The straw that breaks the camel's back?
- Thread starter VaultDweller
- Start date
azredhawk44
Moderator
"All I've got left is this Charles Daly 1911 knockoff, this Taurus .22 revolver, my beat-up win94 and this .22 rifle. I lost my .44 on a rafting trip, my glock went kaboom with a bad load, I sold the sp101 because I didn't like how it felt in my hand with full magnum loads, and I sold the XD9 too. I don't care for 9mm... Not good for critter defense. I turned in the M1a during the last buyback. I was worried about it being stolen, but at least I got $75 for it."
I don't think there is much of a chance of there being a civil war, at least in the conventional sense. The discrepancy between civilian arms and military arms has grown too great, and now we have a permanent army of well trained soldiers. Only if the armed forces somehow fracture and had internal fighting could a true civil war be possible.
I think a more likely scenario would be that our nation descends into anarchy, and then have the government replaced by an authoritarian regime. And when I say authoritarian I do not mean little executive orders like eavesdropping on international phone calls, but true authoritarian power in the likeness of Hitler or Stalin.
FYI osufanboy - boy Clintoon had people who shouted bad comments at him in public arrested by the SS (Secret Service)! BDS strikes again.
In the first revolutionary war only 3% of the population fought the Brits. It’s never the majority that fights these kinds of wars it always the "true believers" and those willing to take the first bullets that getsher done.
+1 Scope. The Chinese people did not believe the "People's Army" would fire on T Square either. Still that a significant % of the military might decide to follow their oath of office instead of a kill the citizen order keeps the politicians awake at night..
In the first revolutionary war only 3% of the population fought the Brits. It’s never the majority that fights these kinds of wars it always the "true believers" and those willing to take the first bullets that getsher done.
+1 Scope. The Chinese people did not believe the "People's Army" would fire on T Square either. Still that a significant % of the military might decide to follow their oath of office instead of a kill the citizen order keeps the politicians awake at night..
SECOND Civil War???
Just a passing observation...
There has never been a civil war in this country - the concept that the War of Northern Aggression was a "civil war" has been foisted on us by the liberal left-wing socialist acedemia.
The generally accepted concept of civil war is one or more groups in a nation state attempting to usurp control of said state by force. This is not what transpired in 1861. The states that seceeded had simply excersised their right to no longer be bound/controlled by the increasingly over-bearing federal structure. They had no intention or desire to take control of the federal government or any other state which did not desire to participate.
Comments?
Just a passing observation...
There has never been a civil war in this country - the concept that the War of Northern Aggression was a "civil war" has been foisted on us by the liberal left-wing socialist acedemia.
The generally accepted concept of civil war is one or more groups in a nation state attempting to usurp control of said state by force. This is not what transpired in 1861. The states that seceeded had simply excersised their right to no longer be bound/controlled by the increasingly over-bearing federal structure. They had no intention or desire to take control of the federal government or any other state which did not desire to participate.
Comments?
Hey guys, don;t know how old most of you are but think back a few years, say in the 50s and early 60s--Federal troops were called in to integrate schools in the south, none balked, they just did it---remember Arkansas and Ole Miss. Right or wrong it was a regional thing and many of the "troops" were local national guard--bowed up against their own brothers and families.
If it comes down to it, I am sorry to say, they will take our guns.
Our only defense is to beatum to the draw and insure thta the call is never made. The existing "Patriot" act could allow just that. As it stands "they" make the rules as they go along.
We have to elect representatives who are "with us" not those who claim to be with us until after the vote than they do the "politically correct" thing. It is unfortunate but unless there are a hell of a lot of "closet" gun owners we are in a small minority, just as hunters are in a small minority, like less than 10%. WE as hunters and gun owners who want to continue to be such and pass it on to generations yet to come, must realise that we have to stick together, have one agenda, can't be for shot gun hunting and against rifle hunting, can't be against personal protection weapons and for hunting weapons, we gotta stick together--too much of this republican/democrate crap. We waste our energy and resources this way.
If it comes down to it, I am sorry to say, they will take our guns.
Our only defense is to beatum to the draw and insure thta the call is never made. The existing "Patriot" act could allow just that. As it stands "they" make the rules as they go along.
We have to elect representatives who are "with us" not those who claim to be with us until after the vote than they do the "politically correct" thing. It is unfortunate but unless there are a hell of a lot of "closet" gun owners we are in a small minority, just as hunters are in a small minority, like less than 10%. WE as hunters and gun owners who want to continue to be such and pass it on to generations yet to come, must realise that we have to stick together, have one agenda, can't be for shot gun hunting and against rifle hunting, can't be against personal protection weapons and for hunting weapons, we gotta stick together--too much of this republican/democrate crap. We waste our energy and resources this way.
Wildalaska
Moderator
Im dying for someone to quote me the specific sections of the Partiot Act with reference to prior statutory and case law AND actual use that has driven a stake into the heats of freedom loving Patriots...
Tapping fooot 1, 2, 3, 4....
WildfactsfactsfactsAlaska
Wildalaska
Moderator
Nope not "seems" how about specific refernces?
WildiwanttolearnAlaska
HAH, it's a trick question.
The patriot act hasn't been enacted long enough for anything to make it to an appellate level requiring a written opinion that asserts that "freedom loving patriots" have been injured by it.
Several sections of the PA have been declared unconstitutional already in federal district court (it's the "trial" court level - no written opinion AFAIK, just rulings).
So how's about framing the Q into one which can be answered instead. Something like: Can anyone reference any case, Constitutional, or statutory law which was/is altered by the Patriot Act and found that the Patriot Act was unlawful or improper?
The patriot act hasn't been enacted long enough for anything to make it to an appellate level requiring a written opinion that asserts that "freedom loving patriots" have been injured by it.
Several sections of the PA have been declared unconstitutional already in federal district court (it's the "trial" court level - no written opinion AFAIK, just rulings).
So how's about framing the Q into one which can be answered instead. Something like: Can anyone reference any case, Constitutional, or statutory law which was/is altered by the Patriot Act and found that the Patriot Act was unlawful or improper?
Wildalaska
Moderator
No fellas...its not a trick question:
Read it again. Here let me help
Tell me what SPECIFIC sections YOU feel have driven a stake into the heart of freedom loving patriots, cite the section word for word.
Then tell me how those horrible sections are different from prior or pre existing laws with reference to the specific statues and cases you are reciting.
Im not interested in some DC decision. Not am I intested in opinions. Just the facts as set forth above.
Until you can answer them, you have no biz whining about the patriot act.
WildrealworldAlaska
Read it again. Here let me help
Tell me what SPECIFIC sections YOU feel have driven a stake into the heart of freedom loving patriots, cite the section word for word.
Then tell me how those horrible sections are different from prior or pre existing laws with reference to the specific statues and cases you are reciting.
Im not interested in some DC decision. Not am I intested in opinions. Just the facts as set forth above.
Until you can answer them, you have no biz whining about the patriot act.
WildrealworldAlaska
WA,
I attended a local shindig on the Patriot Act and, out of what I'd guess were around 250 in attendance, I was the only one that actually had a copy of the text.
Granted, it ran close to 350 pages, but one would think if a League of Women Voters sponsored food fight was to address the act, somebody would be curious as to what was in it.
Nope. Just talking points. 3 hours of my life that I'll never get back. All the depth and attention to details that one would expect of, say, Jerry Springer.
That said, I believe what was causing most of the vapors was Title 2, section 215. The words in question were:
I believe that prior to the act, "any tangible thing" was limited to car rental records, hotel records and the like, and this expansion is what put the librarians on the warpath. ("FBI in your library", etc.)
Course we got this too:
The text of act can be found here (refreshingly free of commentary). There's also a link to a pdf version towards the top.
I attended a local shindig on the Patriot Act and, out of what I'd guess were around 250 in attendance, I was the only one that actually had a copy of the text.
Granted, it ran close to 350 pages, but one would think if a League of Women Voters sponsored food fight was to address the act, somebody would be curious as to what was in it.
Nope. Just talking points. 3 hours of my life that I'll never get back. All the depth and attention to details that one would expect of, say, Jerry Springer.
That said, I believe what was causing most of the vapors was Title 2, section 215. The words in question were:
I believe that prior to the act, "any tangible thing" was limited to car rental records, hotel records and the like, and this expansion is what put the librarians on the warpath. ("FBI in your library", etc.)
Course we got this too:
But since the order is not disclosed, I doubt that would be much of a speed bump.
The text of act can be found here (refreshingly free of commentary). There's also a link to a pdf version towards the top.