The $24,000 question.

[Maggot]

THIS is going to be controversial.

Ive seen a lot of rhetoric on here about police and military STEALING weapons, like after Katrina. Ive heard the question asked repeatedly of LE, and military guys..."Would you obey the order to STEAL weapons?". Mostly Ive heard garbled stuff about the constitution etc, with no really definitive answers, like "NO I will not steal the weapons of the citizens.". Considering what happened after Katrina I think that there is no question that the government, can and will STEAL weapons if it so suits them, and many if not most of those in one uniform or another will "follow orders'. So heres the question...

If your neighbor from 9 doors up the street calls and tells you the uniforms have just knocked his door in and stole HIS guns, and they are now next door doing the same, and they are headed toward YOUR HOUSE for the same purpose, to STEAL YOUR GUNS, what will you do. Will you fire on and kill men in American military uniforms, and your local police, or will you just let them steal your weapons? Are you willing to kill and more important,die, over this? Thats assuming that you have them where they can be found and theres no way you can secure them safely...Ie: if they knock in the door, they WILL find them and they WILL steal them.

Consider your answer carefully, because you may be faced with acting on it sooner than you think. Also consider that this forum is populated by a large % of uniforms, of one type or another.

Like I said, this one is controversial.



******Edited to add, that this is not an insult to those who do wear uniforms. Its just a valid question that each of us should have already asked ourselves. Unfortunately, I dont see a really good answer.

 

[Phylodog]

Re: The $24,000 question.

Yes, yes, yes those in uniform are your enemies. Let the teeth gnashing, mud slinging snarl fest begin. Can't be more than a couple members of the forum who won't find something to get pissed off about before the thread gets locked.

 

[Slapchop]

Re: The $24,000 question.

Break out the popcorn and grape soda. This ought to be good.

 

[dogmessiah]

Re: The $24,000 question.

Depends on what point I am in life. If I had a family and gets, no I wouldn't. Right now I don't have anything to loose except for my life, and guns. It probably depends on the exact mood they caught me in. I don't see it as being any different from an organized crime boss stealing my guns, except the government is better armed.

 

[Jig Stick]

Re: The $24,000 question.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ppMQ2Jvekfg?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Mo_Zam_Beek]

Re: The $24,000 question.

On a related note:

http://rt.com/usa/news/nsa-whistleblower-binney-drake-978/




Good luck

 

[rrflyer]

Re: The $24,000 question.

I'll just give em up. Sounds like a bit of a hassle.

 

[RJW]

Re: The $24,000 question.

Hmmmm. What guns? Except for this old double barrel the rest were stolen recently.

By the way, I have 1800 acres and back hoe.

 

[softcock]

Re: The $24,000 question.

When they come to your door in our town. The county LE uses a V150 . They had one break-down on the way to a door kick last week & it had to get towed-in .
Don't think you will make much headway if your town LE pulls up in one to kick & toss your home residence .

http://www.kgw.com/video/featured-videos/Hillsoboro-armoured-cop-rig-needs-a-tow-162873546.html
.

 

[athhud]

Re: The $24,000 question.

I have no clue as to the accuracy of this source, but this is the first thing I came across in a search of that quote:

In a speech, sometimes said to have been delivered in 1935, Hitler is supposed to have exclaimed: "This year will go down in history! For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!"

This quote has been popular with Americans who defend the constitutional right to "keep and bear arms." It's cited to discredit those who support restrictions on firearms ownership and use. It's also cited to support the often-made charge that Hitler and his government curtailed gun ownership in Germany, and confiscated weapons held by private citizens.

The truth is rather different. When Hitler and his National Socialist Party took power in early 1933, they inherited a somewhat restrictive firearms law that the liberal-democratic "Weimar" government had enacted five years earlier. In 1938 Hitler's government revised the earlier law by loosening those restrictions, thereby enhancing the rights of Germans to own weapons. The most thorough confiscation of firearms ever imposed on Germans was carried out at the end of the Second World War by the occupation forces of the United States and other victorious Allied powers.

http://www.ihr.org/other/weber2011fakequotations.html

 

[Maggot]

Re: The $24,000 question.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: athhud</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have no clue as to the accuracy of this source, but this is the first thing I came across in a search of that quote:

In a speech, sometimes said to have been delivered in 1935, Hitler is supposed to have exclaimed: "This year will go down in history! For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!"

This quote has been popular with Americans who defend the constitutional right to "keep and bear arms." It's cited to discredit those who support restrictions on firearms ownership and use. It's also cited to support the often-made charge that Hitler and his government curtailed gun ownership in Germany, and confiscated weapons held by private citizens.

The truth is rather different. When Hitler and his National Socialist Party took power in early 1933, they inherited a somewhat restrictive firearms law that the liberal-democratic "Weimar" government had enacted five years earlier. In 1938 Hitler's government revised the earlier law by loosening those restrictions, thereby enhancing the rights of Germans to own weapons. The most thorough confiscation of firearms ever imposed on Germans was carried out at the end of the Second World War by the occupation forces of the United States and other victorious Allied powers.

http://www.ihr.org/other/weber2011fakequotations.html </div></div>

Thannk you. Noted, and quote removed. I dont think it impacts the question.

 

[50calibercruiser]

Re: The $24,000 question.

Hi, I'm not on any lists yet and feel left out. Is this where I sign up?

 

[HSNARC]

Re: The $24,000 question.

Ive seen a lot of rhetoric on here about police and military STEALING weapons, like after Katrina.

Would you please site something to backup these claims?

Not something HighBender posted in the Bear Pit.

 

[Anchor Zero Six]

Re: The $24,000 question.

Jews were specificly not allowed to own guns under the same legislation.

 

[athhud]

Re: The $24,000 question.

Another article I read years ago said something to the effect that the gun control laws that were implemented in Germany, prior to the rise of the Nazi party, were written to prevent a group such as the Nazi party from possessing enough firepower to overthrow the government...... That worked well.

 

[carnivorematt]

Re: The $24,000 question.

Wow - what a topic. I'm surprised theres not already a thousand opinions here.

As a matter of fact just last week I was boating across the lake at a fiends cabin happened to have my guns with me, I'll be damned if that boat didn't flip over and all of them sink to the bottom of the lake... well that sucks.

As far as taking the extra mile on this one, I'd say I wouldn't dare to be the first, but I might be in the running... Having local friends to support the situation doesn't hurt and I do.

Dunno what my ex-military / current deputy wife would think though! Thank god she works a different state

Cant wait to hear others positions on this one!

 

[RedGoat]

Re: The $24,000 question.

I could only hope that our boys in uniform would uphold the constitution before they followed an unconstitutional order blindly. It would take a group of higher ups to fight the situation, because I know most of the boys at the bottom would just do what they were told... and what they would be told isn't go in there and take these American's constitutional rights it would be more along the lines of propaganda; these are dangers people that are posing a national security threat blah blah blah.

I fear the day this comes to pass and I'm not sure what I would do. I have a wife and kids and love them dearly, but I also love America and would fight for her anyway I could.

 

[cavemanmoore]

Re: The $24,000 question.

I pondered this question years ago and decided that I don't value my guns anymore than any of the other freedoms we enjoy. And if I won't shoot an officer for writing a seatbelt ticket (something I feel is unconstitutional), I am not going to shoot them for taking my guns. They knock, I'm handing them over.

If we truly valued our freedom, not just the bravado notion of shooting the blue helmets when they come for our guns, we would each be working diligently to protect our rights peaceably, now.

 

[motodog]

Re: The $24,000 question.

just dont think this is gonna happen anytime soon.not to say that it couldnt.really sounds like that idea is comming from an alarmest idea of where our country is going.i still have the hope for us all that tomorrow when i wake up this county that i love will still be the land of the free and the home of the brave but if by chance those people do come to my home to take what is mine earned by my blood sweat and tears then yes i will have to stand my ground and let er buck..

 

[glocksig40]

Re: The $24,000 question.

I'm sure most of you have at least a few friends who are LEO or Military. In my opinion, this question should be reversed and asked of them. I've done this with my friends who are cops. As a cop making $35k-$50k a year, will you go out and follow direction from the administration to take guns from otherwise law abiding citizens? All replied with the same answer....No. They are not willing to take the risk for something they don't believe in.
If the administration thinks the gun owning public will lay down their arms peacefully, good luck to em. They will have a lot of bloodshed around this country and they know it. I don't believe you could find enough law enforcement officers, local, state or Federal that would follow those orders and make any kind of progress. I don't think in this day and time that the people in our country will follow orders blindly into that situation. I hope I'm not wrong. It would be chaos like we have never seen.

 

[Victory]

Re: The $24,000 question.

Starting a thread about whether or not you would kill police man and military members on the internet. Hmm... guessing this will get deleted soon.

 

[Maggot]

Re: The $24,000 question.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: stacyp</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm sure most of you have at least a few friends who are LEO or Military. In my opinion, this question should be reversed and asked of them. I've done this with my friends who are cops. As a cop making $35k-$50k a year, will you go out and follow direction from the administration to take guns from otherwise law abiding citizens? All replied with the same answer....No. They are not willing to take the risk for something they don't believe in.
If the administration thinks the gun owning public will lay down their arms peacefully, good luck to em. They will have a lot of bloodshed around this country and they know it. I don't believe you could find enough law enforcement officers, local, state or Federal that would follow those orders and make any kind of progress. I don't think in this day and time that the people in our country will follow orders blindly into that situation. I hope I'm not wrong. It would be chaos like we have never seen.
</div></div>

That question has been asked, and I just havent seen a clear answer. I thik the guys we really need to fear are not the ones who wear the uniforms, but the ones who wear the suits and ties, and give orders to the uniforms.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: victory</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Starting a thread about weather or not you would kill police man and military members on the internet. Hmm... guessing this will get deleted soon.
</div></div>

The question was posed not so much to solicit answers here, but to provoke individuals to think for themselves, what they would/will do when/if the situation occurs. Of course Im not expecting anyone to say they would shoot anyone. That wasnt and is not the point of the question.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cavemanmoore</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

If we truly valued our freedom, not just the bravado notion of shooting the blue helmets when they come for our guns, we would each be working diligently to protect our rights peaceably, now. </div></div>

Many are working diligently, but I fear that with a few more incidents like we have been seeing, Virginia Tech, Giffords in Az. the theatre in Co. etc. the tide may turn.

 

[jasonahull]

Re: The $24,000 question.

This, I think, is lame. I would never shoot anyone, especially police or military who come and demand my stuff. The truth to me is, life is worth more than any object I possess. Easy come easy go. THIS IS ONLY MY OPINION. I say take it and move on. Its is a whole different story if a person clearly intends harm to my family. But over stuff, I personally would not.
If My neighbor 9 doors down said soldiers or cops were coming to get my guns.....all one of them.... I would have it ready to go for them when they knocked on the door. (cleaned and oiled)

 

[cavemanmoore]

Re: The $24,000 question.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: maggot</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cavemanmoore</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

If we truly valued our freedom, not just the bravado notion of shooting the blue helmets when they come for our guns, we would each be working diligently to protect our rights peaceably, now. </div></div>

Many are working diligently, but I fear that with a few more incidents like we have been seeing, Virginia Tech, Giffords in Az. the theatre in Co. etc. the tide may turn. </div></div>

Just as we have previously given up freedoms one by one, via legislation, because of events like those, I suspect we will continue to do so in the future. I suggest there will never be a day when anyone shows up at our houses and demands our guns. Instead, as a whole, "we" will give up our right to poses guns. It's already happened nationally with machine guns and concealed carry permits. In some states regulation is much tighter. And just as we didn't start shooting peeps in uniform who are asked to enforce those laws as part of their duty, there will be no shots fired in the future.

 

[RedGoat]

Re: The $24,000 question.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: a-hull</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This, I think, is lame. I would never shoot anyone, especially police or military who come and demand my stuff. The truth to me is, life is worth more than any object I possess. Easy come easy go. THIS IS ONLY MY OPINION. I say take it and move on. Its is a whole different story if a person clearly intends harm to my family. But over stuff, I personally would not.
If My neighbor 9 doors down said soldiers or cops were coming to get my guns.....all one of them.... I would have it ready to go for them when they knocked on the door. (cleaned and oiled)</div></div>

It isn't about giving up "stuff" it's about giving up one of your constitutional rights as an American. The fact that you would read the question and think just "stuff" scares me, and makes me wonder how the majority of Americans view our rights....

 

[jasonahull]

Re: The $24,000 question.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Goatphius</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: a-hull</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This, I think, is lame. I would never shoot anyone, especially police or military who come and demand my stuff. The truth to me is, life is worth more than any object I possess. Easy come easy go. THIS IS ONLY MY OPINION. I say take it and move on. Its is a whole different story if a person clearly intends harm to my family. But over stuff, I personally would not.
If My neighbor 9 doors down said soldiers or cops were coming to get my guns.....all one of them.... I would have it ready to go for them when they knocked on the door. (cleaned and oiled)</div></div>

It isn't about giving up "stuff" it's about giving up one of your constitutional rights as an American. The fact that you would read the question and think just "stuff" scares me, and makes me wonder how the majority of Americans view our rights.... </div></div>




I think that most people have a distorted view of "RIGHTS".
If you really think about it, a persons rights are relative. You have the right to own property and a home, until the government needs it. You have the right to bear arms, until the government says otherwise.
Whats the point of the pledge of allegiance if it has stipulations. It is to the country people have said that vow, not the constitution. Does not the govenrment have the right to do what they think is best for the country over which it governs? I guess I just dont get how people can support going to war to fight for their country even in the face of death, then be willing to kill its own soilders for carrying out orders, over something as stupid as a firearm.
So if I get this right and I am not saying I do, loyalty to the U.S. is only on certain terms?

 

[Tims]

Re: The $24,000 question.

There are about 7 million people living in my county. We will need alot more LEO's to start going door to door "stealing" wepons.

 

[jasonahull]

Re: The $24,000 question.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Tim1071</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There are about 7 million people living in my county. We will need alot more LEO's to start going door to door "stealing" wepons. </div></div>




Its called paranoia.

Some dudes should lay off the reefer !!!!

 

[Maggot]

Re: The $24,000 question.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: a-hull</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Tim1071</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There are about 7 million people living in my county. We will need alot more LEO's to start going door to door "stealing" wepons. </div></div>




Its called paranoia.

Some dudes should lay off the reefer !!!! </div></div>
Its called a question.

 

[cavemanmoore]

Re: The $24,000 question.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: a-hull</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think that most people have a distorted view of "RIGHTS".
If you really think about it, a persons rights are relative. You have the right to own property and a home, until the government needs it. You have the right to bear arms, until the government says otherwise.
Whats the point of the pledge of allegiance if it has stipulations. It is to the country people have said that vow, not the constitution. Does not the govenrment have the right to do what they think is best for the country over which it governs? I guess I just dont get how people can support going to war to fight for their country even in the face of death, then be willing to kill its own soilders for carrying out orders, over something as stupid as a firearm.So if I get this right and I am not saying I do, loyalty to the U.S. is only on certain terms? </div></div>

Your view of what role the government should play in our lives is flawed. The reason we have a republic within a democracy is because the original role of our government was to protect the freedoms of the individual from the desires or a majority, not to protect the majority from from the actions of an individual. I also hate when the government tries to protect my from myself (eg: motorcycle helmet laws).

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: maggot</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: a-hull</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Tim1071</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There are about 7 million people living in my county. We will need alot more LEO's to start going door to door "stealing" wepons. </div></div>

Its called paranoia.

Some dudes should lay off the reefer !!!! </div></div>
Its called a question. </div></div>

It's a relevant question too, as proven by the varied responses in this very thread.

 

[steelman303]

Re: The $24,000 question.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RJW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hmmmm. What guns? Except for this old double barrel the rest were stolen recently.

By the way, I have 1800 acres and back hoe. </div></div>

10-4 on that one...
If they want anything other than the ol- Mossberg500, they'll need to use ground penetrating x-ray to find my cache. They can kiss my fat ass.
I wont shoot them, but they won't find anyting either.

 

[50calibercruiser]

Re: The $24,000 question.



<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I think that most people have a distorted view of "RIGHTS".
If you really think about it, a persons rights are relative. You have the right to own property and a home, until the government needs it. You have the right to bear arms, until the government says otherwise.
Whats the point of the pledge of allegiance if it has stipulations. It is to the country people have said that vow, not the constitution. Does not the govenrment have the right to do what they think is best for the country over which it governs? I guess I just dont get how people can support going to war to fight for their country even in the face of death, then be willing to kill its own soilders for carrying out orders, over something as stupid as a firearm.
So if I get this right and I am not saying I do, loyalty to the U.S. is only on certain terms?
</div></div>


You Sir, need to go back and reread our founding documents. You clearly lack a BASIC understanding of the principles this nation was founded on.

Please read:
the Declaration of Independence
The Constitution of the United States
The Federalist Papers

And while not a founding document, still very critical to your current educational needs:
Thomas Payne's Common Sense

AFTER you actually sit down and read them come back and argue.

 

[jasonahull]

Re: The $24,000 question.

50cal

Here is the thing, I dont care what the words are in those documents. They are the dreams and laws of men.
I Personally dont think one man is better than another and that no man should have authority over another man.
That being said this is the world we live in, with out the government and police there would be complete chaos, so I am greatful they exsist. I dont have to agree with everything the government does,
but I still would not shoot a soilder, or a police officer for coming to collect my guns.
There are alot of other things americans have to do that some say violate the constitution already, at what point do you start killing people over it?
I am sorry I just cant get there.

 

[Shooter McGavin]

Re: The $24,000 question.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: a-hull</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think that most people have a distorted view of "RIGHTS".
If you really think about it, a persons rights are relative. You have the right to own property and a home, until the government needs it. You have the right to bear arms, until the government says otherwise.
Whats the point of the pledge of allegiance if it has stipulations. It is to the country people have said that vow, not the constitution. Does not the govenrment have the right to do what they think is best for the country over which it governs? I guess I just dont get how people can support going to war to fight for their country even in the face of death, then be willing to kill its own soilders for carrying out orders, over something as stupid as a firearm.
So if I get this right and I am not saying I do, loyalty to the U.S. is only on certain terms?
</div></div>

First, "Does not the govenrment have the right to do what they think is best for the country over which it governs?", do you not know your history? Nazi did what was best for Germany or at least what was best for them. I could go on with a list of government who governed the way they thought was best for their countries and the millions of dead left in their path.

Second, nobody wants to hurt other Americans, especially police and military. Consequently, they took a pledge to protect the constitution, at least the military did, and some would be willing to stand up for it. If an all Civil war happened over this there would be defectors from the military once they saw the military killing other Americans. I don't see that happening in my life time.

Third, "So if I get this right and I am not saying I do, loyalty to the U.S. is only on certain terms?"

When I join the Army I didn't take an oath to protect the government. I took an oath to protect the Constitution of the United States of America. Our government is consistently changing. Today you may have someone in power who wants a gun free America and next election cycle you may have someone who wants CCW for all citizens of USA. That is why when joining the military you take an oath to the Constitution of the USA, instead of taking an oath to the government.

 

[50calibercruiser]

Re: The $24,000 question.

I don't care about the original question, I think even talking about that subject is stupid and people just like to fantasize. Which scares the hell out of me.

But you also scare the hell out of me when you say

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Does not the government have the right to do what they think is best for the country over which it governs?</div></div>

NO, the government has very, very limited rights, better called restrictions, as to what they can do. These restrictions are clearly spelled out in black and white.

WE the people have the right to do what we think is best for our country through a system called a representative republic.

We have gotten so far away from a limited government people just think this is the way it's supposed to be and don't question a government that can "take your property when it needs it" WTF?

We have been so miseducated that a vast number of people don't understand this simple principle.

Please take the time to read and understand the founding documents. Your country depends on it.

 

[jasonahull]

Re: The $24,000 question.

That makes sense.
I am not going to pretend I know the constitution or all of the laws. I really don't care that much. Here is my thinking.
Gun rights are not or will not be the first thing to be violated in the constitution.
When do you start killing other people for it?
Some say taxes are unconstitutional. Where does a person draw the line.

 

[jasonahull]

Re: The $24,000 question.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 50calcruiser</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I don't care about the original question, I think even talking about that subject is stupid and people just like to fantasize. Which scares the hell out of me.

But you also scare the hell out of me when you say

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Does not the government have the right to do what they think is best for the country over which it governs?</div></div>

NO, the government has very, very limited rights, better called restrictions, as to what they can do. These restrictions are clearly spelled out in black and white.

WE the people have the right to do what we think is best for our country through a system called a representative republic.

We have gotten so far away from a limited government people just think this is the way it's supposed to be and don't question a government that can "take your property when it needs it" WTF?

We have been so miseducated that a vast number of people don't understand this simple principle.

Please take the time to read and understand the founding documents. Your country depends on it. </div></div>








It looks like we agree on one thing. I think it is a stupid thing to discuss.
Maybe a more correct way to say it would be, the government has the power to do what they want.
I agree people fantasize too much about this crap.

 

[Maggot]

Re: The $24,000 question.

Thanks for the interesting responses. Im also thankful that at 62 Im old enough that I dont think Ill have to see much of what I forcast is to happen in the future. This very internet which is such a beautiful valuable tool may well be our uotimate undoing.In what prayers I offer, I ask that it not come to pass, but what will be, will be.

The constitution changes as well.

 

[jasonahull]

Re: The $24,000 question.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 50calcruiser</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
We have gotten so far away from a limited government people just think this is the way it's supposed to be and don't question <span style="color: #FF0000">a government that can "take your property when it needs it" WTF?</span> </div></div>

I never said I dont question, just said I would not KILL.
Here is one law out there. Do some research on it and you will find that people have had to give up their property even when they did not want to. Is it worth killing over?


Its called eminent domain:
<span style="color: #FF0000">The power</span> to take private property for public use by a state, municipality, or private person or corporation authorized to exercise functions of public character, following the payment of just compensation to the owner of that property.

It's not for sale isn't an option.

 

[cavemanmoore]

Re: The $24,000 question.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 50calcruiser</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Every single word you said.</div></div>

50, Have you ever considered running for public office? You would have my vote.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: a-hull</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here is the thing, I dont care what the words are in those documents. They are the dreams and laws of men.</div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: a-hull</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am not going to pretend I know the constitution or all of the laws. I really don't care that much. </div></div>

Hull, please start caring. You and I agree that gun control is not an issue worth killing fellow Americans over. And to consider such a thing is fan-boy BS. But, your lackadaisical attitude towards freedom in general is terrifying.

 

[jasonahull]

Re: The $24,000 question.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Hull, please start caring. You and I agree that gun control is not an issue worth killing fellow Americans over. And to consider such a thing is fan-boy BS. But, your lackadaisical attitude towards freedom in general is terrifying.</div></div>


It isnt really about freedom. it is about what someone said was a "right" more than a couple hundred years ago

 

[athhud]

Re: The $24,000 question.

You will find my answer in the quote below. Replace land with any aspect of freedom you desire and my answer is the same.

 

[Maggot]

Re: The $24,000 question.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: a-hull</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 50calcruiser</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
We have gotten so far away from a limited government people just think this is the way it's supposed to be and don't question <span style="color: #FF0000">a government that can "take your property when it needs it" WTF?</span> </div></div>

I never said I dont question, just said I would not KILL.
Here is one law out there. Do some research on it and you will find that people have had to give up their property even when they did not want to. Is it worth killing over?


Its called eminent domain:
<span style="color: #FF0000">The power</span> to take private property for public use by a state, municipality, or private person or corporation authorized to exercise functions of public character, following the payment of just compensation to the owner of that property.

It's not for sale isn't an option.


</div></div>

There seems a fundamental difference between reasonalblly takeing property such as a house or farm in order to build a highway or school which will benifit everyone, and just takeing someones personell possesions to prevent them from hurting themselves. I didnt see any note of emminent domain after Katrina. Its more like J Rose's poster, which he stole/borrowed from that rascal Josh Ruby, aka, CKA.

 

[jasonahull]

Re: The $24,000 question.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: maggot</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: a-hull</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 50calcruiser</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
We have gotten so far away from a limited government people just think this is the way it's supposed to be and don't question <span style="color: #FF0000">a government that can "take your property when it needs it" WTF?</span> </div></div>

I never said I dont question, just said I would not KILL.
Here is one law out there. Do some research on it and you will find that people have had to give up their property even when they did not want to. Is it worth killing over?


Its called eminent domain:
<span style="color: #FF0000">The power</span> to take private property for public use by a state, municipality, or private person or corporation authorized to exercise functions of public character, following the payment of just compensation to the owner of that property.

It's not for sale isn't an option.


</div></div>

There seems a fundamental difference between reasonalblly takeing property such as a house or farm in order to build a highway or school which will benifit everyone, and just takeing someones personell possesions to prevent them from hurting themselves. I didnt see any note of emminent domain after Katrina. Its more like J Rose's poster, which he stole/borrowed from that rascal Josh Ruby, aka, CKA.

</div></div>


Yes but what you think is reasonable, may not be so reasonable to the man that worked his butt of to aquire his property.
Who gets to say what is reasonable? Anti gun people will say taking away guns will benifit everyone.

 

[RedGoat]

Re: The $24,000 question.

a-hull your view of American gov't is more reminiscent of Marxism or a dictatorship. The only reason the gov't has the right to eminent domain is because it was laid out in our Bill of Rights they didn't just decide it was a good idea after the fact; it is in fact constitutional (see 5th Amendment).

The original question was not paranoia it was a hypothetical, albeit extreme. But if we do not ponder on extreme possibilities how are we going to know how to act if said events take place? Prior planning prevents poor performance. No "true" American would want to kill his fellow American, but where do you draw the line when a tyrannical government becomes unamerican? I would say when the government is openly defacing the Constitution, and at that point you have to decide; am I going to sit by and let this happen or am I going to stand up and fight what's happening.

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." - Thomas Jefferson

Here are the first 10 Amendments laid out by the Bill of Rights:

- First Amendment – Establishment Clause, Free Exercise Clause; freedom of speech, of the press, and of assembly; right to petition
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

- Second Amendment – Militia (United States), Sovereign state, Right to keep and bear arms.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.[57]

- Third Amendment – Protection from quartering of troops.
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

- Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

- Fifth Amendment – due process, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, eminent domain.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

- Sixth Amendment – Trial by jury and rights of the accused; Confrontation Clause, speedy trial, public trial, right to counsel
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

- Seventh Amendment – Civil trial by jury.
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

- Eighth Amendment – Prohibition of excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

- Ninth Amendment – Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

- Tenth Amendment – Powers of States and people.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

[50calibercruiser]

Re: The $24,000 question.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: a-hull</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Hull, please start caring. You and I agree that gun control is not an issue worth killing fellow Americans over. And to consider such a thing is fan-boy BS. But, your lackadaisical attitude towards freedom in general is terrifying.</div></div>


It isnt really about freedom. it is about what someone said was a "right" more than a couple hundred years ago


</div></div>

NO,NO,NO You are misinformed! "someone" didn't say what was a right! Our creator did. Or "natural rights" if Our Creator gets your panties twisted.

<span style="font-style: italic">We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.</span>

Very smart and forward thinking men just defined the rights so we could use them. How do you secure Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness? With a limited government who's job is to stay out of our way and make sure we are not interfered with while we pursue Life, Liberty and Happiness.

The constitution isn't about what the government has the right to do. It describes what it can't do. Which is everything not spelled out within it. The constitution is a document to control the power government, while allowing it just enough power to

<span style="font-style: italic">establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty</span>.

http://www.foundingfathers.info/documents/

They are all pretty short it will take you a hour to read everything.

 

[jasonahull]

Re: The $24,000 question.

Thats all good. But since the 2nd amendment does not specifically name what arms a person can keep and bear then i suppose the government can interpret it how ever they choose.

 

[RedGoat]

Re: The $24,000 question.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: a-hull</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Thats all good. But since the 2nd amendment does not specifically name what arms a person can keep and bear then i suppose the government can interpret it how ever they choose.
</div></div>

It's best that they didn't specifically name what arms a person could keep. If that were the case we might only be entitled to muskets and flint lock pistols....

 

[50calibercruiser]

Re: The $24,000 question.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: a-hull</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Thats all good. But since the 2nd amendment does not specifically name what arms a person can keep and bear then i suppose the government can interpret it how ever they choose.
</div></div>

The first thing you need to do is stop saying "the government can"

The government can't do anything unless we allow it.

You're right, the 2nd doesn't list anything but "arms". That is open to interpretation- OURS, as a voting republic. We allowed the first AWB, We allowed 1934 NFA laws, we allow all of this through the people we elect to represent us. The government didn't just snap it's collective fingers and poof!

What we are discussing here (and we are veering off a little) is a government that does snap it's fingers and poof, does things without our consent. Oh look where that lead us,

<span style="font-style: italic">that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.</span>

Our Founding Fathers made this so simple how did we lose our way? (That's rhetorical)

 

[jasonahull]

Re: The $24,000 question.

All of that being said. No i still will not kill anyone over those issues.
I don't even know how someone dwells on it.