Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

President Obama Wrong on Call for Federal Gun Database
Moore Common Sense ^ | 3/14/11 | Alan Moore

Posted on 03/15/2011 9:28:33 AM PDT by alan8228

In an op-ed to the Arizona Daily Star President Barack Obama once again lived up to the mantra of "never let a crisis go to waste" by calling for new gun control measures. Seeking to capitalize off the shooting that killed six people and wounded 19, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ), Obama decided to blame society for the acts of a a lone whackjob lunatic.

His op-ed is very slick, seeking to acknowledge no desire to take away guns or to repeal the 2nd Amendment:

"Now, like the majority of Americans, I believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. And the courts have settled that as the law of the land. In this country, we have a strong tradition of gun ownership that's handed from generation to generation. Hunting and shooting are part of our national heritage. And, in fact, my administration has not curtailed the rights of gun owners - it has expanded them, including allowing people to carry their guns in national parks and wildlife refuges."

He also tries to allay fears by gunowners that will undoubtedly come from this op-ed:

"The fact is, almost all gun owners in America are highly responsible. They're our friends and neighbors. They buy their guns legally and use them safely, whether for hunting or target shooting, collection or protection. And that's something that gun-safety advocates need to accept."

Ok, I'm with you so far PBO. But you start to stray off the reservation here:

"The National Instant Criminal Background Check System is the filter that's supposed to stop the wrong people from getting their hands on a gun. Bipartisan legislation four years ago was supposed to strengthen this system, but it hasn't been properly implemented. It relies on data supplied by states - but that data is often incomplete and inadequate. We must do better."

What's wrong with states handling gun laws? Define "inadequate;" does that mean inadequate to the President? Inadequate to Congress, what does that mean exactly? Next point:

"Second, we should in fact reward the states that provide the best data - and therefore do the most to protect our citizens."

Ok, now I'm really confused. What does this mean? States that fork over gun ownership data to the federal government get a gold star? Maybe an "atta boy" from Barack Obama? PBO brings it all home with this last point:

"Third, we should make the system faster and nimbler. We should provide an instant, accurate, comprehensive and consistent system for background checks to sellers who want to do the right thing, and make sure that criminals can't escape it."

I'm ok with background checks to buy guns. I don't think you can really argue against that. However, I am absolutely opposed to a federal database for the purpose of background checks. This gives the government information on who bought a gun, where they live, and what they bought. I know this may sound conspiratorial in nature but I just don't feel comfortable giving the government that kind of information.

Realistically, I don't think the federal government would ever try to take guns away from people. It just isn't practical or smart to do. However, there are other potential issues. For instance, if a gun is used in a crime there is potential that law enforcement would single out gun owners in the area regardless of criminal history. That kind of harassment is not necessary. Not that I don't have faith in law enforcement to do the right thing, but if faced with a given situation, it could happen. Secondly, where does this database information stop? What's next? What prevents the federal government from restricting people further from purchasing guns? If you open this door then the consequences could be disastrous. I like the gun laws in Virginia, I think for the most part they are fair. I sure don't want to be subject to the gun laws of DC or New York. What is deemed adequate?

In any event a federal database is a tremendously bad idea. Do not let Barack Obama use the Tucson tragedy to play on the emotions of our country to implement some radical new gun control system.

Read more commentary at Moore Common Sense


TOPICS: Conspiracy; Government; Politics
KEYWORDS: 2ndamendment; banglist; barackobama; corruption; democrats; donttreadonme; giffords; govtabuse; guncontrol; gunregistration; liberalfascism; liberals; obama; progressives; shallnotbeinfringed; tyranny

1 posted on 03/15/2011 9:28:37 AM PDT by alan8228
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: alan8228

“Shall Not Be Infringed”

Could not be more clear.


2 posted on 03/15/2011 9:33:04 AM PDT by precisionshootist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: alan8228
His op-ed is very slick, seeking to acknowledge no desire to take away guns or to repeal the 2nd Amendment
This basic MO of BO, of claiming to be a conservative while actual being a communist, is made possible by the lickspittle, step'n'fetch-it "media".

They are not journalists.

Journalism is dead.

3 posted on 03/15/2011 9:34:03 AM PDT by samtheman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: alan8228
They can't even keep the NFA registry up to date and they think they can monitor a database of over 300 million personally owned firearms?

Try and register my firearms. I fricken dare you...

4 posted on 03/15/2011 9:34:21 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (III%. The last line in the sand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: alan8228

They don’t need to know how many cans of peas I have in my pantry and they don’t need to know how many guns i have either.

I resent the info I have to give them now....


5 posted on 03/15/2011 9:40:48 AM PDT by Adder (Part 1 Accomplished)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: alan8228
Obama Wrong on Call for Federal Gun Database

Has he been right on anything?

6 posted on 03/15/2011 9:51:33 AM PDT by The Sons of Liberty (Psalm 109:8 Let his days be few and let another take his office. - Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Adder
Want to take a REAL bite out of crime? Defund and fire the BATFE, followed by the DEA.
7 posted on 03/15/2011 9:54:21 AM PDT by MasterGunner01 (To err is human; to forgive is not our policy. -- SEAL Team SIX)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

“They can’t even keep the NFA registry up to date and they think they can monitor a database of over 300 million personally owned firearms?”

They won’t concern themselves with their voting constituency. It will be their political enemies that are tracked and monitored.


8 posted on 03/15/2011 9:56:36 AM PDT by rj45mis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: alan8228

“I’m ok with background checks to buy guns. I don’t think you can really argue against that. However, I am absolutely opposed to a federal database for the purpose of background checks. This gives the government information on who bought a gun, where they live, and what they bought.”

There is a huge leap there from “info in a database” to “info in a database about gun ownership”. The info in the database could (and should) be nothing more than things that would be useful in a background check, like records of committing violent crimes or hanging out with Charlie Sheen.

I’m not saying I trust the (make that ANY) administration not to be doing things they shouldn’t be (either now or in the future), just that the article needs some evidence before making such a leap.


9 posted on 03/15/2011 10:00:35 AM PDT by Darth Reardon (No offense to drunken sailors)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: alan8228

Barry really wants our guns so he can arm his private militia. Not gonna happen, Barry, no how, no way.


10 posted on 03/15/2011 10:01:21 AM PDT by JPG (May the WI GOP stay united and strong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MasterGunner01

Yes!!!

It’s time to put an end to the BATFE. It’s these criminals that have been facilitating guns leaving the US in the hands of Mexican drug cartel killers. The BATFE heads that authorized the “fast and furious” operation and other completely illegal activities need to be sent to prison.


11 posted on 03/15/2011 10:15:22 AM PDT by precisionshootist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: alan8228
There can be little doubt that the Obamistas set up Jared to go out and do their "wet work" so they could push this gun data base thing. As a backup they had "operation walkback" going so they could actually have some guns sold in the USA present in Mexico so they could be seized as justification for this same data base.

This is all being run out of the DOJ through the ATF office in Phoenix.

Time for the House to ask some very hard questions!

12 posted on 03/15/2011 10:21:15 AM PDT by muawiyah (Make America Safe For Americans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: alan8228

“Realistically, I don’t think the federal government would ever try to take guns away from people. It just isn’t practical or smart to do.”

Since when have Democrats ever done anything that was practical OR smart?


13 posted on 03/15/2011 10:22:56 AM PDT by Darksheare (Dear Interdimensional Monstrosity, I fear our relationship has taken a turn for the worse...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
They can't even keep the NFA registry up to date and they think they can monitor a database of over 300 million personally owned firearms?

Canada with population of 33 million failed miserable to implement this even after trying for decades and spending hundreds of millions.

14 posted on 03/15/2011 10:25:09 AM PDT by from occupied ga (Your most dangerous enemy is your own government,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Darth Reardon
“I’m ok with background checks to buy guns. I don’t think you can really argue against that.”

I'll argue against it simply because every time a liberal gets in power they try to turn that “background check” system into a defacto registration scheme. The left was apoplectic when John Ashcroft took the ATF to the woodshed for not destroying background check records, even though the law that established the “instant check” system specifically requires that no records of who the checks are run on is maintained.
You can't trust them, ever.

15 posted on 03/15/2011 10:25:23 AM PDT by bitterohiogunclinger (Proudly casting a heavy carbon footprint as I clean my guns ---)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: alan8228; NFHale
I'm ok with background checks to buy guns. I don't think you can really argue against that.

I can...

pitiful attempts to trade FReedom for a lil security result in the loss of both...

how about if you are walkin the streets, youre assumed to be a Citizen...and if you 'infringe' on another citizens person or property, you are locked up, for a term, until released to resume your Citizenship ???

fair enuff???

16 posted on 03/15/2011 10:27:38 AM PDT by Gilbo_3 (Gov is not reason; not eloquent; its force.Like fire,a dangerous servant & master. George Washington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: alan8228
"Now, like the majority of Americans, I believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. And the courts have settled that as the law of the land. ..."

Unfortunately, he also thinks that it is perfectly reasonable that Americans have to ask permission to exericse that right, AND to demonstrate to the government why permission should be granted.

17 posted on 03/15/2011 10:32:29 AM PDT by VRWCmember (Veritas vos Liberabit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Darth Reardon; All

“There is a huge leap there from “info in a database” to “info in a database about gun ownership”.”

You are being naive if you think the purpose of this legislation is anything other than to create a national registration database.

The concept that the government could or should only “allow” certain people to have guns stands the very concept of American jurisprudence on its head. It presumes that the government knows all, controls all, and should be doing so. It is wrong and ineffective.

It is crazy to set up a huge expensive bureaucratic system, require everyone to jump though hoops and prove that they are *not* criminals in order to try, ineffectively, to prevent the few individuals who are not responsible, from having legal access to guns. This is a failed paradigm, and it should be abandoned. To accept the idea that the all gun sales should be monitored by the government, and only allowed to those it deems satisfactory is fundamentally wrong.

The entire idea of the enterprise has always been the death of a thousand cuts, where the restrictions on who can buy, and where, and how and what are continually increased until the number of gun owners is reduced to political insignificance.


18 posted on 03/15/2011 10:34:34 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: alan8228

Mark


19 posted on 03/15/2011 10:35:15 AM PDT by Ladysmith ("There is no right that allows one person to place a burden on another." - Quinn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: alan8228
I'm ok with background checks to buy guns.

I don't think the author has really thought this line through to its logical conclusions.

What about background checks to buy a car? Car accidents kill far more people than shootings each year. If you have too many at-fault accidents, you simply aren't allowed to buy a car or even drive any more.

20 posted on 03/15/2011 10:37:50 AM PDT by VRWCmember (Veritas vos Liberabit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Darksheare

>>“Realistically, I don’t think the federal government would ever try to take guns away from people. It just isn’t practical or smart to do.”
>
>Since when have Democrats ever done anything that was practical OR smart?

There’s a philosophy-guy on you-tube that I found quite interesting who makes the claim that statist governments enslave their peoples indirectly; the real enslavers are the fellow-slaves. Consider for a moment about how many [most?] people would react to this statement: “I believe that even violent felons who have served their sentence should be able to vote and carry firearms.”

How many people would be either aghast or [possibly violently] opposed to such a notion?

Now, consider that in 2014 ObamaCare makes it a felony for someone to be without a “qualifying” health-insurance plan. Forgetting, for the moment, that ‘qualifying’ may be whimsically changed by the government, there are no exceptions for the unemployed or a “gap in service” due switching betwixt qualifying plans. So, considering the high rates of unemployment, it is fully reasonable to be concerned that large groups of people will become felons, and therefore not have any gun-rights or voting-rights (except by “special dispensation” from the government).

I very-much think that it is de-facto population disarmament.
If God is gracious towards us we may yet have States which see the true peril in compliance thereon and react accordingly.


21 posted on 03/15/2011 10:42:03 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: from occupied ga
They spent over a Billion.

Massive noncompliance.

22 posted on 03/15/2011 10:56:32 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (III%. The last line in the sand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Gilbo_3
fair enuff???

"Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose."
Will Rogers.

23 posted on 03/15/2011 11:02:14 AM PDT by from occupied ga (Your most dangerous enemy is your own government,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: alan8228

President Obama Wrong on Call for Federal Gun Database.
For Obama that would be called PAR.


24 posted on 03/15/2011 11:08:33 AM PDT by Vaduz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
You are being naive if you think the purpose of this legislation is anything other than to create a national registration database

I tried to be clear that I don't trust them, AT ALL. My point was just that the author left out evidence to back up his claim.

25 posted on 03/15/2011 11:15:54 AM PDT by Darth Reardon (No offense to drunken sailors)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

Yes, couple it with Radar Ears statements on ‘common sense gun control’ now and his statements before the election and a truly ugly picture comes out.
One in which disarming the population is the ultimate plan.


26 posted on 03/15/2011 11:18:13 AM PDT by Darksheare (Dear Interdimensional Monstrosity, I fear our relationship has taken a turn for the worse...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: precisionshootist

>“Shall Not Be Infringed”
>
>Could not be more clear.

The problem with the Second Amendment is not one of clarity, it is one of punishment: there exists no clear penalty to those who violate it.
I think the following Constitutional Amendment would be all the “gun control reform” we would need; and, quite coincidentally, it also castrates
the Judiciary [even the Supreme Court] from interfering:

No branch of Government Legislative, Executive, or Judicial shall regulate, in any way, the right of the citizen to keep, bear, manufacture, buy, or sell arms. Any President, Vice President, Representative, Senator, Justice, Judge, or any other federal agent convicted of violating this amendment (even this clause) shall be sentenced to death and shall be executed not later than one year from conviction; all appeals must be heard and completed prior to one year after the original conviction.


27 posted on 03/15/2011 11:22:21 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: bitterohiogunclinger

“I’m ok with background checks to buy guns. I don’t think you can really argue against that.”

That was from the article, BTW. I’m not okay with it. In addition to the points you mentioned, a “background check” could be failed for all kinds of (invented) reasons.


28 posted on 03/15/2011 11:24:03 AM PDT by Darth Reardon (No offense to drunken sailors)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

How Firearms Registration Works (It doesn’t.) 12/07/00

http://www.davekopel.com/NRO/2000/How-Firearms-Registration-Works.htm

an article against registrations and another FOR below—

Canada’s long gun registry, facts and fiction
September 20, 2010

http://dennisgruending.ca/pulpitandpolitics/2010/09/20/canadas-long-gun-registry-facts-and-fiction/


29 posted on 03/15/2011 11:25:34 AM PDT by WOBBLY BOB ( "I don't want the majority if we don't stand for something"- Jim Demint)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Darth Reardon
“I tried to be clear that I don't trust them, AT ALL.”

I hope that I did not offend you. You are right not to trust them at all. It is often difficult to prove that someone is lying when they continually lie about a subject, and when their entire strategy is based on public lying about the subject.

However, this particular subject has been extensively examined and considered. President Obama may even believe what he says at the moment he says it. The policy implications are still the same.

GUN REGISTRATION IS GUN CONFISCATION (old but good):

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2608785/posts

30 posted on 03/15/2011 11:28:04 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: alan8228
"... I'm ok with background checks to buy guns. I don't think you can really argue against that. However, I am absolutely opposed to a federal database for the purpose of background checks. This gives the government information on who bought a gun, where they live, and what they bought. I know this may sound conspiratorial in nature but I just don't feel comfortable giving the government that kind of information."

I'm OK with background checks to buy guns as well.

But when is the last time you've refused to fill out an ATF Form 4473 when purchasing a new firearm, or even omitting the optional Social Security number in Box 8 of that document?

If you're like me and you own NFA-regulated items, you've already given duplicative transfer or creation documents (Form 4 or Form 1, respectively) to the ATF, including photographs of yourself, have the signature of your local CLEO on the forms, have given fingerprint records (digital, in my case), a sworn testimony that you're yourself in addition to being a US citizen or permanent resident, registered the firearm, declared where it permanently resides in some cases, and listed your SSAN, address, name, place of birth, birth date, race, height, weight, gender, and probably volunteered financial information if you paid by personal check. Most of this information was used in an FBI background check. In fact, since I possess a CCW, the FBI background check is run on me a few times a year in addition to a local background check twice a month.

Moreover, in my case, they've already known most of this info going on 20+ years since I served in the US military. They have my IQ score, history of residence, security clearance background, medical records, fitness report, religious preference, and honorable discharge statement.

I honestly have to ask America's 'church-going, radical right, former military members' who in the F they think they're hiding from?

31 posted on 03/15/2011 11:37:01 AM PDT by The KG9 Kid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

not to mention that ist ‘illegal’...not as if bambam & the muzzcomms really care...


32 posted on 03/15/2011 11:45:40 AM PDT by Gilbo_3 (Gov is not reason; not eloquent; its force.Like fire,a dangerous servant & master. George Washington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
i like it, it has 'teeth'...

but isnt that already basically stated [w/o the timeline] in the Constitution regarding all things un-Constitutional ???

BUT we lost the balls to decorate lamposts and painfully tar & feather usurpers...

33 posted on 03/15/2011 11:56:41 AM PDT by Gilbo_3 (Gov is not reason; not eloquent; its force.Like fire,a dangerous servant & master. George Washington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: from occupied ga
"Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose." Will Rogers

i guess that means you also believe that 'dangerous' criminals should be locked up, and if they arent, then we should consider them *FRee* men ???

34 posted on 03/15/2011 11:58:35 AM PDT by Gilbo_3 (Gov is not reason; not eloquent; its force.Like fire,a dangerous servant & master. George Washington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: The KG9 Kid

I honestly have to ask America’s ‘church-going, radical right, former military members’ who in the F they think they’re hiding from?


First of all, all of the firearms (but one) I have signed for have been sold to someone I don’t remember; and I have bought others from people that I don’t remember. I don’t need any government to demand that I register the remainder.

Why??? Because all you have to do is look at the history of gun control.

Can’t happen here?

How many cities in the US have demanded gun registration with solumn promises that the information would not be used for any later confiscation? And how many politicians kept that promise?

The two biggest lessons of the 20th century, which saw the slaughter of hundreds of millions of unarmed people, are:
1) Never allow registration of firearms - because registration preceeds confiscation.
2) If nice young men come to your door to try to find your firearms or to take you somewhere you do not deserve to go ... shoot’em in the head (with the guns they wanted to confiscate). Or, alternatively, give them the ones that are registered ... then find the politicians and bureaucrats that gave the orders ... and shoot them in the head.


35 posted on 03/15/2011 12:26:48 PM PDT by Mack the knife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Mack the knife
I read your reply. Thank you.

Some folks think that they've got a right to sell firearms through the mail to any anonymous person who sends them cash. I don't believe in that, but I also don't find it necessary for two private parties to transact business in firearms by submitting an ATF 4473 to be archived by the government.

Meanwhile, NICS can remain in effect for retail handgun transactions at a point-of-sales counter as it presently does.

Access to NICS free of charge 24 hours a day via the Internet ought to be satisfactory. We've already got the mechanism in place, and now the only thing missing is that prohibited persons like the Virginia Tech and Phoenix AZ shooters should have been identified by it. The question of 'why weren't they?' is what should be being asked by the President.

36 posted on 03/15/2011 12:46:23 PM PDT by The KG9 Kid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: precisionshootist

Then why does one need a permit?


37 posted on 03/15/2011 4:52:42 PM PDT by jmacusa (Two wrongs don't make a right. But they can make it interesting.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: alan8228

Obama is wrong on everything.


38 posted on 03/15/2011 4:53:45 PM PDT by jmacusa (Two wrongs don't make a right. But they can make it interesting.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gilbo_3

>i like it, it has ‘teeth’...

Thank you.

>but isnt that already basically stated [w/o the timeline] in the Constitution regarding all things un-Constitutional ???

No, not really.
Even Treason, the only Crime which is defined in the Constitution, does not have an attached penalty, in fact it has a *restriction* on possible punishments. {”Corruption of Blood,” which I believe is saying “because the father of the family committed treason his wife and children all must be put to death as well!”}

>BUT we lost the balls to decorate lamposts and painfully tar & feather usurpers...

Sadly true.

I cannot tell you how many times people have told me NOT to test the State Constitution which, in Art II Sec. 6, says:
[Right to bear arms.]
No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense,
for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall
be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate,
in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms.

Yet, contrary to the second sentence, on all City or County courthouses there are “No Weapons” signs posted.
*OR*
The School & University Firearm bans, which violate the first sentence:
http://www.conwaygreene.com/nmsu/lpext.dll?f=FifLink&t=document-frame.htm&l=query&iid=1ce95e25.7bd11288.0.0&q=%5BGroup%20%2730-7-2.1%27%5D
and
http://www.conwaygreene.com/nmsu/lpext.dll?f=FifLink&t=document-frame.htm&l=query&iid=1ce95e25.7bd11288.0.0&q=%5BGroup%20%2730-7-2.4%27%5D
respectively.

Apparently it is verboten to stand up and say “prove it!” to a branch of the government. [/semi-cynic]


39 posted on 03/15/2011 8:19:26 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark; hiredhand; NFHale; sickoflibs; The Comedian
I cannot tell you how many times people have told me NOT to test the State Constitution

sadly, ive been witness to a few of those threads/discussions, where FReepers more or less tell you that youll 'get what you deserve' if ya challenge the system on its obvious double-speak...

it rocks the boat and makes em hafta face the possibility of saying 'goodbye' to their wives and kids, or less importantly, all the other temporal 'stuff' that they believe makes their lives have meaning...

Ive made some crappy life choices, and therefore have little in terms of said 'stuff' to worry about losing, [but all those choices led me to where I am today by Grace] so ive had to face that fact and try to live everyday with my family as if its the last...not quite that melodramatic, but in a gut way nonetheless...

Apparently it is verboten to stand up and say “prove it!” to a branch of the government. [/semi-cynic]

verboten until the ineviable crash comes, or the successful stealth campaign is announced, and the powers that be demand a roundup of guns and/or 'undesirable' people...

THEN there will be a whoooooole lotta weeping [97%] and gnashing of teeth [III%] and the ones who arent in shock will have much better survival odds [temporally] in those days...

i aint losin much sleep over it today, but i truly *feel* an evil headwind approaching... Blessings to all...

40 posted on 03/15/2011 9:14:29 PM PDT by Gilbo_3 (Gov is not reason; not eloquent; its force.Like fire,a dangerous servant & master. George Washington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson