It does fit in well with today's GRE theme...
I wonder how accurate the stated results would be if put to the test?
UPDATE: Here are the results.
If Obama signs an "assault weapon" ban, will you obey it?
Yes, I'm a spineless slave. 36 (2%)
Hell no. Come and get it. 1506 (97%)
Votes so far: 1542
Poll closed
10 comments:
you know what pisses me off? being put in a position to even contemplate options. I have broken no laws committed no crimes, yet I might have a dynamic entry into my home, with my family present, hauled away for? being a gun owner? I'll be hailed a gun nut,tinfoil hat wearer, it will be reported i had a cache of arms, an arsenal? those who would make this allowable, those who would perform the task don't even think about this as illustrated by the olofson conviction. I'm sick
David, I've been curious since you put that poll up. Were you expecting some other result? This is a gun blog, after all - I'm surprised it came in as low as 97%.
I'm just a tired old man, but younger healthier more active folks than me are seriously considering a third option. Once they've crossed that line in the sand what possible reason could remain for not taking the fight to them. There's a quote floating around to the effect that it is right and proper for a government to fear its people. I expect any number of our brothers and sisters, especially those we've trained up on resistance techniques in the sandbox, to see to it that the agents of a government out of control do not get off lightly.
If we accept your implied statement in the only correct answer - that the government is actually coming to "get them" - opposed to the regular routine of passing legislation to forbid future sales, then I think a lot of people would be outraged. I'm certainly willing to fight to the death so that future generations of Americans can have protection against the government, and firearms for self defense.
This Pierre story reminds me heavily of Henry David Thoreau's essay.
I would be interested to see the results of a poll asking if self-described conservatives would be willing to set aside all other political differences with "liberals" in order to teach proper firearm use. I know several instructors who do, thank God, but some gun enthusiasts appear to be "bitter" about liberals, and that group of people are going to damn the cause for everybody.
David, like Joel said. This is a gunblog and I don't see a lot of "antis" coming here.
I suspect if it were a public poll the results would show a strong opposition to government mandated removal of privately owned guns. After watching the way the libs work they will whittle away until we realize what has been done.
It is pretty evident that they can't use the "asault" weapon as a blanket. They may try, but too many remember what they did last time. Sadly, too many (John Q. Public) see asault and think uzi or similiar. Even the AK and AR have been villianized to the point that J. Q. Public believes they are automatic weapons used by evil thugs and drug lords.
We are so damn divided. ultraconservative guy I know was raging about gay marriage being legal, on the day after Olofson was re-screwed. He's a gun owner. Bought a lever-action .30 on the theory that it'll be taken much later than the mil-pattern semi-autos but before his single-shot .410.
His line in the sand is much closer to his home than mine is to my home.
In Australia, they kinda crossed all the lines at once. Surprise!
THEIR National Rifle Association said "Well, we tried."
Tried? They never got possession of the ball before the government declared a win and took it home with them.
I have zero problem not liking liberals becaue they are Godless baby killers. By not liking or wanting anything to do with them is not going to damn the cause for everybody. So far by us trying to get along with them has cost the lives of over 50,000,000 human beings in this country in the last 35 year or so. Being these Godless baby killing monsters are now and have been after our guns is more reason than ever to despise liberals. In fact if a liberal was on fire I wouldn't walk across the street to piss on them.
Anon--a critique someone had of this site on another post is there is too much vitriol. I agree with you completely, and submit if someone is not feeling the vitriol, they're not paying attention.
Joel & Jerry--in truth, I suspect when the rubber meets the road, the numbers actually following through will pretty much be a reverse of what we see here. I also believe that has the potential to be enough.
Pathogen--the government already has come to get them--I've talked about what happened in CA before. I think we all can see any foot in the door "AW" ban would be presented as "a good first step." As for setting aside differences, I think it depends on the issue and personal differences. I authored an inclusion statement I've talked about before. I'm against the war on drugs. But that doesn't mean I want to team up with neo-Marxists. So we all have personal lines.
I'm a self-professed "conservative" but with strong libertarian leanings. But even that fails to describe the essence of my political makeup. For now, three percenter is sufficient. For after the restoration (hopefully done peacefully, but seeming less and less likely), I'd say to hell with the GOP. A new party: TFV. The Founders' View.
Though veering off topic a bit, I would propose this to your "ultraconservative" friend, Defender: would you care if the government got completely out of the business of defining, licensing, blood testing, and officiating over ceremonies for marriage altogether? Just consider it a private contract of cohabitation. And David is correct, that we all have personal lines regarding who we will work with. I am against the war on drugs as well, but I sometimes find myself reluctant to work with those who lobby hard to legalize all types of drugs if they won't also help discourage the use of the truly harmful substances.
"Ultraconservative's" line in the sand does indeed sound a lot closer to his house than I would draw mine, too. But even though I did answer the poll with "Hell no. Come and get it," I'm no Phil Gordon. I was never in the military and Pete's Praxis posts on WRSA have been too much for me to keep up with. So though I'm somewhat well equipped as far as materiel goes, I have no where near enough training. So I suspect I could be taken out fairly easily.
For me, it may just mean going out with honor. I have no spouse nor children of my own, so my loss wouldn't be as catastrophic for those around me. I will endeavour to increase my odds, to be sure, but time seems to be running short.
While we're arguing about whose lines in what sand, the Supreme Court ruled that "undocumented workers" who use false IDs here can't be charged with identity theft if the forger they got them from didn't tell them that the names and Social Security numbers and alien registration numbers they're knowingly illegally using belonged to a real person.
Post a Comment