# You have more to fear from a sovereign citizen than from ISIS!



## Ralphy1 (Feb 24, 2015)

This warning from the FBI startled me as I had never heard of that kind of citizen before.  Seems like this person is an anarchist who hates the government and particularly law enforcement.  Evidently the Tim McVeigh types abound out there, scary...


----------



## Ameriscot (Feb 24, 2015)

I've heard this before.  There are also white power groups who want to take over the government.


----------



## QuickSilver (Feb 24, 2015)

Certainly comes as no surprise to me..  Particularly after the standoff at the Bundy Ranch.  We definitely have more to fear from our own hyper-armed citizens.


----------



## Jackie22 (Feb 24, 2015)

Ralphy1 said:


> This warning from the FBI startled me as I had never heard of that kind of citizen before.  Seems like this person is an anarchist who hates the government and particularly law enforcement.  Evidently the Tim McVeigh types abound out there, scary...



Yes, too many crazies, too many guns and too many crazies with guns.


----------



## rt3 (Feb 24, 2015)

Yup
While Democrats, Gabby Giffords, and groups like Moms Demand Action claim that expanding background checks would end mass shootings, _The Washington Post_ looks across the pond and demonstrates that Europe’s expanded background checks prove useless in the face of a booming black market for guns and radicalized Muslims looking to commit terrorist acts.
After all, Europe has expanded background checks and enacted near-total gun bans in certain countries, but the Paris and Copenhagen attacks still took place.
According to WaPo, in Denmark “handguns and semiautomatic rifles are all but banned.” And hunting rifles can only be owned by people “with squeaky-clean backgrounds who have passed a rigorous exam covering everything from gun safety to the mating habits of Denmark’s wildlife.”
Tonni Rigby is one of the two licensed firearms dealers that exist in Copenhagen and he said the book one must read to prepare for a hunting rifle exam is “about 1,000 pages thick.” He added, “You have to know all of it.”
Yet although Denmark’s gun controls are “restrictive” — GunPolicy.org describes France’s controls as “restrictive” as well — Muslim attackers in Paris and Copenhagen had no problem getting the weapons they needed to kill 19 people and wound many others.
European officials now say “there is no clear solution.”
In other words, gun control failed in Paris and Copenhagen just the way it failed at Sandy Hook Elementary, where Adam Lanza went around gun laws by stealing the weapons he used. It failed like it did in the Aurora theater attack where gunman James Holmes passed the background checks which Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) proposed as a way to end violent public attacks. And yes, it failed the way it did on cold January morning in Tucson when background check proponent Gabby Giffords was shot by Jared Loughner — _after he passed background checks to acquire his gun_.
Europe’s example is out there for us to learn from. The lesson in both cases is that gun control only controls the actions of law-abiding citizens acquiring guns within legal means, and law-abiding citizens were never a threat to begin with.

should work here


----------



## rt3 (Feb 24, 2015)

Your chances of getting hit by lighting is astronomically higher.  And I bet you think theDHS announcement of a terror mall attack doesn't have anything to to do with their same week end announcement of defunding linked with immigration.


----------



## Don M. (Feb 24, 2015)

Gun control measures are a good way to reduce the number of weapons in the hands of responsible people who will be very unlikely to ever use those weapons in an illegal manner.  The criminals and nutcases can Always find all the weapons they need, no matter what kind of laws are in place.  

insofar as this recent news release about "Sovereign Citizens" is concerned...this administration is trying every way possible to divert attention away from Obama's recent Weak statements about ISIS and Islamic Terrorism.


----------



## QuickSilver (Feb 24, 2015)

Don M. said:


> Gun control measures are a good way to reduce the number of weapons in the hands of responsible people who will be very unlikely to ever use those weapons in an illegal manner.  The criminals and nutcases can Always find all the weapons they need, no matter what kind of laws are in place.
> 
> insofar as this recent news release about "Sovereign Citizens" is concerned...this administration is trying every way possible to divert attention away from Obama's recent Weak statements about ISIS and Islamic Terrorism.



That's for sure!!    Just ask Bin Laden.....  oh..wait..................................never mind


----------



## tnthomas (Feb 24, 2015)

Don M. said:


> insofar as this recent news release about "Sovereign Citizens" is concerned...this administration is trying every way possible to divert attention away from Obama's recent Weak statements about ISIS and Islamic Terrorism.



Did the White House press secretary release this statement?  I could not find any sources....except for the hate-Obama websites.


----------



## Don M. (Feb 24, 2015)

If you do a search on "Obama statements about Islam", you can find several.  Here is just One...in his own words...as broadcast on CNN.  It is full of his usual "Um's and Ah's", and really says nothing of substance.

http://therightscoop.com/obama-defe...out-isis-video-burning-jordan-pilot-to-death/

But then, given the heat he took after his "Red Line" regarding Syrian use of chemical weapons, he is probably Very Reluctant to make any concrete statements.


----------



## QuickSilver (Feb 24, 2015)

Don M. said:


> If you do a search on "Obama statements about Islam", you can find several.  Here is just One...in his own words...as broadcast on CNN.  It is full of his usual "Um's and Ah's", and really says nothing of substance.
> 
> http://therightscoop.com/obama-defe...out-isis-video-burning-jordan-pilot-to-death/
> 
> But then, given the heat he took after his "Red Line" regarding Syrian use of chemical weapons, he is probably Very Reluctant to make any concrete statements.




Oh YEs....  I'm sure he is really really scared..  lol!!


----------



## rt3 (Feb 24, 2015)

He doesn't have to do be scared, he gets Mikey to do it. Whoops Holders gone, oh well someone else in line.


----------



## GeneMO (Feb 24, 2015)

I use to have a lot of guns, reloaded, made my own bullets, etc.  Alas, all of my guns were stolen by a band of traveling gypsies.  I never replaced them.   I dont even have a bb gun.

Gene


----------



## rt3 (Feb 24, 2015)

Sure they did, but on the bright side, you now have nothing that needs registering. All mine sunk in a boat. Unfortunate tragedy.


----------



## Don M. (Feb 24, 2015)

GeneMO said:


> I use to have a lot of guns, reloaded, made my own bullets, etc.  Alas, all of my guns were stolen by a band of traveling gypsies.  I never replaced them.   I dont even have a bb gun.
> 
> Gene



You're a rarity in rural Missouri..or anywhere in rural America.  Most of the people who live in our heavily forested area are hunters, and virtually every household has firearms.  There is one road in/out of this enclave, and should someone ever come down into this area and try to create a problem, there is a good possibility they might not make it back to the highway.


----------



## tnthomas (Feb 24, 2015)

Don M. said:


> If you do a search on "Obama statements about Islam", you can find several.  Here is just One...in his own words...as broadcast on CNN.  It is full of his usual "Um's and Ah's", and really says nothing of substance.
> 
> http://therightscoop.com/obama-defe...out-isis-video-burning-jordan-pilot-to-death/



Let's do a little broader search:



> In fact, here’s a fun game. Here are some statements from Presidents Obama and Bush. See if you can guess who said which. Answers at the bottom of the Daily Trivia:
> 
> 1.  “Ours is a war not against a religion, not against the Muslim faith. But ours is a war against individuals who absolutely hate what America stands for.”
> 2.  “They’re terrorists. And we are not at war with Islam. We are at war with people who have perverted Islam.”
> ...


----------



## Debby (Feb 24, 2015)

Don M. said:


> Gun control measures are a good way to reduce the number of weapons in the hands of responsible people who will be very unlikely to ever use those weapons in an illegal manner.  The criminals and nutcases can Always find all the weapons they need, no matter what kind of laws are in place.
> 
> insofar as this recent news release about "Sovereign Citizens" is concerned...this administration is trying every way possible to divert attention away from Obama's recent Weak statements about ISIS and Islamic Terrorism.




But maybe with gun control laws seriously strengthened, you at least would eliminate the stupid, accidental deaths that we hear about sometimes.  Aren't those lives worth something even at the expense of additional inconvenience for the people who insist on owning guns?


----------



## SeaBreeze (Feb 24, 2015)

Don M. said:


> Gun control measures are a good way to reduce the number of weapons in the hands of responsible people who will be very unlikely to ever use those weapons in an illegal manner.  The criminals and nutcases can Always find all the weapons they need, no matter what kind of laws are in place.



I completely agree, and if the $hit hits the fan with these terrorist attacks in the US, the government and the anti-gun folks will be happy there's some of us who will shoot to kill before they get their heads loped off.  If the radical activity starts happening often here at home, those terrorists will be in for a surprise....and that's the way it should be, IMO.


----------



## rt3 (Feb 24, 2015)

By the time the rednecks and Cowboys get done with it, the only thing left for the DHS and police will be spent shell cases and beer bottles.  just sayin.


----------



## GeneMO (Feb 24, 2015)

rt3, man, lots of that going around,  I know several folks on other forums that lost their guns in boating accidents.   One fool was in a canoe, out on the Chesapeak bay with like 40 long guns, lost em all.  Those canoes are not real stable.

Don, have I asked you where you are located?  I live near Jefferson City, but my farms are outside of Pilot Grove.

Gene


----------



## GeneMO (Feb 24, 2015)

Debby said:


> But maybe with gun control laws seriously strengthened, you at least would eliminate the stupid, accidental deaths that we hear about sometimes.  Aren't those lives worth something even at the expense of additional inconvenience for the people who insist on owning guns?



Debby, that sounds good in theory.  So lets try applying your theory to another source of many, many tragic deaths.  Automobile accidents.

Using that same logic, maybe people who cannot change their own oil, change a tire, and replace their own brake pads are not mechanical enough to be trusted to drive an automobile.

Maybe people who text, smoke, drink coffee, eat a cheese burger and fard all at the same time should not be allowed to drive.

People over 60 probably do not have the reflexes or agility to drive.

So using that logic, should we ban all those folks from driving??

Gene


----------



## rt3 (Feb 24, 2015)

Definitely have a gas test on the hamburger thing lol


----------



## Debby (Feb 24, 2015)

GeneMO said:


> Debby, that sounds good in theory.  So lets try applying your theory to another source of many, many tragic deaths.  Automobile accidents.
> 
> Using that same logic, maybe people who cannot change their own oil, change a tire, and replace their own brake pads are not mechanical enough to be trusted to drive an automobile.
> 
> ...




I don't agree Gene.  In Canada, you have to actually take a course where you learn all about the safe handling of guns, storage, laws concerning them, etc., and then you write a test.  You have to be a member of a local gun club and then the police phone your references to make sure you aren't displaying aberrant behaviour or maybe have other 'issues' that are relevant, probably do a criminal check too ..... and after all that, which can take a few weeks...you get your license to own one.  And at no time in the course my husband took did they talk about how to do repairs to their guns.  So in Canada anyway, your example would be flawed.  It isn't necessary to know how to change the oil to operate a car safely, whereas steering, parking, road laws, etc., are necessary you know what I mean?

I have heard, and I may be mistaken or maybe it's only like this in certain states, I have heard that you can walk into a gun show, pay the man, fill out a form and then fifteen minutes later come back and pick up your purchase.  If I'm wrong on that, I'd appreciate the clarification.  

In Canada, you even have to get a permit to transport a gun so you wouldn't even be able to legally just walk away with your purchase to go home.  My husband had a gun and when he sold it last year, his friend who happens to have been in the RCMP many decades ago, was rather concerned that he hadn't bothered to get a permit to transport it to the gun shop.


----------



## GeneMO (Feb 24, 2015)

Debby said:


> I don't agree Gene.  In Canada, you have to actually take a course where you learn all about the safe handling of guns, storage, laws concerning them, etc., and then you write a test.  You have to be a member of a local gun club and then the police phone your references to make sure you aren't displaying aberrant behaviour or maybe have other 'issues' that are relevant, probably do a criminal check too ..... and after all that, which can take a few weeks...you get your license to own one.  And at no time in the course my husband took did they talk about how to do repairs to their guns.  So in Canada anyway, your example would be flawed.  It isn't necessary to know how to change the oil to operate a car safely, whereas steering, parking, road laws, etc., are necessary you know what I mean?
> 
> I have heard, and I may be mistaken or maybe it's only like this in certain states, I have heard that you can walk into a gun show, pay the man, fill out a form and then fifteen minutes later come back and pick up your purchase.  If I'm wrong on that, I'd appreciate the clarification.
> 
> In Canada, you even have to get a permit to transport a gun so you wouldn't even be able to legally just walk away with your purchase to go home.  My husband had a gun and when he sold it last year, his friend who happens to have been in the RCMP many decades ago, was rather concerned that he hadn't bothered to get a permit to transport it to the gun shop.



OK, we'll take the safety and mechanical ability out.  People who are ticketed for "Careless and Imprudent driving", Driving while drunk, speeding, using a car to flee from police, using a car to commit a crime, and you are banned from owning a car.  That more to your liking?

And it appears you are not from the US, so I will let you in on our gun buying methods.  Years ago they came up with a National Instant Background Check.  You go in to buy a gun, the dealer phones your info in, and they have a link to the crime stats, police records, etc.  If you are a crook, you can't buy a gun.

Not to fear if you are a crook, cause they dont follow the rules anyway, they just steal the guns, or buy one already stolen by someone else.

Gene


----------



## Butterfly (Feb 24, 2015)

Back to the original subject -- I'd a helluva lot rather face somebody with a gun than a bunch of ISIS guys who want to burn me alive!  

As long as there are seriously bad guys out there with guns, I'll keep mine, thank you.

AND, BTW, I'm sure all of those seriously bad guys will worry a whole lot about whether or not they have a permit, should one be required.


----------



## Butterfly (Feb 24, 2015)

And I'm sure the terrorists worry a lot about permits, too!


----------



## QuickSilver (Feb 25, 2015)

Butterfly said:


> Back to the original subject -- I'd a helluva lot rather face somebody with a gun than a bunch of ISIS guys who want to burn me alive!
> 
> As long as there are seriously bad guys out there with guns, I'll keep mine, thank you.
> 
> AND, BTW, I'm sure all of those seriously bad guys will worry a whole lot about whether or not they have a permit, should one be required.



By that line of reasoning...  I think we should do away with ALL laws..... afterall.... the bad guys don't obey them anyway..   Why have any?


----------



## rt3 (Feb 25, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> By that line of reasoning...  I think we should do away with ALL laws..... afterall.... the bad guys don't obey them anyway..   Why have any?



fallacy slippery slope arguement, try again


----------



## Debby (Feb 25, 2015)

GeneMO said:


> OK, we'll take the safety and mechanical ability out.  People who are ticketed for "Careless and Imprudent driving", Driving while drunk, speeding, using a car to flee from police, using a car to commit a crime, and you are banned from owning a car.  That more to your liking?
> 
> And it appears you are not from the US, so I will let you in on our gun buying methods.  Years ago they came up with a National Instant Background Check.  You go in to buy a gun, the dealer phones your info in, and they have a link to the crime stats, police records, etc.  If you are a crook, you can't buy a gun.
> 
> ...




But it does nothing to weed out possible lunatics whereas in Canada, your application will get the RCMP contacting your references to try and weed out potential loose cannons.  
And I also did notice in your description, there is no mention that classes MUST be attended where people are drilled on safety.  And with that, I'm reminded of 'adjusting bra holsters and baby's getting hold of mommy's gun in her purse at Walmart, little girls using automatic weapons and shooting their instructors, sales clerks playing at 'showdown at the OK Corral' while at work....    Maybe those people could have used a couple classes on safety don't you think or in the case of the boobs that got into the fight at work, maybe a phone call by the police would have discovered a relative who thought the shooter was a nut and shouldn't have a gun?

Another thing your method doesn't protect the citizenry against is the guy who is angry at someone and determined to teach them a lesson goes to a gun show or shop, buys a gun and within minutes can be out the door with his lethal weapon and headed for the home of whomever he is angry at.  With Canada's methods of registering weapons, there is ample time for sober second thought.

Personally I don't like guns, but I'm not going to insist that you give them up. BUT I would like to know that every gun owner has been made to jump through enumerable hoops before you get what is purchased for the sake of it's being a weapon. I buy my car to be transportation, but gun owners (even the ones who are doing target practice/competition stuff) are still buying a weapon.


----------



## rt3 (Feb 25, 2015)

Still doesn't float. All studies trying to show regulation lowers crime are flops. Accidents are not crimes, shouldn't be in same category. U.S. has qmany gun training areas, all the way from the Boy Scouts to specialized shooting schools. Probably more gun instructors than Canada has driving instructors.
treating shooting accidents and taking out the stats for suicides, as accidents shows the risk rate lower than being hit by lightening. Or taking the dog for a walk etc. etc. etc.
please don't say you can't do anything about nature, just stay in the house, it solves both problems.


----------



## Debby (Feb 25, 2015)

rt3 said:


> Still doesn't float. All studies trying to show regulation lowers crime are flops. Accidents are not crimes, shouldn't be in same category. U.S. has qmany gun training areas, all the way from the Boy Scouts to specialized shooting schools. Probably more gun instructors than Canada has driving instructors.
> treating shooting accidents and taking out the stats for suicides, as accidents shows the risk rate lower than being hit by lightening. Or taking the dog for a walk etc. etc. etc.
> please don't say you can't do anything about nature, just stay in the house, it solves both problems.




I never said it lowered crimes, although maybe you could link one of those studies,  but it would lower the number of stupid accidents I'd think and those peoples lives are worth something to their families.   And if the deaths whether accident or intentional, are caused by guns, than they can be considered together in a discussion of upping the regulations and requirements of gun ownership.  You don't get to separate them just because it suits your argument to do so.  

As for your gun training areas...are people required by law to attend them or is that at their own discretion?  If it's their own discretion, than as I see it, right there you have a flaw.   Not sure what you mean about 'nature' though.


----------



## rt3 (Feb 25, 2015)

Last time I was in Canada, the Mounty ask me if I had any guns at the border.  I replied "why do I need one?" He did not think that was funny, and replied "only mobsters carry guns", at which point I realized he was serious and burst out laughing. He asked to me to pull over and step out of the truck. I asked for his supervisor, and we had a talk about attitude, hunting in British Columbia, gun papers and thousands of dollars spent in Canada. I was going to tell the first Mountie his shorts were to tight, but the guy was at least 7 feet tall.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Feb 25, 2015)

Butterfly said:


> Back to the original subject -- I'd a helluva lot rather face somebody with a gun than a bunch of ISIS guys who want to burn me alive!
> 
> As long as there are seriously bad guys out there with guns, I'll keep mine, thank you.
> 
> AND, BTW, I'm sure all of those seriously bad guys will worry a whole lot about whether or not they have a permit, should one be required.



I'll take a bullet in the head any day, rather than be burned alive or have my head cut off.  Better yet, put a bullet in their head if they're coming with a sharp knife at me or my neighbor.  There would have been a lot more heads rolling in Oklahoma if someone didn't come in with a gun to put a halt to the murders.  The bad guys will always have guns, and they live for the day all the responsible citizens will have theirs taken away, easy pickings for them.  I doubt that will happen though, I'm not too worried about it.


----------



## GeneMO (Feb 25, 2015)

Debby, lets settle it this way.  Everyone here in the States that is worried about all us gun nuts, can move to Canada where it is safe.

I think it was Ben Franklin that stated:  Those who would sacrifice their freedom for temporary safety, deserve neither, and will surely loose both.

I didn't put that in quotes cause from memory I am not sure of the exact wording.

The US is not perfect, but lots of people from all over the world are trying everything to get here.

Gene


----------



## rt3 (Feb 25, 2015)

You have given no stats, simply quoted a couple of stupid accidents. By definition all accidents are stupid. All concealed permits require safety training in the U.S. 

by nature I mean that events that occur either have a memory or they don't, regardless of type of event. Memory less events like lightening don't know what they did last time they did it. Ex. What are the odds that lightening will strike twice in the same spot? It's the same for any number of strikes. The lightening doesn't know it hit there last time. Of course there are things that can increase the probability like metal etc. but all things being equal the same math applies.
This does not apply to human stuff. No amount of training can remove the possibility of the event. If your talking about Cateris Paribus, which is the only thing that matters, the stats across the Board will be the same.


----------



## Don M. (Feb 25, 2015)

If a person does some searching, it quickly seems that the States with the strictest Gun Control laws, also seem to have the highest murder rates.  California, for example, has the tightest controls on gun ownership...AND the highest murder rate.  Illinois, and particularly Chicago, isn't far behind.  The heavily populated States in the NE, have substantially higher homicide rates than the MidWest. 

However, the factor that most statistics seem to gloss over is the fact that most murders, and gun violence, in this country, are drug and street gang related.  California has a constant on-going battle between the various Hispanic drug gangs, and most major cities have the highest concentration of gun violence in the poorer Ethnic neighborhoods.  

Gun control advocates would serve their purpose better by addressing these kind of issues, rather than just blaming everything on "guns".


----------



## rt3 (Feb 25, 2015)

And by way of comparison your chances of being the accident of one of the events is astronomically higher than getting shot by some kid in a shopping cart.


----------



## Jackie22 (Feb 25, 2015)

[h=1]"What The Rest Of America Can Learn From California's Strict Gun Laws"[/h]*What The Rest Of America Can Learn From California's Strict Gun Laws* 

_by Pamela Engel at Business Insider_ 

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-californias-gun-laws-have-worked-2013-8 

"SNIP............................... 


California, the state with the strictest gun laws in the country, has seen a 56% drop in its gun death rate in the past 20 years, according to a study that the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence released last week. 

The study points out that 5,500 Californians were killed by gunfire in 1993, but that number dropped to 2,935 by 2010. The number of people per 100,000 who were killed by guns also dropped dramatically from 1990 to 2010 (see chart at right, and note that the numbers on the Y axis seem to be spaced unevenly). 

While violent crime (including gun deaths) dropped everywhere in the U.S. during the 1990s, gun deaths declined even more in the Golden State. The nonprofit Law Center argues that there's a correlation between the state's strict gun laws and the dramatic drop in the number of deaths from guns. 

This theory is bolstered by other studies done elsewhere — a Center for American Progress study found that states with the weakest gun laws have the highest rates of gun violence, and a study released by Boston Children's Hospital in March found that states with more gun laws have fewer gun-related deaths. 

.............................SNIP"


----------



## Ameriscot (Feb 25, 2015)

GeneMO said:


> Debby, lets settle it this way.  Everyone here in the States that is worried about all us gun nuts, can move to Canada where it is safe.
> 
> I think it was Ben Franklin that stated:  Those who would sacrifice their freedom for temporary safety, deserve neither, and will surely loose both.
> 
> ...



Or Scotland.  Very safe here.  Only rifles for hunting. And how is anyone losing their freedom by moving to Canada?  How is the US more free than Canada?


----------



## oakapple (Feb 25, 2015)

I am still musing over the fact that anyone would take forty guns out in a boat with them(and then the boat sinks) what can this possibly mean?  or who has every gun in the house stolen by travelling gypsies? both scenarios sound like something from a movie(made by the Cohen brothers.)Or, is it simply a joke?


----------



## rt3 (Feb 25, 2015)

Ok here is the punch line, it's really 50 guns. In the Us a form 4077 form is filled out and a background check is run oking the sale. This information can only be held for 48 hours as it violates the privacy laws. the anti gun folks want all guns registered on a national data base, which means I can't comply because my all sunk. doña' believe me ____. Prove  they didn't


----------



## GeneMO (Feb 25, 2015)

Ameriscot said:


> Or Scotland.  Very safe here.  Only rifles for hunting. And how is anyone losing their freedom by moving to Canada?  How is the US more free than Canada?




I dont really care.  I am not moving.  You were the one touting Canada's laws.   I am perfectly happy right here on my farm.

Gene


----------



## GeneMO (Feb 25, 2015)

oakapple said:


> I am still musing over the fact that anyone would take forty guns out in a boat with them(and then the boat sinks) what can this possibly mean?  or who has every gun in the house stolen by travelling gypsies? both scenarios sound like something from a movie(made by the Cohen brothers.)Or, is it simply a joke?



I dont have any guns to register.  Gypsies stole em all.  No need to come looking for guns at my place.


----------



## Butterfly (Feb 25, 2015)

Those evil gypsies struck here, too -- darn those gypsies!  Especially the ones in leaky rowboats.


----------



## rt3 (Feb 25, 2015)

Lol, lol


----------



## Warrigal (Feb 25, 2015)

rt3 said:


> Last time I was in Canada, the Mounty ask me if I had any guns at the border.  I replied "why do I need one?" He did not think that was funny, and replied "only mobsters carry guns", at which point I realized he was serious and burst out laughing. He asked to me to pull over and step out of the truck. I asked for his supervisor, and we had a talk about attitude, hunting in British Columbia, gun papers and thousands of dollars spent in Canada. I was going to tell the first Mountie his shorts were to tight, but the guy was at least 7 feet tall.



:lofl: Welcome to the real world. Do you imagine that I would be allowed to enter the US armed to the teeth?
From my experiences, your border protection officers are a bit lacking in the sense of humour department too.


----------



## QuickSilver (Feb 26, 2015)

Dame Warrigal said:


> :lofl: Welcome to the real world. Do you imagine that I would be allowed to enter the US armed to the teeth?
> From my experiences, your border protection officers are a bit lacking in the sense of humour department too.



No you wouldn't.  But once here?  It's a veritable candy store of munitions...


----------



## Warrigal (Feb 26, 2015)

I think the Canadians are probably worried about illegal firearms trafficking across the border.

On a side note, years ago a friend of mine travelled to the UK via the USSR (Aeroflot airlines) and on arrival they checked all of her Australian currency and clothing, especially underwear and jeans. When she left she had to still have all of the clothing and account for any money she had spent. The black market in western clothing and foreign currency was rife. When you cross any border you find the rules are not what you might expect.


----------



## Ralphy1 (Feb 26, 2015)

Hmmm,  my underwear drawer must be worth a fortune, especially my manties...


----------



## QuickSilver (Feb 26, 2015)

Ralphy1 said:


> Hmmm,  my underwear drawer must be worth a fortune, especially my manties...



Why don't I even want to picture your underwear drawer?


----------



## Ralphy1 (Feb 26, 2015)

Well, it is neat and clean--and colorful!


----------



## QuickSilver (Feb 26, 2015)

Ralphy1 said:


> Well, it is neat and clean--and colorful!




I'll take your word for it.


----------



## Debby (Feb 26, 2015)

GeneMO said:


> Debby, lets settle it this way.  Everyone here in the States that is worried about all us gun nuts, can move to Canada where it is safe.
> 
> I think it was Ben Franklin that stated:  Those who would sacrifice their freedom for temporary safety, deserve neither, and will surely loose both.
> 
> ...




Why do you sound like you are insisting that I am saying take all the guns away?  Did I say that?  No.

I said that everyone who wants to own a gun should be *required* to undergo safety training as well as criminal checks and someone should be making sure that lunatics aren't getting hold of guns.  I realize that the last is a 'hide-able' problem or that it is subject to change, but at least if mental stability was a requirement at the onset, some people who shouldn't be allowed to arm themselves due to mental issues might, just might not be able to get hold of weapons that can cause death.  That wouldn't stop you from having all the guns you want, but your lunatic neighbour (if you had one) who has no criminal record wouldn't be able to waltz in to any gun shop and arm himself to take out his family.  Why is that so hard to understand?

The fact that lots of people are trying to get to the USA, only says that where many are coming from is far worse.


----------



## QuickSilver (Feb 26, 2015)

Debby said:


> Why do you sound like you are insisting that I am saying take all the guns away?  Did I say that?  No.
> 
> I said that everyone who wants to own a gun should be *required* to undergo safety training as well as criminal checks and someone should be making sure that lunatics aren't getting hold of guns.  I realize that the last is a 'hide-able' problem or that it is subject to change, but at least if mental stability was a requirement at the onset, some people who shouldn't be allowed to arm themselves due to mental issues might, just might not be able to get hold of weapons that can cause death.  That wouldn't stop you from having all the guns you want, but your lunatic neighbour (if you had one) who has no criminal record wouldn't be able to waltz in to any gun shop and arm himself to take out his family.  Why is that so hard to understand?
> 
> The fact that lots of people are trying to get to the USA, only says that where many are coming from is far worse.



You started your sentence  "Everyone who wants to own a gun should be *required.....*It's that that point they stop listening and their hair starts on fire..


----------



## Debby (Feb 26, 2015)

Oh is that it!  They're all afraid of tests!  Aha, now I understand.  Well I can remember when I was a child, tests frightened me too.


----------



## QuickSilver (Feb 26, 2015)

Debby said:


> Oh is that it!  They're all afraid of tests!  Aha, now I understand.  Well I can remember when I was a child, tests frightened me too.



True... BUt I believe it's the word "REQUIRED"  that causes the problem.


----------



## oakapple (Feb 26, 2015)

Butterfly said:


> Those evil gypsies struck here, too -- darn those gypsies!  Especially the ones in leaky rowboats.


hee-hee!It had to be a joke, and one that has now been explained. With so many excuses though as to how your guns have gone missing, you must expect  flying visit from Mulder and Scully to check out your premises and your very weird story.


----------



## rt3 (Feb 26, 2015)

All this has been covered in the guns post or at other times, there seems to be a density problem. A short summary will be given again. When I was a kid in school there was a girl who never listened, teacher had to tell her so many times I used to mouth her words.

the definition of criminal is someone who does't follow the law.
getting a gun is 10'times more restrictive than getting a driver lic.

all gun purchases require a signed BATF form 4377 and any no answer nixs the deal. (Includes mental history)
then the Federsl gun center is called to see if the person is wanted nixes the deal
CCW permit requires safety, legal classes

does not stop somebody with a forged drivers lic.
feds drop the ball about a hundred times a day because of the volume of purchases 

Mounties let me with a boat lode of guns after traditional fist bumps, and what's up man.


----------



## rt3 (Feb 26, 2015)

oakapple said:


> hee-hee!It had to be a joke, and one that has now been explained. With so many excuses though as to how your guns have gone missing, you must expect  flying visit from Mulder and Scully to check out your premises and your very weird story.



nope they get patted down, are warned to keep their hands in sight


----------



## rt3 (Feb 26, 2015)

El Rey on Comcast still shows X files, still good stuff.


----------



## rt3 (Feb 26, 2015)

Some historical info may help.



The "health issues" involved with firearms possession has only become an issue within the last 5 years, as anti gun folks lost the 2nd ammendment issue under SCOTUS see Heller. This gains it's impetus from Obama's anti gun platform and his previous position at the Joyce foundation. Obama has and will continue trying to make gun violence a health issue and place it under CDC control. This is the basis of gun registration complaints by pro gun folks. Current registration information can only be kept for 48 hours. Obama and Holder want a permanent data base of gun owners accessible by everyone from used car dealers to the local newspaper, in exactly the same manner as sex offenders. This is what the antis are not telling you. Can you see why pro gun people get an adrenaline rush? This would require gun owners to re-register all their guns from some 50 years ago, with absolutely no change in crime rates. It ain't gonna happen and the reason why there are so many gypsies running around.
Molon Labe.
this motive is one of reasons for the large political losses suffered  by one of the parties who use this forum as a party platform, and the changes sweeping the US at the state level regarding gun laws and will continue into the next election. Some of these reversals have occurred, some are in the courts, so it is a continuing process.


----------



## Butterfly (Feb 26, 2015)

rt3 said:


> El Rey on Comcast still shows X files, still good stuff.



LOVE the X Files!


----------



## QuickSilver (Feb 27, 2015)

rt3 said:


> Some historical info may help.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Can you spell  P A R A N O I A  ???


----------



## rt3 (Feb 27, 2015)

democrat


----------



## rt3 (Feb 27, 2015)

Note the small letters no spaces


----------



## rt3 (Feb 27, 2015)

T
(Reuters) - Shopping mall operators need to increase security through more staff, cameras and other techniques in light of threats made against the Mall of America in Minnesota and other shopping centers by Somali-based Islamist militants this week, outgoing U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said.
"I certainly think we have to step up our sensitivities to what goes on in these commercial enterprises," Holder said in an interview with CNN that aired on Friday. "It would be the responsible thing for operators of these malls to increase their capabilities when it comes to keeping people safe who are just going about their everyday lives."
In a separate interview with Politico, also published on Friday, Holder said he would push in his final weeks in office to lower the standard of proof for civil-rights offenses that would make it easier for the federal government to bring charges in future cases. 
The Justice Department recently closed its investigation into the shooting of Trayvon Martin, an unarmed black teenager, without filing charges against gunman George Zimmerman because of "insufficient evidence."
"I think that if we adjust those standards, we can make the federal government a better backstop - make us more a part of the process in an appropriate way to reassure the American people that decisions are made by people who are really disinterested," he told Politico.
The Senate is expected to confirm Loretta Lynch, his successor, next month.


----------



## rt3 (Feb 27, 2015)

Gun free zones


----------



## QuickSilver (Feb 27, 2015)

rt3 said:


> democrat



I wouldn't think so rt.......  We aren't inclined to look for the black helicopters landing on our lawn coming to take our guns...  AND we don't have to hallucinate about gypsies..


----------



## rt3 (Feb 27, 2015)

Lol that's for sure, your delusions run much deeper


----------



## rt3 (Feb 27, 2015)




----------



## rt3 (Feb 27, 2015)

It's ok, though it's part of the control profile


----------

