Now back to parenting.

I suppose live was great when youngsters could ride the bus in Philly with sweet 16's on their way to the field. But things are very different now and can not be changed back to the way the were.

We both agree that parents should be held responsible for the actions of their kids. How is it not prudent for parents to control their kids access to firearms? Don't these two things go hand in hand?

Teenagers do NOT have a good handle on self-control and part of a parent's job is keeping them out of trouble. Putting a distance between them and the tools of trouble (be it guns, drugs, whatever) goes a long way towards things turning out okay.

Would a nuke be of any use AT ALL to the gov't in an insurgency in the US?

Nope.

In point of fact, they'd be a huge detriment. They'd have to guard them all. At all those divergant sites. And provide an AIR TIGHT round the clock cloak of security.

Cause if the insurgents got just one....

and on that note i am going to download the schematics to the refrigerator to my cell phone and grab a beverage!

Again, this is in no way defending the original post. My point is, we will always be outpowered, no matter what laws are not allowed to be passed with regard to this topic, so we desparately need to keep our other rights intact.

Thom's right.

So you are telling me that your question

"Oh really? You can buy a nuke?"

in response to Pat's posting that he can by many of the same wepons the government has is relevant to this discussion

When i was a teen-ager the US Gov't gave me an automatic weapon and TAUGHT me how to kill.

And yet, i have never once killed a single human being of my own volition. Even with the means and training.

Why? Because i am not a killer.

Killers Kill Mr.BerettaFan, it's what they do. :(

And why cant we have those good times back brother Pelicans? We should just abandon our ideals cause the govt has told us we can no longer be trusted to run our own lives?

Socialism simply DOES NOT WORK. It is slavery, pure and simple. :(

The truth is miss, and i think any military man would tell you so, is that if push comes to shove in the US, its the Gov't that would be desperately outmanned.

And god forbid something should happen now. There aren't even any US troops to stop it. They're all galavanting across the third world on W's failed Crusade.

IMO most civilians VASTLY over-rate the actual capability of the US Military. Especially here in the US because SO MANY of the the things the US relies on to fight are verbotten off the get go. No more JDAM satellite guided bombs. No more laserguided Hellfire Armed gunships or UAVs. None of that.

Cause drop one bomb in a US city, and it WILL be a popular insurgency that would swell into the millions. I suspect that 1/4-1/2 the military would desert right then and there.

Let's just skip all that and make sure we get these bills voted down.

Someone sent this to me today and thought I would share.

Doctors:
(A) The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.

(B) Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000.

© Accidental deaths per physician are 0.171. Statistics courtesy of U.S.
Dept. of Health Human Services.

Guns:
(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000. Yes, that is 80
million.

(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups is 1,500.

© The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.000188.

Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun
owners.

Remember, "Guns don't kill people, doctors do."

Fact: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR.

Please alert your friends to this alarming threat. We must ban doctors before this gets completely out of hand.

Out of concern for the public at large, I have withheld the statistics on lawyers for the fear the shock would cause people to panic and seek medical attention.

For many of us, gun rights are the proverbial "canary in the mineshaft". When that canary dies, there is certainly bigger trouble on the way. Gun rights are a bellweather for how any one person, or group of people, feel about the broader spectrum of individual rights.

Dubya and company have absolutely ***** all over our individual rights in the name of this "war on terror". Myself, and obviously many others, decided to send them a message this last election and vote for the other guys. We saw a Democratic House and Senate as the long needed balance we were lacking; as a way to reign in the Republicans who had run amok.

I stated back then that this mid-term was important to those of us who had switched sides. It provides an opportunity to see, for just two years, if the Dems had learned their lesson on certain issues. Like gun control. Their recent actions have demonstrated beyond any shadow of a doubt that that leopard has not changed its spots. Gun control is near and dear to them; it is a lynch pin in their wished-for nanny state. It sure didn't take them long, did it? In one fell swoop, they have managed to lose the swing voters that got them in. In retrospect, that much should have been predictible.

While it is true that Dubya has trampled on our rights, I believe what he has done is more unique to his administration than intrinsic to his party. Therein lies the difference; Dubya was going against long standing Republican traditions and tendencies. The Dems are merely picking up where they left off. That leaves the Republicans, as a whole, arguably a lesser threat to our personal freedoms than the Dems. With two years left for the Dems to re-itterate that, 2008 should be a landslide. Especially if they choose Billary or Obama. They'll just never learn...

Well put Jeff, other than the part about you voting for the lefties this time around. I would never claim that the republicans are perfect, but they are obviously "better" choice overall for people like me and you.

Don't let it happen again! ;) :D

Jeff i hope you are right on the 'unique to his administration' part. I suppose we'll be finding out.

I say again, we NEED a 3rd party out there!

I see, so you think the parents can't decide if their children are mature enough to be armed?

Further, not only were the parents in the Columbine Massacre irresponsible, they had drugged their children from early puberty on, the situation in nearly every school shooting, or attempted shooting, in similar situations. Ritalin, Luvox, Prozac don't mix well with children and teenagers.

Oh believe me, Tim, that won't happen again. Like I mentioned back then, part of the "plan" or "experiment" or whatever was to feed them enough rope to hang themselves. I just can't believe how fast they did it.

I had some comment, but M21 beat me to them.

Regardless of how well armed the Gov't is compared to the populace, the populace can win. Unfortunately, I did not say "WILL" win. A big factor will be american apathy.

Will the average joe get off his ass and do anything, ever? Only if something really, really outrageous provokes him. And then only during commercial breaks.

Waco & Ruby Ridge are barely known to most people. Athens is almost completely UNknown. For most people, as long as the cable is on they could care less what happens in their front yard.

But I digress. In any civil insurgency, the government runs a very high risk of alienating even their supporters if the military is too heavy handed.

In a civil war, many persons who traditionally would be non-combatant suddenly become very combatant. How many dead women and children would be seen on TV before the government got it's ass handed to them?

TOTAL us military is less than 1% of the US population. Total population between 17 and 45, what is considered able-bodied availability, is 110 million - over 36%.


I think a popular revolution is possible, but America will have to get a LOT worse before it would happen.

edit: sorry this isn't more coherant... I'm just kinda rambling

I think I'll want until final laws are passed before reacting too much.

Toy guns should look like toy guns. I don't want a policeman shooting a kid because of this. Bad for the kid and bad for that policeman, because he might not react correctly the next time when it isn't a toy gun.

Parents should be held liable for the acts of their children.

How any of the above is a gun control issue, I have no clue.

I'm not sure any additional special restrictions are necessary for gun shows. I would expect existing laws about cover everything.

Pat, I noticed the initial post came from the JFPFO. Isn't that David Gross' organization? Also with the Minutemen, etc. I used to work with him. He loaned me his side arm once when some gangbangers were coming in to retrieve property from the evidence room and I was going to be alone with them. Before he was fired for carrying. Fun times.

Reread Thom's post, please. His post adresses this.....

I don't see a popular revolt against federal government authority until about 70% of the citizenry in most states are opposed to that government. The opposition to the Iraq War is too spotty, even though it's about 70% now, even according to FauxNews, to be THE polarizing event. Another attempt to ban assault weapons might do it, gun confiscation or registration would do it, and maybe a few other things added into the mix.

Still, I anticipate a Whiskey Rebellion response from the US government, wherein they pick a state; likely a western or southern state, to enforce some odious law thinking that there's not enough people in other states to care. That's what Ruby Ridge (Bush I) and Waco (Clinton) were all about. Choose a White Separatist or a strange Religious Cult to attack, instead of a group seen as "just like me" by most Americans.

Right now, I don't see any movement to overturn any of the new laws that remove restrictions on government to interfere in rights access.

People are too apathetic, pat. We're a spoiled, lazy, distracted people. The problem is the damage of this apathy...when it's too late.....which is the gist of widebody's post.

blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah
blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah