# States that I would not want to live in.



## paratrooper

Gun Laws By State: The 7 States With the Most Weapon Restrictions

Well......except for N. CA. Even with it's lousy gun laws, I still wouldn't mind living there.


----------



## desertman

paratrooper:
Let's just count our blessings that we live in Arizona.


----------



## SailDesign

Interesting that the article is aimed at the most difficult states to carry in, not specifically the most difficult states to own a gun in. 

RI is a bitch to get a CCW licence. It is a "May Issue" and your reasons had better be good. Carrying large amounts of cash or jewels regularly will work, but "in fear of my life because of the neighbors" will not.

That said, I own guns, and shoot regularly, and have no interest in carrying, so it suits me well.


----------



## SailDesign

Note: That ^^ does not mean any disrespect for those that DO carry - it's just not something I would consider.


----------



## pic

desertman said:


> paratrooper:
> Let's just count our blessings that we live in Arizona.


I carry CCW In NYS. And Florida. Feel better carrying in a more restrictive state!!
Sure glad I dont live in Arizona, where they hand out guns like cotton candy.


----------



## pic

Just don't care for the , my state is better then your state attitude. 
Because there coming for you next


----------



## desertman

SailDesign:


> That said, I own guns, and shoot regularly, and have no interest in carrying, so it suits me well.


That's fine, and I also respect that. It's just so much better to live in a state where those who choose to carry do not have to go through a bureaucratic nightmare in order to do so. You can also count on those states to eventually legislate the 2nd Amendment for all it's intents and purposes, out of existence. They will never be satisfied! Unfortunately outside of the home is where you're more than likely to have a need for it. Sure you may be able to own a gun in those states, but that's not enough. The 2nd Amendment makes no distinction as to where one may carry or possess a handgun.


----------



## RK3369

As I understand the NY situation, it's not really about safety, it's more about control, and the NY politicians in general just don't want the populous to have guns, pure and simple. I used to live there and it is not a very gun friendly state. Basically, the more difficult they can make it for people to get a gun, the more difficult they will make it. I bet if you looked at the numbers of folks with CCW permits in NY as a percentage of the population it would be very small in comparison to other states like AZ or SC or Virginia, etc. Sad, but it is truly a state which is run by the downstate NYC political power machine, and they don't like guns in the city. Michael Bloomberg is proof positive of that. And I am concerned that the next step in NY will be for the legislature to approve a measure to ban the issuance of any further CCW permits as a means to stop any further increase in handguns in the state. However once again, if you look at the crime statistics, the criminals are not purchasing their handguns legally. But that doesnt' really matter to the Governor or the politicians. What matters is that they know what's best for the populous, or at least they believe they do. Another shining example of the political elite in this country.


----------



## desertman

pic:


> Feel better carrying in a more restrictive state!!


Well good for you then! Enjoy all your restrictions. Maybe you can hope for more. I guess the "Safe Act" didn't go far enough. "pic", it sounds like you're stuck there and are envious of those who are not. Or are you one of those who feels it's okay for you to carry but not anyone else?



> Sure glad I dont live in Arizona, where they hand out guns like cotton candy.


Well, sure they do! They're on every shelf of every store, no questions asked. They are there for the taking for anyone who wants one. I'd like to know who's handing them out I'd like to go get a few more.


----------



## desertman

RK3369:


> As I understand the NY situation, it's not really about safety, it's more about control, and the NY politicians in general just don't want the populous to have guns, pure and simple.


You've nailed it! I just thank God I don't live there. Fortunately, some states such as mine have very specific constitutional guarantees which are more specific than the federal constitution. This makes it much more difficult to enact "Safe Act" types of legislation or to prevent the lawful possession and carrying of firearms.



> "*The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the state shall not be impaired*, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men"--- Arizona State Constitution.


----------



## pic

desertman said:


> pic:
> 
> Well good for you then! Enjoy all your restrictions. Maybe you can hope for more. I guess the "Safe Act" didn't go far enough. "pic", it sounds like you're stuck there and are envious of those who are not. Or are you one of those who feels it's okay for you to carry but not anyone else?
> 
> Well, sure they do! They're on every shelf of every store, no questions asked. They are there for the taking for anyone who wants one. I'd like to know who's handing them out I'd like to go get a few more.


You're on the list, they're coming for Arizona. Where will you go next?

Arizona Gun Laws Provide Interesting Case Nationally


----------



## desertman

pic:


> You're on the list, they're coming for Arizona. Where will you go next?


I'm quaking in my boots!


----------



## SailDesign

desertman said:


> SailDesign:
> 
> <snip>
> 
> They will never be satisfied!
> 
> <snip some more>


I just couldn't live with that kind of paranoia. I enjoy shooting, but if "They" take away my guns, I'll take up something else, like archery. I am not worried about it. Even the UK still allows you to shoot targets. My old rifle coach from school recently won the Queen's Cup, which is shot at Bisley over 200, 500 and 1000 yard courses, with 7.62 NATO or 303, whichever floats your boat. He is a mild-mannered Chemistry teacher at a high school - no problem owning and shooting a weapon like that, but Yes, a few more restrictions than here.


----------



## desertman

SailDesign:


> I just couldn't live with that kind of paranoia.


Do you own a fire extinguisher? Wear a life vest while out sailing? Buckle up while driving? Look both ways before you cross the street?


----------



## SailDesign

desertman said:


> SailDesign:
> 
> Do you own a fire extinguisher? Wear a life vest while out sailing? Buckle up while driving? Look both ways before you cross the street?


Oranges - we were discussing apples.... No-one is coming for my fire extinguisher, my seat belt or my life vest. In fact, "They" are really upset when you DON'T have one.


----------



## RK3369

Here's the ridiculousness of the situation regarding gun control in New York. I have a sister that still lives there. She has a friend who has his FFL and operates a Gun shop. A couple weeks ago, his shop was broken into over the weekend and every handgun in the shop was stolen. Now there are 30 or 40 handguns out on the street to be used in upcoming criminal activities. And likely none of the folks who are going to be the victims of those crimes will have even a shotgun or 22 rifle to protect themselves. My thinking, if they really want gun control, since most crimes are committed with stolen guns, require that gun shop owners have a vault constructed much like a bank vault, in which all the guns are to be locked every night. Some probably have that level of security but I'm sure most don't. Yes, it's going to make guns more expensive but heck, if it keeps more of the stolen ones off the street, all the better. Don't worry about controlling law abiding people's access to guns, worry about controlling retailers storage and security of those guns which are often very poorly secured and highly subject to theft. I think a shop robbery is more of a problem regarding keeping illegal guns off the street than is the access and ownership of guns by law abiding citizens. But you will probably never hear such a proposal because it will be another burden on business. Yes another burden which will be passed on to the end consumer. Just like the gas tax every time the price goes up at the pump. And as far as home burglaries go, most owners I know, including myself, have a safe in house for storage of most, if not all, of their collection. Generally they aren't as robust as a bank vault, but most of them will deter the average burgular who is looking for a fast hit and quick exit.


----------



## pic

desertman said:


> pic:
> 
> I'm quaking in my boots!


I personally like Arizona. The dry climate, I have friends in Arizona. 
YES , I have friends. :smt033


----------



## paratrooper

I don't recall AZ., handing out guns like cotton candy. If they did at one time, I wasn't aware of it and I'm pissed. Hell, I would have liked some free guns. 

Anyways, in this day and age, AZ. is still gun friendly. That's not the norm anymore.


----------



## paratrooper

RK3369 said:


> Here's the ridiculousness of the situation regarding gun control in New York. I have a sister that still lives there. She has a friend who has his FFL and operates a Gun shop. A couple weeks ago, his shop was broken into over the weekend and every handgun in the shop was stolen. Now there are 30 or 40 handguns out on the street to be used in upcoming criminal activities. And likely none of the folks who are going to be the victims of those crimes will have even a shotgun or 22 rifle to protect themselves. My thinking, if they really want gun control, since most crimes are committed with stolen guns, require that gun shop owners have a vault constructed much like a bank vault, in which all the guns are to be locked every night. Some probably have that level of security but I'm sure most don't. Yes, it's going to make guns more expensive but heck, if it keeps more of the stolen ones off the street, all the better. Don't worry about controlling law abiding people's access to guns, worry about controlling retailers storage and security of those guns which are often very poorly secured and highly subject to theft. I think a shop robbery is more of a problem regarding keeping illegal guns off the street than is the access and ownership of guns by law abiding citizens. But you will probably never hear such a proposal because it will be another burden on business. Yes another burden which will be passed on to the end consumer. Just like the gas tax every time the price goes up at the pump. And as far as home burglaries go, most owners I know, including myself, have a safe in house for storage of most, if not all, of their collection. Generally they aren't as robust as a bank vault, but most of them will deter the average burgular who is looking for a fast hit and quick exit.


I agree with what you said. And, just a friendly tip. Break your post into paragraphs. Makes for much easier reading.

I've been in gun shops that secure *ALL* their firearms in vaults after hours. Bad thing is, that's a lot of handling and the condition of the firearms shows.


----------



## RK3369

paratrooper said:


> I agree with what you said. And, just a friendly tip. Break your post into paragraphs. Makes for much easier reading.
> 
> I've been in gun shops that secure *ALL* their firearms in vaults after hours. Bad thing is, that's a lot of handling and the condition of the firearms shows.


(sorry for the carryon typing. I tend to do that a lot)

Definitely unfortunate, but I see this as more of a problem with regard to illegally obtained firearms than those purchased on the street. Most owners I know, even here in SC, won't sell a handgun to anyone they don't know unless they have a CWP. I know I won't. Don't want to even think that I may have given someone a tool to be a better criminal or commit a murder. There is no background check requirement here for private sales, but most folks won't do them unless the purchaser is known to them or has a CWP.


----------



## pic

paratrooper said:


> I don't recall AZ., handing out guns like cotton candy. If they did at one time, I wasn't aware of it and I'm pissed. Hell, I would have liked some free guns.
> 
> Anyways, in this day and age, AZ. is still gun friendly. That's not the norm anymore.


You ask the vendor,
"two cotton candies please, and I'll also take one of those AR's " 
::smt033


----------



## desertman

RK3369:


> Most owners I know, even here in SC, won't sell a handgun to anyone they don't know unless they have a CWP. I know I won't.


A permit is not required here in Arizona to own or carry a handgun. Permits are available to those want them for reciprocity purposes of which I have. Private sales without background checks are also legal. I'm with you all the way. If I were to sell any firearm to an individual, I would only sell to an individual who has a valid concealed weapons permit from my home state. I was surprised at how many people out here have a CWP regardless of our status as a "Constitutional Carry" state.


----------



## hud35500

As a lifetime resident of CA, I remember a time when things were very different. This state once had a huge firearm industry and small, well stocked gun shops were everywhere. There was also a large number of very good gunsmiths, especially in southern CA. Now, aside from being anti-gun, CA is also anti-small business, which is the real tragedy!


----------



## RK3369

hud35500 said:


> As a lifetime resident of CA, I remember a time when things were very different. This state once had a huge firearm industry and small, well stocked gun shops were everywhere. There was also a large number of very good gunsmiths, especially in southern CA. Now, aside from being anti-gun, CA is also anti-small business, which is the real tragedy!


Current California thinking seems to be anti everything, except the furtherance of the state as the benevolent godfather of the masses. Just goes to show you what happens when you turn a bunch of left leaning politicians loose to shape the future of everything. Now you have huge welfare, huge illegal aliens, huge gang related problems, huge drug problems, a governor who everybody thinks was left here by the Martians, and no guns to defend yourselves. Move on over here to the other coast and be a lot safer. We only need to dodge the occasional hurricane. Besides, since they only seem to hit every 20 or 30 years anyhow, it's usually time for urban renewal to begin anyways.


----------



## desertman

SailDesign:


> Oranges - we were discussing apples.... No-one is coming for my fire extinguisher, my seat belt or my life vest. In fact, "They" are really upset when you DON'T have one.


You just don't get it! You have those items and do those things such as wearing a life vest, buckling up and looking both ways before crossing the street just in case something does happen. Chances are nothing will happen but you do it anyway. Why is this any different than carrying a gun? Or do you think that you will never become a victim of a criminal attack? Or for some reason or the other are immune from that? It only happens to others, right?


----------



## SailDesign

desertman said:


> SailDesign:
> 
> You just don't get it! You have those items and do those things such as wearing a life vest, buckling up and looking both ways before crossing the street just in case something does happen. Chances are nothing will happen but you do it anyway. Why is this any different than carrying a gun? Or do you think that you will never become a victim of a criminal attack? Or for some reason or the other are immune from that? It only happens to others, right?


With all due respect, YOU don't get what I was saying at all. The paranoia comes from the only part of your post that I quoted: "They will _never_ be satisfied!" Belts and extinguishers and lifejackets are here to stay, and They want them to stay, unlike guns. See my point?


----------



## SouthernBoy

One thing I would never do is live in a state where my most basic and fundamental natural rights were heavily controlled or not allowed to be practiced. And I would never live anywhere where the police had guns and the citizens did not.

I have no problem with those who desire not to carry a firearm for their protection. I do have a problem when they expect others to come to their aid (police or citizens) when their lives are in serious danger from an attack.


----------



## SailDesign

SouthernBoy said:


> One thing I would never do is live in a state where my most basic and fundamental natural rights were heavily controlled or not allowed to be practiced. And I would never live anywhere where the police had guns and the citizens did not.
> 
> I have no problem with those who desire not to carry a firearm for their protection. I do have a problem when they expect others to come to their aid (police or citizens) when their lives are in serious danger from an attack.


Don't come to RI, then. For one thing, we apparently don't recognize any other state's CCWs here. You would not be allowed to carry, and would* have *to rely on our police (we have great cops where I live on my little island - most of them local boys who know everyone)


----------



## paratrooper

SailDesign said:


> Don't come to RI, then. For one thing, we apparently don't recognize any other state's CCWs here. You would not be allowed to carry, and would* have *to rely on our police (we have great cops where I live on my little island - most of them local boys who know everyone)


I was a cop, and I don't like relying on them for my personal protection........no matter what state I'm in.

If that sounds like a gray area statement, that's what I intended.


----------



## SouthernBoy

SailDesign said:


> *Don't come to RI, then.* For one thing, we apparently don't recognize any other state's CCWs here. You would not be allowed to carry, and would* have *to rely on our police (we have great cops where I live on my little island - most of them local boys who know everyone)


You forget. I'm a Southerner. Heading north doesn't work for me. Besides, they talk funny up there.

Did get in an almost heated discussion once with some people from Rhode Island who were in the deep South on vacation. Can't recall how the subject of firearms and carrying them came up but they most definitely did not see the same way I did about things.


----------



## SailDesign

SouthernBoy said:


> You forget. I'm a Southerner. Heading north doesn't work for me. Besides, they talk funny up there.
> 
> Did get in an almost heated discussion once with some people from Rhode Island who were in the deep South on vacation. Can't recall how the subject of firearms and carrying them came up but they most definitely did not see the same way I did about things.


Be honest, now. Virginia is NOT the Deep South... I have a brother in NC who doesn't feel he's REAL Southern yet.


----------



## SouthernBoy

SailDesign said:


> Be honest, now. *Virginia is NOT the Deep South*... I have a brother in NC who doesn't feel he's REAL Southern yet.


Never said it was. This did happen in the deep South (South Carolina), not Virginia. But we Virginians are Southern nevertheless and happy about that fact. Don't judge Virginia by what lives in the Northern Virginia area. That is a different entity and though I live there, my blood still runs true to the South.


----------



## RK3369

SailDesign said:


> Be honest, now. Virginia is NOT the Deep South... I have a brother in NC who doesn't feel he's REAL Southern yet.


I came from Upstate NY, 57 years of socialist indoctrination. Never realized what I did not have readily available until I moved here. Now, I am truly surprised that it didn't occur to me sooner that you are responsible for your own protection and defense of yourself and your family. LEO can't do it, because there are not enough of them and they are spread too thin.

Fortunately, it was rural upstate NY and there wasn't a lot of hard core crime. Heck, we never even used to lock our house doors when we left for the day. Just didn't need to. Now if you were in a major urban area, that would have been another story. The big difference I see so far is that the majority of the hard core crime in the North seems to be centered in or near the central city areas. In the South, it's spread out all over, and often isn't as bad in the larger cities where there is adequate police presence as it is in the rural suburban areas.

In this part of SC most of the major crime is Black on Black, drug or domestic violence related, primarily in semi rural low income clusters of population. I guess it may have something to do with the way things broke out after the Civil War. One thing I have noticed down here is that there is a lot more Black poverty in rural areas than in the North that I am used to. Up there, it tended to be mostly in the central city areas due to economic segregation. Down here, it gets pushed out of the central city areas due to Gentrification and the movement of folks to southern states. Real estate values go up, as a result, the poor move out. just a different demographic mix here with a drastically different crime pattern. We had two murders in the past week, both in a suburban location out of the center city. One White on White, domestic violence, one Black on Black, not sure of the reason so far.


----------



## RK3369

SouthernBoy said:


> Never said it was. This did happen in the deep South (South Carolina), not Virginia. But we Virginians are Southern nevertheless and happy about that fact. Don't judge Virginia by what lives in the Northern Virginia area. That is a different entity and though I live there, my blood still runs true to the South.


you live in the "Socialist" suburb of Washington. Sorry for that but we do what we have to.


----------



## SouthernBoy

RK3369 said:


> you live in the "Socialist" suburb of Washington. Sorry for that but we do what we have to.


I live in western Prince William County, which is quite conservative, though we have seen a large migration here from parts closer in (that is scary). We're about 35 miles from Washington, DC and that's as close as I want to be to that scum hole.


----------



## SouthernBoy

RK3369 said:


> I came from Upstate NY, 57 years of socialist indoctrination. Never realized what I did not have readily available until I moved here. Now, I am truly surprised that it didn't occur to me sooner that you are responsible for your own protection and defense of yourself and your family. LEO can't do it, because there are not enough of them and they are spread too thin.
> 
> Fortunately, it was rural upstate NY and there wasn't a lot of hard core crime. Heck, we never even used to lock our house doors when we left for the day. Just didn't need to. Now if you were in a major urban area, that would have been another story. The big difference I see so far is that the majority of the hard core crime in the North seems to be centered in or near the central city areas. In the South, it's spread out all over, and often isn't as bad in the larger cities where there is adequate police presence as it is in the rural suburban areas.
> 
> In this part of SC most of the major crime is Black on Black, drug or domestic violence related, primarily in semi rural low income clusters of population. I guess it may have something to do with the way things broke out after the Civil War. One thing I have noticed down here is that there is a lot more Black poverty in rural areas than in the North that I am used to. Up there, it tended to be mostly in the central city areas due to economic segregation. Down here, it gets pushed out of the central city areas due to Gentrification and the movement of folks to southern states. Real estate values go up, as a result, the poor move out. just a different demographic mix here with a drastically different crime pattern. We had two murders in the past week, both in a suburban location out of the center city. One White on White, domestic violence, one Black on Black, not sure of the reason so far.


We love South Carolina and have been going there since 1969. Some day we will most likely move there to finish up our time on this earth. Just this past September we spent a few days going around Charleston and then headed up to the Grand Strand. Have been to most of the coastal parts of the state and truly love the Lowcountry.

In which part of the state do you reside?


----------



## zb338

About 4 years ago I moved from New Jersey to Pennsylvania. For all intents and purposes New Jersey does
not issue carry permits and buying pistols even long guns can get complicated. Pennsylvania was like a 
breath of fresh air and anyone with a clean record can get a carry permit, at least in my county. I would
believe Pennsylvania is the most gun friendly state in the Northeast.

Zeke


----------



## nh1911

Zeke-

Try VT. No carry permits/licenses needed.


----------



## shootbrownelk

nh1911 said:


> Zeke-
> 
> Try VT. No carry permits/licenses needed.


 Same here in Wyoming Zeke, no permit required for either open or concealed carry. I have a permit however, that's good in several states I travel through. I guess it's Vermont,Alaska,Wyoming and Arizona that trust their citizens, correct?


----------



## Cait43




----------



## pic

hud35500 said:


> As a lifetime resident of CA, I remember a time when things were very different. This state once had a huge firearm industry and small, well stocked gun shops were everywhere. There was also a large number of very good gunsmiths, especially in southern CA. Now, aside from being anti-gun, CA is also anti-small business, which is the real tragedy!


You've seen the changes in California, I have seen the changes in New York. 
What the heck happened Hud35500 ?. 
Is it a liberal , gay conspiracy. 
Men marrying Men, Women marrying Women.

Am I being unfairly critical of another's views, and others sexual deviations from the norm ?
I don't want to judge, but I cant help but feel something is not right, thanks.


----------



## NGIB

I will never live in a state that does not allow me to carry and protect myself as I see fit. You folks that want to rely on cops to protect you - do so at your own risk. The last time I saw nationwide response averages for a 911 call - it was 19 minutes. You can be really dead in 19 minutes. For you folks that think bad things won't happen to you, I suggest you read about Dr William Petit.


----------



## desertman

NGIB:


> I will never live in a state that does not allow me to carry and protect myself as I see fit. You folks that want to rely on cops to protect you - do so at your own risk. The last time I saw nationwide response averages for a 911 call - it was 19 minutes. You can be really dead in 19 minutes. For you folks that think bad things won't happen to you, I suggest you read about Dr William Petit.


Very god sir! If the government can't trust the lawful bearing of arms by peaceable citizens how can those citizens trust the government?


----------



## desertman

SailDesign:


> I enjoy shooting, but if "They" take away my guns, I'll take up something else, like archery.


What the hell, if they tear up the "Bill of Rights" and "Constitutional Law" I'll just move to another country. No big deal I could care less what happens here. What a great attitude you have. Why don't you just move to Australia? Or back to Great Britain? Apparently those folks could care less about their freedoms either. The 2nd Amendment means a lot more than your recreational use of firearms.


----------



## RK3369

SouthernBoy said:


> We love South Carolina and have been going there since 1969. Some day we will most likely move there to finish up our time on this earth. Just this past September we spent a few days going around Charleston and then headed up to the Grand Strand. Have been to most of the coastal parts of the state and truly love the Lowcountry.
> 
> In which part of the state do you reside?


just outside of Charleston. The nice thing here is 10 months of good weather. Up in NY it was 4 nice months, 8 months of snow, rain and clouds. Only problem here for me is July and August, which is just too damn hot to do anything outdoors. Can't even walk around then without sweating. Rest of the time it's pretty nice compared to NY. No hills though. Gotta get used to that. Flat as a pancake. High elevation here is 12 ft above sea level.


----------



## SailDesign

desertman said:


> SailDesign:
> 
> What the hell, if they tear up the "Bill of Rights" and "Constitutional Law" I'll just move to another country. No big deal I could care less what happens here. What a great attitude you have. Why don't you just move to Australia? Or back to Great Britain? Apparently those folks could care less about their freedoms either. The 2nd Amendment means a lot more than your recreational use of firearms.


Amazingly, there are folks that don't feel and think exactly like you do. Apparently, I'm one of them.


----------



## pic

Just for thought.
I have an obligation, to not only feed , house and clothe my family. I also feel it's my job or responsibility to protect my Family from harm. Man or Beast.

Can I bear the sadness in my irresponsibility of not protecting my loved ones, and live with myself after the fact.

That is why I will be armed n ready and properly trained.


----------



## desertman

SailDesign:


> Amazingly, there are folks that don't feel and think exactly like you do. Apparently, I'm one of them.


Apparently you are in the minority, if that were not the case our freedoms would have been destroyed a long time ago. Our system of government is based on "Constitutional Law". Too bad if you do not like it. I still do not understand why you choose to live here?


----------



## SailDesign

desertman said:


> SailDesign:
> 
> Apparently you are in the minority, if that were not the case our freedoms would have been destroyed a long time ago. Our system of government is based on "Constitutional Law". Too bad if you do not like it. I still do not understand why you choose to live here?


I have no problem with you believing what you want. Allow me the same privilege. I have no problem being in the minority, by the way.

And what does my feeling the way I do have to do with Constitutional Law? Seriously, I cannot see that. Please explain. You keep bringing it up ,and I keep asking, but apparently you are unable to explain it.


----------



## SailDesign

pic said:


> Just for thought.
> I have an obligation, to not only feed , house and clothe my family. I also feel it's my job or responsibility to protect my Family from harm. Man or Beast.
> 
> Can I bear the sadness in my irresponsibility of not protecting my loved ones, and live with myself after the fact.
> 
> That is why I will be armed n ready and properly trained.


That's great for you. My state does not allow me to do that, and actually I have no problem with it. That's why I like where I live.


----------



## pic

SailDesign said:


> That's great for you. My state does not allow me to do that, and actually I have no problem with it. That's why I like where I live.


I wasn't aware of the restrictions in your state. I know you target shoot. 
What are the carry restrictions ?
Can you apply for a CCW if you wanted ?


----------



## SailDesign

pic said:


> I wasn't aware of the restrictions in your state. I know you target shoot.
> What are the carry restrictions ?
> Can you apply for a CCW if you wanted ?


I can apply... We are a "May Issue" state, and it is tough to get there. You need to be able to prove that you regularly carry large amounts of cash or other valuables in order to get one, and the State has to approve, not just the local LEOs. That last bit is not law, but it is the way things work, as the locals pass all requests to the state.

Even the guys that work in the gun shops cannot carry to and from, but have to "suit up" after they get to work, and disarm before leaving. It's a different world here.

edited to add: I have to carry my guns in the trunk, locked separately, and my ammo in the "body" of the car on the way to or from the range. If the car was a pick'em-up truck, I would need to lock the ammo as well in its own box. 
There are nearly 8 million folks in RI and MA who are pretty much fine with this, as they have not moved elsewhere to "free-er" states. Apparently some folks can't understand that.


----------



## desertman

SailDesign:
You know perfectly well what "Constitutional Law" is we've argued this before ad nauseam along with the principles this country was founded on. I do not intend to go over it again. Man, you've got a short memory. Where have I stated that you were not entitled to your opinion? Or not allowed you the same privilege? You are stating your opinions aren't you? I do have a problem with people who have such a casual disregard for the "Constitution" and "Bill of Rights". I do have a problem with people who support politicians that in the end run wish to abolish "Constitutional Law". I do have a problem with with people who come to this country, do not like our system of government and want to change it to be like the one that they just left. They are much better off just staying where they were and leaving this country the hell alone. "SailDesign" I'm done arguing with you it is an exercise in futility and a complete waste of time.


----------



## PT111Pro

Interesting IMO would be, to know the numbers of illegal weapons in the hand of so called ordinary citizens in states where the possession or carry of weapon is restricted, to those states that have less restriction.

I know it only from Europe. Before they practically destroyed any right of a legal private possession of a firearm, 45% had one or more firearms, most 7.62 (.32) Walther or 7.65 Makarov. In the cold war area the most weapons came from Walther (BRD) or from east Germany. Than they restricted it more and more, no they don't do that at once and today it is almost impossible for an ordinary citizen to possess a firearm. Even collectors must weld the barrels or dismantle hammer or pin. In Germany is the possession of a firing pin against the law even if you don't have the weapon to fit.

The outcome was that there are only 2% of the populous own a firearm legally. This was a great politically victory, without any question, over their citizens. With the law changes and the high rated criminal protection even of murderers especially when they come out of the eastern Europe or out of the middle east Muslim corner, the illegal possession of firearms skyrocket.

Today in accordance to RAI (Italy TV 5/2009 Rai.tv - Homepage), the illegal weapon possession in Europe for the "normal" household is.

Austria: 62%, Belgium: 48%, France: 79%, G Britain: 88%, Germany: 66%, Italy: 59%, Nederland: 66%, Spain: 78%. Means 68% of the Europeanoriginal and ordinary population possesses illegal one or more weapons.
'
The illegal weapons coming mostly from the Middle East, and are almost 100% US brands. Than the east, from the former soviet republics and there are Zastava (Serbia), Makarov and Tokarevs (both mainly from Poland or Czechoslovakia).

Semi-auto Rifles are almost not on the marked and not desired at all. People who have to arm themselves illegally, don't have to care about law at all anymore. The illegal possession of an old Makarov 7.65 (.32 long) is the same way illegal, will be punished by government if you don't belong to a protected minority than an AK 47, but the last one is the better home protector.

In the rifle department the weapons are mostly full automatics. Here again from Turkey or middle east with US brands in cal ,308 (7.65X51). From east the former soviet republics is coming the Saiga Products AK47 in 7.65X39 or Petronov mostly over Rumania and PMKM from Poland.

Interesting for me would be to see some Numbers out of the US. How different the illegal weapon possession between NYC and Dallas TX. How different the illegal possession of weapons Magazines and ammo between Washington State and Arizona.

When you answer this question you know what a weapon ban should do. It opens the door for a society of denunciators and gives the government the possibility to punish almost everyone, because even a hard core liberal will sooner or later feel the necessity for private armor in a liberal justice system that protects any chosen minority over law obeying citizens.


----------



## desertman

PT111Pro:


> When you answer this question you know what a weapon ban should do. It opens the door for a society of denunciators and gives the government the possibility to punish almost everyone, because even a hard core liberal will sooner or later feel the necessity for private armor in a liberal justice system that protects any chosen minority over law obeying citizens.


You know what the amazing thing is: For the Liberals to take away our guns they will need guns to do it. So it seems that they are okay with guns as long as it is only they who have them and will have no problem using them to oppress others. Something to think about.

As to your other question: No one really knows how many illegal weapons are out there, just as no one really knows how many illegal invaders are in this country. I don't see how they could ever accurately figure that out.


----------



## pic

U


SailDesign said:


> I can apply... We are a "May Issue" state, and it is tough to get there. < snippage>


I understand , sometimes it is ,what it is . 
When I fly ( commercial jet airplane )I can not carry. Will I stop flying ? No.
I enjoy traveling , cruises, other countries, etc. Can I carry a firearm? No. But I still travel.

If a person limits their mobility based on their carrying ability, is that paranoia? Maybe. I don't know.

Did I do the "snippage thing ok" lol.
:smt1099


----------



## SailDesign

desertman said:


> SailDesign:
> You know perfectly well what "Constitutional Law" is we've argued this before ad nauseam along with the principles this country was founded on. I do not intend to go over it again. Man, you've got a short memory.
> <snip>


I know what it IS - I just don't see it's application to the issue above, which - to remind you - was our freedoms. There are many systems of government that allow freedoms, what I can't figure out is why is it that Constitutional Law seems to be the only one you feel allows them?

I will stop asking after this, as it is an exercise in futility.

For the record, I was born in the USA, in 1955, and moved to the UK at the age of 5. I did TRY to stay behind, but strangely my Mum wouldn't let me. Such is life, but I am as much a US citizen as you are - I've just seen a little more of the World, apparently.


----------



## SailDesign

pic said:


> U
> 
> I understand , sometimes it is ,what it is .
> When I fly ( commercial jet airplane )I can not carry. Will I stop flying ? No.
> I enjoy traveling , cruises, other countries, etc. Can I carry a firearm? No. But I still travel.
> 
> If a person limits their mobility based on their carrying ability, is that paranoia? Maybe. I don't know.
> 
> Did I do the "snippage thing ok" lol.
> :smt1099


Just fine - and I agree totally. Apparently RI is now a state some people will never visit. I don't think I care overmuch.


----------



## RK3369

desertman said:


> PT111Pro:
> 
> You know what the amazing thing is: For the Liberals to take away our guns they will need guns to do it. So it seems that they are okay with guns as long as it is only they who have them and will have no problem using them to oppress others. Something to think about.


That is the general mantra of the liberal elitist politician, "do as I say, not as I do, for I know what is best for all". This is how Hitler rose to power in pre WWII Germany. The government let him exercise more and more unrestricted power and control, pretty soon, no one had any individual rights left. When Gov Cuomo rammed the "Safe Act" through the NY legislature, you didn't see him give up any of his personal bodyguards, did you?. What is that saying about what he really thinks. He wants protection (at everybody else's expense) but he doesn't want you to have the ability to do the same for yourself, because you are too stupid to use a gun responsibly.

Sad state of affairs, imo. And that is exactly where the libtards in the Federal bureaucracy are heading if we allow it.

In reality, seeking to increase gun control may well create the unwanted situation of large numbers of illegal gun owners in this country, for I can't see anyone who presently owns a gun willingly giving it up or turning it in to the local police and accepting the fact that they now need to be totally unprotected in their homes. We will likely end up with a huge number of citizens violating the gun laws in the interest of personal safety. Kinda seems unavoidable if you outright ban gun ownership.

and as they say, registration is the first step to confiscation, so I guess we need to stand against that one also.


----------



## PT111Pro

> desertman
> You know what the amazing thing is: For the Liberals to take away our guns they will need guns to do it. So it seems that they are okay with guns as long as it is only they who have them and will have no problem using them to oppress others. Something to think about.


No liberals believe in government. Everything should come from government. The entire life, shelter, food, healthcare, furniture, clothes, energy, heat, cold, computer, cellphones and over global warming even the weather comes from government. They believe the government will take care of them whatever the need is. They believe no one have to manufacture goods anymore because the goods come from the government. So no one ever has to work for a living anymore. At least they think that is a politician goal in a liberal world. That's why, when they have it finally and realize what that government really is, the cry out loud and want to get rid of it. It's not new. Last time in Europe they wrote "Arbeit macht frei" (Work makes you free) on the camps.
No therefore the government makes law that a citizen can impossible keep. That's means that everyone one way or the other is outside the law and can be punished immediately. That is liberalism. The justice system changes and all of a sudden the citizen can be accused for whatever and the burden of prove is on the citizen not on the government anymore. The most of them just don't know that.
Therefore Sail don't need a gun to take yours away. They call the government to do that. The government with his military will do that in a surge from the Canadian border down to the Mexican border and liberals will be very surprised when they finaly realized that the government don't6 stop on a liberal home. That is when they slowly comprehend what really happen. 


> desertman
> As to your other question: No one really knows how many illegal weapons are out there, just as no one really knows how many illegal invaders are in this country. I don't see how they could ever accurately figure that out.


Oh sure they know. They know how many illegal drugs are in use, what kind of drugs are around how much from each of them are in use and from whom. The governments around the world make a lot of money out of illegal possession of almost anything that is illegal. If they make something illegal that's where they really make money for their Swiss Bank Accounts. How do you think that illegal weapons in Europe, Middle East, Asia, US and wherever you want are able to be on the marked even when weapon possession is not restricted? Never ask the question why they don't address the illegal weapons and only the legal ones? No? They make their Swiss Account money from Illegal goods and not from legal goods in the nation.

Weapons are not growing on Trees. When 150 ton of Saiga AK's leaving the manufacturer in direction of France do you really belief the politics don't know that? Do you really think that 300 tons of 7.62X39 ammo comes to the marked every month and they do not know where they came from and where that went? How many ammo manufactures do the US have? 
Without the illegal Ammo Marked the European Ammo Manufacturers would be bankrupt. Do you really think the government in Berlin, Paris, London, Rome, Madrid, Barcelona and and &#8230; don't know where the Ammo ends up?


----------



## SouthernBoy

SailDesign said:


> That's great for you. My state does not allow me to do that, and actually I have no problem with it. That's why I like where I live.


Your state does not allow you to protect yourself and your family? Is this correct? Am I reading you right on this?


----------



## SouthernBoy

SailDesign said:


> I can apply... We are a "May Issue" state, and it is tough to get there. You need to be able to prove that you regularly carry large amounts of cash or other valuables in order to get one, and the State has to approve, not just the local LEOs. That last bit is not law, but it is the way things work, as the locals pass all requests to the state.
> 
> Even the guys that work in the gun shops cannot carry to and from, but have to "suit up" after they get to work, and disarm before leaving. It's a different world here.
> 
> edited to add: I have to carry my guns in the trunk, locked separately, and my ammo in the "body" of the car on the way to or from the range. If the car was a pick'em-up truck, I would need to lock the ammo as well in its own box.
> There are nearly 8 million folks in RI and MA who are pretty much fine with this, as they have not moved elsewhere to "free-er" states. Apparently some folks can't understand that.


Since your state makes is hard to get a carry permit, what about just carrying openly? Is that allowed or is it a no-no?

As for, "There are nearly 8 million folks in RI and MA who are pretty much fine with this, as they have not moved elsewhere to "free-er" states.", do you think it's also because they just don't know any better?


----------



## PT111Pro

> RK3369
> That is the general mantra of the liberal elitist politician, "do as I say, not as I do, for I know what is best for all". This is how Hitler rose to power in pre WWII Germany.


Me as a German have to say, exactly this is how the liberals back than did it. Stalin did the same. The promisse of free stuff, free healthcare, free that and the government knows and do best. How it ended in Germany and the USSR we all know.


----------



## SouthernBoy

desertman said:


> PT111Pro:
> 
> You know what the amazing thing is: For the Liberals to take away our guns they will need guns to do it. So it seems that they are okay with guns as long as it is only they who have them and will have no problem using them to oppress others. Something to think about.
> 
> As to your other question: No one really knows how many illegal weapons are out there, just as no one really knows how many illegal invaders are in this country. I don't see how they could ever accurately figure that out.


It would be virtually impossible for the federal government to confiscate privately owned firearms IF the states stood up to the feds a just said "No way are you doing this". What would the feds do? Their hands would be completely tied. They can't use the military (Posse Comitatus) and they certainly don't have enough people in the DHS to do this either. And even if they tried, all the county sheriffs would have to do is arrest them and throw them in jail and say, "Next?".

So IF the states stand together (I don't see all of them doing this), the feds wouldn't have a chance at private arms confiscation. Problem is, money. The feds have the states by the balls and it's been this way since the 1950's (think interstate highway system). Still the states could trump the feds since there are 535 members of congress who are put there by their states.


----------



## SouthernBoy

PT111Pro said:


> Me as a German have to say, exactly this is how the liberals back than did it. Stalin did the same. The promisse of free stuff, free healthcare, free that and the government knows and do best. How it ended in Germany and the USSR we all know.


They're referred to as the "useful idiots" (I believe Lenin coined that term). Useful until they're no longer useful and then they get liquidated.


----------



## SailDesign

SouthernBoy said:


> Your state does not allow you to protect yourself and your family? Is this correct? Am I reading you right on this?


Yup. In effect. Carry is out, open or concealed, and while there is no issue with me opening fire on someone inside my own house per se, it *is* illegal to discharge a firearm with "town limits". Since the whole island IS the town, this becomes somewhat moot. In theory, I can protect myself - in practice I'm breaking a town bye-law. We have not had an incident of any kind involving a firearm here in 15 years, and that was domestic. Before that? Probably 25 years or more.


----------



## SailDesign

SouthernBoy said:


> Since your state makes is hard to get a carry permit, what about just carrying openly? Is that allowed or is it a no-no?
> 
> As for, "There are nearly 8 million folks in RI and MA who are pretty much fine with this, as they have not moved elsewhere to "free-er" states.", do you think it's also because they just don't know any better?


On the first.. No-no of the highest order. 

On the second - I think it's because they are pretty much happy with the situation. You don't get restrictive states when people vote against the restrictions or those that propose them.

Take me, f'r'instance. My involvement with guns comes from shooting targets. It is all I have ever done with guns, really, and I'm very happy to keep it so. Do I mind not being able to shot in town? I would if I had enough land for a range, but since I have to go off-island to find a range, it's no worry. I do not feel the need to carry, as I live in a town where there is no problem (at present) and work on the other side of a bridge in another town with low crime rates, and very little violent. I don't think THEY've had any firearm issues in at least 10 years.

We have a State Capital where there have been 17 homicides year-to-date. Total of 101 murders and "robbery with firearms" I believe the figure for "aggravated assault with firearm" is about 134 for the year. This is not particularly high, and is not something I worry about when I drive through. I tend not to go to cities if I don't have to, but NYC is nice to visit every 10 years or so (I don't pack a gun there, either)

It's a different world up here.


----------



## PT111Pro

The term useful Idiots was invented by Lenin (1870-1924), a founder of the liberal socialistic government system. He should said that in 1887.
He said, useful idiots are people in the nation that are ignorant and are from inside and from their public appearance against a communistic worldview, but are easily manipulated because of their naivety and denial of reality and are willing to believe everything that agrees to the most unrealistic daydreams. Those usful idiot are mostly harmless but with their unrealistic dreams very useful to implement Marxist, Stalinist societies. When they wake up it is too late.

Not what I said. This was said by one of the biggest liberal leaders and founders of a liberal worldview had said.

Goebbels said 1942: If you tell the people only 3 times from 3 differend sources lies, a entire army of soldiers can't challenge the mid of ignorants anymore.

See also:
Useful idiot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## SouthernBoy

SailDesign said:


> Yup. In effect. Carry is out, open or concealed, and while there is no issue with me opening fire on someone inside my own house per se, it *is* illegal to discharge a firearm with "town limits". Since the whole island IS the town, this becomes somewhat moot. In theory, I can protect myself - in practice I'm breaking a town bye-law. We have not had an incident of any kind involving a firearm here in 15 years, and that was domestic. Before that? Probably 25 years or more.


That is quite different than Virginia which makes no distinction per se between being in your home or in some shopping center parking lot if you have to use your firearm in your defense.


----------



## Goldwing

And the gauntlet slams to the ground......


----------



## RK3369

How SC views it, even though Open Carry is not allowed unless engaged in Hunting:

You do not need a CWP to carry a handgun in your vehicle in a closed compartment. Doesn't have to be locked, simply closed. Vehicle is considered personal property so you have the right to carry on your own property without a permit, and gun can be loaded.

PROTECTION OF PERSONS AND PROPERTY ACT

The stated intent of the legislation is to codify the common law castle doctrine, which recognizes that a person’s home is his castle, and to extend the doctrine to include an occupied vehicle and the person’s place of business. This bill authorizes the lawful use of deadly force under certain circumstances against an intruder or attacker in a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle. The bill provides that there is no duty to retreat if (1) the person is in a place where he has a right to be, including the person’s place of business, (2) the person is not engaged in an unlawful activity, and (3) the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent death, great bodily injury, or the commission of a violent crime. A person who lawfully uses deadly force is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action, unless the person against whom deadly force was used is a law enforcement officer acting in the performance of his official duties and he identifies himself in accordance with applicable law or the person using deadly force knows or reasonably should have known the person is a law enforcement officer.

H.4301 (R412) was signed by the Governor on June 9, 2006.


----------



## SouthernBoy

SailDesign said:


> On the first.. No-no of the highest order.
> 
> On the second - I think it's because they are pretty much happy with the situation. You don't get restrictive states when people vote against the restrictions or those that propose them.
> 
> Take me, f'r'instance. My involvement with guns comes from shooting targets. It is all I have ever done with guns, really, and I'm very happy to keep it so. Do I mind not being able to shot in town? I would if I had enough land for a range, but since I have to go off-island to find a range, it's no worry. I do not feel the need to carry, as I live in a town where there is no problem (at present) and work on the other side of a bridge in another town with low crime rates, and very little violent. I don't think THEY've had any firearm issues in at least 10 years.
> 
> We have a State Capital where there have been 17 homicides year-to-date. Total of 101 murders and "robbery with firearms" I believe the figure for "aggravated assault with firearm" is about 134 for the year. This is not particularly high, and is not something I worry about when I drive through. I tend not to go to cities if I don't have to, but NYC is nice to visit every 10 years or so (I don't pack a gun there, either)
> 
> It's a different world up here.


*"I think it's because they are pretty much happy with the situation. You don't get restrictive states when people vote against the restrictions or those that propose them."
*
Could you elaborate on this a little. I read that as a contradiction. People being pretty much happy with their lot in life but then the sentence about restrictive states. Yours is far more restrictive than is mine.

*"It's a different world up here."*
Yes it is. However, except for the local and state restrictions on the carrying and use of firearms in the public domain, I would bet it's not much different than most any other small town in America. The obvious differences are there for sure such as traditions, heritage, culture, and spoken accents/dialect. But still not too different than what you might find in most any part of the country in a small town.


----------



## SouthernBoy

PT111Pro said:


> The term useful Idiots was invented by Lenin (1870-1924), a founder of the liberal socialistic government system. He should said that in 1887.
> He said, useful idiots are people in the nation that are ignorant and are from inside and from their public appearance against a communistic worldview, but are easily manipulated because of their naivety and denial of reality and are willing to believe everything that agrees to the most unrealistic daydreams. Those usful idiot are mostly harmless but with their unrealistic dreams very useful to implement Marxist, Stalinist societies. When they wake up it is too late.
> 
> Not what I said. This was said by one of the biggest liberal leaders and founders of a liberal worldview had said.
> 
> Goebbels said 1942: If you tell the people only 3 times from 3 differend sources lies, a entire army of soldiers can't challenge the mid of ignorants anymore.
> 
> See also:
> Useful idiot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Useful idiots are only useful until they're no longer of any use. A despotic regime knows only too well that what's to stop these people from jumping on the next bandwagon of socio-political change that threatens them. So they're eliminated.


----------



## SailDesign

SouthernBoy said:


> *"I think it's because they are pretty much happy with the situation. You don't get restrictive states when people vote against the restrictions or those that propose them."
> *
> Could you elaborate on this a little. I read that as a contradiction. People being pretty much happy with their lot in life but then the sentence about restrictive states. Yours is far more restrictive than is mine.
> 
> *"It's a different world up here."*
> Yes it is. However, except for the local and state restrictions on the carrying and use of firearms in the public domain, I would bet it's not much different than most any other small town in America. The obvious differences are there for sure such as traditions, heritage, culture, and spoken accents/dialect. But still not too different than what you might find in most any part of the country in a small town.


On the first: I meant that if the majority of people didn't want it to be so restrictive, they would not keep voting in those who made it so, and would actively work against the restrictions. There is always a minority who don't like the way things are, but that is Life. They can always move to Arizona. 

On the different World - yes, it is very similar, or so my NC brother tells me. But the attitude towards guns isn't, and that's what I was addressing.


----------



## PT111Pro

> SouthernBoy
> Useful idiots are only useful until they're no longer of any use. A despotic regime knows only too well that what's to stop these people from jumping on the next bandwagon of socio-political change that threatens them. So they're eliminated.


Right. First they don't need any witnesses how they did it. And useful Idiots tend to complain because they thought they become an elevated position after the change. It's like Feminism when they tell the Ladies every one of them becomes a Leader position but don't tell them from whom and where. Or when they told the uneducated Ladies they should earn the same income than aheighly educated man. They voted for that insanely and dreamed from more income. At the end the income of the husbands was lowered down to the income of woman and the entire family including the feminists lost 25% of income. That's true liberalism. Being equal of the lowest level anyone can even dream on.

They all get killed first. It's sad but they should read the books that they like to discuss.
I know a book with the title "Die Revolution frisst am Ende Ihre Kinder". I don't know if this book is sold in English in the US. I only realized that since about 5 years a lot of books are not allowed to ship to the US, even if they are in a foreign language. And many books are not in bookstores anymore. Orwels books are complete out of the shelves and the one sold after ordering have a lot a missing pages.
(Translated Title: "The revolution eats at the end his own children)

See also the Drama: Dantons death 1835.


----------



## desertman

After reading the majority of these comments, I'm just so glad that so many of us are on the same page.


----------



## pic

Ft


SailDesign said:


> I can apply... We are a "May Issue" state, and it is tough to get there. You need to be able to prove that you regularly carry large amounts of cash or other valuables in order to get one, and the State has to approve, not just the local LEOs. That last bit is not law, but it is the way things work, as the locals pass all requests to the state.
> 
> Even the guys that work in the gun shops cannot carry to and from, but have to "suit up" after they get to work, and disarm before leaving. It's a different world here.
> 
> edited to add: I have to carry my guns in the trunk, locked separately, and my ammo in the "body" of the car on the way to or from the range. If the car was a pick'em-up truck, I would need to lock the ammo as well in its own box.
> There are nearly 8 million folks in RI and MA who are pretty much fine with this, as they have not moved elsewhere to "free-er" states. Apparently some folks can't understand that.


CRALRI.COM ? Index page

R.I. lawmakers debate bills that would modify system for concealed-weapons permits | Breaking News | providencejournal.com | The Providence Journal

Rhode Island is legally a "SHALL ISSUE STATE" ? 
Controversial though at the present time.


----------



## SouthernBoy

SailDesign said:


> On the first: I meant that if the majority of people didn't want it to be so restrictive, they would not keep voting in those who made it so, and would actively work against the restrictions. There is always a minority who don't like the way things are, but that is Life. They can always move to Arizona.


That's exactly what I thought you meant.



SailDesign said:


> On the different World - yes, it is very similar, or so my NC brother tells me. But the attitude towards guns isn't, and that's what I was addressing.


Here in the South, firearms are ingrained in us and are a way of life. And there are solid historical reasons for this. Roughly 78% of the households in the South have firearms in them.


----------



## SailDesign

pic said:


> Ft
> 
> CRALRI.COM ? Index page
> 
> R.I. lawmakers debate bills that would modify system for concealed-weapons permits | Breaking News | providencejournal.com | The Providence Journal
> 
> Rhode Island is legally a "SHALL ISSUE STATE" ?
> Controversial though at the present time.


It's complicated:

Exeter showdown: Recall election over gun permits divides town / Poll | Breaking News | providencejournal.com | The Providence Journal

Note the phrase "Exeter is the only town with that authority", and the fact that as I said above, all other towns send them to the State, which is a "May Issue".


----------



## desertman

SouthernBoy:


> It would be virtually impossible for the federal government to confiscate privately owned firearms IF the states stood up to the feds a just said "No way are you doing this". What would the feds do? Their hands would be completely tied. They can't use the military (Posse Comitatus) and they certainly don't have enough people in the DHS to do this either. And even if they tried, all the county sheriffs would have to do is arrest them and throw them in jail and say, "Next?".


I know that, I was just trying to point out the hypocrisy or better yet the convoluted way of thinking of those that would attempt to do so. Not only would it be impossible for the feds to do it. It would be impossible for state and local governments to accomplish this monumental task. There simply is not enough manpower, not to mention the overwhelming burden on our criminal justice system bringing all of these cases to trial. There's just not enough jail space to incarcerate all of these newly minted criminals. Then there's the issue of those who are in law enforcement and the military who are also firm believers in the 2nd Amendment and "Constitutional Law". Who more than likely would refuse to comply with such draconian action. It is quite conceivable that they too would join forces with those who resist, bringing their knowledge of military and law enforcement tactics to our side. Including those who are retired military and law enforcement personnel. We also have to take into consideration other provisions within our "Bill of Rights" that would also have to be violated. I think what we would see is a revolution or civil war the likes of which this country has never seen before. Some believe that we have no chance against the military. But what happens when the military turns on those very people who ordered them to go in and burn down their own homes and neighborhoods, their friends and relatives along with it?

No, they can't do this all at once. It will indeed be impossible to carry out. They will attempt to do it incrementally and are succeeding in our more "Progressive" states. Politicians in those states have no fear of not being re-elected as the majority who live there could care less about the "Constitution" and rule of law. Such as one of my detractors. As long as it is not their ox that is being gored it's okay with them. What they fail to understand is that one day it will be their ox that is being gored. But by then it will be too late.

Gun control is a form of political retribution as New York's Governor Cuomo so aptly stated that "those who do not think like him are not welcome in New York". What better way to get even than to pass laws against your political enemies and then use the full force of government to crush them? Sound familiar? It should. That's what the "Safe Act" was all about. Unfortunately there are many people who are on our side who are for some reason or the other stuck in such miserable places. I hope to Christ they all do pack up and leave, then we'll see who has the last laugh as those who have created such a hell hole are left to wallow in their own excrement. As all of these people leave the "Blue" states will inevitably get progressively weaker, New York and California will no longer be electoral powerhouses and we may never see another "Black Militant" elected as president again.


----------



## PT111Pro

> I know that, I was just trying to point out the hypocrisy or better yet the convoluted way of thinking of those that would attempt to do so. Not only would it be impossible for the feds to do it. It would be impossible for state and local governments to accomplish this monumental task.


Dream on. When the feds start the surge the state does absolutely nothing. They may be complain to the feds but they don't do anything. It was done before in Africa, Russia, Australia and Europe., Every area is equal or bigger than the US. What exactly would the state of Arizona, Texas, Oklahoma do when the feds start the surge? Nothing. The media would not even report about it, not a single word. They never did, and you would find a lot of so called democrats posting in denial even here and other bloggs that a surge even happen.
What do you think would your state do when the feds make a federal law and ban all private weapon? But you right, they don't do that at once. That is a slow process and every year the screw get tight up harder until it's done.
What do you expect from your state? When Zimmerman, Brown etc happen, the entire states was behind the federals and the media. Not a single one ask to slow down until the facts where presented. They all were hiding behind the feds. This should tell you something. Why do you think it would be impossible? It was done in all Continents before even in the USSR and China and they are much bigger and don't have the Infrastructure for federal military on roads and Tracks like the US.


----------



## SouthernBoy

PT111Pro said:


> Dream on. When the feds start the surge the state does absolutely nothing. They may be complain to the feds but they don't do anything. It was done before in Africa, Russia, Australia and Europe., Every area is equal or bigger than the US. What exactly would the state of Arizona, Texas, Oklahoma do when the feds start the surge? Nothing. The media would not even report about it, not a single word. They never did, and you would find a lot of so called democrats posting in denial even here and other bloggs that a surge even happen.
> What do you think would your state do when the feds make a federal law and ban all private weapon? But you right, they don't do that at once. That is a slow process and every year the screw get tight up harder until it's done.
> What do you expect from your state? When Zimmerman, Brown etc happen, the entire states was behind the federals and the media not one ask to slow down until the facts where presented. They all were hiding behind the feds. This should tell you something. Why do you think it is impossible. It was done in all Continents before even in the USSR and China and they are much bigger and don't have the Infrastructure for federal military on roads and Tracks like the US.


I disagree. Yes it has been done in other nations but there is one little fly in the ointment. Nearly all of the states have a "Bill of Rights" and of course, there is the federal Bill of Rights. That would have to be discarded first. Then the hurtles that desertman spoke of would have to be crossed in order for the feds to carry out something like this. Along with this, there are estimated to be more privately owned firearms in this country than there are people. And many, if not most, of the police, the National Guard, and the military would probably not carry out such orders. I have posed this question to military officers and to a man, they have said that most would not obey such an order.

Incrementally, the chipping away of our rights (not just firearms) has been going on for a long time (a century and a half). But there are a few of them that tend to hold fast and the keep and bear arms part is one of them.

BTW, neither China nor Australia is as large and the United States. We are the third largest country on earth.


----------



## PT111Pro

@Southernboy
Agreed to a certain extend. It doesn't work with regular police and the military base around the corner. But that didn't work with regular police and the military base around the corner in any given country or nation on earth ever.
The US was too long protected and as long they didn't go nuts it worked. US citizens were looking abroad and didn't understand what happen, couldn't even imagine.

The surge in the US will be not done by US soldiers or Police. That will be done by Lebanese, Syrian, Iraqi, European forces that were trained to do the surge since 40 years now. Why do you think that the surge in Iraq is not done by Iraqi it's done by US soldiers? That keeps the hate level against the US up. Why do you think US soldiers doing the surge in Syria and not Syrian police or military forces? That keeps the hate level against the US very high. Do you really belief they let that do the local police or military from the next local base? Dream on. They call the UN to do that. Clinton implemented a worldwide weapon ban for civilian citizens before he declared war on Yugoslavia. And don't forget5, Syria, Jemen, Eqypt and the entire middle east are part of the UN and send blue helmets.

The will call the blue Helmets from Syria, Lebanese, Iraqi. They will do that with a very bright smile in their face. They have a 60 year lasting bill to present to the US citizen. No doubt. As long as the US citizen kept the communist out everything was fine, but in that moment that the US citizen going nuts, believe Liberal TV and communistic school teachers, it becomes WoW. Your own forces are not home or become over night house arrest. 
The US is economically bankrupt, sourced everything to the biggest enemy of the US out (China), and the military is stretched very thin. Obama even reduces the troops more and more, and cuts the funding for the still existing. US troops going in wars without body armor, missing vehicle parts. Do you really think that is all accidental? Clinton started that in a bigger way and made the US more and more defenseless and Obama goes on with that immediately he took over. That system can not be implemented without completely destroying the old one.

My neighbor is a preppier, armed and has ammo from seller, bunker until under the roof and a hide out place to. Do U know how long he last with his buddies? About 2 Minutes not longer. Do you have a glow what a Syrian Helicopter Crew in a old Mil-Mi-24 does on landscaping in 2 minutes? 20 feed deep and a area of 10 acres are remodeled in 2 minutes. They are trained by the US forces to deal with highly trained and equipped and highly advanced equipped do fight real military forces and not some local preppers in the woods or in a wood frame brick home. . 




They need 2 minutes and they already moving on to the next before even the smoke had settled. Forget the media they will not sho a split secont a picture, will not say a single word and the democrats in this and other forums will even denial that such is happening.
The people in the US always think those thinks can only happen to others, far away. Well the others have and had that because they elect democrats or communists. The outcome is and was always on a catastrophic level. Now, what do you think what will happen when the US elects democrats and communists. Do you think the democrats stay inside the US law to reach their goals, because it's the US or don't you think they behave the same way than somewhere else? They actually sometimes come from somewhere else.

And that with the 3 biggest country you should check that out again.

But don't listen to me, I am an Idiot that has no Idea how it works.


----------



## desertman

SouthernBoy:


> I disagree. Yes it has been done in other nations but there is one little fly in the ointment. Nearly all of the states have a "Bill of Rights" and of course, there is the federal Bill of Rights.


Exactly! To that I will add when it comes to the 2nd Amendment, many states have legislatures and an overwhelming population that are firm believers in not only the 2nd Amendment but in "Constitutional Law". Could that change? Well of course it could. Is it likely? As things stand now, not in the foreseeable future. If anything "Newtown" woke up a lot of people as to what the full ramifications and intentions of gun control advocates are. It also increased our ranks as many first time buyers rushed to the gun stores to stock up on firearms and ammunition. I swear to God after "Newtown" I really thought that was it on the national level. Thankfully it never came to be in spite of all of the biased non stop media coverage. Even though as of now things are looking good for our side. We can never let out guard down.

Unfortunately this is not the case for those who live in "Progressive" or "Blue" states. Many of which have no provision in their state "Constitution" regarding the 2nd Amendment. This makes the task that much easier to impose more draconian legislation. To make matters worse the majority of their population could care less what happens to their political adversaries. They incorrectly believe that we are a "Democracy" where the majority rules as opposed to a "Constitutional Republic" which constrains the power of government and protects the civil liberties of all citizens regardless of their political leanings. The founders of this nation were brilliant men in planning and setting up this form of government. It's too bad we can't convince those who believe that government is the answer to everything. For if they get their way they will have reaped what they have sown along with the rest of us. The United States of America will be no different than a third world dictatorship. We can never allow that to happen. This is the reason why we have the 2nd Amendment to prevent such a travesty. This is the reason why those who believe in government control wish to abolish it along with "Constitutional Law".


----------



## desertman

PT111Pro:
With all due respect and no offense intended. You've got my head spinning!


----------



## PT111Pro

Well - 
don't listening to me, I am an Idiot and how liberals or democrats or how they call themselves at the moment do that, works somewhere else but not in the US. The US citizens are much stronger and much smarter than all the people on earth that went trough that way before U guys. Sure the population will not do that and sure the states will not allow that. No one will take your weapon away and they don't protect criminals so they feel free to kill or harm whomever they please. 

No one takes your weapon how silly of me, no one will do that. Just saw this morning a city police chef in Austin TX that complained about weapons in civilians hands. Yes in Texas too. 
But don't worry, no one takes your weapons away and they don't call blue helmets once they have done a weapon ban law that Clinton already had implemented 20 years ago in the UN
. 
Silly me to think that US citizen and US communist are the same than in G Britain, Germany, Australia, France.... No, no US communists are different they are real good people that are so harmless and so very nice people....

"No one will start a war" said the socialist Goebbels on August 30, 1939 and than he said on September 1, 1939 since this morning 5 O'Clock we are fighting back (beginning of WWII). The so called democrat Walter Ulbricht (President of the German Democratic Republic) said 2 days before they started to build the Berlin wall, leading from North-sea to Czechoslovakia: "No one will build w wall, that is ridiculous". Do U need more? Many said they will never to be able to do that because the state Sachsen, Vorpommern and others including the western alliances will not allow that. The wall lasted almost 50 years.

So no one will use UN blue helmets from middle east and Africa to disarm ordinary citizens in the US. That is ridiculous. 
Don't listening to me, I am an Idiot and have no Idea what I am talking about. In the US the people will not allow that happen. In Slav Russia, Europe, Africa, Asia and Australia may be, but never in the US. Right? The US citizen are much to strong and smart. They cannot do that.
I am going out. Believe what ever you want, its your believe not mine. And may be, I am wrong, I would be really happy.


----------



## desertman

PT111Pro:
No one thinks you are an idiot. We probably agree on most things. I think you mentioned you were from Germany? Maybe that's why I'm having a hard time understanding your comments. I too share your distrust of government and do not believe everything that comes out of the mouths of seedy politicians. Fortunately we are living in the United States of America and although it is indeed possible it is highly unlikely that any of the doomsday scenarios will come to fruition on our shores. With regards to gun control: We've successfully been able to prevent most of that on the federal level. The states are a different matter and in a way, although we are the "United States" each state is run as if it were it's own separate country. Some believe in freedom and individual liberties and some do not.

As far as foreign invaders that are taking over the biggest danger is open borders and illegal immigration. I doubt that a foreign country will be very successful militarily. Even if they were successful in invading our shores with troops there are just too many of us that are armed and know how to use them. We can thank the 2nd Amendment for that. As powerful as our own military is we could not beat the North Vietnamese on their own territory or in Afghanistan which by the way neither could the Russians. By the way "there were more bombs dropped in the Vietnam War than there were in Europe during World War II"---www.omgfacts.com

You sound as if you know firsthand what oppression and propaganda is all about and are trying to warn us. I commend you for that. Your knowledge of history is accurate. You're a good man! We do indeed need more of you.


----------



## SouthernBoy

PT111Pro said:


> @Southernboy
> Agreed to a certain extend. It doesn't work with regular police and the military base around the corner. But that didn't work with regular police and the military base around the corner in any given country or nation on earth ever.
> The US was too long protected and as long they didn't go nuts it worked. US citizens were looking abroad and didn't understand what happen, couldn't even imagine.
> 
> The surge in the US will be not done by US soldiers or Police. That will be done by Lebanese, Syrian, Iraqi, European forces that were trained to do the surge since 40 years now. Why do you think that the surge in Iraq is not done by Iraqi it's done by US soldiers? That keeps the hate level against the US up. Why do you think US soldiers doing the surge in Syria and not Syrian police or military forces? That keeps the hate level against the US very high. Do you really belief they let that do the local police or military from the next local base? Dream on. They call the UN to do that. Clinton implemented a worldwide weapon ban for civilian citizens before he declared war on Yugoslavia. And don't forget5, Syria, Jemen, Eqypt and the entire middle east are part of the UN and send blue helmets.
> 
> The will call the blue Helmets from Syria, Lebanese, Iraqi. They will do that with a very bright smile in their face. They have a 60 year lasting bill to present to the US citizen. No doubt. As long as the US citizen kept the communist out everything was fine, but in that moment that the US citizen going nuts, believe Liberal TV and communistic school teachers, it becomes WoW. Your own forces are not home or become over night house arrest.
> The US is economically bankrupt, sourced everything to the biggest enemy of the US out (China), and the military is stretched very thin. Obama even reduces the troops more and more, and cuts the funding for the still existing. US troops going in wars without body armor, missing vehicle parts. Do you really think that is all accidental? Clinton started that in a bigger way and made the US more and more defenseless and Obama goes on with that immediately he took over. That system can not be implemented without completely destroying the old one.
> 
> My neighbor is a preppier, armed and has ammo from seller, bunker until under the roof and a hide out place to. Do U know how long he last with his buddies? About 2 Minutes not longer. Do you have a glow what a Syrian Helicopter Crew in a old Mil-Mi-24 does on landscaping in 2 minutes? 20 feed deep and a area of 10 acres are remodeled in 2 minutes. They are trained by the US forces to deal with highly trained and equipped and highly advanced equipped do fight real military forces and not some local preppers in the woods or in a wood frame brick home. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They need 2 minutes and they already moving on to the next before even the smoke had settled. Forget the media they will not sho a split secont a picture, will not say a single word and the democrats in this and other forums will even denial that such is happening.
> The people in the US always think those thinks can only happen to others, far away. Well the others have and had that because they elect democrats or communists. The outcome is and was always on a catastrophic level. Now, what do you think what will happen when the US elects democrats and communists. Do you think the democrats stay inside the US law to reach their goals, because it's the US or don't you think they behave the same way than somewhere else? They actually sometimes come from somewhere else.
> 
> And that with the 3 biggest country you should check that out again.
> 
> But don't listen to me, I am an Idiot that has no Idea how it works.


You some good points but I have to disagree on your basic premise regarding what could happen here. If foreign troops (or UN troops) were used, I think you'd find a VERY big push back by the US military. There are many points here on which we differ. I will say that nothing is out of the relhm of possibility but for foreign interests to invade the US and disarm us.... pretty remote.

*"And that with the 3 biggest country you should check that out again."*
So other than Russia and Canada, which nation do you think is larger than the US?


----------

