. I've read the gun laws in
Virginia. Basically, there aren't any.


Do you think that conflict might be intentional?

Are home buyers out and about in your area this winter?

--

Respectfully submitted by Justan

Laugh of the day from Krause

"I'm not to blame anymore for the atmosphere in here.
I've been "born again" as a nice guy."

Very Refreshing
 

On 2/2/15 11:41 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 02 Feb 2015 08:48:27 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:


I bought some longer pants so I can stuff a Mosin Nagant down one leg as
my "concealed carry" firearm. :)

Why not just put the M4 upper on your AR so it would go under your
trench coat.
... oh wait, you can't


Actually, I've been trying to decide whether I want to build a complete
..300 Blackout or just put together the upper that will fit onto my AR.
Or build a new rifle with complete "ambi" controls...but I also want a
side charging handle. None of these would present any problems with
Maryland.

Fully auto...great way to completely waste ammo.

--
Proud to be a Liberal.

Very Refreshing
 

On 2/2/2015 11:39 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 02 Feb 2015 08:41:30 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Most people can have any firearm they want (within reason)
for their sporting, competition or self defense reasons.

That depends on where you live. HCI/Brady is trying to get New Jersey
to enforce a law that would only allow ONE type of pistol to be sold
in the state. (Armatix IP1 .22rf) There are a number of democratic
lawmakers who agree. It is the only gun in current production that
comes close to meeting their criteria.



Key word is "trying". There are many people who would like to ban guns
altogether but it doesn't mean it's going to happen.

Again, my comment was related to the mantra repeated by many that the
right to bear arms is to prevent government tyranny. The founding
fathers had greedy Kings in their minds. I don't see that
happening today or in the future.

Fast forward a bit to the 1800's. When was the last time you strapped
a holster and gun around your waist to head into town for supplies?

Things change.

I see far more risk in home intruders and possible attacks by terrorist
cells in the USA. Those are reasons enough (besides hobby shooting,
collecting, competition, etc., to be armed.

Very Refreshing
 

On Mon, 02 Feb 2015 11:48:55 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 02 Feb 2015 10:25:20 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Mon, 02 Feb 2015 07:07:28 -0500, wrote:

Isn't it amazing how easy it is to push Americans to vote for
Republicans against their own interests when the only thing the GOP has
to offer is fear and hate?

Yeah Fear of an over reaching government and hate of wasteful
spending.

===

Well said. Vast government over reach is what I'm seeing.

Tried to build a pier huh?

===

No, I fought that battle 10 years ago and won but it took 6 months
when it should have taken 6 days. Frankly the Corps shouldn't have
been involved in that decision at all since the plans met all existing
regs and CC canals are not exactly federal water ways except in their
bloated bureaucratic mind.

Right now an organization that I belong to is trying to make some
relatively minor improvements to some land we own and the red tape,
stalling and delays are unbelievable. The Corps is once again
involved even though the land is many miles from anything that
resembles a waterway or anything else.