Better watch out for those crazy veterans, way OT

[garysears]

It seems to me that many people automatically paint all gun owners and gun rights advocates as extremists. The thread on best firearm for home defense got me thinking that maybe I should join the “extremist” ranks myself.

I personally see the need for and the value of personal gun rights and I’d hate to think we ever reach a day where taking precautions to defend life and liberty by simply owning a firearm is criminalized.

I am currently not a gun owner but I do have some level of concern regarding the amount of civil unrest that could be brewing. Any serious effort to curb gun rights is the sort of thing that by itself would encourage me to go get one. (Personally I see this attitude as more libertarian than anything so maybe someone can explain where I’m wrong).

I know that maybe I should stop reading online forums as they are undoubtedly infested with right wingers trying to pull me in to the fold. But the collective wisdom of this blog and others leads me to seriously consider some of the more dire future scenarios out there.

The speed and level of decline in the housing market predicted here and elsewhere (but not by any level of governemnt or mass media) has made me trust anonymous bloggers for insight and wisdom far more than government or media. If the most overblown credit bubble in our history wasn’t seen before the fallout of the collapse by our great leaders and media, who should I trust for straight talk on the real issues facing us? Who can I trust for advice and help with discerning the times we live in?

So I’m drawn to these sort of blogs thinking I’m getting some measure of truth that is being intentionally withheld from the public at large. That is, I believe if an emergency is brewing, government is the last source I’d expect to hear a warning from.

I’m thinking of purchasing a firearm today even though I don’t need it immediately, knowing that if I wait until significant social unrest occurs it may be too late to obtain one. But I think there is something of a dilemma:

1) If I obtain a gun now legally and violence and unrest occurs, I expect the government to seize my firearm. I might also face an undesired level of scrutiny for having even registered a firearm in the past.

2) If I obtain an illegal gun now so the government won’t know who to confiscate it from, I am making myself a criminal now which I don’t want. (Maybe it is a leap to assume government will automatically confiscate weapons, but if martial law is declared in cities I would expect it.)

So my motivation to go to the trouble and expense to have a gun today is tempered by my belief I wouldn’t own it for long when I really wanted it around.

All of the doomish talk I’m hearing has made me seriously think about my own personal preparedness and I’m considering stocking up on some basics. But I know that if it becomes known that I have necessities that are scarce, I’m making myself a target. That is the big reason I’m thinking of home defense.

Are any other non gun owners thinking similar thoughts?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

McVeigh? Yeah, that’s a great example. A gunner aboard a Bradley fighting vehicle during Gulf War I. He saw, what, like four days of combat?

Exception proves the rule.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

McVeigh? Yeah, that’s a great example. A gunner aboard a Bradley fighting vehicle during Gulf War I. He saw, what, like four days of combat?

Exception proves the rule.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

McVeigh? Yeah, that’s a great example. A gunner aboard a Bradley fighting vehicle during Gulf War I. He saw, what, like four days of combat?

Exception proves the rule.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

McVeigh? Yeah, that’s a great example. A gunner aboard a Bradley fighting vehicle during Gulf War I. He saw, what, like four days of combat?

Exception proves the rule.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

McVeigh? Yeah, that’s a great example. A gunner aboard a Bradley fighting vehicle during Gulf War I. He saw, what, like four days of combat?

Exception proves the rule.

[ucodegen]

The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 is a bill sponsored by Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA)[1][2][3] in the 110th United States Congress. Its stated purpose is to deal with “homegrown terrorism and violent radicalization”[4] by establishing a national commission, establishing a center for study, and cooperating with other nations.

The bill defines some terms including “violent radicalization,” “homegrown terrorism,” and “ideologically based violence,”[8] which have provoked controversy from some quarters. [9][10][11][12]

So are you a terrorist/or radicalized if you do not like the way things are going, if you feel that the voice of the average citizen has been marginalized, if you feel that there are what seem like coordinated efforts to disenfranchise the existing voters to the effect of keeping the existing power base in power? This is getting to be a very slippery slope.

The government has to remember that it is to respond to and for the service of the citizenry (as a whole and not for any one specific to the detriment of another specific group) and not the other way around. The real purpose of the 1st amendment is to allow the citizenry to know what their government is doing, free from government tampering. The real purpose of the 2nd amendment is to allow the people to take their government back should it decide to ‘run itself’ to the benefit of itself and the detriment of its citizens. It has to be remembered that the colonists were just fresh from/in the process of throwing off the bonds of Imperial England and were quite aware of why they were able to. They wanted the citizens of America to repeat the process if the situation was ever repeated.

I am not the tinfoil hat type: but remember that the government ‘finds the facts’ against you in a criminal case (prosecution), and runs the judicial system that judges you.. all with your dollars. No one but you pays to defend you against those charges (except in the case of public defenders.. with can also be a problematic because the relation with the prosecutors office can be nepotistic). There is no real cost for them to prosecute an unsubstantiated case against you(with your dollars).. but there is definitely a cost to you, to defend yourself against such a case.

1st and 2nd amendments are the bulwarks against such systematic abuse. Hopefully we never get to the state where we really need to use what the 2nd amendment allows us. I would really hate to see that day. Even worse would be to give up the guarantees of the 2nd amendment in the name of perceived safety.. only to need its guarantee later. (Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. – Benjamin Franklin)

[ucodegen]

The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 is a bill sponsored by Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA)[1][2][3] in the 110th United States Congress. Its stated purpose is to deal with “homegrown terrorism and violent radicalization”[4] by establishing a national commission, establishing a center for study, and cooperating with other nations.

The bill defines some terms including “violent radicalization,” “homegrown terrorism,” and “ideologically based violence,”[8] which have provoked controversy from some quarters. [9][10][11][12]

So are you a terrorist/or radicalized if you do not like the way things are going, if you feel that the voice of the average citizen has been marginalized, if you feel that there are what seem like coordinated efforts to disenfranchise the existing voters to the effect of keeping the existing power base in power? This is getting to be a very slippery slope.

The government has to remember that it is to respond to and for the service of the citizenry (as a whole and not for any one specific to the detriment of another specific group) and not the other way around. The real purpose of the 1st amendment is to allow the citizenry to know what their government is doing, free from government tampering. The real purpose of the 2nd amendment is to allow the people to take their government back should it decide to ‘run itself’ to the benefit of itself and the detriment of its citizens. It has to be remembered that the colonists were just fresh from/in the process of throwing off the bonds of Imperial England and were quite aware of why they were able to. They wanted the citizens of America to repeat the process if the situation was ever repeated.

I am not the tinfoil hat type: but remember that the government ‘finds the facts’ against you in a criminal case (prosecution), and runs the judicial system that judges you.. all with your dollars. No one but you pays to defend you against those charges (except in the case of public defenders.. with can also be a problematic because the relation with the prosecutors office can be nepotistic). There is no real cost for them to prosecute an unsubstantiated case against you(with your dollars).. but there is definitely a cost to you, to defend yourself against such a case.

1st and 2nd amendments are the bulwarks against such systematic abuse. Hopefully we never get to the state where we really need to use what the 2nd amendment allows us. I would really hate to see that day. Even worse would be to give up the guarantees of the 2nd amendment in the name of perceived safety.. only to need its guarantee later. (Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. – Benjamin Franklin)

[ucodegen]

The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 is a bill sponsored by Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA)[1][2][3] in the 110th United States Congress. Its stated purpose is to deal with “homegrown terrorism and violent radicalization”[4] by establishing a national commission, establishing a center for study, and cooperating with other nations.

The bill defines some terms including “violent radicalization,” “homegrown terrorism,” and “ideologically based violence,”[8] which have provoked controversy from some quarters. [9][10][11][12]

So are you a terrorist/or radicalized if you do not like the way things are going, if you feel that the voice of the average citizen has been marginalized, if you feel that there are what seem like coordinated efforts to disenfranchise the existing voters to the effect of keeping the existing power base in power? This is getting to be a very slippery slope.

The government has to remember that it is to respond to and for the service of the citizenry (as a whole and not for any one specific to the detriment of another specific group) and not the other way around. The real purpose of the 1st amendment is to allow the citizenry to know what their government is doing, free from government tampering. The real purpose of the 2nd amendment is to allow the people to take their government back should it decide to ‘run itself’ to the benefit of itself and the detriment of its citizens. It has to be remembered that the colonists were just fresh from/in the process of throwing off the bonds of Imperial England and were quite aware of why they were able to. They wanted the citizens of America to repeat the process if the situation was ever repeated.

I am not the tinfoil hat type: but remember that the government ‘finds the facts’ against you in a criminal case (prosecution), and runs the judicial system that judges you.. all with your dollars. No one but you pays to defend you against those charges (except in the case of public defenders.. with can also be a problematic because the relation with the prosecutors office can be nepotistic). There is no real cost for them to prosecute an unsubstantiated case against you(with your dollars).. but there is definitely a cost to you, to defend yourself against such a case.

1st and 2nd amendments are the bulwarks against such systematic abuse. Hopefully we never get to the state where we really need to use what the 2nd amendment allows us. I would really hate to see that day. Even worse would be to give up the guarantees of the 2nd amendment in the name of perceived safety.. only to need its guarantee later. (Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. – Benjamin Franklin)

[ucodegen]

The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 is a bill sponsored by Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA)[1][2][3] in the 110th United States Congress. Its stated purpose is to deal with “homegrown terrorism and violent radicalization”[4] by establishing a national commission, establishing a center for study, and cooperating with other nations.

The bill defines some terms including “violent radicalization,” “homegrown terrorism,” and “ideologically based violence,”[8] which have provoked controversy from some quarters. [9][10][11][12]

So are you a terrorist/or radicalized if you do not like the way things are going, if you feel that the voice of the average citizen has been marginalized, if you feel that there are what seem like coordinated efforts to disenfranchise the existing voters to the effect of keeping the existing power base in power? This is getting to be a very slippery slope.

The government has to remember that it is to respond to and for the service of the citizenry (as a whole and not for any one specific to the detriment of another specific group) and not the other way around. The real purpose of the 1st amendment is to allow the citizenry to know what their government is doing, free from government tampering. The real purpose of the 2nd amendment is to allow the people to take their government back should it decide to ‘run itself’ to the benefit of itself and the detriment of its citizens. It has to be remembered that the colonists were just fresh from/in the process of throwing off the bonds of Imperial England and were quite aware of why they were able to. They wanted the citizens of America to repeat the process if the situation was ever repeated.

I am not the tinfoil hat type: but remember that the government ‘finds the facts’ against you in a criminal case (prosecution), and runs the judicial system that judges you.. all with your dollars. No one but you pays to defend you against those charges (except in the case of public defenders.. with can also be a problematic because the relation with the prosecutors office can be nepotistic). There is no real cost for them to prosecute an unsubstantiated case against you(with your dollars).. but there is definitely a cost to you, to defend yourself against such a case.

1st and 2nd amendments are the bulwarks against such systematic abuse. Hopefully we never get to the state where we really need to use what the 2nd amendment allows us. I would really hate to see that day. Even worse would be to give up the guarantees of the 2nd amendment in the name of perceived safety.. only to need its guarantee later. (Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. – Benjamin Franklin)

[ucodegen]

The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 is a bill sponsored by Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA)[1][2][3] in the 110th United States Congress. Its stated purpose is to deal with “homegrown terrorism and violent radicalization”[4] by establishing a national commission, establishing a center for study, and cooperating with other nations.

The bill defines some terms including “violent radicalization,” “homegrown terrorism,” and “ideologically based violence,”[8] which have provoked controversy from some quarters. [9][10][11][12]

So are you a terrorist/or radicalized if you do not like the way things are going, if you feel that the voice of the average citizen has been marginalized, if you feel that there are what seem like coordinated efforts to disenfranchise the existing voters to the effect of keeping the existing power base in power? This is getting to be a very slippery slope.

The government has to remember that it is to respond to and for the service of the citizenry (as a whole and not for any one specific to the detriment of another specific group) and not the other way around. The real purpose of the 1st amendment is to allow the citizenry to know what their government is doing, free from government tampering. The real purpose of the 2nd amendment is to allow the people to take their government back should it decide to ‘run itself’ to the benefit of itself and the detriment of its citizens. It has to be remembered that the colonists were just fresh from/in the process of throwing off the bonds of Imperial England and were quite aware of why they were able to. They wanted the citizens of America to repeat the process if the situation was ever repeated.

I am not the tinfoil hat type: but remember that the government ‘finds the facts’ against you in a criminal case (prosecution), and runs the judicial system that judges you.. all with your dollars. No one but you pays to defend you against those charges (except in the case of public defenders.. with can also be a problematic because the relation with the prosecutors office can be nepotistic). There is no real cost for them to prosecute an unsubstantiated case against you(with your dollars).. but there is definitely a cost to you, to defend yourself against such a case.

1st and 2nd amendments are the bulwarks against such systematic abuse. Hopefully we never get to the state where we really need to use what the 2nd amendment allows us. I would really hate to see that day. Even worse would be to give up the guarantees of the 2nd amendment in the name of perceived safety.. only to need its guarantee later. (Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. – Benjamin Franklin)

[ucodegen]

1) If I obtain a gun now legally and violence and unrest occurs, I expect the government to seize my firearm. I might also face an undesired level of scrutiny for having even registered a firearm in the past.

Correct. Interesting side note, in the plans that Nazi Germany had for taking over a country by subversion, a section included locating those members of a the said country who had gun ownership and removing the firearms by any means possible, including trumped up charges. The other part was to subvert those in charge – ie blackmail, threats etc.. and if those are not effective, make them vanish.

2) If I obtain an illegal gun now so the government won’t know who to confiscate it from, I am making myself a criminal now which I don’t want.

Or learn to be a gunsmith.. so you can make one if the need every arrives. This way you don’t break the ‘registration’ of the firearm and get yourself in trouble that way… even though ‘registration’ is technically unconstitutional. It infringes on the right by requiring an action in order to own a firearm. The 2nd amendment says “shall not be infringed”.. not “shall not be prevented”. This was to prevent hegemony against the right through successive restriction.

But I know that if it becomes known that I have necessities that are scarce, I’m making myself a target. That is the big reason I’m thinking of home defense.

Are any other non gun owners thinking similar thoughts?

I am more concerned about the government than the citizenry. Usually the citizens pull together in time of trouble while the government is more concerned about maintaining its authority..

[ucodegen]

1) If I obtain a gun now legally and violence and unrest occurs, I expect the government to seize my firearm. I might also face an undesired level of scrutiny for having even registered a firearm in the past.

Correct. Interesting side note, in the plans that Nazi Germany had for taking over a country by subversion, a section included locating those members of a the said country who had gun ownership and removing the firearms by any means possible, including trumped up charges. The other part was to subvert those in charge – ie blackmail, threats etc.. and if those are not effective, make them vanish.

2) If I obtain an illegal gun now so the government won’t know who to confiscate it from, I am making myself a criminal now which I don’t want.

Or learn to be a gunsmith.. so you can make one if the need every arrives. This way you don’t break the ‘registration’ of the firearm and get yourself in trouble that way… even though ‘registration’ is technically unconstitutional. It infringes on the right by requiring an action in order to own a firearm. The 2nd amendment says “shall not be infringed”.. not “shall not be prevented”. This was to prevent hegemony against the right through successive restriction.

But I know that if it becomes known that I have necessities that are scarce, I’m making myself a target. That is the big reason I’m thinking of home defense.

Are any other non gun owners thinking similar thoughts?

I am more concerned about the government than the citizenry. Usually the citizens pull together in time of trouble while the government is more concerned about maintaining its authority..

[ucodegen]

1) If I obtain a gun now legally and violence and unrest occurs, I expect the government to seize my firearm. I might also face an undesired level of scrutiny for having even registered a firearm in the past.

Correct. Interesting side note, in the plans that Nazi Germany had for taking over a country by subversion, a section included locating those members of a the said country who had gun ownership and removing the firearms by any means possible, including trumped up charges. The other part was to subvert those in charge – ie blackmail, threats etc.. and if those are not effective, make them vanish.

2) If I obtain an illegal gun now so the government won’t know who to confiscate it from, I am making myself a criminal now which I don’t want.

Or learn to be a gunsmith.. so you can make one if the need every arrives. This way you don’t break the ‘registration’ of the firearm and get yourself in trouble that way… even though ‘registration’ is technically unconstitutional. It infringes on the right by requiring an action in order to own a firearm. The 2nd amendment says “shall not be infringed”.. not “shall not be prevented”. This was to prevent hegemony against the right through successive restriction.

But I know that if it becomes known that I have necessities that are scarce, I’m making myself a target. That is the big reason I’m thinking of home defense.

Are any other non gun owners thinking similar thoughts?

I am more concerned about the government than the citizenry. Usually the citizens pull together in time of trouble while the government is more concerned about maintaining its authority..

[ucodegen]

1) If I obtain a gun now legally and violence and unrest occurs, I expect the government to seize my firearm. I might also face an undesired level of scrutiny for having even registered a firearm in the past.

Correct. Interesting side note, in the plans that Nazi Germany had for taking over a country by subversion, a section included locating those members of a the said country who had gun ownership and removing the firearms by any means possible, including trumped up charges. The other part was to subvert those in charge – ie blackmail, threats etc.. and if those are not effective, make them vanish.

2) If I obtain an illegal gun now so the government won’t know who to confiscate it from, I am making myself a criminal now which I don’t want.

Or learn to be a gunsmith.. so you can make one if the need every arrives. This way you don’t break the ‘registration’ of the firearm and get yourself in trouble that way… even though ‘registration’ is technically unconstitutional. It infringes on the right by requiring an action in order to own a firearm. The 2nd amendment says “shall not be infringed”.. not “shall not be prevented”. This was to prevent hegemony against the right through successive restriction.

But I know that if it becomes known that I have necessities that are scarce, I’m making myself a target. That is the big reason I’m thinking of home defense.

Are any other non gun owners thinking similar thoughts?

I am more concerned about the government than the citizenry. Usually the citizens pull together in time of trouble while the government is more concerned about maintaining its authority..

[Author]

Posts