What are you prepared to do?

[MikeK]

This is as ridiculous as it is ignorant and wrong.

Clearly no thought was put into this post – ‘real’ or otherwise.

No one advocates for gun ‘confiscation.’

No one wants to take anyone’s guns, no one is going to take anyone’s guns.

This is nothing more than delusional rightwing paranoia.

Do you truly believe that no one wants to disarm the American People?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This is as ridiculous as it is ignorant and wrong.

Clearly no thought was put into this post – ‘real’ or otherwise.

No one advocates for gun ‘confiscation.’

No one wants to take anyone’s guns, no one is going to take anyone’s guns.

This is nothing more than delusional rightwing paranoia.

Do you truly believe that no one wants to disarm the American People?

No one of significance, consequence, or authority seeks to ‘disarm’ the American people.

 

[Humorme]

What are you as supporters of the 2nd Amendment prepared to do?

Ask yourself if you are really ready to risk all you have.

If not then you have two options:

1. Support those who are.
2. Make a plan to resist and still stay out of trouble.

There are groups you can join and/or support. Groups like your state militia, like Oathkeepers (not to be confused with Promise Keepers), and the 3 Percenters. Your state may have others. There is also the NRA and the NGOA.

Together is the only way to win this.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, including the Second Amendment.

To support the Second Amendment one must also support current Second Amendment jurisprudence, which holds that the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment are not ‘unlimited,’ that government has the authority to place restrictions on the sales and possession of firearms, and that the Second Amendment right is not a right to possess any type of weapon, at any time, everywhere.

If one doesn’t support this settled, accepted fact of Second Amendment case law, then he is not a ‘supporter’ of the Second Amendment.

The United States Supreme is NOT authorized to legislate from the bench. Even their rulings can be challenged.... they said so themselves.

 

[Humorme]

Neither does the freedom to own fast cars, and to drive a car whenever we choose to, keep us safe. And a hell of a lot more people own and use cars unnecessarily and for recreational purposes than those who own guns.

If a law were passed to limit the use of automobiles to absolute necessity a lot more than 30,000 lives would be saved every year. Cars, including their toxic emissions, kill far more Americans than guns do, but I never hear any calls for seriously limiting their use.

My neighbor's grandson owns a car that sounds like a WW-II bomber when it starts and the rumbling sound of the engine suggests it has two or three times the horsepower it needs to get him around. How many such dangerous cars are on America's streets and highways today? And how many less potentially lethal cars are on the roads but have no practical need to be?

I wonder how the teen-age anti-gun protesters would react to a proposed ban on all but necessary use and ownership of cars.

We take action to reduce car deaths

Safer cars, safer roads, require licensing, registration, insurance

We need to do the same with guns

The difference is, you do not own an automobile and the Bill of Rights does not protect any "right" to own an automobile.

The Right to keep and bear Arms is an extension of your unalienable Rights of Liberty and Life. You have a Right to Life and it is YOUR responsibility to protect such Life. THAT is why the Second Amendment protects the individual Right to Keep and bear Arms.

Nor does it grant unlimited rights to own any arm you desire and actually encourages registration and mandatory training

Under original intent AND the earliest court decisions, you are absolutely 100 percent WRONG.

The United States Supreme Court, through a series of tyrannical decisions proclaimed themselves to be the final arbiter of what the law is and subsequently began an illegal power grab not to mention they began legislating from the bench. If we look at the earliest Court decisions, it's easy to see that the founders disagreed with you across the board. Take the Cruikshank ruling back in 1876 (the first time the Court addressed this point):

"The Government of the United States, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the States...

The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."

United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)

United States v. Cruikshank - Wikipedia

*The Right exists
*It's not dependent upon the Constitution for its existence
*The Right to Keep and bear Arms predates the Constitution
*The federal government is, constitutionally, not authorized to grant Rights that are not within their jurisdiction
*Before this question reached the United States Supreme Court, many states had ruled and established a precedent:

"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and 'is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power." [Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)]

What is being enforced today is illegal, immoral, unconscionable, indefensible, and above all wholly unconstitutional.

Nope

The government has every right to limit access to firearms
Even Heller affirmed it

The Heller decision like the preceding ones attempting to over-rule the initial rulings aren't worth the paper they're printed on. The United States Supreme Court does not get to rule that something is constitutional today and then turn around and reverse themselves in the very next ruling. You can't govern a country like that.

Why else do you think this country is so divided?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

For eight years conservatives whined and lied about Obama ‘confiscating’ guns – it never happened because the notion was a lie.

And conservatives continue to propagate that ridiculous lie.

 

[Humorme]

Neither does the freedom to own fast cars, and to drive a car whenever we choose to, keep us safe. And a hell of a lot more people own and use cars unnecessarily and for recreational purposes than those who own guns.

If a law were passed to limit the use of automobiles to absolute necessity a lot more than 30,000 lives would be saved every year. Cars, including their toxic emissions, kill far more Americans than guns do, but I never hear any calls for seriously limiting their use.

My neighbor's grandson owns a car that sounds like a WW-II bomber when it starts and the rumbling sound of the engine suggests it has two or three times the horsepower it needs to get him around. How many such dangerous cars are on America's streets and highways today? And how many less potentially lethal cars are on the roads but have no practical need to be?

I wonder how the teen-age anti-gun protesters would react to a proposed ban on all but necessary use and ownership of cars.

We take action to reduce car deaths

Safer cars, safer roads, require licensing, registration, insurance

We need to do the same with guns

The difference is, you do not own an automobile and the Bill of Rights does not protect any "right" to own an automobile.

The Right to keep and bear Arms is an extension of your unalienable Rights of Liberty and Life. You have a Right to Life and it is YOUR responsibility to protect such Life. THAT is why the Second Amendment protects the individual Right to Keep and bear Arms.

Nor does it grant unlimited rights to own any arm you desire and actually encourages registration and mandatory training

Under original intent AND the earliest court decisions, you are absolutely 100 percent WRONG.

The United States Supreme Court, through a series of tyrannical decisions proclaimed themselves to be the final arbiter of what the law is and subsequently began an illegal power grab not to mention they began legislating from the bench. If we look at the earliest Court decisions, it's easy to see that the founders disagreed with you across the board. Take the Cruikshank ruling back in 1876 (the first time the Court addressed this point):

"The Government of the United States, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the States...

The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."

United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)

United States v. Cruikshank - Wikipedia

*The Right exists
*It's not dependent upon the Constitution for its existence
*The Right to Keep and bear Arms predates the Constitution
*The federal government is, constitutionally, not authorized to grant Rights that are not within their jurisdiction
*Before this question reached the United States Supreme Court, many states had ruled and established a precedent:

"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and 'is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power." [Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)]

What is being enforced today is illegal, immoral, unconscionable, indefensible, and above all wholly unconstitutional.

Wrong.

The Heller Court addressed Cruikshank and later Second Amendment precedent and determined that the Heller ruling was consistent with that case law:

None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation.

Neither does the freedom to own fast cars, and to drive a car whenever we choose to, keep us safe. And a hell of a lot more people own and use cars unnecessarily and for recreational purposes than those who own guns.

If a law were passed to limit the use of automobiles to absolute necessity a lot more than 30,000 lives would be saved every year. Cars, including their toxic emissions, kill far more Americans than guns do, but I never hear any calls for seriously limiting their use.

My neighbor's grandson owns a car that sounds like a WW-II bomber when it starts and the rumbling sound of the engine suggests it has two or three times the horsepower it needs to get him around. How many such dangerous cars are on America's streets and highways today? And how many less potentially lethal cars are on the roads but have no practical need to be?

I wonder how the teen-age anti-gun protesters would react to a proposed ban on all but necessary use and ownership of cars.

We take action to reduce car deaths

Safer cars, safer roads, require licensing, registration, insurance

We need to do the same with guns

The difference is, you do not own an automobile and the Bill of Rights does not protect any "right" to own an automobile.

The Right to keep and bear Arms is an extension of your unalienable Rights of Liberty and Life. You have a Right to Life and it is YOUR responsibility to protect such Life. THAT is why the Second Amendment protects the individual Right to Keep and bear Arms.

Nor does it grant unlimited rights to own any arm you desire and actually encourages registration and mandatory training

Under original intent AND the earliest court decisions, you are absolutely 100 percent WRONG.

The United States Supreme Court, through a series of tyrannical decisions proclaimed themselves to be the final arbiter of what the law is and subsequently began an illegal power grab not to mention they began legislating from the bench. If we look at the earliest Court decisions, it's easy to see that the founders disagreed with you across the board. Take the Cruikshank ruling back in 1876 (the first time the Court addressed this point):

"The Government of the United States, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the States...

The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."

United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)

United States v. Cruikshank - Wikipedia

*The Right exists
*It's not dependent upon the Constitution for its existence
*The Right to Keep and bear Arms predates the Constitution
*The federal government is, constitutionally, not authorized to grant Rights that are not within their jurisdiction
*Before this question reached the United States Supreme Court, many states had ruled and established a precedent:

"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and 'is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power." [Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)]

What is being enforced today is illegal, immoral, unconscionable, indefensible, and above all wholly unconstitutional.

Wrong.

The Heller Court addressed Cruikshank and later Second Amendment precedent and determined that the Heller ruling was consistent with that case law:

None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

The Heller decision like the preceding ones attempting to over-rule the initial rulings aren't worth the paper they're printed on. The United States Supreme Court does not get to rule that something is constitutional today and then turn around and reverse themselves in the very next ruling. You can't govern a country like that.

Why else do you think this country is so divided?

 

[candycorn]

I laugh at you regularly, and I am prepared to continue laughing at you. You can have your little civil war if you want to, but you should pull your pants up to cover that butt crack first.

 

[Humorme]

For eight years conservatives whined and lied about Obama ‘confiscating’ guns – it never happened because the notion was a lie.

And conservatives continue to propagate that ridiculous lie.

You are either ignorant or lying. I'll say something to you and you figure out which one it is.

1) The government does NOT outlaw guns all at one time. It's done on the installment plan

2) The people of California can tell you that weapons have been first limited, then registered, then outlawed. ANY category of guns is subject to this. In my lifetime, they outlawed open bolt guns, imported semi-automatics, and they have even outlawed some shotguns.

3) Jeff Sessions is setting the stage now for the next president to outlaw a lot of weapons. The upcoming ban on bump-stocks will require owners to render them permanently inoperable, destroy them or surrender them. Unlike the Assault Weapon Ban (yeah, they did ban guns before) the bump stock ban violates the prohibition on ex post facto laws.

Many ignorantly believe that since the bump stock is not a firearm, the ban means nothing... like Hell it don't. We could be talking about the banning of flagpoles since it is the principle involved. The question is, DOES THE GOVERNMENT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITION ON EX POST FACTO LAWS? If the bump stock ban withstands that constitutional challenge (IF the manufacturer challenges such ban), we'll know the real answer.

 

[Humorme]

This is awesome! The OP, who is afraid of his own shadow, is prepared to become an outlaw!

Let's see. What is the breaking point?

If you are forced to register your firearms, will you revolt?

If you are ordered to secure your weapons and told that you will be held accountable for any accidental shootings that result from your negligence, will you storm city hall?

If you are required to buy insurance for your firearms, will you refuse and start shooting people?

I think registering would be a trigger point for me. The NICS program that the Dems love for background checks is ANONYMOUS after a time period expires. That's to ENCOURAGE compliance. Which law abiding gun owners have no problem with at all.

But RETAINING those records would be a problem tantamount to registration.. Your turn...

You are concerned with registering your firearms? Why is that? As long as the law protects your right to own them, what harm does registering do? You think the government will take your guns if we know you have them?

Registering guns is necessary to maintain a well regulated militia

Then the 2nd would have read, the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Note the bolded word does not appear in the second. The word is people.

 

[Humorme]

So you dont trust experts on the English language?
Pretty sure Roy Copperud was way smarter than you...
Roy Copperud, 76, Journalism Teacher Who Wrote Column

Roy Copperud was in my sixth grade class

He used to copy off of me

RightWinger trying to save face with humor is always noteworthy.

I got a million of em

No doubt you do, and you prolly need em all.

My answer: 'Come Get Some Motherfucker'!
The US NG/military will NEVER go to war against their own people.
That leaves the LIB 'man-bun' pyjama-boys' to stand up and fight.
What are they going to use as weapons? Pieces of red licorice?
In other words no one.

Bullshit. I still remember Waco, Ruby Ridge, Gordon Kahl, the Freemen, Scott Woodring, William Cooper - I'd run out names in a heartbeat.

PLUS

Back in the 1990s we were told about the Twenty Nine Palms Survey:

The 29 Palms Survey

http://philadelphians.50megs.com/survey.html

Check out question #46.

We already know that many people will follow the orders.

 

[Humorme]

“I have heard a lot of talk here and elsewhere from 2nd Amendment supporters like me. How theywont turn in their guns, how it will be the next Civil War if they try to take them, I see hats with Mulon Labe on them and I see Gadson Flags flying.”

I see ignorance and stupidity.

But let’s explore this ignorance and stupidity.

In order for ‘confiscation’ to occur, a given jurisdiction must enact a measure authorizing ‘confiscation,’ either by gunowners surrendering their firearms to the authorities or having firearms seized by the authorities.

Setting aside for the moment that this would never happen, and setting aside 4th Amendment search and seizure jurisprudence, once enacted such a law would be subject to a court challenge and enjoined from being enforced by the court.

The ‘confiscation’ measure would be struck down by the District court as being in violation of the Second Amendment, a ruling that would be upheld by the appropriate appellate court.

This thread’s premise is therefore utterly ridiculous – again, no one seeks to ‘confiscate’ guns, no one seeks to enact a measure authorizing the ‘confiscation’ of guns, and even if such a measure were enacted, the courts would never allow ‘confiscation’ to happen.

It will be done incrementally -

States with high capacity magazine bans

No more full auto conversions (all without the government showing a single case of legal fully autos being involved in a single crime!)

Semi auto import BAN of foreign imports

Open bolt guns BANNED - Seen any Mac 10 in 45 acp with the Cobray emblem on it for sale lately?

Even as you deny it, it's being done..... incrementally

 

[flacaltenn]

This is awesome! The OP, who is afraid of his own shadow, is prepared to become an outlaw!

Let's see. What is the breaking point?

If you are forced to register your firearms, will you revolt?

If you are ordered to secure your weapons and told that you will be held accountable for any accidental shootings that result from your negligence, will you storm city hall?

If you are required to buy insurance for your firearms, will you refuse and start shooting people?

I think registering would be a trigger point for me. The NICS program that the Dems love for background checks is ANONYMOUS after a time period expires. That's to ENCOURAGE compliance. Which law abiding gun owners have no problem with at all.

But RETAINING those records would be a problem tantamount to registration.. Your turn...

Nonsense.

Although unwarranted, registration of firearms is perfectly Constitutional and not a ‘prelude’ to ‘confiscation,’ to believe otherwise fails as a slippery slope fallacy.

I don't trust the govt to keep lists that affect enumerated Constitutional Rights with no real appeal. If I could TRUST my govt to KEEP lists and be objective about them --- I MIGHT be more liberal in ceding some rights.

But as the last 7 out of 10 mass shootings SHOW --- you can't trust the govt to USE or MAINTAIN those lists worth a damn. Nearly 1/2 of MILITARY COURTS were not reporting for NICS for example. And in the Charleston case (and a couple others) the FBI outright APOLOGIZED for screwing up..

Nope. Registration is a step to confiscation.

 

[Humorme]

It never fails to amuse how most on the right have come to loath the Heller ruling and believe their hero Scalia ‘betrayed’ them because he acknowledged the fact that the Second Amendment is neither unlimited nor absolute, and subject to restrictions by government.

Anti - gunners are either ignorant or liars. The Cruikshank passed the issue off to the states, but the states had already ruled. Once your Supreme Court (federal or state) issues a ruling on the Second Amendment, that is the constitutional limit to their authority.

THE FIRST STATE RULINGS FULLY CONTRADICT YOUR CLAIM

"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."

Cockrum v State 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)

How many state decisions do you want before you understand that the states had already ruled? THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS ABSOLUTE!

The government of the United States is under the control of a de facto / illegal / unconstitutional government that has basically nullified our guarantees. IF the American people wake up, we will have a totally different conversation.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

For eight years conservatives whined and lied about Obama ‘confiscating’ guns – it never happened because the notion was a lie.

And conservatives continue to propagate that ridiculous lie.

It never happened because it would be political suicide.
That doesnt mean they dont want to.

 

[Humorme]

For eight years conservatives whined and lied about Obama ‘confiscating’ guns – it never happened because the notion was a lie.

And conservatives continue to propagate that ridiculous lie.

It never happened because it would be political suicide.
That doesnt mean they dont want to.

But the point is, the government already HAS banned weapons, albeit incrementally.

 

[RhinelandCityLimits]

I.... was discussing the 'topic' (perhaps...too effectively for this childishly hypocritical thread), ma$$acre (post deletion) needy mod bias

Do you truly believe that no one wants to disarm the American People?

Not effectively enough. Nowhere near it (The NRA actually stands for National Racist A$$ociation...duh)
https://pics.me.me/when-you-missed-church-on-sunday-but-jesus-still-wants-28004375.png

 

[flacaltenn]

This is awesome! The OP, who is afraid of his own shadow, is prepared to become an outlaw!

Let's see. What is the breaking point?

If you are forced to register your firearms, will you revolt?

If you are ordered to secure your weapons and told that you will be held accountable for any accidental shootings that result from your negligence, will you storm city hall?

If you are required to buy insurance for your firearms, will you refuse and start shooting people?

I think registering would be a trigger point for me. The NICS program that the Dems love for background checks is ANONYMOUS after a time period expires. That's to ENCOURAGE compliance. Which law abiding gun owners have no problem with at all.

But RETAINING those records would be a problem tantamount to registration.. Your turn...

Nonsense.

Although unwarranted, registration of firearms is perfectly Constitutional and not a ‘prelude’ to ‘confiscation,’ to believe otherwise fails as a slippery slope fallacy.

I don't trust the govt to keep lists that affect enumerated Constitutional Rights with no real appeal. If I could TRUST my govt to KEEP lists and be objective about them --- I MIGHT be more liberal in ceding some rights.

But as the last 7 out of 10 mass shootings SHOW --- you can't trust the govt to USE or MAINTAIN those lists worth a damn. Nearly 1/2 of MILITARY COURTS were not reporting for NICS for example. And in the Charleston case (and a couple others) the FBI outright APOLOGIZED for screwing up..

Nope. Registration is a step to confiscation.

Besides you tool --- there is already de facto registration of gun sales. Every FFL dealer has detailed records of every transaction. YOUR only problem is that a crime has to be suspected or committed to go PULL those records. Which is fine by me and the NRA.. But sucks for you...

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

For eight years conservatives whined and lied about Obama ‘confiscating’ guns – it never happened because the notion was a lie.

And conservatives continue to propagate that ridiculous lie.

It never happened because it would be political suicide.
That doesnt mean they dont want to.

But the point is, the government already HAS banned weapons, albeit incrementally.

Thats more of a state issue other than the so called assault weapon ban and the full auto ban.
Other than those two it's states like California banning high capacity magazines.

 

[Humorme]

For eight years conservatives whined and lied about Obama ‘confiscating’ guns – it never happened because the notion was a lie.

And conservatives continue to propagate that ridiculous lie.

It never happened because it would be political suicide.
That doesnt mean they dont want to.

But the point is, the government already HAS banned weapons, albeit incrementally.

Thats more of a state issue other than the so called assault weapon ban and the full auto ban.
Other than those two it's states like California banning high capacity magazines.

Your home state ruled that the Right is absolute. I've made that point. Let me see... let's try ANOTHER state:

"And can there be entertained a reasonable doubt but the provisions of the act import a restraint on the right of the citizens to bear arms? The court apprehends not. The right existed at the adoption of the constitution; it had then no limits short of the moral power of the citizens to exercise it, and it in fact consisted in nothing else but in the liberty of the citizens to bear arms. Diminish that liberty, therefore, and you necessarily restrain the right..." Bliss v. Commonwealth of Kentucky. 12 Littell 90 Ky. 1822

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/court/sta/bliss_v_ky.htm

In all fairness, if you allow the states to then let the courts reverse their own precedents, you may as well fire the legislature. How in the name of good common sense can you follow the law if supreme courts are allowed to change their own rulings? Any argument against what I'm asking is promoting the tyranny by the judicial system.

IIRC, in eleven states you cannot own high capacity magazines. In some states they have registration - which leads to confiscation. Still, the bottom line is, some Rights are above the law and this was fully understood until courts began over-ruling their own precedents.

 

[Toro]

i ask all of my brothers and sisters this famous question from The Untouchables:

“What are you prepared to do?

View attachment 191687

I have heard a lot of talk here and elsewhere from 2nd Amendment supporters like me. How theywont turn in their guns, how it will be the next Civil War if they try to take them, I see hats with Mulon Labe on them and I see Gadson Flags flying.

But what are you REALLY prepared to do when they come? You have jobs, you have a family, a mortgage, are you ready to become an outlaw?

I have given this a lot of real thought. I have personally decided that yes, I am prepared to be an outlaw. I have a mortgage, I have a family but they are all grown and on their own now. I have a job that I love but will put in jeopardy. But I am willing.

The key I think is to defy the laws and not get caught. To have my guns and everything else too. I am making plans to that end.

This guy WILL
NOT COMPLY, EVER.

What are YOU prepared to do?

Old guys ...