Queasy Feeling I Just Can't Shake...

[camslam]

It never stops so we can't either.

Kind of the whole point to this thread. What I have learned is there are many gun owners that are in their own happy little areas and don't get affected to directly by the efforts of anti-gunners, but I have a sneaking hunch that with the elections this fall, ALL gun owners are going to be hurting in one way or another in a couple of years.

Let's hope I am dead wrong.

 

[Wes Janson]

You may see some guy claiming to be a gunny, and he's posting pictures of his toys, and all that other crap, and then he's trying to talk you into either not voting, voting third party, or even voting against the 2nd amendment... I'm even guessing that some of those folks are being paid to cause as much of this as possible.

So telling people that we need to break out of a two-party political system before it kills us, I'm actually a Democratic Party spy? Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?

 

[camslam]

So telling people that we need to break out of a two-party political system before it kills us

Wouldn't it be nice. I'm fairly confident it would be a lot better for our gun rights, how about the common sense party?

 

[bogie]

Odds of a third party actually becoming powerful enough to get a president elected: maybe 3-5%.

Odds of our lives going to hell if the Democrats get the white house: 100%.

So?

 

[telecaster1981]

Something to consider:

Is fighting for this (or any) cause after all diplomatic avenues have been exhausted really pointless or counterproductive? I shudder at the thought of having to make the decision between compromising and living my life or dying with my principles, and I hope I never find out which road I'll actually take. But, I have to consider what I want my legacy to be. Do I want my son (now 9 months old) to remember me as:
A.) A man who had strong beliefs and was willing to fight and die for them and the betterment of his country.

or,

B.) Someone who sold out when the moment of truth arrived and compromised the principles and integrity of his country and family.

I want my son to live in a nation with all of the freedoms expressed in the Constitution. Those who would like to see the people of America as silent and helpless as the citizens of many other countries are testing us now to see what we'll tolerate and have been for quite some time. At what point do we press 'reset?' I'm not sure, but I hope I know it when I see it!

And, to be clear, it's not about the guns. Although I hate the thought of not being able to hunt, shoot, etc. anymore, my greatest fears are much bigger. Historically, firearms confiscation has led to all sorts of abuses of power and suppression of citizens as you all surely recognize. I don't want to have to worry that my son, grandchild, etc. will be sent off to the Goulag for believing or voicing something that contradicts the government. I don't want anyone in future generations to live in fear or even feel subservient to our government. That's not what we as Americans are about (hopefully). We have brave young men and women fighting and dying on foreign soil for these ideals so that there's a better tomorrow for not just Americans but the people of the entire world! There are sons, daughters, wives, and husbands who mourn the loss of their loved ones who have died 'over there.' Wouldn't it be exceptionally hypocritical for none of us to fight for those same ideals here on American soil? Maybe not just hypocritical but a huge slap in the face to those who did fight and die for our freedoms.

I hope all measures will be taken to avoid such an outcome, but should the time come for us to decide between defending our ideals and selling out, I hope we'll choose to honor our ancestors and improve the lives of our successors. I'm 26 years old and plan to live many more years with my wife and son and perhaps even a few more kids. I'll want to teach them all I can but I'm afraid my lessons may fall on deaf ears if I fail to practice what I preach. At least if I'm gone, I'll know that my wife will tell my children how I died for what was right and they'll grow up with some principles. Now, imagine an entire generation of children growing up with a sense of what liberty means. Some of them may even get into office when they grow up...

 

[camslam]

At what point do we press 'reset?' I'm not sure, but I hope I know it when I see it!

And, to be clear, it's not about the guns.

Even though it sounds cliched, I really believe it is about the guns. The reason we just hypothesize about the "what if's", that could happen if we needed to "reset" our country, is solely because of our heritage, our fight for independence, the American Dream/Spirit, which culminates in the 2nd amendment which gives each of us power.

I truly believe it seems inconcievable for our country to turn into a police state, where our civil rights are suspended, because there are enough guns in the hands of the people that it would almost be impossible to force us to do certain things.

The problem as I see it, is we gun owners are like the old "frog in a hot pot" analogy.

-At first you lure the frog into the pot on the stove because the pot is full of nice cool clean water.

-Next you turn on the heat and turn it up a little bit at a time continually, while the frog doesn't really notice it is getting really hot, because of the slow incremental increases in temp.

-Before the frog knows it, the water is boiling and he is cooked and floating, dead in the water.

I think this is really where we are at in our country regarding gun rights. We have made some nice gains over the last few years, but everywhere around the country, people, politicians, and anti-gunners are continually trying to incrementally increase the gun laws on gun owners. Before we know it, if we aren't careful, we will be cooked and floating.

The bottom line is we have to ask ourselves, "where do we really draw the line in regards to anti-gun laws?" There is no way I could live in some of the states in our country and making a move recently to Arizona, even with the gun laws we have, they aren't as good as the gun laws in the state from which I moved.

I don't know. I hate to keep repeating myself, but with the political future that is likely to happen, coupled with the lazzes-faire attitude of most gun owners, I think we are in for trouble.

 

[JKimball]

To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.
---John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)

I like to consider this quote when people start talking about using our right to bear arms to set the government straight.

The way I interpret this is that when the feds start going house to house taking guns and killing those that won't surrender them, you better hope that you have a governor that will call out the state militia (including you) to put a stop to it.

Now I'm wondering what is supposed to happen if the governor is the one doing the disarming and killing? Bring the Feds in?

 

[camslam]

JKimball: I really like that quote, and there is wisdom in it. Especially the part I put in bold.

To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.
---John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)

I don't think any gun owners are hoping for a world or country where everyone walks around holding their guns and uses either just the sight of the firearm or the actual pulling of a trigger to influence or motivate actions they would prefer. (Kind of what Hollywood portrays the old Wild, Wild, West as.)

However, in many states, you are not allowed to use a gun for self defense, unless you have retreated to the point you can go no further, somehow figured out how to get your trigger lock off, loaded a magazine or cylinder with ammo, and then use the gun the way it was designed to be used.

The way I interpret this is that when the feds start going house to house taking guns and killing those that won't surrender them, you better hope that you have a governor that will call out the state militia (including you) to put a stop to it.

Once again, I seriously doubt this is the way it will go. Laws will be passed, the majority of gun owners that ask themselves this type of question, and then they will proceed to just turn their guns in with nothing more than a frown.

I shudder at the thought of having to make the decision between compromising and living my life or dying with my principles, and I hope I never find out which road I'll actually take. But, I have to consider what I want my legacy to be.

It is what happened in England, Australia, and Canada. Think Frog in a hot pot, because it is already happening in states like California, Hawaii, Massachussetts, New Jersey, Illinois, Washington DC, etc...

 

[JKimball]

Once again, I seriously doubt this is the way it will go. Laws will be passed, the majority of gun owners that ask themselves this type of question, and then they will proceed to just turn their guns in with nothing more than a frown.

At some point, if they want to enforce a no guns law, they are going to be doing raids. Just like they do for illegal drugs. I can see a lot of people just turning them over, as you suggest, but there are obviously many who won't.

Furthermore, I just can't see some states accepting a law like that. For example, you know Utah pretty well, right? Do you think Utah would ever sit back and say, well, Obama said we need to give him our guns. We better give them to him. How about Texas? Wyoming? Montana? Alaska? Arizona? I think a lot of state governments would reject a law like that big time.

 

[blackcash88]

Furthermore, I just can't see some states accepting a law like that. For example, you know Utah pretty well, right? Do you think Utah would ever sit back and say, well, Obama said we need to give him our guns. We better give them to him. How about Texas? Wyoming? Montana? Alaska? Arizona? I think a lot of state governments would reject a law like that big time.

And, I'd imagine a lot of states wouldn't like parts of their state constitution being made irrelevant by the fed government. Even my gay assed, liberal state, Connecticut, has a clause in its constitution saying that people have a right to own firearms in defense of themselves and the state.

 

[camslam]

Furthermore, I just can't see some states accepting a law like that. For example, you know Utah pretty well, right? Do you think Utah would ever sit back and say, well, Obama said we need to give him our guns. We better give them to him. How about Texas? Wyoming? Montana? Alaska? Arizona? I think a lot of state governments would reject a law like that big time.

Truthfully, even in those states it is a constant struggle to defend and expand our gun rights. I am most familiar with Utah and Arizona and in each of those states in the last legislative session, there were some gun laws passed, but most were shot down. Here in AZ, old Napolitano vetoed any of the gun laws that had teeth because she is a lame duck governor and it won't matter what she does now, she can't be re-elected.

I guess I don't have much faith in State government vs Federal government. The BATF is pretty much its own entity and runs rough shod over whoever it wants. And I believe there is enough ignorance and misinformation with joe citizen, that many would be fine with the government coming in to rid our society of those evil guns.

Really when it boils down, there MAY be a 1/3 of the states that might fight it, but overall I don't have that much faith.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

camslam, if you really want to be scared (or happy - depending on your outlook), look back at how the situation was in 1999 or 1994.

As grim as it might look now, it was much worse in the past and it has improved because of the determined and continuous efforts of gun owners. As long as gun owners keep standing up for their rights and reaching out to others to educate them, it will continue to get better.

 

[camslam]

I wholeheartedly agree, but realistically, what is standing in the way of the "perfect storm" of an Obama presidency, a Schumer (Reid is nothing but a puppet and mouthpiece) run Senate, a Pelosi run House, and a retirement of at least Ginsburg and Stevens, with just as, if not more, liberal successors?

Nationally and locally we have had a pretty good run the last 5 years, when it comes to gun rights. I don't think it will priority #1 of the Dems when they are in complete control, but I guarantee it will be on the list.

Hopefully gun owners will combine and make it difficult if not painful to try to move any additional gun control legislation. The problem I see is the losses that continue to mount in certain states, and the ideas that spread from those into what were once, havens for gun owners.

I would love to see the liberal anti-gunners that came to Arizona from California go back, but it probably isn't going to happen. When I heard they were actually debating a "micro-stamp" bill in our state this year, I shook my head in disgust, wondering how that happened.

I guarantee it will be back next year, and if not then, the year after.

 

[TallPine]

How about Texas? Wyoming? Montana? Alaska? Arizona? I think a lot of state governments would reject a law like that big time.

Montana gave notice to the Supreme Court that a non-individual rights 2A interpretation would invalidate our statehood contract.

Right now, the D & R candidates for governor are having an argument over which one of them is the most pro-gun

Current governor has a rifle hanging in his office even though it is technically illegal in a state building.

 

[camslam]

I wanted to add, look at what is happening with oil drilling and how it could compare to gun legislation in the future.

Pelosi wouldn't even ALLOW an up or down vote in the House over oil drilling because as she said, "she is trying to save the planet." There is nothing that the other 430+ reps can do, other than complain.

When you have the power to control what gets moved, written, voted on, and enacted, the sky is the limit. It is more than likely that you will see the same kind of stuff when it comes to gun issues. And it is up to the House leadership to decide what is debated and voted on. Translation: gun control = good, we should vote and pass it. Gun rights = bad, we should not discuss it, vote on it, or pass it.

Just the way it works and the deck is most assuredly stacked against us.

 

[RP88]

Even though it sounds cliched, I really believe it is about the guns.

It's about power. the power to control our own lives, the power to be free, the power to have the final word in if the big fed decides to represent itself and not listen to our side of things. The gun just keeps everyone - more or less - on a fair playing field. All in all, you can get the same result with a violent mob of bat-wielding brick-throwers as you can with a violent mob of people armed with guns.

 

[blackcash88]

Current governor has a rifle hanging in his office even though it is technically illegal in a state building.

Could just be one of those decorative replica non-firing guns. My CO when I was stationed in Japan (real guns = HUGE no no!) had a western holster rig with two non-firing six shooter replicas in his office. He was from Texas.

 

[camslam]

RP88: That is pretty much what I was trying to say. The realities are gun = power. For good and bad.

While you are correct that a mob with bats is poweful and scary, I think most of them would turn tail and run at the mere sight of a mob loaded with AK-47's, AR-15's, a few Mossbergs, Benelli's, and Remingtons, and a few dozen different types of handguns.

The old saying of not bringing a knife to a gun fight is still as relevant today as it was when first uttered. I think that is one of the reasons why I care so much about gun rights, when you no longer have the ability to "equalize" things, you soon find yourself on the short side of the stick.

 

[blackcash88]

I think that is one of the reasons why I care so much about gun rights, when you no longer have the ability to "equalize" things, you soon find yourself on the short side of the stick.

And the sad realization is what we are already on the "short side of the stick". If fed.gov/leo.mil really want our guns? They're going to get them one way or another.

Sorry, but a civilian, either as an individual, or part of a rag tag militia, cannot hold their own against troops with full auto weapons, body armor, grenade launchers, flash bang grenades, land/airborne infrared and night vision, CS gas, armored and heavily armed wheeled and tracked vehicles, armed helicopters, air support, unmanned aerial vehicles, etc. People love to wax romantic about the SPIRIT of the Revolutionary War, but sorry...ain't happening in modern times. Now, it isn't just running around in the woods on foot/horseback and shooting at each other with muskets and cannons. Look at the Branch Dividians in Waco. They were under SUSPICION of having illegal weapons, but it was not PROVEN and fed.gov still went in with lethal force. The Dividians were armed to the teeth and took a stand but were very promptly taken out. They did NOT start the fire. And, here we have people who actually still think LEOs and the military/gov't alphabet agencies wouldn't execute an unconstitutional order. It HAS been done and it WILL happen again. Sure, some may resist, but a great many, especially the military, will just blindly follow orders to stay out of the brig for disobeying a direct order. I know as I spent years in the Navy as a helicopter pilot and many are just "mind numbed robots" that will do whatever to avoid the most pain, discomfort, etc.

Seriously, in their heart of hearts, what would the "normal" person REALLY do when faced with a confiscation order from multiple heavily armed and armored troops with armored vehicles in the background and a crew served weapon pointed at their front door? Then add the police, helicopters flying around, news coverage, etc. Think Katrina.

 

[JKimball]

Montana gave notice to the Supreme Court that a non-individual rights 2A interpretation would invalidate our statehood contract.

Tallpine, that is awesome. I was unaware of that. That took some courage, and hopefully it will set a precedent that will make it easier for Montana to do again if necessary, and will make it easier for other states to follow their example.

 

[blackcash88]

Way back when, a number of states decided they didn't want to play with the fed.gov, either. It didn't end well for them. The same thing would happen with Montana or whomever else decided that they are going to TRY to secede from the "union".

 

[Poor East Texan]

Getting queasier all the time! I don't think McCain even wants to win. And I don't feel all THAT good if he does!

 

[VegasOPM]

I can't say that I feel queasy per se, but I don't feel warm and tingly either. I think that we are on a crest between some lows in gun ownership. I have been stocking up as much as possible on all of the stuff that got hard to find between 1994 and 2004. One positive that we have seen from the Klinton era was that the gubmint tends to limit access much more readily than they take away. They might stop the sale of semi autos, high caps, etc- but that they aren't going to put themselves in the precarious position of stopping by homes and taking away guns.

They aren't stupid. Assuming there are 75,000,000 gun owners in this country- if .001% of those owners chose to fight back when the Brown Shirts...err Black Shirts... came by for a visit- there would be 75,000 people shooting at them. Even if only 10% of those folks fought back successfully, there would be 7,500 dead G-Men. That's hard on morale. Not to mention the PR nightmare when the BATF raids started showing up on YouTube 1000 times a day.

 

[Loomis]

Look.

I'm Posting this comment to the original post of this thread(and maybe to the folks that run this sit too)

I am worried. But maybe not as much as you. I really believe that the only reason bush was elected was because of the NRA. Now, I am not a perfect supporter of the NRA. Iam not a perfect supporter of the am radio talking heads. I trust no one.

These ya-hoos do as they think we want them to do. That goes for NRA as well. Rush, laura, bla bla bla. they all repeat what people are thinking. that is how they get their ratings and income and publicity.

It is true that people like us are getting smaller and smaller in the ranking of population percentages. Maybe we are approaching a tipping point.

But you and I are what matters. This country would be a worthless piece of **** if all of us left. DC knows that. They need the entrepreneurs. They need the bible belt and all the military recruits that come from that region.

Without bible thumpers and entrepreneurs this country would fold.

So take up your arms, take up your ballot, make your voice large, and dont let thos SOBs get away with anything! We are what puts them in power and don't let them forget it!

 

[dalepres]

I guess I am not radical enough

I am just getting back to THR after a few years. As I expected, it seems that so many are hopped up on fears that everything will come crashing down any moment. I just don't understand. I have been a gun owner for 45 years, and I firmly support controls on firearms. After all, why should we protect that barrio cholo's right to have massive firepower?

I think all rational people agree that there needs to be SOME control of firearms to limit what a criminal can legally use.

Camslam, you answer your own question about why you need to fear losing your gun rights. What does it mean to have controls on the firearms that a criminal can legally use? I just don't get that; guns that criminals can legally use... Exactly the reason Brady's are trying to ban handguns, to limit the guns that criminals can legally use to rob convenience stores. And if your own statements don't answer your question about why the 2nd Amendment is still at risk, read Leedavisone's reply above.

Criminals break the law when they rob a store in the first place. That they used a gun really has nothing to do with it. Convenience stores get robbed all the time with sticks, stones, or even unarmed strong-arm robbers.

Blaming the gun is a Brady trick. That so many gun owners and supposed supporters fo the 2nd Amendment support the idea just shows how successful the anti-gun lobby's arguments have been.