PA Gun Registration!?

[toocheaptosmoke]

I just heard about this on the news, what a bunch of crap! :banned:

here's a link,
http://www.huntingnet.com/forum/tm.aspx?m=2075666&mpage=1

[Tri-ZNate]

yeah i saw that on the news the other night. it wont pass as it is now but they will jumble the wording round and work there liberal magic so we become TOTALLY F---ed over. Clinton's strict laws finally ran out and now we have this liberal BS comming back

[edog]

PA is going Commi.........

http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h196/edog_02/Untitled-1copy-1.jpg

[ScottZJ]

Man! I would be out like hundreds of dollars a year with all the pistols I have.:rolleyes: This is yet another typical attempt for the liberal government to gain control of citizens.

[400exguy]

This registration is crap. The hunting industry already brings in millions of dollars a year in PA...I guess the government isnt getting enough money through the taxes that are paid on the things hunters use. But I guess thats really not the point of the registration but regardless its still crap.

[Rm250RF900R]

Try living in Massachusetts :rolleyes:

[Greiver430x]

This is crap instead of going after people who work and pay taxes, why not just do something about ******** who commit violent crimes instead of releasing them to do thier thing all over again?!!

[400exguy]

Its all stupid...the saying is true...Guns dont kill people, people kill people. If your gonna kil someone, if you dont have a gun you will use other means.

[oldskool83]

i heard this also. personal i dont own any guns and dont want to, i use to back in the early 90's.

[Wickedfinger]

Scary, but it'll never pass .... hopefully my 20 years of membership dues in the NRA is paying for lobbiests and lawyers.

[DixiePlowboy]

I used to belong to the NRA, but to be honest(and hopefully not offend any NRA supporters), they aren't what they used to be. They seem too willing to compromise.

I lean toward Gun Owners Of America, and even though I'm not Jewish, Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership.

The REAL motivation for such restriction/banning movement agendas is simple to figure out.

Our governmental structure is a system of checks and balances(or it used to be). The ultimate "check" is our Constitutionally recognized/God given rights enumerated in the 1st ten ammendments.

It has been said that our course of redress is the "3 Boxes".
1. The soap box-freedom to speak, spread ideas, bring awareness. This can include the witness box in a coutroom venue.
2. The ballot box-to rid ourselves of unresponsive, intrusive, or abusive politicians.
3. The cartridge box-the last resort, but the ultimate right of any free people.


No.1 takes BIG money to be effective, therefore is beyond the reach of nearly all but the elite.
No.2 only works when you have a choice other than Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dumb(either way your getting tweedled).
No. 3 scares the panties off those who have aspirations to control, rule, subjugate, and plunder.

They know our country was born in revolution....armed insurrection.

They just don't want you to know it.


(Plowboy off soapbox):)

[icp4life162005]

I agree with you completely Plowboy. But what the state doesn't tell you is that the state of Pa will get 'Special Attention' from the government like funding for campaigns for politicians and roads of which we have the crappiest in the country of both and yet on the issue of the roads, they repave I-80 damn near every year due to some 'Unforeseen design flaw of the road' and I have seen the same section of highway repaved by PENNDOT 4 times in the last 6 years. I think the government is finally realizing that 'we the people' are getting fed up with the current government and its policies. They are afraid that we will take up arms and take this country back or at least stop there pockets from fattening up anymore, god forbid that would just ruin there weekend trips to the Bahamas with the family and friends on the taxpayers dollar.We can't have that now can we. Don't even get me started on the foreign policy or the war in Iraq crap and all the propaganda that we hear on the news. and in the next 5 years I WILL own 2 fully automatic silenced .45 caliber machine pistols and 2 silenced .50 caliber handguns. I would like to see anyone try to take them from me. I will own them regardless of any law they put into place to stop the ownership of them. I will exercise all legal routes first though short of join the propaganda wagon known as the army. OFF RANT

[mark38090]

in the next 5 years I WILL own 2 fully automatic silenced .45 caliber machine pistols and 2 silenced .50 caliber handguns. I would like to see anyone try to take them from me. I will own them regardless of any law they put into place to stop the ownership of them.

These are the statements that the anti-gun liberals feed off of... Being in Law Enforcement I see no reason to need a "silenced" or "fully automatic" anything, as a gun owner I see the intrigue with both. I am just grateful that I live in Florida where there are very few "gun laws" and for a few bucks a year everyone with the proper training and background cn carry concealed.

[MisterFurious]

I used to belong to the NRA, but to be honest(and hopefully not offend any NRA supporters), they aren't what they used to be. They seem too willing to compromise.

I lean toward Gun Owners Of America, and even though I'm not Jewish, Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership.

The REAL motivation for such restriction/banning movement agendas is simple to figure out.

Our governmental structure is a system of checks and balances(or it used to be). The ultimate "check" is our Constitutionally recognized/God given rights enumerated in the 1st ten ammendments.

It has been said that our course of redress is the "3 Boxes".
1. The soap box-freedom to speak, spread ideas, bring awareness. This can include the witness box in a coutroom venue.
2. The ballot box-to rid ourselves of unresponsive, intrusive, or abusive politicians.
3. The cartridge box-the last resort, but the ultimate right of any free people.


No.1 takes BIG money to be effective, therefore is beyond the reach of nearly all but the elite.
No.2 only works when you have a choice other than Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dumb(either way your getting tweedled).
No. 3 scares the panties off those who have aspirations to control, rule, subjugate, and plunder.

They know our country was born in revolution....armed insurrection.

They just don't want you to know it.


(Plowboy off soapbox):)

Great post, Plowboy!

[Kintore]

They tried doing that up here in Canada. "Suppose" to cost us only a million, turned out to be a HUGE millions waste of our money. Thanks to your former Liberal gov.

[icp4life162005]

=Being in Law Enforcement I see no reason to need a "silenced" or "fully automatic" anything, as a gun owner I see the intrigue with both.

I am intrigued by them and would like to collect them as a hobby and by doing anything to have them I was refering to moving out of country if need be. And with you being a in 'Law Enforcement' I understand why you would worry about silenced weapons and fully automatic firing but as a gun owner you should understand that owning them would be a proud moment for any gun enthusiast. and as of now I would just need a permit from the BAFT and consent for the county commisioner or sheriff or whoever.

[DixiePlowboy]

The original intent of the second ammendment had nothing to do with "sporting purposes" or "hunting".

The Founding Fathers intended for the Militia(the private male citizen of age) to have equal military arms to what the standing army had...in good working order(well regulated), and enough ammunition on hand to stand ready to do their duty if necessary. Their duty, as described specifically, being the same thing they did with their government if necessary.

Many argue that "times have changed", or that the "Founding Fathers didn't have machine guns in mind" when they wrote the Second Ammendment, but it is they that are usually the ones who would praise the Bill Of Rights for the points they agree with, and want to update the rest to some "modern" way of thinking.....some "safer" way of handling society's ills, that are out of touch. What constitutes victory and defeat are the same now as it was in their day.....having the tools and the fortitude for the job.

I'm still of the old school way of thinking.....that "Those who would sacrifice Liberty for the sake of security, deserve neither Liberty nor security".

I encourage all to study the works of the Founders, not just what they did in their respective offices, posts, or official capacities, but the writings that explain their motivations, ideals, and intents.

Keep in mind that the greatest of the them were revolutionaries, rebels, and traitors to the crown that subjugated them. They risked and sacrificed everything to leave us what they did.......and they left US the private citizen the means to keep our "Liberty Teeth"(as George Washington called firearms)......and the blueprint for how to deal with a government that may be deserving of the discharge of what they(the Founders) considered "our duty" if they tried to take them away from us. Remember that the final spark that ignited the Revolutionary War was King George sending troops to take private firearms and powder.

If they were alive today, we would be at the door of armed revolution in hours......but we would have almost no chance of the victory they once acheived if all we have are sporting arms.
Your government knows this......that's why we have all the fight against "assault weapons" in modern times even though privately owned fully automatic machine guns account for almost NO recorded crime in 40 years or more.

"Fear the government that fears your guns"......and be thankful that the spirit of the Second ammendment is alive and well...........

........in Switzerland.

[icp4life162005]

Well said Plowboy, And I agree with you completely, the government is afraid we will take up arms and history will repeat ourselves.

[DixiePlowboy]

Correct, the elitists are afraid of just that.....

.....and a just government has nothing to fear. That should tell us a lot.

[3 weelin geezer]

These are the statements that the anti-gun liberals feed off of... Being in Law Enforcement I see no reason to need a "silenced" or "fully automatic" anything, as a gun owner I see the intrigue with both. I am just grateful that I live in Florida where there are very few "gun laws" and for a few bucks a year everyone with the proper training and background cn carry concealed.


I must DISAGREE!

Why does one need to justify any need to simply own one to another? Say you have a big gas guzzling hummer, I come up to you and ask "why do you need such a monster when you can get from A to B just the same in a ......Geo Metro". Most people say "Because I can afford it and you can't." Its a question of the Haves and the Haves Not. They want a communist society where everyone is equal. They just want to be more equal than everybody else.:crazy: See, they can afford armed security 24 hrs. just like they can afford that so-called Hummer which is really a chevy with a boxy body. Its not a real hummer below the belt. Which means: There is a sucker born every minute. Or how does that saying go?....They are selling you cat for hare.....

What does being in Law Enforcement have to do with a suppressor or an automatic weapon? Its the little fast flying piece of lead that poses the problem. But the bigger problem is how that little fast flying piece of lead got that way in the first place. Do you see a problem with fast cars also? I mean if the driver goes no faster than say, double nickels? Or what if I have an FFL? Should that be a crime or that I am selling guns to the thugs in the projects with all those golden grillz they buy with the drugs they sell?

I see it the same way. It doesn't matter if you own something as its only a thing. Its what you do with that thing that counts.

[icp4life162005]

Geezer I also agree with you, I have every right in the UNITED STATES of all places to keep and bear arms whether it be for sport or to defend this country in the event of occupation. No matter what means its by,whether its a suppressed or automatic firing weapon, I should have that right. I think its about time for citizens of this country, to remember how this country BECAME a country!

[mark38090]

I must DISAGREE!

What does being in Law Enforcement have to do with a suppressor or an automatic weapon?

Have you ever had to pull someone over on a dark stretch of road in the middle of the night? Have you ever rolled up on a possible drug deal in a wooded area by yourself? What about being somewhere so remote that it's entirely possible that your radio doesn't work? Things that make you go HMMMM!

[xd 200x]

This won't pass. and I doubt that the NRA wrote it because the site is wrong. Personally I don't think it's not a bad Idea.
Why should I have to pay luxury tax on certain things?
Why are the property taxes high as hell where I live?
Why does the gas tax go up all the freaking time?

Because the government needs money. Hey It's gotta come from somewhere. You want your roads fixed, you want more police to control crime, want your freaking social security. Well hell pay tax on the stuff you really don't need. The 2nd amendment had nothing to do with assault rifles or freaking silencers. It was put in place to get approval from a newly formed country that was fearing the rise of a new monarchy. Fear the black helicopters there Art Bell. One too many reads thought the "Turner Diaries"?
They are not taking your guns they are taxing ownership, and making you register them. Big difference. The only people who would be afraid to register their guns are people with something to hide, illegal owner ship, past felony. the kind of people who don't deserve to nor would a sane person want them to own guns anyway. Hell I'll register mine any day of the week I'll even pay tax on them If it helps pay for important government functions that everyone depends on.
I was a member of the NRA back in the 90's, but not anymore They now resemble a bunch of tin foil hat wearing lobbyists spouting crap that will never will happen in an attempt to solicit funds to pay their board members. In a sense they kind of resemble the typical tree hugging liberals. Having spent 6 months as an intern for a lobbying firm. Makes you realize it's pointless give and take B.S. 500.00 lunches, 1600.00 dinners these are the things our membership dues go for think about that the next time you write them a check.

my 2 cents take from it what you will.

P.s I'm a conservative

[DixiePlowboy]

In the 18th Century, a musket was an assault weapon in the hands of someone carrying out an assault, so it WAS about them. Once again...injecting modern thought and brainwashing into timeless conceptual thinking is like mixing oil and water.

I have never read the Turner Diaries, so I don't know what that's about.....but I have read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers and the works of the Federal Farmer. I guess if Patrick Henry were alive today he'd be wearing a tin-foil hat too, huh?

I've never illegally possesed anything, much less been convicted of any crime.

I have been accused of being "pre-occupied" with history and early American political science. I'm not much fun at parties where some liberal/socialist has the mic.... trying to herd everyone like naive sheep.

"The price of Liberty is eternal vigilence....jealously guard it from all who approach it".

If it makes you feel better, sell your guns and send the Federal government the money......just don't expect all of us to drink the kool aid.

ps.....I'm a Constitutionalist

[mark38090]

I've never illegally possesed anything, much less been convicted of any crime.



I know this is a serious thread and all but... You own one of those illegal three wheelers. They were banned years ago and if you're caught you going to jail! :naughty: Sorry, just couldn't resist...

[DixiePlowboy]

mark38090,
I do appreciate the dangers that law enforcement officers face, but how much more deadly is a silenced weapon, and just how often do you have to stare one down? I mean, at a traffic stop, is the bullet less deadly if the report of the gun is quieter?

As for machine guns, the statistics show that you're more likely to be killed by falling space debris than killed by a legally owned machine gun, so where's the problem? All the ones that are illegally owned are already illegal....that fact didn't stop them. So how can you possibly be made any safer by another law or restriction against something that's already illegal or restricted?


Ah....DANGIT!!

you're right about the 3-wheeler crime. I guess I can't run for office after all:lol:

:beer

[xd 200x]

I know this is a serious thread and all but... You own one of those illegal three wheelers. They were banned years ago and if you're caught you going to jail! :naughty: Sorry, just couldn't resist...


bans over

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


once again they are not taking your guns. They are taxing ownership, Big diffrence. SO let me get this straight. Patrick Henry would have a problem with the registration of guns? Please show me a statement a quote anything about registration of anything in any form that was written by Patrick Henery. O waiit
thats your interpretation of what you think he meant. Guess what there are a lot of "Ideas" about what the constitution means but only the supreme court can decide what it really means. Also as a constutionalist you realize that the constitution was written to be and ever changing and evolving document. To To change as the times change hence ability to modify it. If you don't the 14th amendment must really burn your butt. Hence It is time to change it.
SO with this in mind is it really necessary or even plausible in this day and age to have an right to bear arms amendment bases in what you refer to as a right revolt against the government when you can change it through political action. When the document was written people could not read had little education and voting in a new goverment was way beyond them. SO a right to bear arms as a way to change the course of the goverment was a good idea to say the least. It is no longer a needed piece of that document, SO as your frames intended it should be changed and shaped to fit the times we live iin now.
SO if you believe that the constitution was not written to be an ever changing adaptable document. You have serious problems and need to "study" it some more and maybe read the writings of the frames on how a goverment should operate

Ps. foil has for everyone

[icp4life162005]

Have you ever had to pull someone over on a dark stretch of road in the middle of the night? Have you ever rolled up on a possible drug deal in a wooded area by yourself? What about being somewhere so remote that it's entirely possible that your radio doesn't work? Things that make you go HMMMM!

Yeah I have came upon a Drug trade in heavy woods before, I am not an officer but that doesn't mean anything when they think you could rat them out just as easy as being a cop. A suppressed bullet will still do the same damage the only difference being its quieter. A criminal will own a firearm if they wish to, think about it if there dealing over a few Kilos of heroin they will not care about owning an illegal gun, there has been gun trafficking for decades. If a criminal wants it he will get it. If your not wearing a vest and someone would pull the trigger with decent aim then its not going to matter if he fires 3 bullets in the pull of a trigger because either way you will be dead. If someone is waiting with a gun by the time an average person could react they would be fatally wounded. I have an uncle in prison as we speak for gun trafficking so if you want it and can afford it the world is yours and everything in it.

[icp4life162005]

Hey Plowboy I would still vote for ya! LOL but seriously I probably would it seems like you know your stuff.

[icp4life162005]

SO with this in mind is it really necessary or even plausible in this day and age to have an right to bear arms amendment bases in what you refer to as a right revolt against the government when you can change it through political action.

Lets see todays government change through political action.:lol: yeah right!:lol: In todays government you have to have money and know people aka government bigwigs. If Plowboy would try to run for office how far do you think he would get not very unless he has millions and even then his chances are laughable. Back then you were elected for your war history or your ideas and political influence on what is just and what is for the good of the country, now its a beauty pageant between who has the most money and the common person votes on the person least likely to run this country further in the ground.:mad:

[DixiePlowboy]

xd200x

The framers would definitely have a problem with a limitaion, taxation, restriction, or outright revocation of a single, God given right. There was nothing in the framework that would allow for the attempted repeal of a God given right by any means. Their writings drip with mistrust and disdain for centralized government. Get the Anti-Federalists papers(copies of course) and read them yourself, it's not my place to educate you.

And my God, I hope the Supreme Court does let the tin foil hat wearing, idealistic, illiterate conspiracy theorists like me know what my rights are once they and all ya'll "living" Constitutional revisionists decide what they should be this week.

[icp4life162005]

Watch in the next 50 years the average person will have to have a license to stand on a soapbox and pay taxes on it to.

[mark38090]

mark38090,
but how much more deadly is a silenced weapon, and just how often do you have to stare one down? I mean, at a traffic stop, is the bullet less deadly if the report of the gun is quieter?

Not that it's anymore dangerous, but silenced could conceal a second shooter...


As for machine guns, the statistics show that you're more likely to be killed by falling space debris than killed by a legally owned machine gun, so where's the problem? All the ones that are illegally owned are already illegal....that fact didn't stop them. So how can you possibly be made any safer by another law or restriction against something that's already illegal or restricted?

I totally agree, but for the sake of arguement, 1 domestic with a drunk who's wife is leaving... Who knows.

[3 weelin geezer]

How many times have you experienced a second shooter hiding nearby? That sounds so extraordinary and improbable that a shooter would be at the same place as a traffic stop just to shoot the officer unless it was planned, but why? Its like me going out into the middle of the desert expecting to find a wallet full of money. It could happen.:p The only time I can think of that happening is the Kennedy assasination but that was different.

[DixiePlowboy]

I would think that the best way to look at this scenario is to expect that every vehicle you approach might be occupied by someone that is armed and dangerous.
Hopefully that won't be the case, but if it is, the decible/signature level of the shot being fired is irrelevent if that first shot strikes you.
A silencer is only really usefull in a tactical situation when it's used to quietly conduct anti-personnel operations to avoid being detected by someone other than the target in your sights.

In regular police duty, a silenced weapon doesn't significantly present a greater threat than an unsilenced. Not to mention the fact that a legally procured/owned silenced weapon is a heavily regulated NFA weapon when the silencer is attached, and the statistics prove clearly that these weapons are almost never used in crimes.

I would be infinitely more afraid of meeting someones grandpa who's gone off the deep end, has his trusty 12-guage single shot sawed off and loaded with buckshot 10 feet away from you.

I sincerely hope that nobody undeserving, law enforcement or otherwise, has to face these senarios, but to be safe and have a greater chance of survival should the unthinkable become reality, keep these thoughts on your mind.

Bottom line is that gun control laws are only adhered to by the intended targets of those seeking unarmed victims......gun control only helps criminals.......not to mention the fact that gun control laws are un-Constitutional. Plain and simple.

[CorbinKale]

DixiePloyboy,

I just wanted give a quick salute. It is comforting to know that there are others who have bothered to read our founding documents. I concur with every single thing you have posted.

[mark38090]

How many times have you experienced a second shooter hiding nearby? That sounds so extraordinary and improbable that a shooter would be at the same place as a traffic stop just to shoot the officer unless it was planned, but why? Its like me going out into the middle of the desert expecting to find a wallet full of money. It could happen.:p The only time I can think of that happening is the Kennedy assasination but that was different.

I realize the probability is slim, just playing the what if game. These discussions are all speculation, but payback in todays thriving gang society is not all that rare.

[icp4life162005]

Yes payback is not as uncommon as it once was, but no matter a bullet is a bullet regardless if its fired from a silenced weapon or not. We are talking about gun control, how many 'thugs' and 'gang bangers' do you see sporty very expensive, LEGAL, and heavily regulated silenced and automatic weapons? The answer, without me needing to tell you, is NONE.

[3 weelin geezer]

I would think that the best way to look at this scenario is to expect that every vehicle you approach might be occupied by someone that is armed and dangerous.
Hopefully that won't be the case, but if it is, the decible/signature level of the shot being fired is irrelevent if that first shot strikes you.
A silencer is only really usefull in a tactical situation when it's used to quietly conduct anti-personnel operations to avoid being detected by someone other than the target in your sights.

In regular police duty, a silenced weapon doesn't significantly present a greater threat than an unsilenced. Not to mention the fact that a legally procured/owned silenced weapon is a heavily regulated NFA weapon when the silencer is attached, and the statistics prove clearly that these weapons are almost never used in crimes.

I would be infinitely more afraid of meeting someones grandpa who's gone off the deep end, has his trusty 12-guage single shot sawed off and loaded with buckshot 10 feet away from you.

I sincerely hope that nobody undeserving, law enforcement or otherwise, has to face these senarios, but to be safe and have a greater chance of survival should the unthinkable become reality, keep these thoughts on your mind.

Bottom line is that gun control laws are only adhered to by the intended targets of those seeking unarmed victims......gun control only helps criminals.......not to mention the fact that gun control laws are un-Constitutional. Plain and simple.


I just wish sarah brade would shut up, listen and understand these things.

[DixiePlowboy]

Sarah Brady, like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, can't make a good living off of common sense and peace.

She's found herself a niche/scam that affords her an upscale lifestyle. Preying on the fears and emotions of the fearful and the uninformed is obviously very lucrative.

She and her ilk probably lie down each night thinking they are great Americans, not realizing(or maybe not caring) that their efforts create a safer environment for crime and encourage chaos..... while making criminals of out true American Patriots who refuse their socialist/utopian agenda by refusing to relinquish their God given, Constitutionaly protected rights.


-Plow

---owner/operator of many scary military style arms ---many thousands of $$
---keeper of a sizeable cache of ammunition---also mucho $$
---peacefully and adequately prepared to defend my family, my rights and my home for 24-years now while being a socialist/centralist nightmare---PRICELESS:)

[3 weelin geezer]

HEY EVERYBODY!!! Lets all give $32 to sara to help stop the NRA!!



Somebody slap me, I have gone insane. :lol:
I guess I won't be passing that nics check on wed. for the new DESERT EAGLE I am going to get. I think I shall send her a copy of the reciept just to rub it in. I have better things to do with $32 than give them to her.

[Nick_R_23]

While the registration thing is very unlikely to pass, I still dont think the government has the right to record everything I own, and still make me pay taxes for it. I get my arse out of bed everyday to go to work, spend all day (my time) working for my money, and so I can purchase a gun. I have always had the right to buy and own a gun, and I still have a right to own one. And I sure as hell shouldnt have to register or pay a tax on it. Yes, it is very capable of killing someone, BUT people are also capable of killing people with their bare hands. Does this mean we should all pay taxes on and register ourselves?

The 2nd Amendment states: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." It does not say 'except this' or 'except that'. There is a plain and simple unarguable statement that says I am allowed to own a gun, especially without being harassed in any way, shape, or form about it. This will always be the case until the amendment is changed. The government is trying to make up junk just so they can take away as many rights as possible. They dont care, its just more money they get when your convicted for something.

I see some people posted situations about someone pulling out a gun and threating people...but think about this situation: everyone is allowed to carry a gun in their car. You are in heavy traffic at an intersection waiting for a light, and someone get out of thier car and threatens to use their gun for whatever reason. If even 10% of the people waiting in traffic have a gun, they together can supress the 1 person and there will be less trouble. Also, if more people could carry a gun, then I think that it would be less likely that someone would even use a gun for a crime in the first place, just because of the fact that most people around them have a gun also, and they would be taken down before they could do much damage. This could teach people to really defend thier country, even for something small, if a big event happened (like 911) then people would be more prepared and fewer lives would be lost.

Im not saying just handing a gun out to anyone that can walk down the street. It would only be for people 18 or 21 (or whatever is reasonable) and older to carry one in their car or have it concealed with them. They would have to complete a training and safety course and have so many hours in both. Also, they would have to have never been in jail for a violent or gun related crime. (which means things like speeding ticket or stealing wouldnt count against you, but an armed robbery, etc would) I would agree to a tax on the guns then, if it helped to pay for the training courses and such. They might even have a 'standard issue' type of thing where they would provide a certain gun for sale, and give you a discount if you used this one instead of your own, also if you registered it then you would get more discount or something. Get the idea though?

Whoever said that the gov't is doing this to protect themselves from us, I agree with that statement a lot. Now, Im not one for conspiracy theories, but I do believe that the government is getting smarter about making us dumber. They are doing more to track what we do, what we buy, etc. They realize that if we dont like what they are doing, we could take down the entire government within a short time. So they will do anything to make people think that it is wrong to do a simple thing like own a gun. And the part about the government needing taxes? Yes, I do think that there are things taxes are appropriate for, but the government has waaaaaaaay more money sitting there then they will ever need. Think of the 11 million immigrants...they use all our resources, and dont pay any taxes at all. If the country can function and get along just as well without 11 million people paying taxes, then it doesnt need many of the more retarded things we pay taxes for. Most of the money more or less goes straight into peoples pockets anyway.

Now I am not an expert on the law and stuff, but I think my main point is that we should be able to own a gun without any of that fancy stuff that government makes us do to yet again try to protect us from ourselves. They need to turn their focus about 180 degrees and spend their time and money on trying to get the criminals that make us go through all this crap in the first place. If you and a criminal both have a gun, yours is legal and registered, his is illegal and unregistered, and you use yours to defend yourself, and he uses his to try to kill you, which gun do you think the government is gonna make a big deal out of? Yours of course. The criminal isnt gonna give a crap whether or not his gun is used, it cannot be traced anyway. The government cant do anything about that, so they go after you because they know who you are and can easily manipulate the situation to make you at fault. The criminal can do this too. He would be more likely to sue you because you shot at him. This is just the way it seems to work now. The law is being made to support and free the criminals.

I can honestly and PROUDLY say that I am a true AMERICAN, but Im sad to say that the way America is going with stupid things like this, it wont be 'real' america much longer. :( :banned:

Ive got a lot more to say, but I seemed to have created a novel with what Ive typed already, and I think I got a little off topic in a few places. :lol: That is my opinion, and if it offends you, thats your problem, live with it. This is AMERICA. :w00t:

-Nick :TrikesOwn

[gvmc45]

www.pafoa.org has tons of info.