possenti
Member
1994 - Twentynine Palms California. Largest USMC base in the world. Here's a link:
http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/419.html
Probably just a myth/conspiracy theory, though... Tinfoil hat and all that...
How they will take your Guns....
- Thread starter bjbarron
- Start date
- Status
1994 - Twentynine Palms California. Largest USMC base in the world. Here's a link:
http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/419.html
Probably just a myth/conspiracy theory, though... Tinfoil hat and all that...
Smoke
Member
Escuse me for not reading the whole thread, but I lifted this from the front page:
I'm so sorry you have nothing greater to live for.
Smoke
I'm so sorry you have nothing greater to live for.
Smoke
Chris Rhines
Member
The initial post makes some assumptions that may be in error.
Come on, guys, we've known about these tricks for YEARS. Frankly, if the gov't rams through a universal gun ban, then as far as I'm concerned, all communication with the Feds stops. They send me an audit notice? I toss it in the trash. I have to appear in court? My response is the written equivalent of an upraised middle finger. They freeze my bank accounts? I've already cleaned them out and stashed my cash. I guess that if the gov't really wanted me that bad, they could mount 24-hour survellience on me and pick me up at the local Barnes and Noble. But 24-hour survellience is really expensive and really time-consuming, and picking me up at B&N leads to the possibility of a replay of the Miami FBI shootout. The gov't will have to make some hard choices about whether I'm worth going after.
What you are describing here is an outlaw government. A government that violates its own rules and regulations with impunity, imprisons dissidents and ignores individual rights, no different from Soviet Russia or China under Mao. You knew this was coming, once that confiscation order was announced.
What do you think is an appropriate way to deal with such a government? Don't answer right now, just think about it.
- Chris
It's impossible to estimate how good the gov't database of firearms in private hands is. Based on what we know about the NFA registry, I think it's safe to assume that it's not very complete or accurate, and based on what I know about database management, I'd say it's unlikely to get any better in the foreseeable future.
I'll skip the part about BATFE no longer being an arm of the DoTreasury - that's been covered. I want to talk about the fake audit scam, and its cousins, the unpaid traffic ticket scam, the bogus court appearance scam, and all the other methods of getting me out of the house so the Man can search in peace.
Come on, guys, we've known about these tricks for YEARS. Frankly, if the gov't rams through a universal gun ban, then as far as I'm concerned, all communication with the Feds stops. They send me an audit notice? I toss it in the trash. I have to appear in court? My response is the written equivalent of an upraised middle finger. They freeze my bank accounts? I've already cleaned them out and stashed my cash. I guess that if the gov't really wanted me that bad, they could mount 24-hour survellience on me and pick me up at the local Barnes and Noble. But 24-hour survellience is really expensive and really time-consuming, and picking me up at B&N leads to the possibility of a replay of the Miami FBI shootout. The gov't will have to make some hard choices about whether I'm worth going after.
Ground-penetrating radar is a myth verging on a scam. It has never worked.
And now we come to the really uncomfortable part.
What you are describing here is an outlaw government. A government that violates its own rules and regulations with impunity, imprisons dissidents and ignores individual rights, no different from Soviet Russia or China under Mao. You knew this was coming, once that confiscation order was announced.
What do you think is an appropriate way to deal with such a government? Don't answer right now, just think about it.
- Chris
Cool Hand Luke 22:36
member
I'm glad someone else has noticed that Snope's is less than 100% accurate on a lot of questions, especially the political ones.
If you read through their "debunking of the myths" over John Kerry's medals you'll catch just a "slight hint"
of political bias.Cool Hand Luke 22:36
member
He is likely thankfull that he has something greater to give his life for.
molonlabe
Member
Attention: Thread drift
Not a myth. The fit hit the sham when this was released and the person conducting the survey (an officer) immediately released that it was part of a paper for a degree he was trying to obtain and the US Military had no part of it.
Damage control or truth you decide. Mean while pass me the tinfoil, I think I'm gonna need it.
2nd Amendment
member
OK, the experiment will be done later tonite, some...events...transpired last nite with the teen daughter that kind of ruined the "ambience" around the house this AM. Anyway, I got three frogs so that'll do...I don't know about video, Pax, I don't have a camera in the house at this point and I'm not sure where to get one on short notice...We'll see...
Anyway, I got three frogs so that'll do...I don't know about video, Pax, I don't have a camera in the house at this point and I'm not sure where to get one on short notice...We'll see...bjbarron
Member
Boy, I use one little analogy and the thread goes all scientific on me...
It's a good thing I didn't say anything like:
"She's got a face that would make a freight train take a dirt road"....
You guys would be out with your cameras at a moveon.org anti-war rally snapping pictures of the chicks. Then you'd blow them up to life-size and hang them by railroad tracks to see what happened.
It's a good thing I didn't say anything like:
"She's got a face that would make a freight train take a dirt road"....
You guys would be out with your cameras at a moveon.org anti-war rally snapping pictures of the chicks. Then you'd blow them up to life-size and hang them by railroad tracks to see what happened.
Phil Ca
Member
Over the years we have heard about and read about "registration leading to confiscation" but have any of you on this board actually seen that up close and personal??? Well, I have seen it and experienced it when in Vietnam in 1965/66 and it was conducted by the US Army using the 1st ID as the entity to do the registering and later the confiscation.
At Fort Riley during the pre-shipping out phase we were treated to a briefing at the main theatre with a captain as the Q&A guy. He gave the lowdown on what we should expect to bring with us and all about turning our T-shirts and shorts a nice green color. during the Q&A period someone brought up the private handgun issue. The captain said that everyone was issued a M14 rifle for their use. He went on to say that if a pistol or revolver were to find its way into our gear it should be at least in .38 Special or .45 ACP. ( ) Some of us took that statement to mean it was OK to bring a firearm along.
I went to a surplus/sporting goods store in Manhattan, Kansas and purchsed a model 40 S&W in .38 Special and a box of cartridges. I went to a gravel pit with my wife and two small kids and proceded to shoot 25 rounds at a couple different targets and distances. Since it was basically for my personal protection at close range i did not bother to try it beyong about 7 yards.
I had a small OD canvas case that fit the piece and disguised the shape and fit in my fatigue pocket of either jacket or trousers. I had been in a tank unit before the movement overseas and I used to talk to the Ordnance people that I ended up shipping with. I was known as a firearms person and they used to ask my advice on personal handguns to take on the trip. I always stick with the .45 ACP M1911 model or any small pocketable .38 Special. The Browning P35 was also a good choice but the 9mm ammo would not be as easy to obtain as the other two choices.
When we arrived in Vietnam we were not issued any rifle ammo and we entered the landing craft totally 'dry' except for a few handguns and one enterprising guy who figured we might not be issued ammo. He brought a box of .308 cartridges. We went through several searches during the voyage and also during our two weeks on the campus of Saigon U. where we were using tents and shower points while awaiting our trucks and the M88 tracked recovery vehicle.
At our final destination on the other side of the Michelin Rubber Plantation North of Saigon we ended up in a 1950's old French fort shaped like a triangle. We set out our security and started setting up a base camp. Those of us with personal handguns kept them out of sight and on a need to know basis only. This went on for some time and I even had to go to Saigon by chopper or Caribou or C123 aircraft a few times on company business. I carried my revolver with me and no one knew about it. When in Saigon we had a choice of pedicabs or motorized cyclos for transportation. I preferred the Vespa or Lambretta scooters that the "Saigon Cowboys" rode around on. You could hire one to take you to your destination and it was faster and the driver was in front of you. I always kept the revolver concealed and close at hand during these trips. I did not relish the idea of being taken down a dark alley to some possible confederate of the driver.
One day in formation the first sergeant made a speech about personally owned firearms. He said that the army knew that there were some in the unit and that they understood and just wanted to make sure that proper safety precautions were observed. We could continue to carry but in a holster openly and no more concealed carry. He said that we would need to go to the division military police tent about a half mile away and "register" our handguns. I walked up to where he was standing after the formation and asked casually what time the "confiscation' was taking place? The sergeant looked at me and said that he knew nothing about such a thing. I let him know that the Germans had seen to it that firearms were registered and then when they entered any country they immediately rounded up the firearms. He had a blank look on his face.
At the division MP tent I got the same blank look and denial of any such "confiscation", it was all for safety etc.(for the children?) I informed the sergeant on duty that the confiscation would suerly take place within 30 or 60 days. I suggested that he pay close attention as he might learn something about history. Sure enough a few weeks later when the majority of the GI's were sufficiently lulled back into somnolance type of state, the "confiscation" was started. I had a small padlock that I used to lock my revolver so that the trigger could not be pulled. I turned it in and commented to the first sergeant that my prediction was true. He still had the blank stare effect going on. All the arms were locked in the field safe and there must have been at least 10 or so iirc. One time during a resupply convoy down to 1stID HQ, the first sergeant asked me to drive a truck but I would have no co-driver due to a shortage of able drivers. I agreed with the proviso that I was allowed to carry my revolver on the trip. He did not want to do it but was desparate for a driver. I suggested that as the single driver i would not be able to drive and use a rifle at he same time. He finally relented but asked me to carry it concealed and tell no one about it. The trip turned out OK except when a 12 or 14 year old kid jumped up on the passenger side and held out a small paper cone of peanuts to me. I was reaching for the revolver when i recognized the paper cone of peanuts. I traded some gum for it and the kid jumped off he truck. I was thankful that my Far Eastern savvy was still intact and that I had recognized the peanuts and not shot the kid. i had been to korea and the PI where peanuts were sold in paper cones by street vendors. I was the only one in my unit with recent experience in the Far East.
When it waas nearing time to go back to CONUS I had to go to the local government office and pply for an export permit in order to get my revolver home again.
After Vietnam I ended up working for a government agency and sometime either worked with or trained with ATF, IRS, or USSS personnel. The ATF were by far the least preferred when it came to doing any law enforcement type work. Many of the ATF people were just plain "cowboys" and some did not seem to have a lick of common sense. I met a couple that were Ok but most were taking up space that could have been better utilized in other ways.
One time at a gun show at the Marin Civic Center there were two female ATF agents, one black and one white and dressed rather flashy. They went around making a nuisance of themselves and while they were there they were pretty well shunned by all present.
As to what we will due when the big move is made down the road I look for it to be incremental. Get a few states like NY, NJ, Mass, Hawaii and the PRK to go nutso on firearms and gradually increase the screws everywhere else. here in the PRK the big movement is to attempt to pass the idea of marking a serial number on each bullet so as to be able to track it down. We would have until 2007 to use or dispose of all our ammo that does not meet the "New" criteria. I don't know what they are smoking in Sacramento these days!
ALready the move has been on for sometime to eliminate older military or LEO personnel from the service and when they are gone the younger guys will not have the same affinity for the "Oath" to defend against ALL enemies both, FOREIGN and DOMESTIC! Think I am wrong? I have been observing this for some time. I have taken that oath in the military three times and 3 or 4 times in police and government service. when I took off the badge or uniform my oath still remained with me, as far as I am concerned.
At Fort Riley during the pre-shipping out phase we were treated to a briefing at the main theatre with a captain as the Q&A guy. He gave the lowdown on what we should expect to bring with us and all about turning our T-shirts and shorts a nice green color. during the Q&A period someone brought up the private handgun issue. The captain said that everyone was issued a M14 rifle for their use. He went on to say that if a pistol or revolver were to find its way into our gear it should be at least in .38 Special or .45 ACP. (
) Some of us took that statement to mean it was OK to bring a firearm along.I went to a surplus/sporting goods store in Manhattan, Kansas and purchsed a model 40 S&W in .38 Special and a box of cartridges. I went to a gravel pit with my wife and two small kids and proceded to shoot 25 rounds at a couple different targets and distances. Since it was basically for my personal protection at close range i did not bother to try it beyong about 7 yards.
I had a small OD canvas case that fit the piece and disguised the shape and fit in my fatigue pocket of either jacket or trousers. I had been in a tank unit before the movement overseas and I used to talk to the Ordnance people that I ended up shipping with. I was known as a firearms person and they used to ask my advice on personal handguns to take on the trip. I always stick with the .45 ACP M1911 model or any small pocketable .38 Special. The Browning P35 was also a good choice but the 9mm ammo would not be as easy to obtain as the other two choices.
When we arrived in Vietnam we were not issued any rifle ammo and we entered the landing craft totally 'dry' except for a few handguns and one enterprising guy who figured we might not be issued ammo. He brought a box of .308 cartridges. We went through several searches during the voyage and also during our two weeks on the campus of Saigon U. where we were using tents and shower points while awaiting our trucks and the M88 tracked recovery vehicle.
At our final destination on the other side of the Michelin Rubber Plantation North of Saigon we ended up in a 1950's old French fort shaped like a triangle. We set out our security and started setting up a base camp. Those of us with personal handguns kept them out of sight and on a need to know basis only. This went on for some time and I even had to go to Saigon by chopper or Caribou or C123 aircraft a few times on company business. I carried my revolver with me and no one knew about it. When in Saigon we had a choice of pedicabs or motorized cyclos for transportation. I preferred the Vespa or Lambretta scooters that the "Saigon Cowboys" rode around on. You could hire one to take you to your destination and it was faster and the driver was in front of you. I always kept the revolver concealed and close at hand during these trips. I did not relish the idea of being taken down a dark alley to some possible confederate of the driver.
One day in formation the first sergeant made a speech about personally owned firearms. He said that the army knew that there were some in the unit and that they understood and just wanted to make sure that proper safety precautions were observed. We could continue to carry but in a holster openly and no more concealed carry. He said that we would need to go to the division military police tent about a half mile away and "register" our handguns. I walked up to where he was standing after the formation and asked casually what time the "confiscation' was taking place? The sergeant looked at me and said that he knew nothing about such a thing. I let him know that the Germans had seen to it that firearms were registered and then when they entered any country they immediately rounded up the firearms. He had a blank look on his face.
At the division MP tent I got the same blank look and denial of any such "confiscation", it was all for safety etc.(for the children?) I informed the sergeant on duty that the confiscation would suerly take place within 30 or 60 days. I suggested that he pay close attention as he might learn something about history. Sure enough a few weeks later when the majority of the GI's were sufficiently lulled back into somnolance type of state, the "confiscation" was started. I had a small padlock that I used to lock my revolver so that the trigger could not be pulled. I turned it in and commented to the first sergeant that my prediction was true. He still had the blank stare effect going on. All the arms were locked in the field safe and there must have been at least 10 or so iirc. One time during a resupply convoy down to 1stID HQ, the first sergeant asked me to drive a truck but I would have no co-driver due to a shortage of able drivers. I agreed with the proviso that I was allowed to carry my revolver on the trip. He did not want to do it but was desparate for a driver. I suggested that as the single driver i would not be able to drive and use a rifle at he same time. He finally relented but asked me to carry it concealed and tell no one about it. The trip turned out OK except when a 12 or 14 year old kid jumped up on the passenger side and held out a small paper cone of peanuts to me. I was reaching for the revolver when i recognized the paper cone of peanuts. I traded some gum for it and the kid jumped off he truck. I was thankful that my Far Eastern savvy was still intact and that I had recognized the peanuts and not shot the kid. i had been to korea and the PI where peanuts were sold in paper cones by street vendors. I was the only one in my unit with recent experience in the Far East.
When it waas nearing time to go back to CONUS I had to go to the local government office and pply for an export permit in order to get my revolver home again.
After Vietnam I ended up working for a government agency and sometime either worked with or trained with ATF, IRS, or USSS personnel. The ATF were by far the least preferred when it came to doing any law enforcement type work. Many of the ATF people were just plain "cowboys" and some did not seem to have a lick of common sense. I met a couple that were Ok but most were taking up space that could have been better utilized in other ways.
One time at a gun show at the Marin Civic Center there were two female ATF agents, one black and one white and dressed rather flashy. They went around making a nuisance of themselves and while they were there they were pretty well shunned by all present.
As to what we will due when the big move is made down the road I look for it to be incremental. Get a few states like NY, NJ, Mass, Hawaii and the PRK to go nutso on firearms and gradually increase the screws everywhere else. here in the PRK the big movement is to attempt to pass the idea of marking a serial number on each bullet so as to be able to track it down. We would have until 2007 to use or dispose of all our ammo that does not meet the "New" criteria. I don't know what they are smoking in Sacramento these days!
ALready the move has been on for sometime to eliminate older military or LEO personnel from the service and when they are gone the younger guys will not have the same affinity for the "Oath" to defend against ALL enemies both, FOREIGN and DOMESTIC! Think I am wrong? I have been observing this for some time. I have taken that oath in the military three times and 3 or 4 times in police and government service. when I took off the badge or uniform my oath still remained with me, as far as I am concerned.
Last edited:
P95Carry
Moderator Emeritus
Fascinating post Phil - thank you for your time doing it.
All I can add regarding registration is - ''UK'' - I hardly need say more. BTDT!!
All I can add regarding registration is - ''UK'' - I hardly need say more. BTDT!!
possenti
Member
Phil,
Well done!
Thanks for your insight.
Well done!
Thanks for your insight.
2nd Amendment
member
After Phil's post I feel this is sort of ridiculous to even finish with.
First, a partial apology to DMF, since my experiment did NOT confirm my prior experience...entirely. OTOH it did not agree with the linked sources entirely, either.
OK, three frogs, about 8 inches with their legs out. Three pots of water and a small camp stove. Frogs and water in pans were all roughly room temp of about 72 degrees. Pans were a type my wife has with a central pad that heats, while the sides maintain a relatively normal temp(I don't know the brand name). Thus the frogs could crawl over the edge without getting burned. About 4 inches of water in each.
Sparing the long description, the first thing I tested was the first statement of the wives tale: That a frog dropped into boiling water would jump out. I suspected this was wrong. The water was below boiling and I could actually stick my fingers in it without feeling like the skin would fall of. I dropped the first frog in, with a net ready to scoop him out if he could not jump. No need, since he died almost instantly. I had expected this, since it seemed impossible to me to drop a cold-blooded creature into an enviroment 100 degrees + hotter then he was previously in and have him survive. His system just flat shut down in seconds.
Yummm (small) froglegs...
Second, was to put a frog into another pan of room temp water and begin increasing the heat. Now note this because it is important to my final conclusion, I believe: The frog I picked was an extremely active frog. He did not like being handled, did not like to sit still, etc. He didn't like the room temp water, either, and jumped out immediately several times. About the third or fourth time he finally stayed put, tired of the game I assume.
With about 35 degrees increase he started swimming again. By 50 degrees he was swimming rapidly and at about 60 degrees, around 130, he hopped out. He'd plainly had enough.
Snopes confirmed...so far.
Third frog, third pot of water. This water had apparently picked up a few degrees from the stove, as it was around 80. NOW, take note of the frog: This frog was the biggest, by a slight amount. It was also the most laid back. This guy couldn't care less. He'd sit in your hand, on the table, on the floor. He would sit and let the puppies lick him. Well, he tolerated that for a couple minutes anyway. I suppose dog saliva is good for keeping him from drying out...
Anyway, into the pot, on goes the flame and up goes the temp. At around 30 degrees increase he starts swimming. At 50 degrees, or again around 130, he's swimming more. After that he slowed down. At 170 he stopped moving. At 180 his back legs extended and he settled down into the water exactly as one would expect according to the wives tale. I let it go another minute or so then pulled him out. I didn't have the heart to kill him, though if anyone insists on finishing the experiment I will "test him to destruction". He's back in the bucket now and moving normally(which for him constitutes sitting there and breathing deeply).
Conclusions:
Part one of the wives tale is wrong. Throw a frog in boiling water and it dies. In my opinion that is still relevant to this discussion in that a rapid change of enviroment has certain violent and predictable repercussions.
Part two I find to be incredibly relevant to this discussion because it appears to me that...
It all depends on the frog in question.
I don't think I need to expand on that, and I may make it my new sig line.
Whatever, make of it what you will. Sorry Pax, no pics. Since things didn't go exactly my way I'm not too eager to try it again, either.
First, a partial apology to DMF, since my experiment did NOT confirm my prior experience...entirely. OTOH it did not agree with the linked sources entirely, either.
OK, three frogs, about 8 inches with their legs out. Three pots of water and a small camp stove. Frogs and water in pans were all roughly room temp of about 72 degrees. Pans were a type my wife has with a central pad that heats, while the sides maintain a relatively normal temp(I don't know the brand name). Thus the frogs could crawl over the edge without getting burned. About 4 inches of water in each.
Sparing the long description, the first thing I tested was the first statement of the wives tale: That a frog dropped into boiling water would jump out. I suspected this was wrong. The water was below boiling and I could actually stick my fingers in it without feeling like the skin would fall of. I dropped the first frog in, with a net ready to scoop him out if he could not jump. No need, since he died almost instantly. I had expected this, since it seemed impossible to me to drop a cold-blooded creature into an enviroment 100 degrees + hotter then he was previously in and have him survive. His system just flat shut down in seconds.
Yummm (small) froglegs...
Second, was to put a frog into another pan of room temp water and begin increasing the heat. Now note this because it is important to my final conclusion, I believe: The frog I picked was an extremely active frog. He did not like being handled, did not like to sit still, etc. He didn't like the room temp water, either, and jumped out immediately several times. About the third or fourth time he finally stayed put, tired of the game I assume.
With about 35 degrees increase he started swimming again. By 50 degrees he was swimming rapidly and at about 60 degrees, around 130, he hopped out. He'd plainly had enough.
Snopes confirmed...so far.
Third frog, third pot of water. This water had apparently picked up a few degrees from the stove, as it was around 80. NOW, take note of the frog: This frog was the biggest, by a slight amount. It was also the most laid back. This guy couldn't care less. He'd sit in your hand, on the table, on the floor. He would sit and let the puppies lick him. Well, he tolerated that for a couple minutes anyway. I suppose dog saliva is good for keeping him from drying out...
Anyway, into the pot, on goes the flame and up goes the temp. At around 30 degrees increase he starts swimming. At 50 degrees, or again around 130, he's swimming more. After that he slowed down. At 170 he stopped moving. At 180 his back legs extended and he settled down into the water exactly as one would expect according to the wives tale. I let it go another minute or so then pulled him out. I didn't have the heart to kill him, though if anyone insists on finishing the experiment I will "test him to destruction". He's back in the bucket now and moving normally(which for him constitutes sitting there and breathing deeply).
Conclusions:
Part one of the wives tale is wrong. Throw a frog in boiling water and it dies. In my opinion that is still relevant to this discussion in that a rapid change of enviroment has certain violent and predictable repercussions.
Part two I find to be incredibly relevant to this discussion because it appears to me that...
It all depends on the frog in question.
I don't think I need to expand on that, and I may make it my new sig line.
Whatever, make of it what you will. Sorry Pax, no pics. Since things didn't go exactly my way I'm not too eager to try it again, either.
2nd Amendment
member
I honestly thought this looked like one of my more abysmal failures, as I sat there waiting for the wife to fry those two frog legs(yes, I was determined to eat them since I don't kill just to kill). I was wondering how to phrase things without looking entirely foolish when SHE said "Well, looks like it kinda depends on the frog to me".
WHAM! Like being hit with a shovel.
WHAM! Like being hit with a shovel.
cracked butt
Member
Now do 100 frogs and you should be able to get statistically relevent proof one way or another. All in the name of science you know 
2nd Amendment
member
You catch em, I'll cook 'em...
Well I'm glad to see you at least ate the one you killed.
However, considering I got an A in every statistics class he ever took, I agree with cracked butt, you need a larger sample size to make it a relevant test. If you're going to do it I suggest cold Guiness to go with the post test frog leg feast.
However, considering I got an A in every statistics class he ever took, I agree with cracked butt, you need a larger sample size to make it a relevant test. If you're going to do it I suggest cold Guiness to go with the post test frog leg feast.
B
Boss Spearman
Guest
"Then who "best represents our interests"? At least in the BIG 2 party system?"
The Libertarians best represent my interests, and they are who I vote for.
I know....wasted votes
The Libertarians best represent my interests, and they are who I vote for.
I know....wasted votes
possenti
Member
The "laid back" frog who "couldn't care less" must've been a Democrat.
He was sitting there in the pot thinking, "Hey, where's my beer and TV?"
He was sitting there in the pot thinking, "Hey, where's my beer and TV?"
TallPine
Member
Frogs != People
For one thing, the frogs are probably smarter.
For one thing, the frogs are probably smarter.
Zundfolge
Member
First off I disagree that the AWB sunset "doesn't count".
But that notwithstanding, there HAVE been reversals of law in our favor.
Despite the MG ban part, the 1986 FOPA was a HUGE reversal of some of the worse parts of the '68 GCA (like the recordkeeping for ammo purchases and no protection for interstate travel with firearms).
And then there's the biggest "reversal" of all Concealed Carry which has sprung up all over this country.
When the 1968 GCA was passed, was there anyplace other then Vermont you could legally CCW? Was there any such thing as a "Shall Issue" permit?
Granted I believe that the 2A should guarantee us national "Vermont Style" CCW, but we've still seen a huge movement in our direction.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
