Biden is meeting with the NRA today, This will be interesting...............

[Mike DC]

         
Biden, Cheney, Palin, Quail, Edwards . . . there are usually good reasons why VP candidates were not in the running for the big seat.



   

[Indygenerallee]

Biden, Cheney, Palin, Quail, Edwards . . . there are usually good reasons why VP candidates were not in the running for the big seat

Yeah they did not give enough kickbacks..

[Tilar]

             
But not because they have any fear of an armed public.  

That lack of fear can be changed.

What are we gonna do with a bunch of pistols & rifles?  Form local militias and overthrow the govt like the 2nd amendment intended?  Right.  The local militias are short a few stealth planes, nuclear weapons, and spy satellites.  We still have 2nd amendment rights because armed individuals ceased to be a military threat a century ago.

Obama doesn't have stealth planes,  nuclear weapons, or spy satellites either unless he can talk the military into following his treasonous ways, which would go against the oath they swore to keep.

[bull]

From the NRA's Facebook page:

"The NRA attended today's White House meeting prepared to have a meaningful conversation. We were disappointed with how little this meeting had to do with keeping our children safe and how much it had to do with an agenda to attack the Second Amendment. We will not allow law-abiding gun owners to be blamed for the acts of criminals and madmen. Instead, we will now take our commitment and meaningful contributions to members of congress of both parties who are interested in having an honest conversation about what works - and what does not."

[skip68]

Executive order is coming.       Time to liquidate "on paper" anything that might be banned and become a felony.  In the history of executive orders only 2 have been overturned.   Not looking good.   

[bull]

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/10/16449815-911-tape-shoot-him-again-husband-tells-wife-hiding-from-home-intruder?lite&ocid=msnhp&pos=2

[squeakfinder]

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/10/16449815-911-tape-shoot-him-again-husband-tells-wife-hiding-from-home-intruder?lite&ocid=msnhp&pos=2

5 rounds and she didn't kill him?  Not sure if that's good or bad because I can't wait see how this play's out in court.

[JB400]

I have a feeling nothing will come out in the open until after the inauguration in a couple weeks.

[Mike DC]

That lack of fear can be changed.

Theoretically, yes.  Just like we could theoretically boycott Chinese products and bring manufacturing back to the USA.  But I'm not holding my breath for either one.  

Personal firearms pose no real threat to the modern US govt.  That is the only reason we're still allowed to have them.  I wanna keep them legal as much as the next guy, but I don't think they have military or political power anymore.  

Obama doesn't have stealth planes,  nuclear weapons, or spy satellites either unless he can talk the military into following his treasonous ways, which would go against the oath they swore to keep.

And I'm sure you were just as bothered when a conservative president was doing treasonous things a few years ago.  It's the principle of hurting the country that bothers you, not who is doing it.    

[Tilar]

Obama doesn't have stealth planes,  nuclear weapons, or spy satellites either unless he can talk the military into following his treasonous ways, which would go against the oath they swore to keep.

And I'm sure you were just as bothered when a conservative president was doing treasonous things a few years ago.  It's the principle of hurting the country that bothers you, not who is doing it.    

I'm not sure what you're referring to. What treasonous things by what conservative president?

Regardless of who it is, the second amendment is the line in the sand for the vast majority. It's just a matter of organization.

[sunfire69]

the next few months/year will bring some big changes...being vocal and on the radar will be a bad idea....decide now what you plan to do.....and do it quietly....if you want to keep your gun hiding it in the attic won't work.....just sayn....

[skip68]

    I've thought about what I would do if our guns and mags became illegal.   I WILL NOT VOLUNTARILY SURRENDER THEM AS LONG AS I CAN KEEP THEM IN A SAFE PLACE.      SO, i GUESS THAT MEANS I MAY BECOME A FELON.       Now, if for some freak chance local law (police or other) come for them I WILL NOT END UP IN A GUN FIGHT SHOOTING AT THEM.       If they can find them they can have them.  I will not lower my barrel and take aim at any peace officer because I feel my rights have been violated.     This is not a war and I'm not at war with my country/state.    

[JB400]

  What is your excuse about all the landmines that you buried in the yard?  

[bull]

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/10/16449815-911-tape-shoot-him-again-husband-tells-wife-hiding-from-home-intruder?lite&ocid=msnhp&pos=2

5 rounds and she didn't kill him?  Not sure if that's good or bad because I can't wait see how this play's out in court.

That's what I was thinking. But, I'm sure she was in a major panic and just aiming in the general area. Probably a miracle she hit him at all.

[hatersaurusrex]

That lack of fear can be changed.

Theoretically, yes.  Just like we could theoretically boycott Chinese products and bring manufacturing back to the USA.  But I'm not holding my breath for either one.  

Personal firearms pose no real threat to the modern US govt.  That is the only reason we're still allowed to have them.  I wanna keep them legal as much as the next guy, but I don't think they have military or political power anymore.  

Obama doesn't have stealth planes,  nuclear weapons, or spy satellites either unless he can talk the military into following his treasonous ways, which would go against the oath they swore to keep.

And I'm sure you were just as bothered when a conservative president was doing treasonous things a few years ago.  It's the principle of hurting the country that bothers you, not who is doing it.    

At the risk of sending this thread into a frenzy of haterade, I'd like to point out that the last  couple of protracted wars we have been involved in have been fought against enemies who aren't in the same league in terms of firepower or technology, and they've managed to push us into a draw more often than not.   If air or ground superiority is all it would take to squash a weak military in 2 seconds, then why wasn't Vietnam over in those 2 seconds?  Why have we been in the desert for 10 years fighting goat herders with rusty soviet-surplus AK47's?    Rules of engagement?  Maybe.  But do you think the US military would use harsher tactics on it's own people than it does on foreign combatants?   Not likely.

In short, the argument that ordinary citizens have no chance against our own military doesn't really hold water considering that military gets routinely pantsed by guerillas, which is what we'd all be if we took up said 'inferior' arms.

Now, if they went around and rounded up 90% of those arms, then they wouldn't even need the military to put an insurgency down and subjugate the citizens.   The police would do nicely.   Oh wait, I just described what's happened to almost every society who gave up their firearms since the industrial age started.  It can happen here, kids.

[stripedelete]

That lack of fear can be changed.

Theoretically, yes.  Just like we could theoretically boycott Chinese products and bring manufacturing back to the USA.  But I'm not holding my breath for either one.  

Personal firearms pose no real threat to the modern US govt.  That is the only reason we're still allowed to have them.  I wanna keep them legal as much as the next guy, but I don't think they have military or political power anymore.  

Obama doesn't have stealth planes,  nuclear weapons, or spy satellites either unless he can talk the military into following his treasonous ways, which would go against the oath they swore to keep.

And I'm sure you were just as bothered when a conservative president was doing treasonous things a few years ago.  It's the principle of hurting the country that bothers you, not who is doing it.    

At the risk of sending this thread into a frenzy of haterade, I'd like to point out that the last  couple of protracted wars we have been involved in have been fought against enemies who aren't in the same league in terms of firepower or technology, and they've managed to push us into a draw more often than not.   If air or ground superiority is all it would take to squash a weak military in 2 seconds, then why wasn't Vietnam over in those 2 seconds?  Why have we been in the desert for 10 years fighting goat herders with rusty soviet-surplus AK47's?    Rules of engagement?  Maybe.  But do you think the US military would use harsher tactics on it's own people than it does on foreign combatants?   Not likely.

In short, the argument that ordinary citizens have no chance against our own military doesn't really hold water considering that military gets routinely pantsed by guerillas, which is what we'd all be if we took up said 'inferior' arms.

Now, if they went around and rounded up 90% of those arms, then they wouldn't even need the military to put an insurgency down and subjugate the citizens.   The police would do nicely.   Oh wait, I just described what's happened to almost every society who gave up their firearms since the industrial age started.  It can happen here, kids.

Exactly!

[A34]

Ruger Makes it easy to write your Elected
________________________________________
http://www.ruger.com/micros/advocacy/takeAction.html


Just go to rugers site. Fill in your address. It looks up your elected officials and you proof the email. Sign your first name and hit Send. Poof your done. Please pass this along. We need to show how many of us there is.

[JB400]

I find it better for you to write your rep yourself.  You never know what that company will send to the politicans.