Yeah, I'm gonna shoot you through the internet.

Exactly. I'm sick of this idiotic idea of punishing people for what they MIGHT do.

Only scared sheeple would give up their freedom for what is only an illusion of safety.

I am definitely not one of those pussy, scared, sheep either.

Are you sure? You seem more than a little antsy that someday someone might come and take your weapons away.
Justified or not, it's still fear.
During Katrina, NOPD, Blackwater and elements of USM went to specific houses of folks they knew to be armed, and illegally or not, confiscated their weapons. Force at your door.
How would you deal with that? I'm not busting your balls, I'm genuinely curious.
What about internment? Suppose congress passed a law determining that you and everyone like you needed to be in a camp? It's happened before.
What would you do?

Perhaps I should have originally said "borderline sociopathic AND puerile."

So, you admit then, because of those examples, a justified fear? All of those cases of confiscation, being illegal, so you should have a right to defend yourself and property from traitors.

Also, that's exactly what the British did too. We, Americans, fought back, and that's exactly what I would do too.



Internment? Like the Japanese in WW2? And who is "everyone like you?" (That's kind of offensive, but I don't offend that easily.)

Gun owners?

Are you joking because I find that highly implausible.

How do you intern millions and millions of people? About 30% or so, of over 300 million people own guns. How could you possibly ever do that? Even Constitutionally? You know something like that only happens to minorities, not White America. That's why it only happened to the Japanese and not the German Americans, because they are just White like most people.

Not trying to be a jerk, but I find that you even had that thought to be laughable.

I don't think you actually know what those words really mean, especially sociopathic.

You know the difference between a sociopath and a psychopath?

I'm guessing no.

Well, there's a difference between being afraid and being aware. Yes, they had a right, but they didn't, even though they believed it was illegal.
And we are specifically talking about people with much more firepower than the people who came to take them.

So, by yourself, barricaded in a house then? Not the most tactically sound plan.

Everyone like you. If you read current DHS material going around, it includes folk like "Anarchists" and "Libertarians"; people who wish for a return to the gold standard; people who petition, and protest, who question authority; who know their constitutional rights.
You know...'domestic extremists'. Terrorists.

Constitutionally? HAHA! Ever read what Einstein said about rights?
"“The strength of the Constitution lies entirely in the determination of each citizen to defend it. Only if every single citizen feels duty bound to do his share in this defense are the constitutional rights secure.”
But we don't have that anymore, we probably never did. People pass the buck. They vote and think they're good citizens.
They choose to eat or not eat at a fast food joint and think that's political action.
Most believe interpretation of written rights is only for the government structures created around them. They trust in the idea of the State, even when the State itself is in question. Lincoln's suspension of Habeas Corpus. The Alien and Sedition Acts. The Executive orders and military edicts that led to Internment. Need more contemporary State acts?
'Unlawful Combatants'. 'Detainment'. 'Enhanced Interrogation'. 'Kinetic military action'. Drone kill lists, surveillance and wiretapping, administrative rights, executive privilege, etc, etc, etc.
Good luck screaming on a train boxcar lined with shackles about your civil rights. State does what it wants, and is not accountable.
Notice how long it takes for judicial and even general public opinion to say "Yeah, that might have been wrong. At least constitutionally."
I'm not saying that anything like that will happen. But it has happened. Here and abroad.
Quite a few countries did just fine dealing with millions. It's never an overnight thing with Authoritarianism.

Interesting. I'll direct you to my post regarding US FM 3-39.40:
http://forums.superiorpics.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/3798232
Public Intel has quite a few docs like that. And they are not from WW2. Browse around for a while. You'll find contracts for any number of COG operations, including camps, domestic checkpoints, massive food and ammunition requisition, USM manuals for dealing with mass domestic disturbances not related to natural disasters, etc.
I personally don't think it would work out, but are they willing to try? Are they prepared to? Obviously they think so. And it isn't about race.
120,000 or so Japanese were forcibly moved. American citizens that I'm sure had their own weapons as well. That's not a small number, either. Even 10% of that number could be a real force, and yet, like the millions processed and put in pens in Germany, they went pretty quietly.
I don't think it's funny at all. Particularly when the same legal and industrial apparatus are in place in our own country today.

That's funny.
Remember; in the United States, according to births, the 'white people' now are the minority.

First of all, I am also not American, but have visited American on several occasions, mainly to Colorado and also to New York (Hells Kitchen) so I have seen the "pretty" tourist areas and where people really live.

Secondly, I spent 10 years in the Territorial Army (UK Equivalent of National Guard) and competed for my Regiment at the National Shooting Centre at Bisley, so I do know something about weapons and safety.

As tsgas2010 said, some of the post and posters here worry me and make me think twice about going back to America.

After reading District of Columbia v. Heller, I see they have separated the need for an armed populace to prevent tyranny from the right to "keep and bear arms":
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

This is a reduction on the restriction to own arms, are you happy yet?

A relative in New Zealand had to take training, provide secure storage for the weapons, pass a written exam and have a police interview (as well as his two referees) before he could buy a weapon or even ammo. He was the equivalent of a national guard state champion with the rifle when in the UK before he emigrated to NZ.
Gun crime in NZ? Virtually non-existent http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_gun_vio_hom_fir_hom_rat_per_100_pop-rate-per-100-000-pop

We in the UK have had Hungerford, Dunblane and Cumbria shootings, but we did something about it and got rid of the guns.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungerford_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_school_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbria_shootings

I know about "an armed society is a polite society", but if you have to be armed to have people be polite to you, you have failed as a society.

The Truth About Guns

John C. Goodman
Townhall.com
Augst 4, 2012


The tragedy in Aurora, Colorado, has led to a lot of unfortunate misinformation about firearms. Let's try to add some facts to the justified emotion.

Are Some Guns More Dangerous than Others? The shooter in Aurora had three firearms when he entered the theater: a pump action shotgun, a semiautomatic rifle and a semiautomatic handgun.

In a closed, crowded setting like a movie theater, the shotgun was probably the most lethal of the three. Every shotgun shell can spray a half-dozen or more pellets, each capable of killing or maiming a person. Twelve-gauge shotguns often fire five shells, and sometimes more, before needing to be reloaded. And unlike semiautomatics, they don't typically jam.

Yet in most American cities, just about anybody can buy a shotgun at the drop of a hat. Antigun activists and politicians almost never propose banning them.

Instead, the focus these days is on so-called "assault weapons."

Should We Be Especially Worried About Assault Weapons? Assault weapons are not usually the weapon of choice. Neither of the two worst shooting sprees in U.S. history involved assault weapons. James Huberty, who killed 20 people at a McDonald's restaurant in San Ysidro, California, in 1984, used a shotgun, a pistol and a hunting rifle. George Hennard, who killed 22 people at a Luby's Cafeteria in Killeen, Texas, in 1991, used two ordinary pistols.

Still, gun opponents seem obsessed about them. So what exactly is an "assault weapon"?

What Are Assault Weapons? You would think that the definition would hinge on a weapon's fire power or its capacity to maim or kill. Not so. Assault weapons are mainly defined by their appearance. As Steve Chapman explained the other day:



Basically, what disqualified a weapon when the short-lived assault weapons ban was in effect was looking like a military weapon. The offensive features included plastic stocks, extended ammunition clips, collapsible butt-stocks, and other decorative devices that made them look like, but not operate as, a fully functional assault rifle.

Contrary to the claims that military-looking weapons are only designed to kill human beings, they are, in fact, the fastest growing segment of the hunting rifle market!

What About Machine Guns? Most TV commentators who decry assault weapons imply that they are automatic — that you just pull the trigger and bullets start flying. Not so. It has been illegal to buy a machine gun on the open market in the United States for more than 80 years. However, you can obtain one under special permit and there are about 250,000 in private hands.

Now here is something interesting: despite all those guns in private hands, there appears not to be a single instance of a legally owned machine gun being used to commit a crime throughout the entire 80 year period. This illustrates two things: (1) the bumper stickers have it right: guns don't kill, people do; and (2) we can have reasonable restrictions on access to guns without banning them altogether.

That brings us to another obsession: the insistence that guns are useless as tools of self-defense.

Are Guns Useful for Self-Defense? As it turns out, they are. According to research by renowned Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck, guns are used between 800,000 and 2.5 million times every year in self-defense.

Do More Guns Cause More Crime? In the typical Western movie, everyone has a gun. When they go into a bar, they start drinking. Then, they start insulting each other. Before long, they start shooting each other. It may be good theater, but it's lousy history. Turns out, 19th century Dodge City was more peacful than most American cities are today! Robert Heinlein explained why: "An armed society is a polite society," he wrote.

Overall, some of the most heavily-armed states have very low violent crime rates and vice versa. Also, it appears that when the good guys are armed there is less gun violence. Research by John Lott shows that allowing citizens the right to carry concealed handguns reduces violent crime. In those states that passed right-to-carry concealed handgun laws, the average murder rate dropped from 6.3 per 100,000 to 5.2 per 100,000 nine to 10 years later — about a 1.7% drop in the murder rate per year for 10 years.

In states that enacted right-to-carry laws between 1977 and 1999, the overall occurrence of multiple-victim shootings dropped by a remarkable 67% with deaths and injuries from such shootings plummeting by 75% and 81%, respectively. And since 1997, two of eight school shootings were both stopped by citizens with guns (before police even arrived at the scene).

What Does the International Evidence Show? Switzerland actually requires young males to keep weapons in their homes, as part of the country's militia. Yet no one has ever accused Switzerland of being a host to Wild West shootouts. Finland has one of the highest rates of gun ownership in the world. Yet it too has a very low rate of violent crime.

But Tex, let's not confuse anyone with facts.

Apparently gun owners, free-thinkers, dissenters, and Libertarians, people who actually know their rights and question authority are terrorists.

Bizzaro world we live in these days.