Post by: The Annoyed Man on September 29, 2008, 04:33:24 AM
What do you see as likely to occur if Obama actually is elected? Personally, I see Obama trying to push many liberal ideas and programs, meeting a lukewarm reception in Congress. Another president who really did nothing more significant than being elected. This economic turn ain't going to end by January, and if and when it continues with these hard time, he's gonna take the blame for it. If there's a turnaround anytime soon, the Republican's will take credit for it, saying W's plan worked out.
Any thoughts?
Post by: Manedwolf on September 29, 2008, 04:47:35 AM
I expect the economy would go to hell in a wallowing and capsizing storm of socialism and welfare state entitlements, along with raised taxes destroying businesses. And I would expect the following with regard to firearms, "for the children".
AWB with mandatory registration, a la the 1986 MG ban
which leads to
More than six banned weapons called an "arsenal", subject to an additional tax and yearly inspection. Public database of "arsenal" holders, accessible to your neighbors like a sex offender registry
which leads to
Periodic mandatory turn-ins of "too dangerous" weapons, when some bad guy uses one in a rampage. AK derivatives first. They know you have it. Turn it in, or you get a no-knock.
coupled with
Ban on ammunition storage beyond a certain number of rounds in a private residence. Monthly limits on ammunition purchase, with recordkeeping similar to that now used for purchase of pseudoephedrine-containing cold medicines. No more surplus ammo sales at all.
and finally
National ban on concealed carry for all but police and military, and select high-profile politicians and celebrities deemed to be "high risk", just as it is in New York City.
Don't think that's what they want? I do. It's their dream.
Post by: ronnyreagan on September 29, 2008, 06:10:07 AM
Our economy will probably suck, but that will neither be Obama's fault nor his responsibility to fix. The free market takes a big dump sometimes, it's called a correction. He may muck it up further by trying to fix things though.
I don't see much changing in national security or foreign policy areas either - he might try to pull out of Iraq, but that will affect me about as much as going in did (not much). He might try for an AWB but I kind of doubt it, and I'd be surprised if it actually passed. The deficit will surely increase, but that's definitely nothing new. I guess I might get a tax cut, which would be nice.
Sometimes I wonder if I'm paranoid enough to even be posting here.
Post by: ilbob on September 29, 2008, 06:31:12 AM
And an accelerated reduction in personal liberty.
Post by: TommyGunn on September 29, 2008, 06:45:52 AM
Depending on how well the economy is doing in 2012 we may or may not get a republican president, depending also on how dumbed down the American people have become by then.
There are interesting times ahead .....
Post by: Boomhauer on September 29, 2008, 06:53:22 AM
Quote
Sometimes I wonder if I'm paranoid enough to even be posting here
Look, Obama's minions are using their granted powers to attempt to squash dissent.
Oh, but he won't resort to those tactics, of course.
That's just paranoia.
Post by: HankB on September 29, 2008, 07:17:27 AM
Post by: ronnyreagan on September 29, 2008, 07:40:40 AM
Quote
Sometimes I wonder if I'm paranoid enough to even be posting here
Look, Obama's minions are using their granted powers to attempt to squash dissent. Oh, but he won't resort to those tactics, of course.
That's just paranoia.
I don't know maybe I've just seen too many editorials about how unprepared, incompetent, indecisive, and unfit for command Obama is. Now suddenly he's some sort of supreme commander and he's going to do anything he wants unopposed? I heard the same type of dire warnings from my liberal friends about Bush (although those tended more toward warmonger fascist police states than gun grabbing communism). None of them came true. He ended up being a crappy president, floundering and messing quite a few things up - and I certainly would expect that from Obama - but not the end the free world scenario that others seem to buy into. There are plenty of things to attack Obama on, I just think it helps to do so in reality. I already recognize that my rather optimistic viewpoint is probably in the minority here, but I still hope I'm right.
Post by: Manedwolf on September 29, 2008, 07:43:03 AM
I don't know maybe I've just seen too many editorials about how unprepared, incompetent, indecisive, and unfit for command Obama is. Now suddenly he's some sort of supreme commander and he's going to do anything he wants unopposed?
Why not? Daley in Chicago manages to be both.
Post by: longeyes on September 29, 2008, 07:58:12 AM
Post by: Scout26 on September 29, 2008, 08:00:31 AM
Post by: K Frame on September 29, 2008, 08:03:01 AM
Obama wins.
Alternate worst case scenario, one that is equally as bad?
McCain wins.
To quote Bender Bending Rodriquez....
We're boned.
Post by: longeyes on September 29, 2008, 09:32:38 AM
No more "great leaders," no more Messiahs.
We need a warrior to deal with national defense, and most of the rest should be as localized as possible.
Post by: hardwarehacker on September 29, 2008, 11:02:01 AM
There is now a class of 'enemy combatants' to whom the administration wants to deny the most basic rights. They can be held without charges, tortured, tried in closed courts without even being told the evidence against them. Several of the military's own prosecutors have quit in disgust because this system is so at odds with the US Constitution.
These may be much more serious threats in the long term. Historically, governments which believe in strong controls have eventually decided that armed civilians are not a good thing. What if the next secret list is 'assault weapon owners'? Those new telephone taps would work just as well for catching people who talk about guns and their 'rights'. Who will be the next class of 'threats' who may get tried on 'secret' evidence?
I personally think that a relatively disorganized party and president for whom gun control is not a top priority is the lesser evil right now. Honestly, I don't want to see either party in power long enough to re-shape laws and agencies completely. My answer is to alternate periodically. Why do we always seem to wind up voting for the lesser evil?
Post by: Manedwolf on September 29, 2008, 11:04:24 AM
Mr. Obama, I totally agree, is more likely to sign off on anti-gun regulations. Mr. Bush, however, has worked very hard at finding ways around the constitution. We have no-fly lists which we are not allowed to see and from which there is no way to get an innocent person removed. All phone networks are now required to have software which permits the NSA to tap any call at any time, and the machines don't ask about warrants. 4000+ of our troops dead fighting a war started over weapons which turned out not to exist. What a convenient excuse.
There is now a class of 'enemy combatants' to whom the administration wants to deny the most basic rights. They can be held without charges, tortured, tried in closed courts without even being told the evidence against them. Several of the military's own prosecutors have quit in disgust because this system is so at odds with the US Constitution.
These may be much more serious threats in the long term. Historically, governments which believe in strong controls have eventually decided that armed civilians are not a good thing. What if the next secret list is 'assault weapon owners'? Those new telephone taps would work just as well for catching people who talk about guns and their 'rights'. Who will be the next class of 'threats' who may get tried on 'secret' evidence?
I personally think that a relatively disorganized party and president for whom gun control is not a top priority is the lesser evil right now. Honestly, I don't want to see either party in power long enough to re-shape laws and agencies completely. My answer is to alternate periodically. Why do we always seem to wind up voting for the lesser evil?
There is now a class of 'enemy combatants' to whom the administration wants to deny the most basic rights. They can be held without charges, tortured, tried in closed courts without even being told the evidence against them. Several of the military's own prosecutors have quit in disgust because this system is so at odds with the US Constitution.
These may be much more serious threats in the long term. Historically, governments which believe in strong controls have eventually decided that armed civilians are not a good thing. What if the next secret list is 'assault weapon owners'? Those new telephone taps would work just as well for catching people who talk about guns and their 'rights'. Who will be the next class of 'threats' who may get tried on 'secret' evidence?
I personally think that a relatively disorganized party and president for whom gun control is not a top priority is the lesser evil right now. Honestly, I don't want to see either party in power long enough to re-shape laws and agencies completely. My answer is to alternate periodically. Why do we always seem to wind up voting for the lesser evil?
DU/KosKid plant alert!
Your attempt at verbal obfuscation will not work, sorry. When you veer off into the "enemy combatants OMG torture" angle, it breaks the magic spell.
Post by: hardwarehacker on September 29, 2008, 11:10:23 AM
>>Your attempt at verbal obfuscation will not work, sorry. When you veer off into the "enemy combatants OMG torture" >>angle, it breaks the magic spell.
Which parts do you think are not fact?
I am a very serious gun owner who happens to believe in the US Constitution. I fear those who try to find ways around it more than just about anything else.
Post by: Manedwolf on September 29, 2008, 11:12:08 AM
>>DU/KosKid plant alert! cheesy
>>Your attempt at verbal obfuscation will not work, sorry. When you veer off into the "enemy combatants OMG torture" >>angle, it breaks the magic spell.
Which parts do you think are not fact?
I am a very serious gun owner who happens to believe in the US Constitution. I fear those who try to find ways around it more than just about anything else.
>>Your attempt at verbal obfuscation will not work, sorry. When you veer off into the "enemy combatants OMG torture" >>angle, it breaks the magic spell.
Which parts do you think are not fact?
I am a very serious gun owner who happens to believe in the US Constitution. I fear those who try to find ways around it more than just about anything else.
I bet you're one of those sorts who think waterboarding is torture, too.
Also, when you do that line about "4000+ of our troops dead fighting a war started over weapons which turned out not to exist.", you are insulting the memory of countless fallen soldiers and also a lot of veterans. They FREED Iraq. Saying that sort of sh_t pisses people off, unless they're Code Pink freaks.
You don't sound like a gun owner. You sound like Cindy Sheehan.
Post by: hardwarehacker on September 29, 2008, 11:21:34 AM
I bet you're one of those sorts who think waterboarding is torture, too.
Also, when you do that line about "4000+ of our troops dead fighting a war started over weapons which turned out not to exist.", you are insulting the memory of countless fallen soldiers and also a lot of veterans. They FREED Iraq. Saying that sort of sh_t pisses people off, unless they're Code Pink freaks.
You don't sound like a gun owner. You sound like Cindy Sheehan.
[/quote]
I greatly respect our military and its members. I think they are being used and abused.
The Iraquis, IMHO, are prisoners of their religion. My guess is that as soon as we leave their sects will go back to fighting until one of them (again) becomes totally dominant and another brutal dictator emerges.
I wouldn't be on this site if I were not a gun owner -- that is its main attraction, after all. Do you expect everyone who owns firearms to share all of your opinions?
Post by: The Annoyed Man on September 29, 2008, 11:24:30 AM
If Obama gets the Presidency and a veto-proof Senate . . . our future will look like a cross between Venezuela and Zimbabwe.
I imagine it being more like a cross between Zimbabwe & North Korea. Anarchy, cult of personality, and producing nothing of value after a few years.
Post by: macadore on September 29, 2008, 11:31:12 AM
Post by: The Annoyed Man on September 29, 2008, 03:46:06 PM
Post by: longeyes on September 29, 2008, 05:38:14 PM
Post by: Manedwolf on September 29, 2008, 05:38:40 PM
But America survived Carter. Many of these other posters, nd people I hear at work, see Obama as truly the end of America. I just can't see it getting that bad. Of course, I am known as being an eternal optimist...
Carter was an easy mark, Obama is a con artist.
Post by: Tallpine on September 30, 2008, 06:07:12 AM
Quote
Mr. Bush, however, has worked very hard at finding ways around the constitution. We have no-fly lists which we are not allowed to see and from which there is no way to get an innocent person removed. All phone networks are now required to have software which permits the NSA to tap any call at any time, and the machines don't ask about warrants. 4000+ of our troops dead fighting a war started over weapons which turned out not to exist. What a convenient excuse.
There is now a class of 'enemy combatants' to whom the administration wants to deny the most basic rights. They can be held without charges, tortured, tried in closed courts without even being told the evidence against them.
There is now a class of 'enemy combatants' to whom the administration wants to deny the most basic rights. They can be held without charges, tortured, tried in closed courts without even being told the evidence against them.
Just picture all of those things under Obama's control ...
Post by: seeker_two on September 30, 2008, 11:23:29 AM
But America survived Carter. Many of these other posters, nd people I hear at work, see Obama as truly the end of America. I just can't see it getting that bad. Of course, I am known as being an eternal optimist...
The reason America survived Carter was due to having Ronald Reagan on the ballot for the next election....right now, we have a choice between Carter and Carter...and life has taught me that pessimism is the better bet....
Post by: Northwoods on September 30, 2008, 11:45:46 AM
But America survived Carter. Many of these other posters, nd people I hear at work, see Obama as truly the end of America. I just can't see it getting that bad. Of course, I am known as being an eternal optimist...
I'm with you on this one. I think that if HopeChange wins in 4 years we'll see a ticket with (not necessarially in this order) Palin and Jindall. Or someone very similar to either of them. Don't know much about his politics overall but Thaddeus McCotter got my attention with this. We'll survive an Obama administration. If he pushes too hard too fast (and how could he resist) the GOP will take back or both houses in the '10 mid-term elections and halt his abuses cold. Kinda like what they did to Clinton in '94. Hopefully though, unlike with Clinton, we'd be able defeat him in '12.
Post by: buzz_knox on September 30, 2008, 11:54:27 AM
>>DU/KosKid plant alert! cheesy
>>Your attempt at verbal obfuscation will not work, sorry. When you veer off into the "enemy combatants OMG torture" >>angle, it breaks the magic spell.
Which parts do you think are not fact?
I am a very serious gun owner who happens to believe in the US Constitution. I fear those who try to find ways around it more than just about anything else.
>>Your attempt at verbal obfuscation will not work, sorry. When you veer off into the "enemy combatants OMG torture" >>angle, it breaks the magic spell.
Which parts do you think are not fact?
I am a very serious gun owner who happens to believe in the US Constitution. I fear those who try to find ways around it more than just about anything else.
If that's true, then Obama's "Citizen National Security Force" concept should be terrifying to you.
Post by: Manedwolf on September 30, 2008, 12:35:16 PM
But America survived Carter. Many of these other posters, nd people I hear at work, see Obama as truly the end of America. I just can't see it getting that bad. Of course, I am known as being an eternal optimist...
I'm with you on this one. I think that if HopeChange wins in 4 years we'll see a ticket with (not necessarially in this order) Palin and Jindall. Or someone very similar to either of them. Don't know much about his politics overall but Thaddeus McCotter got my attention with this. We'll survive an Obama administration. If he pushes too hard too fast (and how could he resist) the GOP will take back or both houses in the '10 mid-term elections and halt his abuses cold. Kinda like what they did to Clinton in '94. Hopefully though, unlike with Clinton, we'd be able defeat him in '12.
Gun registration cannot be reversed. Once they have it, they have it.
I am not willing to take that risk.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 30, 2008, 12:42:18 PM
Don't know much about his politics overall but Thaddeus McCotter got my attention with this.
Never heard of him. But what a stud!
Post by: longeyes on September 30, 2008, 02:53:09 PM
Just take education. A society that permits its education system to undermine its basic values, social, economic, and moral, and thinks that all is well is whistling past the graveyard.
Or take energy. Thirty-plus years of intentional self-crippling. You don't turn that around in a few years, given the best scenario.
And, yes, if they get our guns, they are either gone for good and we live under tyranny, or we say the hell with law and order and find ourselves in a world of warlords.
Post by: Silver Bullet on September 30, 2008, 05:08:47 PM
Quote
f that's true, then Obama's "Citizen National Security Force" concept should be terrifying to you.
That sounds like a secret police.
Post by: Boomhauer on September 30, 2008, 05:18:08 PM
Quote
f that's true, then Obama's "Citizen National Security Force" concept should be terrifying to you.
That sounds like a secret police.
It is a secret police.
Take that, add a dash of "Truth Squad", plus a cup of Patriot Act abuse, and you have a recipe for a dictatorship.
Chicago on a national level.
Post by: BReilley on September 30, 2008, 06:06:02 PM
Which parts do you think are not fact?
I am a very serious gun owner who happens to believe in the US Constitution. I fear those who try to find ways around it more than just about anything else.
I am a very serious gun owner who happens to believe in the US Constitution. I fear those who try to find ways around it more than just about anything else.
I'm with you. The current administration has been all kinds of weasely. I don't disapprove of all that it's done - I disapprove of the recklessness with which it has acted and they blatant disrespect it has shown for the Constitution.
If that's true, then Obama's "Citizen National Security Force" concept should be terrifying to you.
Video reference, start at 16:30 or so for the relevant part.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Df2p6867_pw
Just who the hell is going to volunteer for all this crap? Why would people do things for their government for free, when an Obama administration will reward indolence with "free" money(i.e. garnished from my paychecks)? Sure, there will be a few hippies and college kids, but by and large people don't care enough - that's why we have power brokers in government, not genuinely concerned, involved citizens. I wish I could say Obama is foolishly idealistic - but he's smarter than that. His ideas are just insulting.
Post by: Gowen on September 30, 2008, 07:00:43 PM
Post by: Bigjake on September 30, 2008, 07:01:12 PM
The BEST case scenario involves McCain being elected, and then vapor locking inside of his first month in office...
Past that, we're hosed
Post by: seeker_two on October 01, 2008, 01:32:21 AM
Don't know much about his politics overall but Thaddeus McCotter got my attention with this.
Never heard of him. But what a stud!
Is it too late to bump McCain and nominate him as Palin's VP?....
Post by: buzz_knox on October 01, 2008, 03:28:04 AM
Just who the hell is going to volunteer for all this crap? Why would people do things for their government for free, when an Obama administration will reward indolence with "free" money(i.e. garnished from my paychecks)? Sure, there will be a few hippies and college kids, but by and large people don't care enough - that's why we have power brokers in government, not genuinely concerned, involved citizens. I wish I could say Obama is foolishly idealistic - but he's smarter than that. His ideas are just insulting.
People volunteer for "free" all the time, when there are other rewards to be had. For some, it's service. For others, it's power. Once the mechanism is established, you can convert free to pay easy enough. What was the initial pay scale for the Communist Party? The Brownshirts? Both started as volunteer organizations.
Do you think La Raza would recruit people to join this, if that meant La Raza had a say in "patrolling" the border?
The problem with all the "we'll survive" is that people are comparing Obama to Carter. There is no comparison.
Carter studied Nimitz, Halsey, and trained under Rickover. Obama studied Marx and Lenin.
Carter governed in an era where domestic and foreign intel was heavily curtailed. Obama will come to power with the most intrusive tools at his immediate disposal (didn't the Dems promise to get rid of said tools instead of renewing them).
Carter governed when memories of Nixon with his enemy's list were real. Obama's immediate Dem predeccesor made the IRS a tool of personal vengeance, and the FBI a mechanism for punishing those engaged in thought crimes.
Carter was actually fairly humble. Obama has been taught that he is the messiah and the sole hope for America.
Stop thinking Carter, and start thinking Chavez. The US will "survive" Obama in much the same way Venezuela has "survived" Chavez: the territory remains the same, but the nation itself is very different.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on October 01, 2008, 04:03:12 AM
So, from what I see, the opinions here are the same as around the courthouse. For some, Obama would be like Carter, apain in the a$$, but survivable. Others are cleaning the rifles and sharpening the bayonets, because this is going to be the end of America as we know it. I guess I'll just have to wait and see, and maybe buy some ammo, just in case.
Post by: makattak on October 01, 2008, 04:46:51 AM
That's true, to a degree, about volunteering. I worked as a volunteer intern for the U.S. Attorney's office for a year. In trade, I graduated law school with something worthwhile on my resume, which was a big help in me getting hired on at the prosecutor's office.
So, from what I see, the opinions here are the same as around the courthouse. For some, Obama would be like Carter, apain in the a$$, but survivable. Others are cleaning the rifles and sharpening the bayonets, because this is going to be the end of America as we know it. I guess I'll just have to wait and see, and maybe buy some ammo, just in case.
So, from what I see, the opinions here are the same as around the courthouse. For some, Obama would be like Carter, apain in the a$$, but survivable. Others are cleaning the rifles and sharpening the bayonets, because this is going to be the end of America as we know it. I guess I'll just have to wait and see, and maybe buy some ammo, just in case.
That reminds me, I need to get a bayonet for my new (to me) Garand...
Now, I honestly don't know if this is the beginning of the end. To me it is not Barack Obama that will be the end of this nation. If he is elected, he will screw things up on a scale this nation has never seen.
The end may come because half of the country seems overjoyed to elect this empty suit and half sees that he is an empty suit.
Eventually, half of the country is going to say "ENOUGH" and just give up fighting the other half. They'll take their ball and go home.
Post by: longeyes on October 01, 2008, 06:43:31 AM
Quote
The problem with all the "we'll survive" is that people are comparing Obama to Carter. There is no comparison.
Carter studied Nimitz, Halsey, and trained under Rickover. Obama studied Marx and Lenin.
Carter governed in an era where domestic and foreign intel was heavily curtailed. Obama will come to power with the most intrusive tools at his immediate disposal (didn't the Dems promise to get rid of said tools instead of renewing them).
Carter governed when memories of Nixon with his enemy's list were real. Obama's immediate Dem predeccesor made the IRS a tool of personal vengeance, and the FBI a mechanism for punishing those engaged in thought crimes.
Carter was actually fairly humble. Obama has been taught that he is the messiah and the sole hope for America.
Stop thinking Carter, and start thinking Chavez. The US will "survive" Obama in much the same way Venezuela has "survived" Chavez: the territory remains the same, but the nation itself is very different.
Carter studied Nimitz, Halsey, and trained under Rickover. Obama studied Marx and Lenin.
Carter governed in an era where domestic and foreign intel was heavily curtailed. Obama will come to power with the most intrusive tools at his immediate disposal (didn't the Dems promise to get rid of said tools instead of renewing them).
Carter governed when memories of Nixon with his enemy's list were real. Obama's immediate Dem predeccesor made the IRS a tool of personal vengeance, and the FBI a mechanism for punishing those engaged in thought crimes.
Carter was actually fairly humble. Obama has been taught that he is the messiah and the sole hope for America.
Stop thinking Carter, and start thinking Chavez. The US will "survive" Obama in much the same way Venezuela has "survived" Chavez: the territory remains the same, but the nation itself is very different.
Excellent points.
***
The trouble with thinking that we're just going to take our ball and go home is that "they" are not going to let us. They need us to subsidize their socialist utopia. We exist only to pay the freight. If you want them off your back you will need to throw them off.
Post by: makattak on October 01, 2008, 08:18:36 AM
***
The trouble with thinking that we're just going to take our ball and go home is that "they" are not going to let us. They need us to subsidize their socialist utopia. We exist only to pay the freight. If you want them off your back you will need to throw them off.
In this I think you may be wrong. "They" may not WANT to let us. The problem is (and I think "they" know it) that "we" have all the guns and most of the military on "our" side.
If Texas secedes, who is going to stop them? I seriously doubt any U.S. military unit will fire a shot at a Texan army.
Now, I can't be sure about Obama's legion of "volunteers" though...
Post by: MicroBalrog on October 01, 2008, 08:33:23 AM
Quote
Gun registration cannot be reversed. Once they have it, they have it.
Of course gun registration can be reversed!
Gun laws can be repealed. Any and all gun laws can be repealed.
Post by: freakazoid on October 01, 2008, 08:40:01 AM
Quote
If Texas secedes, who is going to stop them? I seriously doubt any U.S. military unit will fire a shot at a Texan army.
I have often read that if some states decided to secede that no one from the military would shoot at the people. I'm not entirely sure that this would be correct. For one look at what happened at the Kent State shooting. All it will take is for them to be told that they are the enemy.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 01, 2008, 08:45:23 AM
Post by: longeyes on October 01, 2008, 08:48:51 AM
Quote
In this I think you may be wrong. "They" may not WANT to let us. The problem is (and I think "they" know it) that "we" have all the guns and most of the military on "our" side.
If Texas secedes, who is going to stop them? I seriously doubt any U.S. military unit will fire a shot at a Texan army.
Now, I can't be sure about Obama's legion of "volunteers" though...
If Texas secedes, who is going to stop them? I seriously doubt any U.S. military unit will fire a shot at a Texan army.
Now, I can't be sure about Obama's legion of "volunteers" though...
I may be wrong, yes; it's been known to happen (rarely).
But a sober look at history might persuade you that the U.S. military is unlikely to disobey a Presidential order--unless we are truly at the point of complete civil war.
As for our having the guns, they will divide and conquer, go after the loud and the angry, the "nuts" and figure the rest will have too much to lose by fighting. Are they wrong? We really don't know.
Post by: freakazoid on October 01, 2008, 08:50:06 AM
Quote
And a new Ezekiel is born.
Look what happened during the civil war. I'm not saying that those in the military are bad people. I'm just saying that they will be made to think that who they are fighting are bad people. Shoot, look at the Civil War, can't believe I didn't think of that HUGE example earlier.
Post by: freakazoid on October 01, 2008, 08:53:42 AM
Quote
As for our having the guns, they will divide and conquer, go after the loud and the angry, the "nuts"
Yup, devide the FUDDS and the RTKBA, where does the term FUDDS come from anyways? Make it seem like the Keep and Bear Arms folks are the crazies.
Post by: silliman89 on October 01, 2008, 09:09:31 AM
Quote
where does the term FUDDS come from anyways?
There was a cartoon character named Elmer Fudd who used to hunt Buggs Bunny (another catoon character). Many of us old timers have fond childhood memories of these cartoons.
Post by: buzz_knox on October 01, 2008, 09:13:51 AM
I'm just saying that they will be made to think that who they are fighting are bad people.
Perhaps someone will pull an Operation Northwind and conduct terrorist activities within the US in the name of the "bad people."
Post by: freakazoid on October 01, 2008, 09:19:34 AM
Quote
There was a cartoon character named Elmer Fudd who used to hunt Buggs Bunny (another catoon character). Many of us old timers have fond childhood memories of these cartoons.
But when calling someone a FUDD it is always in caps, which would mean that it stands for something? I used to watch The Bugs Bunny and Tweety Show when I was younger,
Post by: Manedwolf on October 01, 2008, 09:52:13 AM
Quote
Gun registration cannot be reversed. Once they have it, they have it.
Of course gun registration can be reversed!
Gun laws can be repealed. Any and all gun laws can be repealed.
And they're going to delete the database they have, once they have it? Hello?
Post by: MicroBalrog on October 01, 2008, 09:53:05 AM
Quote
Gun registration cannot be reversed. Once they have it, they have it.
Of course gun registration can be reversed!
Gun laws can be repealed. Any and all gun laws can be repealed.
And they're going to delete the database they have, once they have it? Hello?
Hasn't Ashcroft found out they were illegally keeping NICS records and ordered deletions when he was around?
Most importantly, what's the point of a database if its out of date?
Post by: Manedwolf on October 01, 2008, 09:56:41 AM
Quote
There was a cartoon character named Elmer Fudd who used to hunt Buggs Bunny (another catoon character). Many of us old timers have fond childhood memories of these cartoons.
But when calling someone a FUDD it is always in caps, which would mean that it stands for something? I used to watch The Bugs Bunny and Tweety Show when I was younger,
It's just a reference to the sort of person it entails. Elmer ran around with the stereotype hat and a double barrel shotgun. The FUDDs are the sorts of full-of-themselves hunters who will happily throw all other gun rights and gun owners under the bus as long as nobody bothers their old duck gun.
For the best example, see the article written by the bloviating Jim Zumbo, who called ARs "terrorist rifles".
Post by: Manedwolf on October 01, 2008, 09:58:08 AM
Quote
Gun registration cannot be reversed. Once they have it, they have it.
Of course gun registration can be reversed!
Gun laws can be repealed. Any and all gun laws can be repealed.
And they're going to delete the database they have, once they have it? Hello?
Hasn't Ashcroft found out they were illegally keeping NICS records and ordered deletions when he was around?
Most importantly, what's the point of a database if its out of date?
ASK EXPERIAN AND THE OTHER CREDIT REPORTING COMPANIES.
And you really, really think they'd ever actually delete the databases once they have a list of who has what guns? Really? You trust them to do that?
Post by: MicroBalrog on October 01, 2008, 10:06:31 AM
Quote
And you really, really think they'd ever actually delete the databases once they have a list of who has what guns? Really? You trust them to do that?
So you're arguing the NICS data isn't actually erased after 24 hours?
Quote
So you're arguing the NICS data isn't actually erased after 24 hours?
Post by: Nick1911 on October 01, 2008, 10:09:16 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on October 01, 2008, 10:09:27 AM
So you're arguing the NICS data isn't actually erased after 24 hours?
NICS has no information about the type of gun you purchased. Just long gun, hand gun.
The government has no information as to the model or action of those guns.
Post by: MicroBalrog on October 01, 2008, 10:10:22 AM
So you're arguing the NICS data isn't actually erased after 24 hours?
NICS has no information about the type of gun you purchased. Just pistol or long gun.
The government has no information as to the model or action of those guns.
NICS has the gun's serial number, does it not?
Post by: freakazoid on October 01, 2008, 10:24:15 AM
Quote
It's just a reference to the sort of person it entails. Elmer ran around with the stereotype hat and a double barrel shotgun. The FUDDs are the sorts of full-of-themselves hunters who will happily throw all other gun rights and gun owners under the bus as long as nobody bothers their old duck gun.
But why is it in all caps?
Quote
NICS has no information about the type of gun you purchased. Just long gun, hand gun.
The government has no information as to the model or action of those guns.
The government has no information as to the model or action of those guns.
Really? Interesting.
Post by: MicroBalrog on October 01, 2008, 10:25:52 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on October 01, 2008, 10:27:05 AM
The BATFE receives information on every gun at the point of manufacture - they know, for instance, that serial no. XY-4545-ZZ is a Joe Schmoe Arms revolver. That's in GCA-68.
Really? Good luck finding what the serials mean on my stuff made out of the country before the bans.
Post by: MicroBalrog on October 01, 2008, 10:29:15 AM
Post by: Northwoods on October 01, 2008, 10:31:35 AM
NICS has the gun's serial number, does it not?
No. But the 4473 does.
Post by: freakazoid on October 01, 2008, 10:33:40 AM
Quote
Really? Good luck finding what the serials mean on my stuff made out of the country before the bans.
Even if they can't do it with the old guns I would think that they would be able to do it with any knew stuff.
Quote
Even if they get gun registration (which is doubtful), in a few years after its repealed, its going to be worthless
I don't think it is to doubtful. And I would imagine that if it was put in place it would be a long time before it ever gets repealed. How long has class 3 firearms been basically banned?
Quote
good luck finding who owns a random gun after it changes hands a few times
More like "changes hands/gets lost/stolen" wink wink,
Post by: Manedwolf on October 01, 2008, 10:36:35 AM
I've found guns at yard and estate sales a number of times.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on October 01, 2008, 11:22:27 AM
Quote
If Texas secedes, who is going to stop them? I seriously doubt any U.S. military unit will fire a shot at a Texan army.
I have often read that if some states decided to secede that no one from the military would shoot at the people. I'm not entirely sure that this would be correct. For one look at what happened at the Kent State shooting. All it will take is for them to be told that they are the enemy.
Now, I've read enough about Kent State to know that the National Guardsmen were not firing upon what they thought were the enemy. It was not a situation of highly trained troops blindly following orders. It was a group of soldiers in a no-win situation, vastly outnumbered and scared. When they heard what they mistook to be small arms fire on their position, they returned fire. Tragedy ensued.
And the civil war was a different time... a time when one was more readily identified with the state one was from first, not as an American. These days, we tend to be American first.
Post by: Manedwolf on October 01, 2008, 11:25:32 AM
And the civil war was a different time... a time when one was more readily identified with the state one was from first, not as an American. These days, we tend to be American first.
Dunno. We kinda hate on Massachusetts every time the news is "Another criminal from Lawrence was caught after robbing a Nashua convenience store/bank/pedestrian/home/business tonight..."
It's like their primary export now. Meth-heads who dive over quickie-mart counters and try to get in the register, or pull an (illegal, obtained in MA, too) gun on the clerk. They just "rehabilitate" them in a halfway house there, they walk out, come up here and try it again. Hell, we even just had a Lawrence COP come up here and rape someone.
Based on news comments where people are furious about "MA criminals becoming our problem because MA won't deal with them", I think a lot of New Hampshire residents would fire on Massachusetts if they were allowed to.
*Lawrence, MA's property crime rate is something like 2500 per 100k, violent crime 1000 per 100k (1 in 100!) people in a population of 70k now. It's a Socialist Wonderland under Deval Patrick, and unfortunately close to Nashua on the other side of the border. Preview of life under Obama.
Post by: AZRedhawk44 on October 01, 2008, 11:45:03 AM
I'd trade every gun I have for a similar model from someone else.
"Those guns, Agent Schmuckatelli? I don't own those anymore. Sold 'em before the ban went into effect. Any other guns? Well, you don't see any 4473's on file for them, so I guess not. Good day!"
Post by: macadore on October 01, 2008, 12:12:13 PM
Post by: MicroBalrog on October 01, 2008, 12:13:36 PM
Quote
We have gotten over worse
Have we now?
So I take it the Great Society was dismantled?
Post by: macadore on October 01, 2008, 12:17:08 PM
Quote
Have we now?
Quote
Do a web search for long hot summer and 1968.
Post by: MicroBalrog on October 01, 2008, 12:18:07 PM
Quote
Have we now?
Quote
Do a web search for long hot summer and 1968.
Yes, and while America go through the rioting, it did end up passing a load of huge-government-programs and limitations on personal freedom which did not go away.
Post by: longeyes on October 01, 2008, 01:34:42 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 02, 2008, 08:34:48 AM
I'm not saying the military wouldn't fire on its own citizens. I don't know, either way. What I object to is your pushing the idea that us stupid military types just do whatever we're told when someone comes along and tells us that so-and-so is our enemy, even if that means firing on our own people.
And the civil war was a different time... a time when one was more readily identified with the state one was from first, not as an American. These days, we tend to be American first.
And American military organizations were much, much different then. They were typically made up of men from the same state. And when you want to compare today's conditions to the civil war, you always have to keep in mind that the civil war was fought between one solid block of contiguous states with one set of interests, and another solid block of contiguous states with opposing interests. The lines aren't so clearly or conveniently drawn today.
Post by: freakazoid on October 02, 2008, 09:06:46 AM
Quote
What I object to is your pushing the idea that us stupid military types just do whatever we're told when someone comes along and tells us that so-and-so is our enemy, even if that means firing on our own people.
I have never said anything like that. I wouldn't doubt that there would be many people that would refuse.
Quote
And the civil war was a different time... a time when one was more readily identified with the state one was from first, not as an American. These days, we tend to be American first.
I wonder if that sort of mentality, identifying more with the state you are in than with the country, still exists in the National Gaurd?
Post by: Manedwolf on October 02, 2008, 09:26:35 AM
Quote
What I object to is your pushing the idea that us stupid military types just do whatever we're told when someone comes along and tells us that so-and-so is our enemy, even if that means firing on our own people.
I have never said anything like that. I wouldn't doubt that there would be many people that would refuse.
So you think the same people who are currently dying for your freedoms would blindly attack you, in violation of their oath, if told to?
Charming.
Post by: taurusowner on October 02, 2008, 09:30:51 AM
Quote
I wonder if that sort of mentality, identifying more with the state you are in than with the country, still exists in the National Gaurd?
No. It doesn't. The National Guard is US Army through and through. Same uniforms, same equipment, same ranks, same commanders, same training. Guard soldiers go to Basic and are integrated with Active and Reserve. All through Basic and AIT there is literally no distinction whatsoever. Whenever the guard goes somewhere out of the US, which most units have, we are combined with Active units and fall under their authority.
The only real difference between Active and Guard is that we go to our houses between deployments. Active stays on a base. That's about it. That National Guard is US Army. That's how we train, that's how we fight, that's how we look, and that's how we think of ourselves.
Post by: freakazoid on October 02, 2008, 09:36:43 AM
Quote
So you think the same people who are currently dying for your freedoms would blindly attack you, in violation of their oath, if told to?
Charming.
Charming.
Wow, way to go on not looking at what I was saying and overreact.
Quote
No. It doesn't....
And to think that some people will tell you that the National Gaurd is the militia that the 2A is talking about.
Post by: Nick1911 on October 02, 2008, 09:46:40 AM
Quote
What I object to is your pushing the idea that us stupid military types just do whatever we're told when someone comes along and tells us that so-and-so is our enemy, even if that means firing on our own people.
I have never said anything like that. I wouldn't doubt that there would be many people that would refuse.
So you think the same people who are currently dying for your freedoms would blindly attack you, in violation of their oath, if told to?
Charming.
So you think the same people who are currently dying for your freedoms would all disobey a direct order from their commanding officer, knowing that they will likely be tried for sedition if not outright treason?
I disagree.
Post by: freakazoid on October 02, 2008, 10:05:59 AM
There is a reason for that belief.
Post by: AZRedhawk44 on October 02, 2008, 10:11:34 AM
That puts you on point 1.
Post by: freakazoid on October 02, 2008, 10:13:28 AM
I imagine that I am still in the negatives though?
Post by: Nick1911 on October 02, 2008, 10:54:26 AM
I'm sure that you have heard the quote "What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty." Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress at 750 (August 17, 1789)
There is a reason for that belief.
There is a reason for that belief.
And what exactly is that reason?
Do you believe that an informal militia, the private ownership of arms, is an effective way to keep freedom? Even without the willingness to use them? In a world where your bolt-action .243 is up against helicopters, nerve agents, tanks, and morter fire? In a world where the media will demonize the resistance fighter, and teach the American people that this group is composed of terrorists who hate America, irregardless of whether constitution is on their side?
Maybe when that quote was written, it applied. When we all had access to the same pointy sticks, and there was a relative balance of power between the armed civilian population and the force of the government. But today, that power isn't balanced. We still have pointy sticks, but the government has much more effective tools.
Governments gain and remain in power by monopolizing violence. They want to be the only group who can apply violent force in their sovereign land. If anyone else lays claim to the threat of violent force, they must be marginalized and eliminated, less they challenge the absolute authority of the government. That absolute authority can't exist when the citizens retain an effective means to violent force. The problem is, effective is a relative term. What was effective in 1789 isn't effective today, because power is not balanced. Our side (citizenry), has remained stagnant due to laws, but their side (gov't) has by far technologically overgrown that barrier.
Post by: AZRedhawk44 on October 02, 2008, 11:08:23 AM
Worst case scenario in the light of newest revelations?
1. McCain/Obama both voted for the bailout.
2. Bailout will probably pass.
3. Senate will lose 5-10 republicans in voter backlash.
We'll get another AWB, whether Obama or McCain is in the chair. It will classify all semiautomatic rifles into the same camp as machine guns and silencers. It will retroactively grandfather all our existing weapons, but prohibit manufacture of more. There will be a challenge on 2A/Heller grounds, but the dynamic of the SCOTUS will shift in the favor of the Dems by the time the case gets there.
There will be no revolution or resistance after the court challenge, because it's just "a little bit more restriction."
The frog's water is around 205 degrees now. Not quite boiling, but he's already dead.
Post by: Nick1911 on October 02, 2008, 11:14:07 AM
We'll get another AWB, whether Obama or McCain is in the chair. It will classify all semiautomatic rifles into the same camp as machine guns and silencers. It will retroactively grandfather all our existing weapons, but prohibit manufacture of more. There will be a challenge on 2A/Heller grounds, but the dynamic of the SCOTUS will shift in the favor of the Dems by the time the case gets there.
There will be no revolution or resistance after the court challenge, because it's just "a little bit more restriction."
The frog's water is around 205 degrees now. Not quite boiling, but he's already dead.
There will be no revolution or resistance after the court challenge, because it's just "a little bit more restriction."
The frog's water is around 205 degrees now. Not quite boiling, but he's already dead.
I'm not sure if we'll lose semi-autos. (Probably semi-auto pistols, if that.) I agree with everything else posted, however.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 02, 2008, 12:23:16 PM
Quote from: freakazoid
All it will take is for them to be told that they are the enemy.
I concur that the National Guard is as described. And definitely not much of a militia.
Post by: longeyes on October 02, 2008, 01:19:32 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 02, 2008, 01:54:56 PM
If you want any meaningful information, you'll have to ask a number of questions. That's a rather complicated set of questions to ask of so many thousands of people, most of whom have probably never read the document. I don't say that as a slur on military folk. I just don't think most people have read the whole thing.
But if you mean that you'd like to hear military folk start talking about whether they would put down a revolution, or oppress people, that's something different altogether.
Post by: longeyes on October 02, 2008, 02:07:22 PM
I realize active military men are uncomfortable talking poltiics on the record.
But, yes, in times like these, we need to know the minds of the people who might well be charged with directives that subvert the Bill of Rights. Of course I didn't mean one question, I meant a series that get to the heart of the matter and they should be directed to military at all levels.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 02, 2008, 02:11:58 PM
Post by: longeyes on October 02, 2008, 02:32:28 PM
Trust and verify.
Post by: doncol on October 02, 2008, 03:38:34 PM
Quote
If Texas secedes, who is going to stop them? I seriously doubt any U.S. military unit will fire a shot at a Texan army.
Now, I can't be sure about Obama's legion of "volunteers" though...
Now, I can't be sure about Obama's legion of "volunteers" though...
If what you stated above ever happens, I am pretty sure of what will happen to Obama's legion.
Well, any of them stupid enough to fight that is.
Post by: freakazoid on October 02, 2008, 03:45:34 PM
Quote
Worst case scenario in the light of newest revelations?
1. McCain/Obama both voted for the bailout.
2. Bailout will probably pass.
3. Senate will lose 5-10 republicans in voter backlash.
We'll get another AWB, whether Obama or McCain is in the chair. It will classify all semiautomatic rifles into the same camp as machine guns and silencers. It will retroactively grandfather all our existing weapons, but prohibit manufacture of more. There will be a challenge on 2A/Heller grounds, but the dynamic of the SCOTUS will shift in the favor of the Dems by the time the case gets there.
There will be no revolution or resistance after the court challenge, because it's just "a little bit more restriction."
The frog's water is around 205 degrees now. Not quite boiling, but he's already dead.
1. McCain/Obama both voted for the bailout.
2. Bailout will probably pass.
3. Senate will lose 5-10 republicans in voter backlash.
We'll get another AWB, whether Obama or McCain is in the chair. It will classify all semiautomatic rifles into the same camp as machine guns and silencers. It will retroactively grandfather all our existing weapons, but prohibit manufacture of more. There will be a challenge on 2A/Heller grounds, but the dynamic of the SCOTUS will shift in the favor of the Dems by the time the case gets there.
There will be no revolution or resistance after the court challenge, because it's just "a little bit more restriction."
The frog's water is around 205 degrees now. Not quite boiling, but he's already dead.
Do you really think they will put one through that bad? If so I would think that some people will not take kindly to it at all, and sadly more than likely they not very many and will be wrote off as nutters and taken out. I for one would much rather be thought of as crazy and what not than to take something that so obviously violates the 2A.
Post by: buzz_knox on October 03, 2008, 03:43:00 AM
The Dems remember '94 better than we do. They are going to insure that guns cease to be a thorn in their side, and the "Blue Dogs" are going to go along with them. They'll throw us under the bus faster than Jim Webb threw his staffer under the bus.
Post by: lee n. field on October 03, 2008, 09:38:33 AM
Quote
What is our worst case scenario in this election?
Obama wins, and within 5 years we're faced with the choice of burning a pinch of incense, purely ceremonial you understand, to his divine O-ness or getting your SSN pulled.
Post by: MicroBalrog on October 03, 2008, 12:32:47 PM
Quote
What is our worst case scenario in this election?
Obama wins, and within 5 years we're faced with the choice of burning a pinch of incense, purely ceremonial you understand, to his divine O-ness or getting your SSN pulled.
And those people who opted out of SS laugh at you?