Civil War

I respectfully disagree to the comparison, there are a lot of people who value there guns much more then gold

and require forfeiture of the firearms upon the deaths of their current owners. Some of the changes in Feinstein’s new bill are as follows:

How can you disagree when it has been done with gold, guns, land, for the good of the country or other people?
In Maine, the Acadia National Park was annexing surrounding properties. Just taking them after the current owners died, no leaving it to heirs.
The book Little Pink Houses documents a local gov. can take your property and sell it to private interests to develop, not to preserve it.
The state of Maine forced adoption of new rules about development that stole most of my land. It can't be developed, but my taxes did not go down one dime.
This is just a few examples of the creep of gov. rule. And nobody picked up their guns and fought. After a couple more generations that see it as just the way it is, they will turn in the guns.

Kevin

KLook wrote:

I respectfully disagree to the comparison, there are a lot of people who value there guns much more then gold

and require forfeiture of the firearms upon the deaths of their current owners. Some of the changes in Feinstein’s new bill are as follows:

How can you disagree when it has been done with gold, guns, land, for the good of the country or other people?
In Maine, the Acadia National Park was annexing surrounding properties. Just taking them after the current owners died, no leaving it to heirs.
The book Little Pink Houses documents a local gov. can take your property and sell it to private interests to develop, not to preserve it.
The state of Maine forced adoption of new rules about development that stole most of my land. It can't be developed, but my taxes did not go down one dime.
This is just a few examples of the creep of gov. rule. And nobody picked up their guns and fought. After a couple more generations that see it as just the way it is, they will turn in the guns.

Kevin

I just feel that people will accept money so they give up there gold. In most peoples minds that is more for a materialistic purpose. Guns are primarily for a defense of life and family a feeling of security of that. You cant defend yourself against a tyrannical government or mob with chunks of gold. Well if you have enough of it I guess you could but not very practical. The mentality is different. You never heard anyone say "you will get my gold only when you pry them from my cold dead hands".
Eminent Domain is a touchy subject and again different. I am just saying it's not really apples to apples. If someone said to me get off my own land and I was not compensated properly for it there would be a fight, legally of coarse.

It happened in my town to a school that was recently built.

Beside the existing school lay farmland that was up for sale and went through the hoops of being able to be sub-divided. In our town we have strict rules against sub-dividing farmland into small parcels, but if the owners are diligent, it can be done. This was to the right of the school.

To the left was farmland that was enrolled as a "Forever Farm", supposedly land that the landowner gives to a group that "Preserves Maine Farmland". When the state saw that they could pay high prices for the sub-dived land, or the supposedly protected land, by eminent domain they took the "Forever Farm". There had been MANY acres of farmland around here that farmers had signed over as Forever Farm wrongly assuming that it would be protected. When they found out that it would not/could not be, they withdrew the land because it was a meaningless form of protection.

They have pestered me for a long time but when I would have to PAY THEM for the pleasure of having my rights to develop MY LAND, I knew it was a scam. I realize what they are trying to do, but that is NOT the way to protect farmland. The way to protect farmland is to remove price restrictions and regulations on commodities and let a farm be viable unto its own. It is just not right that the Maine Milk Commission can tell a dairy farmer what the price of milk will be a year in advance, when the farmer is subject to the whims of fuel prices and feed costs. But what other business could survive by buying everything at retail prices and selling them at wholesale prices anyway.

Correct NoSmoke. It is the same with Open Space and Tree Growth. They are not what they were represented to be when passed. There is a "bundle" of rights with each parcel of land. Unencumbered property is more valuable but still not protected from legislative theft. The vernal pool thing was hand in hand with the new rules on steep terrain. I l lost rights without compensation for having both.
I will tell the story of the guy that purchased a multimillion dollar piece of shore front property. He was advised that a raptor (bird of prey) had perhaps made a nest on his property and it would prevent him from developing. Kill it was his response. What do you expect when A bird stands in the way of millions of dollars? He was millions into the project for purchasing and planning and regulations and engineering and fighting the environuts who fight just because. I know for a fact that if there is a Bald Eagle nest on your property or even within a mile, you will be raked over the coals for development ideas. There are 2 on the Maine Bald Eagle map in East Machias very close to some property I own. We got a visit from the Wildlife Biologist. Even if a nest falls down(the whole tree), which one did. The site is not delisted for 7 years. This is how property rights are stolen by mandate and EPA and DEP and EO. No consideration is given to the landowner whatsoever. Yet don't be late paying your taxes by god.

GA cracker wrote:Thanks Jpete, you made me think of my great grandmother, she called it "Their War" or the "War of Nothern Aggresion" No kidding, really.

Being a Yankee, I had no idea. I had to read a book called "Lies My Teacher Told Me" to learn that "facts" are what the local school board wants in their books.

Flyer5 wrote:

KLook wrote:

I respectfully disagree to the comparison, there are a lot of people who value there guns much more then gold

and require forfeiture of the firearms upon the deaths of their current owners. Some of the changes in Feinstein’s new bill are as follows:

How can you disagree when it has been done with gold, guns, land, for the good of the country or other people?
In Maine, the Acadia National Park was annexing surrounding properties. Just taking them after the current owners died, no leaving it to heirs.
The book Little Pink Houses documents a local gov. can take your property and sell it to private interests to develop, not to preserve it.
The state of Maine forced adoption of new rules about development that stole most of my land. It can't be developed, but my taxes did not go down one dime.
This is just a few examples of the creep of gov. rule. And nobody picked up their guns and fought. After a couple more generations that see it as just the way it is, they will turn in the guns.

Kevin

I just feel that people will accept money so they give up there gold. In most peoples minds that is more for a materialistic purpose. Guns are primarily for a defense of life and family a feeling of security of that. You cant defend yourself against a tyrannical government or mob with chunks of gold. Well if you have enough of it I guess you could but not very practical. The mentality is different. You never heard anyone say "you will get my gold only when you pry them from my cold dead hands".
Eminent Domain is a touchy subject and again different. I am just saying it's not really apples to apples. If someone said to me get off my own land and I was not compensated properly for it there would be a fight, legally of coarse.

Roosevelt didn't offer money for gold. He offered 10 years in prison if you didn't turn it in.

And Kelo v. New London put an end to your eminent domain fight.

A link to a 5pg opinion piece that was posted earlier said something very interesting. ref: http://jpfo.org/articles-assd02/correia ... ion-01.htm

<snip> Let's be super generous and say that 90% of them would still just roll over and turn their guns when pressed or legally threatened. That leaves 800,000 Americans who are not turning their guns in, no matter what. To put that in perspective there are only about 700,000 police officers in the whole country.

Let's say that these hypothetical 10% of 10% are willing to actually fight to keep their guns. Even if my hypothetical estimate of 800,000 gun nuts willing to fight for their guns is correct, it is still 97% higher than the number of insurgents we faced at any one time in Iraq. <snip>

Ed.A wrote:A link to a 5pg opinion piece that was posted earlier said something very interesting. ref: http://jpfo.org/articles-assd02/correia ... ion-01.htm

<snip> Let's be super generous and say that 90% of them would still just roll over and turn their guns when pressed or legally threatened. That leaves 800,000 Americans who are not turning their guns in, no matter what. To put that in perspective there are only about 700,000 police officers in the whole country.

Let's say that these hypothetical 10% of 10% are willing to actually fight to keep their guns. Even if my hypothetical estimate of 800,000 gun nuts willing to fight for their guns is correct, it is still 97% higher than the number of insurgents we faced at any one time in Iraq. <snip>

Yep that was my point. The government is truly afraid of the people having guns. That is also why they need the division and entitlements. If the public would ever get organized and actually work together toward our own welfare, our government would for the most part cease to exist. Structure may stay the same but it would be all new players.

Ed.A wrote:A link to a 5pg opinion piece that was posted earlier said something very interesting. ref: http://jpfo.org/articles-assd02/correia ... ion-01.htm

<snip> Let's be super generous and say that 90% of them would still just roll over and turn their guns when pressed or legally threatened. That leaves 800,000 Americans who are not turning their guns in, no matter what. To put that in perspective there are only about 700,000 police officers in the whole country.

Let's say that these hypothetical 10% of 10% are willing to actually fight to keep their guns. Even if my hypothetical estimate of 800,000 gun nuts willing to fight for their guns is correct, it is still 97% higher than the number of insurgents we faced at any one time in Iraq. <snip>

But that is spread out across the US. Iraq isn't nearly that big and all those insurgents were working toward a common goal. That isn't necessarily true of gun owners. Some would fight, some would lay low and hope to go unnoticed.

After a few SWAT teams kick in doors to get guns, I'm going to guess people will start them turning in.

jpete wrote:

Ed.A wrote:A link to a 5pg opinion piece that was posted earlier said something very interesting. ref: http://jpfo.org/articles-assd02/correia ... ion-01.htm

<snip> Let's be super generous and say that 90% of them would still just roll over and turn their guns when pressed or legally threatened. That leaves 800,000 Americans who are not turning their guns in, no matter what. To put that in perspective there are only about 700,000 police officers in the whole country.

Let's say that these hypothetical 10% of 10% are willing to actually fight to keep their guns. Even if my hypothetical estimate of 800,000 gun nuts willing to fight for their guns is correct, it is still 97% higher than the number of insurgents we faced at any one time in Iraq. <snip>

But that is spread out across the US. Iraq isn't nearly that big and all those insurgents were working toward a common goal. That isn't necessarily true of gun owners. Some would fight, some would lay low and hope to go unnoticed.

After a few SWAT teams kick in doors to get guns, I'm going to guess people will start them turning in.

What about Texas. I would guess about 10% of the gun nuts right there probably more, lots more.

Send the Swat teams and see exactly what happens. I don't think I'll be turning anything over and I'll never be seen alive again. I know that I'm not alone. Call me a gun nut if you want. It's not about the gun at all. It's about freedom.

SuperBeetle wrote: It's about freedom.