Government Confiscation of Supplies

[JackDW]

To an outsider (outside the US), they see a lot of infighting taking place in the US and the country appears to be greatly divided (which it is, within). But let someone attempt to invade for outside and watch how quickly the country comes together. The US has almost unlimited Natural Resources. While a lot of its industrial base has been shipped offshore, the skill and knowledge is still here and it can quickly be rebuilt. Can the world match the entire industrial strength of the US if it is all working for the same goal.

That is just the industrial side. How about the US farming industry. If turned loose (there are a lot of laws controlling what can be grown at this time) it can easily feed its people.

The US now, not only supply it's own oil needs, but it has become an oil exporter. Again, the US does not have to depend upon outside sources.

Not sure, but I will bet that the US leads the world in armed civilians. If someone attempts to invade the US, they will most likely find armed civilians behind each tree. Yes, the bigger cities may be "pushover" but once they leave the cities they will be facing a group of armed citizens that will not just laydown, especially to the UN. Generally, the UN is not looked on favorably in the US.

 

[Kevin L]

Consider the (supposed, but disputed) comment of Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto:
"If we invade the American mainland, there will be a rifle behind every blade of grass . . . "

After WWII, a Japanese general was asked why they didn't push their advantage and invade the American mainland, and the answer was: "So many Americans have guns . . . and I want to believe that we had the wisdom to avoid deliberately stepping into that particular morass of quicksand . . . "

If we get invaded, I think the enemy will be really surprised at how many people own guns.

Most people who own guns own more than one gun, so a thousand gun owners will become--perhaps--four thousand gun owners as people get resentful, and--by scrounging guns from the enemy dead--four thousand gun owners will become maybe ten thousand gun owners.

I can't believe that the U.N. doesn't see this . . . or anyone else who wants to invade.

The French Resistance in WWII did quite a bit of damage to the Nazi invaders, for example. The Vietcong in Southeast Asia might be another example.

If invaders are not wanted, things get old really quick for the occupying forces.

 

[tmttactical]

We Brits did no such thing when we invaded in 1812, We fought and won honourably and bravely as did the defending US Continental army

I think that post references the SOUTH AMERICA invasion by the Spanish Conquistadors.

 

[GaRp58]

Remember that the UN --has no own troops---the UN gives itself a mandate, decides which of its stupid members has to "provide" troops, decides when and where these poor suckers are to be stationed in order to serve this mandate, decides when the mandate if fulfilled and when the poor suckers who survived the weather, fighting, food, diseases and general unloved involvement in this foreign land get to go back home. Which stupid nation in the entire world is going to find enough stupid persons to follow a stupid mandate from the stupids in the UN and really go into the most heavily armed (and ready to repel any color of helmet wearing stupid troop) nation in existance??
Especially those nations who profit from the US, ever got saved by the US, ever needed and received assistance from the US and most importantly: who would rather move to the US and live there instead of "occupying" it?? GP

 

[GeorgiaPeachie]

Very true, it has happen in other countries but then they are not like Americans. To control the population, you need to disarm the population. There is only one political party pushing to disarm the population, so now you know which political party that want to control your life and life choices.

A bit late on this thread, but just had to say that the Dems aren’t even hiding the fact they are going to take our guns if given the chance.

 

[DrHenley]

Yep, they are all "We support the Second Amendment" and "We only want common sense gun laws" when they think it is politically expedient to say that. But all along they have been chafing at the bit for a chance to go after total disarmament of the American people.

 

[Kevin L]

Yep, they are all "We support the Second Amendment" and "We only want common sense gun laws" when they think it is politically expedient to say that. But all along they have been chafing at the bit for a chance to go after total disarmament of the American people.

I agree with you, but a part of me questions if the government can realistically accomplish this in our culture.

There were recent demonstrations in Michigan where--literally--thousands of people showed up, and most of them seemed armed.

It seems to me that if there was a socialistic "takeover" in our country, that people really would ban together with their guns like I saw a few days ago.

Marshall Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto was once asked why he was against the Japanese invading the West Coast of our country, and he said: "If we invade the American mainland, there will be a rifle behind every blade of grass . . . "

There are historians who doubt that he actually said this, but this point is clear. If you have millions and millions of people with guns . . . how can you realistically complete a hostile takeover?

A public outcry is one thing, but thousands of demonstrators with guns that outnumber the police and National Guard 20:1? What are they going to do? Water cannons and tear gas?

I also know that the gun manufacturers have deep pockets . . . which means a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. In our country, money controls everything.

I know I've expressed fears of government confiscation before, but am I making sense now or just engaging in wishful thinking?

And just so everybody understands where my head is at, I disagree with activists like Emma Gonzalez, from Parkland, Florida . . . but I'm still very, very sympathetic toward them. I lost a friend to a mass shooting at a Wendy's in West Palm Beach, and I have responded to mass shootings before as a medic. People can run the numbers and stats and--legitimately--conclude that your chances of death from a car accident or a slip and fall are much higher than dying from a mass shooting, but it doesn't feel that way to the survivors who lost a loved one.

Anybody who has lost a loved one in a mass shooting would feel very slighted when people point out things like this.

See link below:


https://www.palmbeachpost.com/enter...ch-happened-years-ago/YwG0GfUGx8pAcl3ET8DgFM/

 

[Mountain trapper]

I agree with you, but a part of me questions if the government can realistically accomplish this in our culture.

There were recent demonstrations in Michigan where--literally--thousands of people showed up, and most of them seemed armed.

It seems to me that if there was a socialistic "takeover" in our country, that people really would ban together with their guns like I saw a few days ago.

Marshall Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto was once asked why he was against the Japanese invading the West Coast of our country, and he said: "If we invade the American mainland, there will be a rifle behind every blade of grass . . . "

There are historians who doubt that he actually said this, but this point is clear. If you have millions and millions of people with guns . . . how can you realistically complete a hostile takeover?

A public outcry is one thing, but thousands of demonstrators with guns that outnumber the police and National Guard 20:1? What are they going to do? Water cannons and tear gas?

I also know that the gun manufacturers have deep pockets . . . which means a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. In our country, money controls everything.

I know I've expressed fears of government confiscation before, but am I making sense now or just engaging in wishful thinking?

Sounds good Kevin. But the American people don't have the back bone any longer to put up much of a fight, no matter how oppressive our government becomes. Look at how everyone rolled over to the facist and unconstitutional lock down of our country. Hell, the government didn't even need to declare martial law and everyone went scurrying to their homes. People just don't stick together in this country when it comes to taking away our freedoms and liberty. But just talk about taking away welfare checks and you'd see a large segment of our population put up a fight.

 

[Kevin L]

Sounds good Kevin. But the American people don't have the back bone any longer to put up much of a fight, no matter how oppressive our government becomes. Look at how everyone rolled over to the facist and unconstitutional lock down of our country. Hell, the government didn't even need to declare martial law and everyone went scurrying to their homes. People just don't stick together in this country when it comes to taking away our freedoms and liberty. But just talk about taking away welfare checks and you'd see a large segment of our population put up a fight.

I might have agreed with you last week, but the news ran footage on the protests in Michigan, and I saw thousands of people with multiple guns protesting outside the capitol . . . and changed my mind.

 

[Mountain trapper]

I might have agreed with you last week, but the news ran footage on the protests in Michigan, and I saw thousands of people with multiple guns protesting outside the capitol . . . and changed my mind.

I hope you're right. But remember the Clinton gun bans, not many people spoke out.
One good thing going for us is; as long as Trump is president there are a few Repubics that have found their backbone. I'm afraid that once the Dems take back the presidency the Repubics will go back to compromising our Rights and freedoms away again.

 

[GeorgiaPeachie]

I hope you're right. But remember the Clinton gun bans, not many people spoke out.
One good thing going for us is; as long as Trump is president there are a few Repubics that have found their backbone. I'm afraid that once the Dems take back the presidency the Repubics will go back to compromising our Rights and freedoms away again.

We all need to be backing the NRA right now and contacting our representatives. There is word going around that the Dems are trying to put gun bans in the next bailout!

 

[GeorgiaPeachie]

I agree with you, but a part of me questions if the government can realistically accomplish this in our culture.

There were recent demonstrations in Michigan where--literally--thousands of people showed up, and most of them seemed armed.

It seems to me that if there was a socialistic "takeover" in our country, that people really would ban together with their guns like I saw a few days ago.

Marshall Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto was once asked why he was against the Japanese invading the West Coast of our country, and he said: "If we invade the American mainland, there will be a rifle behind every blade of grass . . . "

There are historians who doubt that he actually said this, but this point is clear. If you have millions and millions of people with guns . . . how can you realistically complete a hostile takeover?

A public outcry is one thing, but thousands of demonstrators with guns that outnumber the police and National Guard 20:1? What are they going to do? Water cannons and tear gas?

I also know that the gun manufacturers have deep pockets . . . which means a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. In our country, money controls everything.

I know I've expressed fears of government confiscation before, but am I making sense now or just engaging in wishful thinking?

And just so everybody understands where my head is at, I disagree with activists like Emma Gonzalez, from Parkland, Florida . . . but I'm still very, very sympathetic toward them. I lost a friend to a mass shooting at a Wendy's in West Palm Beach, and I have responded to mass shootings before as a medic. People can run the numbers and stats and--legitimately--conclude that your chances of death from a car accident or a slip and fall are much higher than dying from a mass shooting, but it doesn't feel that way to the survivors who lost a loved one.

Anybody who has lost a loved one in a mass shooting would feel very slighted when people point out things like this.

See link below:


https://www.palmbeachpost.com/enter...ch-happened-years-ago/YwG0GfUGx8pAcl3ET8DgFM/

People lose loved ones every single day. When you lose someone you look for someone or something to blame. I personally know as I lost one of my sons and I very much wanted to blame something. I remember the day like it was yesterday, but it has been many years...of which I could tell you the exact number of days and hours.

While I truly feel for others, I do not think their hurt and loss is more valuable than others who depend on their weapon to keep themselves and their loves ones safe. Putting those who lost someone to a mass shooting ABOVE others is just WRONG! Media plays it on people’s emotions. Don’t let them do that to you.

 

[Kevin L]

People lose loved ones every single day. When you lose someone you look for someone or something to blame. I personally know as I lost one of my sons and I very much wanted to blame something. I remember the day like it was yesterday, but it has been many years...of which I could tell you the exact number of days and hours.

While I truly feel for others, I do not think their hurt and lose is more valuable than others who depend on their weapon to keep themselves and their loves ones safe. Putting those who lost someone to a mass shooting ABOVE others is just WRONG! Media plays it on people’s emotions. Don’t let them do that to you.

I'm intensely sorry about the loss of your child--regardless of how long ago it was--and you have my sincere condolences.

As I said, I disagree with the Parkland activists (and other people who wish to continually dilute the 2nd Amendment), but I understand why they feel that way, and I respect them even if I think they're wrong.

They have just as much of a right to express their views on the subject as anyone else in this country. I do tend to view dissent as something that's healthy, rather than threatening.

I like it when people challenge my beliefs.

 

[Mountain trapper]

We all need to be backing the NRA right now and contacting our representatives. There is word going around that the Dems are trying to put gun bans in the next bailout!

I agree. I've been an NRA member for around 40 years now. But it's disappointing to hear from many gun owners, even on this site, that won't support the NRA over trivial disagreements. I guess their Constitutional rights just don't mean that much to some people.

 

[GeorgiaPeachie]

I'm intensely sorry about the loss of your child--regardless of how long ago it was--and you have my sincere condolences.

As I said, I disagree with the Parkland activists (and other people who wish to continually dilute the 2nd Amendment), but I understand why they feel that way, and I respect them even if I think they're wrong.

They have just as much of a right to express their views on the subject as anyone else in this country. I do tend to view dissent as something that's healthy, rather than threatening.

I like it when people challenge my beliefs.

Thank you Kevin. He was an amazing young man who had friends from every group in high school.

Debate on issues is a good thing. We don’t have that with guns though. The media inundates the airwaves with ONE SIDE of a story. They never, ever give the reasons all Americans have the RIGHT to defend themselves and their loved ones. (Except of course mentally ill folks and those who have proven to be a danger to society.) They never tell the TRUTH about people with guns saving far, far more lives than we lose. They never point out that we could ban every gun and criminals would still have theirs to kill people.

So while I feel for those people, I do not respect their opinion as they put my life and the lives of those I love in jeopardy. They are putting their hurt and loss above everyone else’s well being! Pretty damn self centered if you are brave enough to acknowledge it.

Even though I’ve always lived in nice neighborhoods and good areas, I have actually had to defend myself twice in my life. So someone saying that I don’t need a weapon is too stupid to take seriously.

• “Guns prevent an estimated 2.5 million crimes a year, or 6,849 every day. Most often, the gun is never fired, and no blood (including the criminal’s) is shed.
• Every year, 400,000 life-threatening violent crimes are prevented using firearms.
• 60 percent of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they knew the victim was armed. Forty percent of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they thought the victim might be armed.
• Felons report that they avoid entering houses where people are at home because they fear being shot.
• Fewer than 1 percent of firearms are used in the commission of a crime.

If you doubt the objectivity of the site above, it’s worth pointing out that the Center for Disease Control, in a reportordered by President Obama in 2012 following the Sandy Hook Massacre, estimated that the number of crimes prevented by guns could be even higher—as many as 3 million annually, or some 8,200 every day.“

 

[GeorgiaPeachie]

I agree. I've been an NRA member for around 40 years now. But it's disappointing to hear from many gun owners, even on this site, that won't support the NRA over trivial disagreements. I guess their Constitutional rights just don't mean that much to some people.

Wow! That is disappointing to hear. When it comes to the right to defend yourself everyone who values that right need to back every group that will help us keep it!

 

[Kevin L]

Thank you Kevin. He was an amazing young man who had friends from every group in high school.

Debate on issues is a good thing. We don’t have that with guns though. The media inundates the airwaves with ONE SIDE of a story. They never, ever give the reasons all Americans have the RIGHT to defend themselves and their loved ones. (Except of course mentally ill folks and those who have proven to be a danger to society.) They never tell the TRUTH about people with guns saving far, far more lives than we lose. They never point out that we could ban every gun and criminals would still have theirs to kill people.

So while I feel for those people, I do not respect their opinion as they put my life and the lives of those I love in jeopardy. They are putting their hurt and loss above everyone else’s well being! Pretty damn self centered if you are brave enough to acknowledge it.

Even though I’ve always lived in nice neighborhoods and good areas, I have actually had to defend myself twice in my life. So someone saying that I don’t need a weapon is too stupid to take seriously.

• “Guns prevent an estimated 2.5 million crimes a year, or 6,849 every day. Most often, the gun is never fired, and no blood (including the criminal’s) is shed.
• Every year, 400,000 life-threatening violent crimes are prevented using firearms.
• 60 percent of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they knew the victim was armed. Forty percent of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they thought the victim might be armed.
• Felons report that they avoid entering houses where people are at home because they fear being shot.
• Fewer than 1 percent of firearms are used in the commission of a crime.

If you doubt the objectivity of the site above, it’s worth pointing out that the Center for Disease Control, in a reportordered by President Obama in 2012 following the Sandy Hook Massacre, estimated that the number of crimes prevented by guns could be even higher—as many as 3 million annually, or some 8,200 every day.“

I agree with your points.

I am very much a 2nd Amendment supporter, and I have a CCW. I own many guns (I actually collect them).

Interestingly enough, I used to be very anti-gun when I was younger, and I grew up in an extremely anti-gun household.

If I had turned out gay (I'm not, by the way), my family would have been perfectly fine with this and thrown me a coming-out party.

When I decided to be a gun person, they nearly disowned me.

 

[GeorgiaPeachie]

I agree with your points.

I am very much a 2nd Amendment supporter, and I have a CCW. I own many guns (I actually collect them).

Interestingly enough, I used to be very anti-gun when I was younger, and I grew up in an extremely anti-gun household.

If I had turned out gay (I'm not, by the way), my family would have been perfectly fine with this and thrown me a coming-out party.

When I decided to be a gun person, they nearly disowned me.

Oh my! I’m sorry your family isn’t more open minded. Enjoy your guns! There is absolutely nothing wrong with collecting them!!

 

[Kevin L]

Oh my! I’m sorry your family isn’t more open minded. Enjoy your guns! There is absolutely nothing wrong with collecting them!!

Thank you.

Part of their views come from their history. My maternal grandfather blew off the thumb and index finger on his left hand with a shotgun when he was hunting, and my mother--being 5 or 6 at the time--saw the blood and wounds when he came back to the house, and was traumatized. She had nightmares about it most of her life.

My father grew up in the South Bronx in the 50s and 60s, and there were people getting shot and killed every day. My father was also drafted, and he had a negligent discharge with a .45 while he was on duty. Nobody got injured, but the incident left it's mark on him.

And then there was Frank.

Frank Bacher was a friend of the family for many years. Him and his lovely wife used to come over for card games and hollidays like Passover and Rosh Hashanna, and they were a lot of fun.

Then--for some reason--Frank came home with a rifle, and killed his wife, 2 of his 3 children (the 3rd kid was away visiting relatives), and then killed himself.

My parents always let me know how disappointed they were in me and how much of a failure they were as parents because I became a gun owner and a CCW holder. If I had joined the Communist Party, turned out gay or trans-gender, or joined a strange religious cult . . . they would have been totally fine with it.

But own guns?

I'm a bad person and a failure as a human being.

See below link:

https://www.upi.com/Archives/1992/07/27/Search-for-motive-in-murder-suicide/4503712209600/

 

[Mountain trapper]

I think I was in my mid 20's before I ever met someone who didn't own a gun. I was even older before I met a person who thought that only government should own a gun. That was such a foreign concept to me, still is. I remember thinking that I don't like broccoli, but I'd never think of taking away another persons right to eat broccoli.

 

[Kevin L]

I think I was in my mid 20's before I ever met someone who didn't own a gun. I was even older before I met a person who thought that only government should own a gun. That was such a foreign concept to me, still is. I remember thinking that I don't like broccoli, but I'd never think of taking away another persons right to eat broccoli.

I came into guns later in my life than most people, so I still tend to focus on the basics of gun ownership.

All of my guns are functional, but most of them are historically important.

I've been grateful that people on this forum (especially Brent, Urbanprep, and Doc Henley, but also everyone else) have been patient with my questions and have refrained from holding me up to ridicule because of my questions.

 

[GeorgiaPeachie]

I think I was in my mid 20's before I ever met someone who didn't own a gun. I was even older before I met a person who thought that only government should own a gun. That was such a foreign concept to me, still is. I remember thinking that I don't like broccoli, but I'd never think of taking away another persons right to eat broccoli.

LOL. I was that age or older. It is still weird to me for people to be afraid to be around them. I’m all for letting people decide how to live as long as they don’t try to make me live like they do.

 

[Mountain trapper]

I came into guns later in my life than most people, so I still tend to focus on the basics of gun ownership.

All of my guns are functional, but most of them are historically important.

I've been grateful that people on this forum (especially Brent, Urbanprep, and Doc Henley, but also everyone else) have been patient with my questions and have refrained from holding me up to ridicule because of my questions.

Kevin, I may not always agree with all of your ideas, but I have learned a lot from you. I'm sure that I might even post something here that you may not agree with too, hard to believe I know.
We grew up in different worlds but mostly we meet in the middle.

 

[Kevin L]

Kevin, I may not always agree with all of your ideas, but I have learned a lot from you. I'm sure that I might even post something here that you may not agree with too, hard to believe I know.
We grew up in different worlds but mostly we meet in the middle.

Thank you very much.

 

[tmttactical]

I came into guns later in my life than most people, so I still tend to focus on the basics of gun ownership.

All of my guns are functional, but most of them are historically important.

I've been grateful that people on this forum (especially Brent, Urbanprep, and Doc Henley, but also everyone else) have been patient with my questions and have refrained from holding me up to ridicule because of my questions.

Well, darn I figured I would have posted enough things to at least get a little under your skin. I must be slipping in my old age.

 

[Kevin L]

Well, darn I figured I would have posted enough things to at least get a little under your skin. I must be slipping in my old age.

Thank you, but it takes a lot to get under my skin.

As I said earlier, I like when people disagree with me . . . especially if they're intelligent, experienced, and/or educated (even if it's the school of hard knocks) and willing to talk with me.

If I needed to just hear my ideas rubber-stamped by the people around me . . . then how is that different from talking into a tape recorder and then playing your own words back to yourself?

 

[tmttactical]

Thank you, but it takes a lot to get under my skin.

As I said earlier, I like when people disagree with me . . . especially if they're intelligent, experienced, and/or educated (even if it's the school of hard knocks) and willing to talk with me.

If I needed to just hear my ideas rubber-stamped by the people around me . . . then how is that different from talking into a tape recorder and then playing your own words back to yourself?

I like those tape recorded arguments with myself. I always win.

 

[Kevin L]

I like those tape recorded arguments with myself. I always win.

I'm sure you do. LOL.

 

[GaRp58]

We grew up in different worlds but mostly we meet in the middle.

THIS is true democracy and freedom in action.
How can you hate someone, if you do not even know them? A white man meets a black man on the street and hates him? A mexican meets a puerto rican and hates him?
How does that work? You cannot hate anything if you have not tried it, a certain food, sport, place in the world. How can you not like what you don't even know...I think too many people let themselves be led like sheep by a newspaper or TV report without even making their own opinion using other sources of info to influence or support it.
Everybody hates to be lied to or led in the wrong direction. Everybody. Why do then so many believe the lies on the TV or in the papers without even questioning the source of the report or the content compared to other sources...GP

 

[GeorgiaPeachie]

Thank you.

Part of their views come from their history. My maternal grandfather blew off the thumb and index finger on his left hand with a shotgun when he was hunting, and my mother--being 5 or 6 at the time--saw the blood and wounds when he came back to the house, and was traumatized. She had nightmares about it most of her life.

My father grew up in the South Bronx in the 50s and 60s, and there were people getting shot and killed every day. My father was also drafted, and he had a negligent discharge with a .45 while he was on duty. Nobody got injured, but the incident left it's mark on him.

And then there was Frank.

Frank Bacher was a friend of the family for many years. Him and his lovely wife used to come over for card games and hollidays like Passover and Rosh Hashanna, and they were a lot of fun.

Then--for some reason--Frank came home with a rifle, and killed his wife, 2 of his 3 children (the 3rd kid was away visiting relatives), and then killed himself.

My parents always let me know how disappointed they were in me and how much of a failure they were as parents because I became a gun owner and a CCW holder. If I had joined the Communist Party, turned out gay or trans-gender, or joined a strange religious cult . . . they would have been totally fine with it.

But own guns?

I'm a bad person and a failure as a human being.

See below link:

https://www.upi.com/Archives/1992/07/27/Search-for-motive-in-murder-suicide/4503712209600/

You are most definitely NOT a bad person. You have been strong and smart to realize that weapons are a useful tool and many times a true lifesaver. I too had a family member do something stupid and shoot them selves. He lived and learned a lesson. As far as the man who killed his family? He clearly had mental issues and would have done it another way if he couldn’t get a gun. That’s what gun haters refuse to acknowledge. When a bad person wants to harm another, they will find a way.

There are many suicides every year...for varying reasons. Many of those suicides are carried out with a weapon. And of course the anti gun folks fraudulently include those in their numbers. Make no mistake, a person who wants to end their life will do so without a gun if they don’t have one.