The gun debate tends to focus on the "problem" of mass shootings with "assault rifles", but the biggest reason a lot of rational people don't choose to have a gun in the home is the risk of suicide. Guns make suicide quick and convenient, and therefore attractive as a way out of depression and anxiety. And that's why doctors ask about it, and see firearms ownership as a public health issue. Thousands and thousands of lives are lost each year to gun-assisted suicide. How many of us haven't known a friend or relative or colleague who's been touched by it?
Considering that it's government (rather, make that government with a "big G") that's asking...
I have no problems or qualms whatsoever when it comes to lying about something that is none of their damned business.
"Just say 'No.'" No matter what. Such a time is not the time to lecture somebody on the right to be left alone.
If any word other than "No!" comes from your mouth when asked this question, the Doctor, who is really not in your employ will write down "Yes" (he/she works for the State Licensing Board). To a bureaucrat, it's a binary question. "Nunya bidness" will be taken as a "Yes!"
LOL! I would laugh my ass off if my doc asked me that sort of shit. Never happened. Probably never will... And the answer is self-evident.
Where you live you would probably be certifiable if you DIDN'T own a weapon.Isn't that true for all of us anyway?
"Just say 'No.'" No matter what. Such a time is not the time to lecture somebody on the right to be left alone.If any word other than "No!" comes from your mouth when asked this question, the Doctor, who is really not in your employ will write down "Yes" (he/she works for the State Licensing Board). To a bureaucrat, it's a binary question. "Nunya bidness" will be taken as a "Yes!"@Cyber Liberty
@Cyber Liberty
My doctor asks one question followed by two short comments. He asks, "Is your emergency book out yet?" Followed by, "I'm buying it." Followed by, "In an emergency, I'm coming to your house to live." He knows I have an arsenal and is counting on me having them. We have two extra bedrooms and he has claim on one. As long as he brings a stack of medicine, he is welcome.
If I lived near you, I'd have a tent and a couple bug-out bags ready to go to your house. ^-^
Try Roamer's place. Better class of vermin where he lives.
@Victoria33 has better weather.
Sorry, no... Cold can be dealt with... heat, not so much.
Sorry, no... Cold can be dealt with... heat, not so much.@Cyber Liberty
Depends on the person. I was raised in Michigan, and I found that cold was not something I could deal with. It was the digging my car out from under the show to get to class/work, and the fact that my feet were constantly cold. That's how I ended up in Phoenix.
Now, after 40 or so years, I'm finding Summers more difficult to get through, so we're looking for something in between to retire. Sedona is where Mrs. Liberty is starting to window shop houses.
I don't know where Roamer roams but I'm Heading to Montana if SHTF Gonna Do my pilgrim imitation and get into Jeremiah Johnson mode.
That's my gig. :beer:
Better come early and get to learning.
You have done well to keep so much hair, when so many's after it. I hope... you will fare well. And Maybe we will cross paths. The Rocky Mountains is the marrow of the world.
:shrug: Six of one...@roamer_1
I have plentiful potable surface water, plentiful game, and plentiful wood, both for building and for heat, out there in the bush. If SHTF, I do not need to maintain a castle - I will hold to 'castle' thinking while I can, but I can go 'ranger' at any given moment... I will trade all that for a little cold any day.
Desert, not so much. Water is scarce and needs to be made potable, game is scarce, and endless days over 95 degrees with no means of mediation makes for a tough set of problems if you get kicked out of your castle.
@Cyber Liberty
@roamer_1
Not to worry, Cyber. I have battery fans with unending battery power and certain type missing fans that cool the ambient air around you and special type towels that do not drip water but hold water in them and one goes around your neck and will cool you down for hours as water evaporates, before you need to dip it in water, again.
I have gone through numerous hurricanes, losing power, in hot weather and stayed cool.
Winter is not a problem, either. Have devices to keep you warm. I do not want to be in subzero weather.
I have seven ways to cook and will never run out of fuel. Will never run out of pure water - I can make pure water out of water in a ditch.
I was not prepared then to get out of the house quickly, and didn't have enough methods to stay cool in the house. Now, I am prepared for staying or leaving.
It's part of the annual physical questions, like are you depressed, are you sexually active, does anyone in your home make you afraid. When the ask me 'Do you have a gun in your home?' I always answer honestly "No I do not have A gun in my home", I mean why take it out on the doctor or office personnel for asking a question the government makes them. I mean it's not like most people don't lie to their doctors most of the time anyway. :shrug:
Yes, you are a "prepper" as our parents were preppers.
The original preppers were our parents/grandparents. You and I are old enough to know how our parents/grandparents lived. [...] Their food was all around them; it was my grandparents who had wood stoves for cooking and staying warm. In preparing, as in prepper, I simply returned to how people lived before they had power.
I also studied American Indians, how they did it. [...] A few are the same breads our cowboys made and ate on the range along with the first settlers in this country. Hoe bread is there.
There is a section of my book titled, "We Did It To Ourselves". We depend on others to keep us alive [...] I am not willing to let them decide whether I live or die.
Even if the water is contaminated with biological agents? I figure if we ever do get "hit"... they will throw everything they've got at us. They'll figure they have to.
@XenaLee
Depends on the agents, but yes with the correct tools the biological agents will be filtered out. Most bio and chem agents are sensitive to UV as well. I'll let you do a search on biological agents and water supply to confirm as I don't want to appear on any more DHS alerts.
The CDC site does list water as a method of distributing some of these weapons. https://emergency.cdc.gov/agent/sarin/basics/facts.asp
A ton of variables so its safer to filter all drinking water.
Even if the water is contaminated with biological agents? I figure if we ever do get "hit"... they will throw everything they've got at us. They'll figure they have to.@XenaLee
Call me paranoid... but I'm surprised they haven't already done something to our water supply. It would follow. Except that... if they have dreams of taking over the USA, it would be harshing their buzz too in the long run.
@XenaLee
The entire water system goes away if the entire power system goes away (except for people who have a well). The attacker doesn't have to put anything in the water as it isn't going anywhere. No point to put something in it, just turn off the power. People start to die after three days without water. Look up Berkey water purifier on line and read how it works to provide pure water. It is a "purifier" not just a filter.
So, take out all power, stop all water. To infect all water in the country would be hugely difficult to do. A Berkey would purify it but a rogue country isn't going to poison "some" water; they are going to take out all the power, thereby stopping all the water and killing millions.
@XenaLee
From my Air Force training making these agents really isn't the hard part. Delivery is much harder. yes you can hit small numbers of people but hitting an entire city is actually quite complex and would require a lot of resources.
Putting any of these in a water supply would require a large volume of whatever they were using. I think our govt is also watching those places fairly closely.
How did we go from doctor's asking about guns to water purification exactly?
I probably can't afford what they're charging for that filter.... but there's a creek in walking distance from me where I could get water if I ran out of my supply. Would a Brita pitcher work? lololol@XenaLee
How did we go from doctor's asking about guns to water purification exactly?
@XenaLee
No, Brita is not a purifier, won't purify raw water coming from a creek or anywhere else. Boil creek water.
Don't look at it. I blame the wommen
Yeah, I have a fireplace and lots of firewood. I was just kidding about the Brita. I can afford a 'little' more expensive filter system than that...lol. Do you know of any in the $200 range?
You may be right about suicides. Personally though if that's the reason for the question, it's kinda foolish. As with murder, if a person wanted to off himself, there are other ways to do so without firearms. So if a person is suicidal, should we take away not only his guns, but also his knives, medications, maybe even his gas range? Seems silly to me.
The numbers are grim: According to the latest numbers I found, 60 percent of all adult firearm deaths are by suicide. And 51 percent of all suicides are committed by gun.
Guns are quick and efficient killing machines. An individual wracked by temporary depression will turn to a gun when the impulse strikes; whereas if there was no gun in the house he may think twice, or three times, because of the need to plan and the fear of having to suffer a slow and painful death.
The numbers don't lie - if you have a gun in your house, it is far more likely to be used by a family member to commit suicide than to prevent a home invasion. Lots of rational folks conclude that the best way to protect your family is to keep a gun out of the house.
Go ahead and lie to the doc when he asks his questions. But think about your family, your friends, your fellow church members and your colleagues - most all of us know someone who has been touched by the tragedy of suicide. And in half of those cases, statistically, that person may well be alive today if there weren't a gun in the house.
Yeah, I have a fireplace and lots of firewood. I was just kidding about the Brita. I can afford a 'little' more expensive filter system than that...lol. Do you know of any in the $200 range?
The numbers are grim: According to the latest numbers I found, 60 percent of all adult firearm deaths are by suicide. And 51 percent of all suicides are committed by gun.
Guns are quick and efficient killing machines. An individual wracked by temporary depression will turn to a gun when the impulse strikes; whereas if there was no gun in the house he may think twice, or three times, because of the need to plan and the fear of having to suffer a slow and painful death.
The numbers don't lie - if you have a gun in your house, it is far more likely to be used by a family member to commit suicide than to prevent a home invasion. Lots of rational folks conclude that the best way to protect your family is to keep a gun out of the house.
Go ahead and lie to the doc when he asks his questions. But think about your family, your friends, your fellow church members and your colleagues - most all of us know someone who has been touched by the tragedy of suicide. And in half of those cases, statistically, that person may well be alive today if there weren't a gun in the house.
I have no means of purifying... no filters, no chemicals...
But I do have stock pots to boil on a wood fire, and if called for, can convert that easily to a water still. Learn how to make a still and have the parts available... it's a simple thing.
I have no means of purifying... no filters, no chemicals...
But I do have stock pots to boil on a wood fire, and if called for, can convert that easily to a water still. Learn how to make a still and have the parts available... it's a simple thing.
Building will sanitize the water but it won't purify it. The difference being bacteria and viruses are killed by high temperature but chemicals like pesticides, lead, radioactive fallout are not. So it depends on the source and the circumstance. Additionally, boiling requires a lot of wood. Something you may not want to run out and cut when food is low.
Stills will purify, if you have the wood.
Yeah, I have a fireplace and lots of firewood. I was just kidding about the Brita. I can afford a 'little' more expensive filter system than that...lol. Do you know of any in the $200 range?\
@roamer_1
BTW, sand and charcoal are both effective for basic water purification. It wont get the bacteria/virus but will get most of the floaties and even some of the chemicals (charcoal).
Create a large funnel and have a couple feet of each with sand being on top.
@driftdiver
YEP. But that's where I am... In deep forest. One thing I've got is wood. And water is mostly potable here... so unless I am pulling water out of a lake or beaver pond, I generally don't even need to boil. So the emphasis is more on containers that can boil, and the still as a precaution. But to be sure, the still is used for... other things... so it's purpose for water purity is incidental. :D
Call me paranoid... but I'm surprised they haven't already done something to our water supply. It would follow. Except that... if they have dreams of taking over the USA, it would be harshing their buzz too in the long run.
You guys should watch Wild Wild Country. The nation's one and only bioterrorism attack was committed by a cult and they tried to hit the water supply (it was apparently ineffective).
Im in Florida. If I go down about 12 inches I get water, not clean but its wet. Put a pipe down about 50 feet and hit the aquifer. Never a need to even filter that water.
...glacial waters are always pure.
Lots of rational folks conclude that the best way to protect your family is to keep a gun out of the house.
My experience with glacial waters in Alaska were so heavy with minerals they were completely undrinkable. Mouth would pucker up so bad it was almost impossible to swallow.
@Jazzhead,
Any actual proof of this?
[...] recognize that there is a rational argument for never having one anywhere near one's home and family.
Mind you, I'm not trying to take your guns away.
\
@XenaLee
Get the Big Berkey @driftdiver just posted. Will purify water from a ditch, any kind of water. If water has dirt in it, filter as much of the dirt out as possible using coffee filters. When as clean as possible, filter through the Berkey and you have pure water. You can count on this filter working, any home made gizmo will not work as well as the Berkey. You must have pure water in an emergency where water is affected, such as water system out due to hurricane or the hurricane took out utility water purification and the water is contaminated, or tornado did that, etc.
Just completed multi-page medical history questionnaire in California.
No questions about guns, not do I recall ever having such questions.
I thought the largest US bio-terrorism attack hit salad bars with salmonella.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/atlas_obscura/2014/01/09/the_largest_bioterror_attack_in_us_history_began_at_taco_time_in_the_dalles.html (http://www.slate.com/blogs/atlas_obscura/2014/01/09/the_largest_bioterror_attack_in_us_history_began_at_taco_time_in_the_dalles.html)
Does anybody remain who believe that assertion? The only reason you claim you aren't trying to do that is because you know you can't directly, and are instead nibbling at the edges with measures like registration that you know will get that confiscation you want so badly, eventually.
Well, we're not fooled. We will not comply with the measures you proclaim so innocent.
Why would I want to confiscate guns? Sure, I support registration, but I've been consistent in opposing the leftwing bullcrap ideas like banning "assault" weapons. You want to play GI Joe? Go right ahead!
All I'm advocating is that gun owners take responsibility for the potentially dangerous devices they choose to keep. But I can see that taking personal responsibility is an alien concept to folks who vow to lie to their own doctors. *****rollingeyes*****
Your mocking and insulting good people will get you nowhere.
,
I recall a study of Israeli soldiers, who had a high suicide rate. When the rules were changed to bar soldiers from taking their service weapons home on weekends, the suicide rate fell by 40%.
Guns are uniquely quick and efficient, and lend themselves well to "impulse" suicides. If you want to cite some NRA-financed study to the contrary, go right ahead. But it seems like common sense to me.
Mind you, I'm not trying to take your guns away. But in your zeal to defend these killing devices, recognize that there is a rational argument for never having one anywhere near one's home and family.
Asking gun owners to take responsibility for their weapons is "mocking and insulting"? *****rollingeyes*****
Too many folks have chips on their shoulder. The community reasonably requires folks to register their cars before using them for their intended purpose. It is just as reasonable to require gun owners to conduct all purchases and transfers of their guns by documented means. It is unreasonable to jump to the conclusion that such a requirement masks a secret agenda of confiscation. Gun owners have little faith in the Constitution when they demand the right to live separate and apart from the community.
@driftdiver
Fifty FEET? Heck, you could dang near put a sandpoint on the end of a pipe and drive it in with a post pounder... Lucky you.
Our aquifer where I am is about 120' down through rock... so it's a job to get at it. but we have springs just about everywhere, and they feed the creeks. so head waters and glacial waters are always pure.
...The community reasonably requires folks to register their cars before using them for their intended purpose. It is just as reasonable to require gun owners to conduct all purchases and transfers of their guns by documented means....
You keep making that false claim, I'll keep pointing out it is false. It doesn't matter how you use it. It only matters where. And then your false analogy falls apart.@thackney
If you don't use it on public roads, you don't have to register; you do not have to insure. But you want all guns, anywhere for any reason registered. In spite of the fact that ~97% of guns used in crimes were illegally obtained in the first place.
@thackney
@mystery-ak
@Cyber Liberty
I could use a woman's Kotex pad to stuff a person's mouth with it, pushing it so far back, air could not get into or out of the person's lungs and he/she would die. I have advocated (not) that Kotex are murder instruments, but they continue to be sold. They should be regulated, every sale should require the person's name and address in case he/she uses them to kill. They should be off the counter and only be sold if a person directly asks for them. Only one should be sold at a time and the customer would have to wait a month to buy another one. The Kotex company should be sued for making these killer devices.
You keep making that false claim, I'll keep pointing out it is false.
It doesn't matter how you use it. It only matters where. And then your false analogy falls apart.
If you don't use it on public roads, you don't have to register; you do not have to insure.
But you want all guns, anywhere for any reason registered. In spite of the fact that ~97% of guns used in crimes were illegally obtained in the first place.
I think the time has come for reasonable regulation of Assault Kotex Pads.@Cyber Liberty
@Jazzhead
No, what you want is to infringe on peoples rights by making special provisions for firearm ownership and self defense.
@Cyber Liberty
Thank you for your support. I will pick you up to go with me when I go to Washington to speak to the US House and Senate about the Assault Kotex. We must regulate these dangerous Assault Kotex.
What "infringement" results from registration? As noted in my post immediately above, the Heller II case specifically found that a registration requirement imposes only a di minimis burden on the lawful gun owner.
What "infringement" results from registration? As noted in my post immediately above, the Heller II case specifically found that a registration requirement imposes only a di minimis burden on the lawful gun owner.
I think the time has come for reasonable regulation of Assault Kotex Pads.
Gun owners have little faith in the Constitution when they demand the right to live separate and apart from the community.
Yes, @thackey, I know you keep making that argument. And it continues to make no sense to me. Carving out an exception from registration for vehicles that aren't used on public roads is analogous to carving out an exception from registration of firearms for historical/collectible weapons that are rendered inoperative.
The intended use of 99% of all cars is to drive them on public roads, where they can potentially cause mayhem.
Just as the intended use of 99% of all guns is to fire them, and maintain them in condition where they can potentially cause mayhem.
What is the "false analogy" you're so hung up about?
Drivers must take responsibility. Why not gun owners?
The fact that most drivers obey the rules of the road doesn't excuse them from being licensed and registering their vehicles. So it is for gun owners - sure, most obey the law, but the purpose of registration is to help make sure that all transfers and dispositions of firearms are documented. That legitimate law enforcement purpose for registration, as noted in the Heller II case, creates only a di minimis burden on the lawful gun owner.
Road trip...count me in..I am on the way so no detours..lol
What "infringement" results from registration? As noted in my post immediately above, the Heller II case specifically found that a registration requirement imposes only a di minimis burden on the lawful gun owner.
....
Registration is not about taking responsibility. It is about collecting a use tax and providing proof you have paid it.
It's long drive, maybe a couple of stops would be in order? At least for kolaches and coffee?
What "infringement" results from registration? As noted in my post immediately above, the Heller II case specifically found that a registration requirement imposes only a di minimis burden on the lawful gun owner.
Funny,
Requiring a govt provided ID to vote is an infringement (according to the left and the radical courts)
Requiring a woman to have an ultrasound before killing an unborn baby is considered an infringement (according to the left and the radical courts).
But requiring registration of firearms, insurance, locks and a host of other things is not infringement?
The minds of Communists and Leftists are indeed an enigma to a normal person are they not?
@Jazzhead
What infringement comes from requiring a govt issued ID to vote? The left claims it is a barrier to the 'right' to vote.
Registration of firearms is a barrier to lawful exercise of our right to bear arms.
Just because the left adopts an idiot position doesn't mean that conservatives should parrot it.
Registration is a tiny burden that enhances public safety by encouraging documented transfers and dispositions of firearms. Just as an ID requirement is a tiny burden that enhances the efficacy of free and fair elections.
Why should my vote be rendered meaningless because the lack of a photo ID requirement encourages voter fraud? We all recognize that providing identification to vote is simple common sense.
So why should my and my family's safety be compromised because gun owners demand the right to assemble arsenals in secret (thereby creating the conditions whereby criminals can do the same thing?)
Thanks, @driftdiver , for proposing this analogy. We ALL understand the stupidity and selfishness of the left's arguments against voter IDs. Let's put down our prejudices and paranoia and understand that firearms registration can enhance public safety at little cost to gun owners. And that our Constitution provides the protection that registration will not lead to confiscation.
Registration is not about taking responsibility. It is about collecting a use tax and providing proof you have paid it.
So why should my and my family's safety be compromised because gun owners demand the right to assemble arsenals in secret (thereby creating the conditions whereby criminals can do the same thing?)
Stick it where the sun doesn’t shine statist...we will not comply...no matter how many times you propose your schemes.
You want them? YOU come and get them! Make sure you dont send someone else.
...Thanks, @driftdiver , for proposing this analogy. We ALL understand the stupidity and selfishness of the left's arguments against voter IDs. Let's put down our prejudices and paranoia and understand that firearms registration can enhance public safety at little cost to gun owners. And that our Constitution provides the protection that registration will not lead to confiscation.
Your safety is in no way compromised by my legal owning of multiple firearms.
Registration is indeed about taking responsibility.
I have never supported any restrictions on your legal owning of multiple firearms. Just that you register them so that your use, transfer and disposition of them can be identified as YOUR legal responsibility.
WE WILL NOT COMPLY.
You are going to have to empower the agents of your government to shoot and kill us to force compliance.
And then, when they come.... it's time to water the tree of liberty.
The purpose of registration - just as it is with cars - is to assign each firearm to the person who is legally responsible for its use, transfer and disposition.
:tongue2:
Take you meds, Axeslinger.
WE WILL NOT COMPLY.
You are going to have to empower the agents of your government to shoot and kill us to force compliance.
And then, when they come.... it's time to water the tree of liberty.
This is why I'm with @Axeslinger and @INVAR I will not comply either. Your protestations to the contrary, I know where that road leads. Your right to live "safe" and ignorant does not trump my God-given right to self defense.
And you say I'm wrong to accuse you of mocking. **nononono*
I'm with @Axeslinger. I think that little guy should not be allowed to delegate the chore of collecting our weapons. He's the one demanding lives be put at risk to enforce his plan, and a true leader of men goes to the front of the line when it's time to take on risk.
Just because the left adopts an idiot position doesn't mean that conservatives should parrot it.
Registration is a tiny burden that enhances public safety by encouraging documented transfers and dispositions of firearms. Just as an ID requirement is a tiny burden that enhances the efficacy of free and fair elections.
Why should my vote be rendered meaningless because the lack of a photo ID requirement encourages voter fraud? We all recognize that providing identification to vote is simple common sense.
So why should my and my family's safety be compromised because gun owners demand the right to assemble arsenals in secret (thereby creating the conditions whereby criminals can do the same thing?)
Thanks, @driftdiver , for proposing this analogy. We ALL understand the stupidity and selfishness of the left's arguments against voter IDs. Let's put down our prejudices and paranoia and understand that firearms registration can enhance public safety at little cost to gun owners. And that our Constitution provides the protection that registration will not lead to confiscation.
Stop hyperventilating. No one is threatening your "God given right to self defense". Set up barbed wire and snipers' nests at all four corners of your property if you're that paranoid about folks knocking on your door.
Registration is about taking responsibility, not deprivation of your rights. You are legally responsible for the use, transfer and disposition of your firearms. Do you really disagree with that statement? Registration is a reasonable tool by which the peaceable community can enforce that responsibility.
Idiocy deserves to be mocked.
No one is seeking to "collect your weapons". Take 'em to bed with you for all I care; tell Mrs. CL to use the couch.
Of course, if you defy the law, then you will be the legitimate target of law enforcement. I predict you'll fold like a cheap tent.
No one is seeking to "collect your weapons". Take 'em to bed with you for all I care; tell Mrs. CL to use the couch.
Of course, if you defy the law, then you will be the legitimate target of law enforcement. I predict you'll fold like a cheap tent.
Stop hyperventilating. No one is threatening your "God given right to self defense". Set up barbed wire and snipers' nests at all four corners of your property if you're that paranoid about folks knocking on your door.
Registration is about taking responsibility, not deprivation of your rights. You are legally responsible for the use, transfer and disposition of your firearms. Do you really disagree with that statement? Registration is a reasonable tool by which the peaceable community can enforce that responsibility.
I would like to explore this claim.
Let us start with use. How does registration of a firearm enforce responsible use of a firearm as compared to an unregistered firearm? What has changed impacting use?
@Jazzhead
More lies, of course you want to take peoples guns. You've openly stated that for all the noise you make about it.
I do notice that you threaten to use force (with firearms) to infringe upon other peoples rights. While you wouldn't do the dirty work yourself you are more than happy to send others.
Exactly the reason the Founders put the 2nd in there.
@thackney
IMO we need to be careful about being put on the defensive here. Like you did, we need to demand they justify all their outrageous plans.
Guns are illegal in Brazil and Mexico. They have massive crime problems. None of these gun control plans work but they keep pushing them. Because its not about safety, its about control.
Gun owners have little faith in the Constitution when they demand the right to live separate and apart from the community.
I'm not being defensive. I am tearing apart the false claims. When 97% of the guns used in crimes are already illegally obtained, it seems extremely foolish to concentrate on the 3% while pretending it is to reduce gun crime. Unless your motivation is actually something else.
It will significantly enhance public safety at minimal cost to gun owners.
Registration is indeed about taking responsibility. Gun owners are as obliged as anyone else to obey the reasonable laws of our Constitutional republic.
Registration is about taking responsibility, not deprivation of your rights. You are legally responsible for the use, transfer and disposition of your firearms. Do you really disagree with that statement?
Registration is a reasonable tool by which the peaceable community can enforce that responsibility.
It is not reasonable.
The left will do ANYTHING to break down that defense, because until they do, forwarding their agenda of subjugation is impossible.
They'll lie to us with soft talk all day long if it forwards that goal.
Registration is about taking responsibility, not deprivation of your rights.
You are legally responsible for the use, transfer and disposition of your firearms. Do you really disagree with that statement?
Registration is a reasonable tool by which the peaceable community can enforce that responsibility.
Of course, if you defy the law, then you will be the legitimate target of law enforcement. I predict you'll fold like a cheap tent.
We already are. The fact you can move about freely, say the vile crap you spew and live your life without being behind barbed wire is due the fact that we have been responsible with our arsenals that are secret and unknown to vile communist gun grabbers like yourself.
The thing about the barbed wire is, the grabbers fully expect to be on the outside, while you and I get the business end of it. That's what the Commies thought as they were watching the Jews being shoved into the cattle cars in France, Germany and Poland. Their turn to be at the business end of the bayonets came in due time, and so will the coward leftists' demanding our weapon registration/confiscation today.
They'll be more than happy to watch you and I be put in cages, but they're only forestalling their own imprisonment. Hoping the crocodile eats them last, as it were.
No one is seeking to "collect your weapons". Take 'em to bed with you for all I care; tell Mrs. CL to use the couch.
Of course, if you defy the law, then you will be the legitimate target of law enforcement. I predict you'll fold like a cheap tent.
Jazzhead is all about the imposition of his Commie-Liberal worldview of 'Community' by force. He is also the first person to scream aloud and declare evil, bigotry and threat the moment the 'community' he loathes refuses to comply with the demands of 'his community'.
We are clearly reaching the time when we can no longer peaceably coexist with these meddlesome tyrants.
It all depends on whether they can convince the big guys with the guns to go along with their scheme. If they are required to do the dirty work of coming and getting them themselves, it'll never happen and their yapping voices will get farther and farther away.
@Victoria33 has better weather.
I predict you'll fold like a cheap tent.
When 97% of the guns used in crimes are already illegally obtained . . .
Projecting again?
But no... you can't get next to what we here in Texas call "True Grit". And you never will.
Doesn't that factoid you cite indicate there's a problem? Those "illegally obtained firearms" are the fruit of a wild west mentality that folks have the "right" to keep arsenals in secret, and buy and sell deadly weapons off the backs of trucks. The goal of registration is assign each gun to the owner who is responsible for its use, transfer and disposition. That documented legal responsibility will help dissuade folks from transferring their guns in secret to criminals.
I am sick and tired of gun owners claiming they have the right to thumb their noses at the efforts of the people to get a handle on the epidemic of gun violence in this country.
Doesn't that factoid you cite indicate there's a problem? Those "illegally obtained firearms" are the fruit of a wild west mentality that folks have the "right" to keep arsenals in secret, and buy and sell deadly weapons off the backs of trucks. The goal of registration is assign each gun to the owner who is responsible for its use, transfer and disposition. That documented legal responsibility will help dissuade folks from transferring their guns in secret to criminals.
I am sick and tired of gun owners claiming they have the right to thumb their noses at the efforts of the people to get a handle on the epidemic of gun violence in this country.
I would like to explore this claim.
Let us start with use. How does registration of a firearm enforce responsible use of a firearm as compared to an unregistered firearm? What has changed impacting use?
@Jazzhead
I am sick and tired of gun owners claiming they have the right to thumb their noses at the efforts of the people to get a handle on the epidemic of gun violence in this country.
They are a lot further along in that effort and goal than we would like to acknowledge.
! No longer available (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YH9YSjS8WPA#)
Is that the idjit running for Sheriff somewhere? Eff him, he's a laughingstock. But you have a point, we need to watch these pukes every second. So what else is new?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Idiocy.
I am sick and tired of gun owners claiming they have the right to thumb their noses at the efforts of the people to get a handle on the epidemic of gun violence in this country.
Doesn't that factoid you cite indicate there's a problem?
Those "illegally obtained firearms" are the fruit of a wild west mentality that folks have the "right" to keep arsenals in secret, and buy and sell deadly weapons off the backs of trucks.
The goal of registration is assign each gun to the owner who is responsible for its use, transfer and disposition.
That documented legal responsibility will help dissuade folks from transferring their guns in secret to criminals.
I am sick and tired of gun owners claiming they have the right to thumb their noses at the efforts of the people to get a handle on the epidemic of gun violence in this country.
How about this for a point...20 or even 10 years ago, would any politician have dared to utter that?
Is that the idjit running for Sheriff somewhere? Eff him, he's a laughingstock. But you have a point, we need to watch these pukes every second. So what else is new?
Sure. Diane Feinstein. There have been politicians freaking out about guns my whole live, and I just turned 60.
Is that the idjit running for Sheriff somewhere?
Eff him, he's a laughingstock.
Sure. Diane Feinstein. There have been politicians freaking out about guns my whole life, and I just turned 60.Point conceded
@Cyber Liberty
@Victoria33
We're having a lovely spring. Today is 55 and rainy. I'm holding on for dear life to every cool day.
Point conceded
Yeah, that sounded even more idiotic when it went down on paper, didn't it? "Why, criminals will naturally just hand over their weapons when they're illegal."
:banghead:
They can't keep guns out of geographically tiny Chicago, New York, and LA... How the hell do they think they can keep them out of the whole damn country?
They can't keep truckloads of illegal aliens and illegal drugs out of the country... How the hell are they going to stop truckloads of illegal firearms and ammunition?
The premise is absurd on its face. Wholly ludicrous. Laughable.
How anyone thinks that way... 9999hair out0000 *****rollingeyes*****
I just punched up my weather forecast. Upper 90's. **nononono*
How anyone thinks that way... 9999hair out0000 *****rollingeyes*****
They have the arrogance to believe people will do what they are told. Judges and lawyers are notorious for this idiocy. They are shocked (shocked! ) when someone defies them.
Tyrants and advocates for tyranny ALWAYS "think" that way, because stopping predators on the populace is not the goal.
Eradicating the ability of the people to resist them IS the goal.
Tyrants and advocates for tyranny ALWAYS "think" that way, because stopping predators on the populace is not the goal.
Eradicating the ability of the people to resist them IS the goal.
. . . Like I said - they are going to have to empower their government to kill a whole lot of us.
What paranoid bullcrap. We aren't a tyranny, we are a Constitutional republic.
This is the sort of talk that unfortunately gives conservatives a reputation as whackjobs.
What paranoid bullcrap.
We aren't a tyranny, we are a Constitutional republic, based on the rule of law.
This is the sort of talk that unfortunately gives conservatives a reputation as violent whack jobs.
Thankfully, INVAR has renounced the GOP - the party hardly needs to be associated with such douchebaggery.
What paranoid bullcrap. We aren't a tyranny, we are a Constitutional republic, based on the rule of law.@Jazzhead
This is the sort of talk that unfortunately gives conservatives a reputation as violent whackjobs. Thankfully, INVAR has renounced the GOP - the party hardly needs to be associated with such douchebaggery.
As I said, tyrants and advocates like you are not interested in stopping criminals, but eradicating the ability of the people to resist you when you attempt to implement your ideas using the government to do so.
Your ideas and advocacy undermine the rule of law and obliterate the idea of a Constitutional Republic. Your ideas are PRECISELY a tyranny, and we will consider any attempt to implement your agenda and ideas as over tyranny and treat it as such.
What else can I say except you're out of your mind. But I love getting you going. :laugh:
Oh please. I advocate simple registration, to give law enforcement the tools it needs to ascertain where criminals get their guns. No threat or burden to you, unless you sell or buy guns off the back of trucks.
Either you're stupid or you think we're stupid enough to believe that criminals who sell and buy guns are going to start registering their guns. Get the Rochester out of here with that bullshit. The only other explanation is that you, being a douchebag lawyer, must stand to make some money off of this registration scam you're hyping.
I like your style. :smokin:
Oh please. I advocate simple registration, to give law enforcement the tools it needs to ascertain where criminals get their guns.
No threat or burden to you, unless you sell or buy guns off the back of trucks.
But no... you can't get next to what we here in Texas call "True Grit". And you never will.
I just punched up my weather forecast. Upper 90's. **nononono*
Registration is about taking responsibility, not deprivation of your rights. You are legally responsible for the use, transfer and disposition of your firearms. Do you really disagree with that statement? Registration is a reasonable tool by which the peaceable community can enforce that responsibility.
I would like to explore this claim.
Let us start with use. How does registration of a firearm enforce responsible use of a firearm as compared to an unregistered firearm? What has changed impacting use?
@thackney, I will try to address your question when I have the time to do so.
If you buy a gun in a store, it is registered with the state. Have any of you ever bought a gun?
Thanks!
The State as in The Feds. It's part of the background check. When the Virginia Tech gunman shot up the school, the cops immediately knew where he bought the guns because he filed out the paperwork for the background check.
AFAIK, they retrieved the purchase information of the various shooters by physically locating all the FFL licenses in proximity to the shooting, and actually digging out the forms. But, how they really do it is secret, so I assume they've broken the law and just go to the database they keep illegally.
The paper form is required to be on file at the gun store for 20 years. The Feds are prohibited by law to retain the NICS record of the search (my best recollection here). Of course, we already know how good the Feds are at following their own laws, so there's that...
AFAIK, they retrieved the purchase information of the various shooters by physically locating all the FFL licenses in proximity to the shooting, and actually digging out the forms. But, how they really do it is secret, so I assume they've broken the law and just go to the database they keep illegally.
When you purchased a gun in a store in 2002 in California, I think they fired a round to keep on file, for forensic purposes.
Both of my revolvers (purchased in Texas) came that way.
Had a little note in the case from Ruger, along with the spent shell, about test fired for accuracy, etc.
I have no doubt that information on the groove pattern, etc, is on file.
It's one reason why purchasing our firearms person-to-person off the back of a pickup truck is the best way to ensure the government and meddlesome tyrants like Jazzhead have no idea what kind of weaponry we possess that they want to confiscate in the near future.
I pass a hone down the barrel when I buy anything. Let em try that against their records.. :beer:I was gonna say, rebarrel, do a little work on the parts of the action that mark the cases and always police your brass if possible.
I was gonna say, rebarrel, do a little work on the parts of the action that mark the cases and always police your brass if possible.
I would like to explore this claim.
Let us start with use. How does registration of a firearm enforce responsible use of a firearm as compared to an unregistered firearm? What has changed impacting use?
The efficacy of registration upon the safe use of firearms is influenced in part by whether (as is the case with motor vehicles) it is coupled with an insurance requirement. If we assume that is not the case, then to me the primary value of registration is that it links a firearm to the person who is legally responsible for its transfer and disposition. That affects usage in that the legal owner will likely take care to keep the firearm secured against theft, and will inventory his firearms to detect theft and unauthorized usage. When a firearm is used in a crime, it can traced back to its owner. At that point, other aspects of the law determine whether the legal owner is responsible for the harm caused. If he has documented the transfer of his firearm, then he is off the legal hook. If he has reported the theft, then he is (IMO) off the legal hook.
Obviously, the state of a local jurisdiction's rules on liability for unauthorized use will play a role. In the context of motor vehicles, some states do not hold the owner responsible for unauthorized use of his car, but in other states, in certain circumstances, the owner is deemed responsible especially if has acted irresponsibly (such as leaving the keys in the ignition of an unlocked car). If linked with an insurance regime, victims of gun violence (just as the victims of motor vehicle use) can be compensated for medical costs under a no-fault system funded by premiums paid from a broadly-funded pool.
The liability regime for motor vehicles is obviously different than that for firearms, and will vary from place to place. But registration is the tool by which the deadly device (car or gun) is linked to the person with color of legal responsibility, and effectively compels him to dispose of the device in a documented manner.
In short, registration is consistent with reasonable notions of owner responsibility. Confiscation is not the objective, and the Constitution's protections are the means to ensure that.
Do you really believe that gun owners without registration don't care if their guns are stolen and don't do anything to protect them?
That is consistent with everything he's been saying about guns for as long as I've been seeing his posts. Registration would "incentivize" us to be responsible, as if we aren't already. It's really rather insulting.
I do protect my firearms. I lock my house when I leave.
Why should I be responsible for what a criminal does with my property?
I do protect my firearms. I lock my house when I leave.
Why should I be responsible for what a criminal does with my property?
Do you really believe that gun owners without registration don't care if their guns are stolen and don't do anything to protect them?
That isn't about use of the gun, but documentation.
Are you claiming if someone steals my car, runs over a kid, my insurance would be responsible for paying the kid's medical bills? I do not believe that is true in any state.
You seem to play both sides of the argument when you claim the Constitution protection prevents confiscation, while at the same time you claim only the Heller decision and not the Constitution provides individual right to own a gun. Which is it?
Some do, some don't. The point is there is far more incentive for the owner of a registered gun to report it stolen than the owner of an unregistered and untraceable gun.
Documentation is helpful to the police by linking guns to their owners.
It is hardly a radical notion to ask a citizen to be responsible for the use and safekeeping of the killing devices he/she chooses to own.
It is, in some states. A couple of weeks ago I posted detailed information about that.
Good question! Unlike most here, I am worried that a small change in the SCOTUS's composition could well lead to a ruling that the Second Amendment does not protect the individual right to own a gun. As I've explained a number of times, I think the reasoning and logic of the Heller decision provides an alternative basis for that protection - rooted in the Ninth amendment - but my recommendation that Congress take steps to codify that position has not met with favor from those who (naively, in my view) think the 2A is just fine as it is.
So I'll put the question back to you - do YOU believe the individual RKBA in the Constitution is secure? If not, why not? If we both believe it is not secure, what can be done about it? I've proposed something concrete to fix and secure the right. What about you?
Then can we say your claim we are protected against confiscation by the Constitution is false? Or will you stop making both claims?
I don't know why you insist that I admit to making "false" claims.
All these mass shootings were done with registered guns so it is a moot point.
Registration does nothing to prevent crime, injury or death by the guns. It only provides limitations for ownership and transfer of property.
Documentation is helpful to the police by linking guns to their owners. It is hardly a radical notion to ask a citizen to be responsible for the use and safekeeping of the killing devices he/she chooses to own.
Does that mean you'll also be heading the charge for registration of my ice pick, hammers, machetes, kitchen knives and ninja throwing stars?
@RoosGirl
I would have thought you used all those up last night.
But the plain text of the 2A, arguably, suggests otherwise.
All these mass shootings were done with registered guns so it is a moot point.
"The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
The efficacy of registration upon the safe use of firearms is influenced in part by whether (as is the case with motor vehicles) it is coupled with an insurance requirement.
But registration is the tool by which the deadly device (car or gun) is linked to the person with color of legal responsibility, and effectively compels him to dispose of the device in a documented manner.
Confiscation is not the objective, and the Constitution's protections are the means to ensure that.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Does that mean you'll also be heading the charge for registration of my ice pick, hammers, machetes, kitchen knives and ninja throwing stars?@RoosGirl
@RoosGirl
Your comment above answered this question posed to you: "It is hardly a radical notion to ask a citizen to be responsible for the use and safekeeping of the killing devices he/she chooses to own."
Besides what you suggest to remove, "ice pick, hammers, machetes, kitchen knives and ninja throwing stars", your list is incomplete. Here is a partial list of other "killing devices" that must be removed from your house:
1. Remove all salt from your house. If a person eats a whole cup of salt, they die.
2. Take out any natural gas stove. If the flame goes out, and it doesn't have an automatic shut off, gas will kill everyone in the house.
3. Remove pots and pans - if hit in the head by these objects, the hit person can die.
4. Remove regular shoes/boots from your house - it hit in the head by these objects, the hit person can die.
5. Remove all electric in the wall outlets. Put a metal object in the outlet for contact and the person can die of electric shock.
6. Remove tubs from bathrooms. People can drown in bathtubs.
7. Have your hands amputated as hands can strangle people to death.
8. Remove any steps from inside a house, people can fall and die.
9. Remove any shelf in a house that requires a person to stand on a ladder to reach it - people can fall and die.
10. Remove all ladders from a house; people can fall and die.
11. Remove all electric recliners that raise one up - the power could go off mid-rise, and the person would be stuck half up and half down. That could cause the person to get anxious and die of a heart attack.
12. Remove all hardware in the kitchen that produces heat to cook food. The person could get burned and die.
13. Remove pillows from beds; a person could get the pillow on the face and die from not being able to breathe.
14. Remove ceiling fans from rooms. A tall person could get his/her head cut off by the blades. That also causes death as the head must be attached for the body to stay alive.
15. Remove all TVs from rooms as some movies and the news are scary and can cause heart attack/death.
16. Remove all computers from every room. A person can get depressed when someone "unfriends" them and they commit suicide. It is the computer's fault so remove them.
17. Remove all cell phones. They kill people all the time; people in cars using them; people dying from not eating because they can't put down their phone to eat; people die from no sleep as they can't put down their phone. People die from no fingers as they wear them down from tweeting so much. That is why the president has small hands; they are worn down.
Let me know when you have completed this list to make your house safe from deadly killing machines.
15. Remove
Me? I like to live on the edge, if not dangerously. So.... I'll keep all those items you listed there. In fact, if you can think of any other deadly items I don't have, I'd appreciate the suggestion so I can shop appropriately.
One item I thought of is extension cords. You can have a nasty (deadly) fall from tripping over one. I know first-hand... since I'm extremely "ungraceful" in the mornings ...especially before I've had my caffeine fix. Garden rakes....yikes. I have a very lethal garden out there!
:laugh:
Your comment above answered this question posed to you: "It is hardly a radical notion to ask a citizen to be responsible for the use and safekeeping of the killing devices he/she chooses to own."
It amazes me that some would claim these are not the same people in each amendment.
One item I thought of is extension cords. You can have a nasty (deadly) fall from tripping over one.@XenaLee
:laugh:
You're already half-way there. That caffeine can be as fatal as the salt @Victoria33 references in item #1.
@XenaLee
Thanks for the extension cord - I missed that deadly one - fall over it or use it to strangle someone to death.
Make no mistake, Jazzhead is not interested in anything that makes any of us 'safe' or responsible in our homes. He is only interested in making sure he and his government goons are safe when they go about the task of disarming us so that our subjugation can be accomplished with minimal risk to them.
This is because Jazzhead is up scared all night long thinking about all the guns Roamer_1 has bought off the back of a truck in the woods. Jazzhead doesn't want to live in a country where such people live their lives unmolested by government agents, so such people need to be subjugated to stringent controls of the kind he proposes, or eradicated.
Make no mistake, Jazzhead is not interested in anything that makes any of us 'safe' or responsible in our homes. He is only interested in making sure he and his government goons are safe when they go about the task of disarming us so that our subjugation can be accomplished with minimal risk to them. This is because Jazzhead is up scared all night long thinking about all the guns Roamer_1 has bought off the back of a truck in the woods. Jazzhead doesn't want to live in a country where such people live their lives unmolested by government agents, so such people need to be subjugated to stringent controls of the kind he proposes, or eradicated.@INVAR
What I want to live in is our Constitutional republic, founded on the principal of government by the consent of the governed.
If the peoples' elected representatives favor such reasonable measures as registration of firearms, you proclaim the right and intent to kill peace officers. What you seek is anarchy.
Here is why government keeps getting in our lives and won't stop:
It is making laws that give them something to brag about to get elected again.
What I want to live in is our Constitutional republic, founded on the principal of government by the consent of the governed. If the peoples' elected representatives favor such reasonable measures as registration of firearms, you proclaim the right and intent to kill peace officers. What you seek is anarchy.
I don't care if you want to call it anarchy. Just be afraid, because our will to resist you and your intentions is real and indomitable.
I saw activity on this thread, and it struck me. I thought up a reason that made sense, at least to me, why a doctor would ask about guns.
But then I saw that this thread had perverted to registration.
My thought though, if once the doc asked about guns, he would continue to ask if you were a reloader? And if so, he would ask if you cast your own bullets? And if you did, do you do your bullet casting in a well ventilated area to prevent the inhalation of lead vapors? We may need to test you for lead.
That was my thought. Feel free to beat that Dead Horse some more.
I post with no preconceived expectations. I just throw it out there.
:tongue2:
@Jazzhead
Your responses are an excellent example of why gunowners have very little trust and reject so called offers to compromise.
While you say repeatedly that you don't want to ban guns and just want common sense laws the truth is there in your posts. You are simply hiding your ultimate goal in an effort to push your agenda.
No you consider gun owners dangerous to the community and would cheer the banning of all firearms. Which is why nobody believes a word you say when you say you support the 2nd Amendment and nobody trust the left. Because you both have lied time after time.
Some do, some don't. The point is there is far more incentive for the owner of a registered gun to report it stolen than the owner of an unregistered and untraceable gun.
Documentation is helpful to the police by linking guns to their owners. It is hardly a radical notion to ask a citizen to be responsible for the use and safekeeping of the killing devices he/she chooses to own.
This is because Jazzhead is up scared all night long thinking about all the guns Roamer_1 has bought off the back of a truck in the woods. Jazzhead doesn't want to live in a country where such people live their lives unmolested by government agents, so such people need to be subjugated to stringent controls of the kind he proposes, or eradicated.
What I want to live in is our Constitutional republic, founded on the principal of government by the consent of the governed. If the peoples' elected representatives favor such reasonable measures as registration of firearms, you proclaim the right and intent to kill peace officers. What you seek is anarchy.
@Jazzhead
Your responses are an excellent example of why gunowners have very little trust and reject so called offers to compromise.
While you say repeatedly that you don't want to ban guns and just want common sense laws the truth is there in your posts. You are simply hiding your ultimate goal in an effort to push your agenda.
No you consider gun owners dangerous to the community and would cheer the banning of all firearms. Which is why nobody believes a word you say when you say you support the 2nd Amendment and nobody trust the left. Because you both have lied time after time.
Your proposals makes you a tyrant wannabe of the worst sort.
@Jazzhead
No you consider gun owners dangerous to the community and would cheer the banning of all firearms.
I am, in short, a conservative on the issue of the 2A, even though I choose not to own guns myself for sound reasons I have explained before. I DO NOT WANT ANYONE TAKING YOUR GUNS.
That's right... Liberals all think they know better than you, and they're doing it 'for your own good'. There ain't a worse kind.
I don't think that will pass muster with anyone here...
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - C.S. Lewis
This describes Jazzy to a T, seeking to impose a meddlesome tyranny for our own good, while he insists he is not a gun-grabbing-homo-shoving Leftist nut job pretending to be a Conservative.
Not a single solitary issue I have ever read from him on this board could be construed by anyone with a brain to resemble a Conservative position or idea.
This describes Jazzy to a T, seeking to impose a meddlesome tyranny for our own good, while he insists he is not a gun-grabbing-homo-shoving Leftist nut job pretending to be a Conservative.
Not a single solitary issue I have ever read from him on this board could be construed by anyone with a brain to resemble a Conservative position or idea.
I learned when I was knee-high to a grasshopper that when the mouth goes one way and the actions go another, believe the actions.
Bullshit. Absolutely untrue. I do not participate on this board to lie and promote some hidden agenda, but rather to state my opinions on the issues of the day. In a nutshell:m
1. I support the individual RKBA. I support the Heller decision that says so, although I fear that the decision is fragile because the language of the 2A is flawed. I advocate doing something to codify Heller in order in ENSURE THAT YOUR RKBA REMAINS PROTECTED.
2. I have no agenda, hidden or otherwise, to confiscate your guns. NONE. I have repeatedly said I oppose lib attempts to limit the kinds and quantities of guns you want. I have merely supported licensure and registration, same as with motor vehicles. As far as I am concerned, so long as you register them, you can own a dozen AR-15s.
3. Unlike many here, I have faith in this Constitutional Republic to protect against confiscation of legally owned firearms. I do not consider this nation a "tyranny", but rather a nation of laws, enacted by lawmakers who govern with the consent of the governed. And backstopped by a judiciary obliged to uphold the rights of citizens as provided for in the Constitution.
I am, in short, a conservative on the issue of the 2A, even though I choose not to own guns myself for sound reasons I have explained before. I DO NOT WANT ANYONE TAKING YOUR GUNS.
Bullshit. Absolutely untrue. I do not participate on this board to lie and promote some hidden agenda, but rather to state my opinions on the issues of the day. In a nutshell:
1. I support the individual RKBA. I support the Heller decision that says so, although I fear that the decision is fragile because the language of the 2A is flawed. I advocate doing something to codify Heller in order in ENSURE THAT YOUR RKBA REMAINS PROTECTED.
2. I have no agenda, hidden or otherwise, to confiscate your guns. NONE. I have repeatedly said I oppose lib attempts to limit the kinds and quantities of guns you want. I have merely supported licensure and registration, same as with motor vehicles. As far as I am concerned, so long as you register them, you can own a dozen AR-15s.
3. Unlike many here, I have faith in this Constitutional Republic to protect against confiscation of legally owned firearms. I do not consider this nation a "tyranny", but rather a nation of laws, enacted by lawmakers who govern with the consent of the governed. And backstopped by a judiciary obliged to uphold the rights of citizens as provided for in the Constitution.
I am, in short, a conservative on the issue of the 2A, even though I choose not to own guns myself for sound reasons I have explained before. I DO NOT WANT ANYONE TAKING YOUR GUNS.