I posted about this Sonstien guy awhile ago, I got put in my place about how this guy was legit and everything I was referring to was BS.

The more we dismiss the little things as BS the more we find ourselves getting closer and closer to hyper-regulations of things we enjoy.

Of course it wont happen in one sweeping motion.. it will chip away at it slowly.

Increased fees, license lottery, hunting weapon regulations, shortened seasons, limited amount of grandfathered licenses... you will see these things "encouraged" by the boys in DC, and the lemmings in the State houses will fall in line. By the time it shows up on a board like this, envelopes have already changed hands and deals are done.

How about a gun tax on registered firearms, is that a "boogieman" as well?

How long do you think 30 round mags will be legal?

What about AR's and AK's?

What about handguns? Think those are not going to be at the business end of the current administrations finger shaking?

The Patriot Act is what Hoover would dress up in panties and dream about... it didn't happen until years after but it did in fact happen. Soon your medical records will be just as open to gov. eyes, another thing that "would never happen".

But hyper-regulation of firearms via hunting regs is a complete tin foil hat theory?

Take the pills, watch TV, and sleep.... sleeep....

Marz... there is one simple question that addresses all of your assertions.

Why?

Stam---That's pretty good analogy except you forgot to mention that the game kaykay got to start playing with in November is a chit stained dildo, not a gameboy......he jumps up and down screaming at the top of his lungs how cool his dildo is......but it's not...it's just gross....

Why?

Why what?

Why does this bother me?

Why would someone want to push these policies?

Why do I feel that the government should fear the people and not vise versa?

I dont see it as that simple but maybe you could enlighten?

Number 3 is kinda what I was getting at.

Why does the 'government' want to do away with guns?

Why does the 'government' want to do away with hunting?

Why do liberals supposedly want government to run every aspect of our daily lives?

What do they have to gain from these things?

That's what I'm trying to find... a rational, logical, factual explanation.

Because Glen Beck says they do.

End of discussion.

Fish on...

Todd

Unfortunately, I think you're right Todd.

1) It's easier to control an unarmed populace than it is to control and armed one.

2) Because it's cruel and mean to kill furry critters...even if you eat them.

3) Control.....duh.

4) See answer to #3



Now my questions....

Why did the founding fathers feel the need to include the 2nd ammendment if they didn't forsee the Gov't wanting to dis-arm the populace? Lucky guess?

Why have trapping, hound hunting and Bear baiting been removed, by and large, from the hunter as a mangement resource if they don't want to limit and eventually outlaw hunting? We now use tax dollars to manage a resource that created money before. Slippery slope...yadda..yadda

What have the Dems done to ensure or help promulgate the continuation of hunting as our heritage?

What have the Dems done to ensure the 2nd ammendment remains an intregal part of our free society?

OK, thats something I can expand on a bit.

As for me, I am, for the most part liberal but on the other hand I am generally against the constant pussification of the US. Just because I think one of the richest countries in the world should show more compassion for the meek and war for money doesnt make any sence at all, doesn't mean that I don't like riding dirt bikes, shooting, hunting, fishing etc.. the accessibility to do those things being reduced regularly is what bothers me.

We have come to a point where if it has proven to be undesirable by a group the first reaction is to remove it, regardless of what these actions may represent. As long as it can be lobbied as "safe" or "compassionate" it will gain approval. Just like the war in Iraq wasn't to gain a ME foothold with a military installation, it was to "{liberate the people from tyranny".

A lobby to remove hunting and restrict firearms translates to a initial feeling of safety and compassion to many (many more constituents than actually hunt or use / own firearms). What makes over zealous moms feel safer or the lady with 12 cats feel like all creatures are kept warm and fuzzy, is a win. Just like any politician that wants easy votes, throws "the children" into the speeches and the path of least resistance is to throw money / support at it. To dispute it garnishes a reaction of "child hater" or "scrooge".

Hunting is nowhere near the activity it was 20, 30, 40 years ago so why not get rid of it and let Bambi frolic in the flowery meadow, happy, safe and free?

Why not begin to regulate arms to a point that discourages the enthusiasts and makes people feel safer and that crime is being fought? Less accidental deaths right? Less crime right? More Bambi's frolicking with their wilderness friends right?

Honestly, that is just a notch below Jesus to many and votes and support will follow. Politicians are in the business of manipulating constituents, maybe not all, but most. The lobby to tax registered guns has already reared its head, do you think the restrictions will ever be loosened? I cant think of anything like this that has.

The government has been doing this with off-roading for years and hunting and firearms are going the same way. Maybe I am crazy but take a look at how much land is available for off-roading... if you take the desert out of it, it is even worse.

Keeping the government armed to the teeth while removing that ability from the citizens insures a quick and simple end to any civil upheaval that may occur and is ALWAYS in a governments better interest as it insures a higher level of control.

And as for liberals wanting more government, I don't think anyone necessarily wants more government but if it was left to old white money to help the poor, feed the hungry and care for the old and ill, it would never get done. Trickle down economics doesnt trickle down, it simply pools at the top.

so yeah.. thats why.

P.S. I never listen to Glen Beck or any of those fools, partisan politics are BS.

OK... fair enough. You guys gave reasoned answers... which I mostly disagree with but I do appreciate the effort.

Does anybody REALLY think that the government is afraid of us because we own guns? Really? Maybe back in the day when muskets were the weapons that everybody had... but nowadays our military has such advanced weaponry and is so well trained that they could pretty much wipe us out if they were so inclined. And I believe THAT is the main deterrent... the will of the members of the military to turn on their own people... that ultimately prevents it from happening.

Yeah, there are extreme left-wingers that would like to save Bambi. But just like the fringe element on the right that wants to overthrow the government by force... they represent too small a minority to really further that agenda. There are just too many sensible, rational moderate citizens out there who can appreciate the cultural value of hunting and owning guns to EVER let the minority get their way.

Hank, I'm a liberal and I DO NOT want government running my life. I give a lot in charitable contributions too. Your broad brush characterizations of liberals and what they want just don't meet the rational, logical criteria I was looking for. Sorry.

RvW, the Dems have abandoned gun control as one of their platform planks long ago. They know it's a political loser... and it is.

The Second Amendment isn't going anywhere... and NO rational politician would ever make any attempt to try and repeal it.

4Salt----The dems, by and large, still favor gun control. They know it's a loser...NOW.... but that can change quickly.

Getting into your "we can't possibly beat the U.S military" I would ask you..... how well have we, the U.S military, fought guerilla wars? Insurgencies and fractured coalitions have always been our downfall, at least since Vietnam. Marines were just killed because artillery couldn't be called in because of potential "collateral damage"...in Afganistan. I don't advocate killing innocent and children (God knows) but we have to realize that as a "good hearted Nation" we also don't have the necessary fight to win...despite the heroic efforts of our soldiers, sailors and airmen.

I don't think that our military would be able to stomach fighting their own brothers and sisters who are fighting to reclaim democracy.....in the most extreme but not unimaginable scenario.

That's sorta' why the Constitution still matters.

I have some home made chicken noodle soup that I can deliver..I'll add a little LWW sauce and you should be feeling better in no time.

Or just watch the Huskies get their arses handed to them today. This rain just might help the Dogs, they might still be in the game in the 1st qtr ?

Just make sure you store your bacon and guns in different cabinets, so the bacon doesn't get accidentally grabbed along with your shooting irons...

Are french fries still called Freedom Fries? I hardly ever eat 'em, but I want to keep up on the current lingo...

You didn't buy French Roast coffee at Costco, didja? I'm noting your use of French is increasing, Hank...it's almost like providing aid and comfort to the enemy...mebbe there are too many liberals in your x-ray room.

Fish on...

Todd