Good Bye Guns

[1a2b3c]

www.Goodbyeguns.org

Check out this anti-gun lobbies dipshit ideas to get rid of all guns in america.

1. Create a one year period for the United States of America to purchase at fair market value all guns and firearms, including hand guns, rifles, and even antique guns and rifles from domestic private ownership. Holy fucking bat shit batman! I thought the economy was in a crunch now. Lets pay a fair market value for the 80,000,000 guns in the US.(80 million gun owners so theres got to be atleast 80 million guns) Theres a fucking brainstorm for ya. If we screwed everyone and only gave them a $1 per gun we would still have to come up with $80,000,000. Now the average gun is about $500. Does the anti gun lobby know how to do math?

2. Prohibit and criminalize the domestic sale of guns and firearms, whether new or used. Well, it shouldnt be too hard to control 80 million people who you turned into criminals overnight. I doubt many of them would be pissed or feel like there rights were infringed. Sure they will follow you second idea....dumbass.

3. Seize and destroy any gun or firearm found after the termination of the purchase period without compensation. Thats the easy part. Getting the pissed off gun owner, who is now a criminal, to give you his gun without a fight....that could be a little harder.

4. Prohibit and criminalize the domestic possession of a gun or firearm after the termination of the one year purchase period. Now its just getting creepy. Its starting to sound like the war on drugs. Is this guy the drug czar or is this just a big joke?

5. Provide exemptions for governmental law enforcement agencies, the armed services, and bona fide museums. Ahh, the anti-gun lobby never lets me down on this one. Of course i would rather have of these guys armed rather than my neighbor or myself.
http://www.thewmurchannel.com/news/1803411/detail.html
www.lvrj.com/lvrj_home/2002/Mar-02-Sat-2002/news/18219635.html
www.macon.com/mld/macon/6621192.htm
www.wral.com/news/1998822/detail.html
www.dddnews.com/story/1048610.html
www.balkanpeace.org/hed/archive/jan02/hed4526.shtml

[beevul]

1. The face of the enemy...

" We, the people, are faced with only two choices. One is to place guards, metal detectors, and other devices designed to invade the personal liberties of the citizens at every single place where the public gathers. The other alternative is to eliminate all guns and firearms from the United States of America. Given that we must choose from one of these two choices, we, the people, choose to eliminate all privately held guns and firearms from the United States of America."


We have seen the face of the enemy, and it is ugly.

Nice to see they only have 2 choices, and didn't even consider the idea of self defense. "We, the people, are faced with only two choices..." should read:

"We the people who are afraid of guns and would never consider using one to defend self/family/home have decided for the rest of you peons that there are only 2 choices. One is to place guards, metal detectors, and other devices designed to invade the personal liberties of the citizens at every single place where the public gathers. The other alternative is to stomp all over selectively targeted personal liberties of selectively targeted citizens. Given that we must choose from one of these two choices, We the people who are afraid of guns and would never consider using one to defend self/family/home choose for the rest of you peons, to eliminate all privately held guns and firearms from the United States of America in clear violation of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America."

[RoeBear]

2. One turd from this pile of horseshit...

..."In his legal practice, he relishes cases that emphasize the rights of the individual. "Even though the preservation of individual rights is out of fashion now," Clark explains, "I've always admired Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren, who understood that the primary purpose of the Court was protecting every individual from being oppressed by the Government."

He relishes 'The rights of the individual' except for one that let's a 110 pound woman defend herself from a 250 criminal.

[MrBenchley]

25. Don't recognize the truth when you see it?

Clark says, "My favorite guests are individuals who risk their lives and their careers for what they believe like Jocelyn Elders, John Lewis, and Mick Bell."

Guess not everybody buys the NRA's horseshit.

[demsrule4life]

3. I suppose we could raise the taxes on the gun grabbers

they want the guns gone let them flip the bill. I figure the best way to accomplish this is to take the Brady bunch fake NRA black list and raise all their taxes 50%. Since the list was only made to collect money let them pay out. For me I want personal assistance. I would have to guess on what I own would be right around $20,000. So if this would ever happen I would want MrB to pay me that amount. I'm sure he wouldn't mind. :)

[beevul]

4. I see groups like this...

and wonder where things turned south. How can people have lost the will to defend themselves. They became defenseless the moment it happened. I see people like that, and while I respect thier personal choice, I will never understand it or subscribe to it.


I am willing to bet that this thread is going to be another one where we pro-gunners discuss while we get deafening silence from the other side of the aisle. I wouldn't bet the farm much of anyone will be denouncing this group, except pro-gunners. By the logic from the other side of the aisle, that implys support. I don't believe that the Brady group, or HCI, or VPC or the rest of them are condemning this iether.


Figuratively speaking, let them hang by thier own logic.

Note to those who would spin this...that was a figure of speech, and I am not calling for a lynching in any way shape size or form.

[Diogenes2]

5. One link...

to some group that fantasizes about elminating all guns in the US is supposed to demolish any sort of reasonable argument for gun control? Get real.

[beevul]

7. Just like...

1 racist or repuke who believes in gun rights is supposed to make all gun owners into racists and/or repukes. Read some threads down here. That is the logic peddled by the opposition down here. Thats the logic levelled against pro-gunners in this verry forum, every single day.

They can choke on thier own logic, I say.(figuratively of course)

[MrBenchley]

9. Too TOO funny

""Just like..."
Posted by beevul
1 racist or repuke who believes in gun rights is supposed to make all gun owners into racists and/or repukes. Read some threads down here. That is the logic peddled by the opposition down here. "
Really, beev? Perhaps you'd like to show us where that is.

Of course, don't get sore if somebody draws his own conclusion based on the RKBA crowd trying to excuse away or deny the open racism of the sort of scum peddling that "gun rights" rubbish in public.

[MrBenchley]

8. RKBA "logic" or whatever it is....

Nothing real about the RKBA crowd here....in the past they've tried to pretend Gandhi and the Dalai Lama wanted guns for everybody and that Ted Nugent isn't a racist idiot.

[CO Liberal]

17. That's the Pro-Gun Agenda In a Nutshell

With the emphasis on "nut".

[Superfly]

18. And the anti-gun mentality is

"Better safe than sorry" Let's just lock up anybody who we think is a threat...after all, it's for the children.

[MrBenchley]

20. Funny, I can't find the part of "Goodbye Guns"

where he says word one about "Let's just lock up anybody who we think is a threat."

In fact the only folks I've heard talking about tossing out the Constitution and shouting "Let's just lock up anybody who we think is a threat" are those supporting pro-gun scumbag John AshKKKroft...beccause he's actually done it. Wonder how many "freedom loving" gun owners groups formally denounced that?

[Superfly]

21. Oh....forgot the link....

Link

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Superfly]

23. What gun?!?

Oh, that's right, nobody can produce one! They aren't even sure there even was one in the first place. Oh, but punish the kid anyways based on what one person says.

Yeah, better safe then sorry.

[MrBenchley]

24. Between you and the teacher

I believe the teacher....

"Oh, but punish the kid anyways based on what one person says.
Yeah, better safe then sorry."
Gee, wonder why the "freedom loving" gun rights group aren't saying word one about this...

"NEW YORK- January 29 - The United States released three children from detention at Guantanamo Bay today. Human Rights Watch welcomed the release, but cautioned that other children are still being detained at the U.S. naval base in violation of international standards.
The Department of Defense has confirmed that an unspecified number of other children, aged 16 and 17, are also detained at Guantanamo. In contrast to the three who were released, these children are not segregated from the adult population, and are not receiving education or rehabilitation assistance. International law generally defines children as all individuals under the age of 18."

http://www.commondreams.org/news2004/0129-15.htm

[slackmaster]

27. Between you and the criminal justice system

I'll pick the criminal justice system to evaluate the evidence and decide what really happened.

[demsrule4life]

28. At least in that way it will fair and

unbiased.

[iverglas]

34. I must be confused

I've read some, though not all, of that locked-down school thread, and I just haven't noticed anyone suggesting that the student in question should be "locked up" without a trial or any such appalling thing.

Between you and the criminal justice system
I'll pick the criminal justice system to evaluate the evidence and decide what really happened.

So why exactly might you offer up this false dichotomy?

(Logical fallacies just abound here today, don't they?)

As far as I can tell, the "you" in question was supporting the decision to arrest and charge the student alleged to have committed a (rather serious) crime. I saw no one suggesting that anyone or anything should supplant the criminal justice system's function of determining guilt and, if applicable, sentence.

So why do you erect this "you" and "the criminal justice system" as being somehow alternative and mutually exclusive options, when (as far as I can tell) they are no such thing?

Inquiring minds ...

.

[MrBenchley]

35. Worth noting

that the teacher in question was a former cop (and thus part of the criminal justice system) and the RKBA crowd didn't even blink before offering suggestions that she had been fired, or was incompetent, or was lying about the gun.

And even more strongly worth noting that the allegation originally made up the thread had nothing at all to do with this high school kid, The allegation, which was utterly false, was that the "Goodbye Guns" guy was advocating locking up gun owners as some sort of preventitive detention.

You know, the sort of preventitive detention NRA member for life and gun rights advocate John AshKKKroft has been practicing since September 11?

Did you see that on the "Goodbye Guns" website? Me neither. But then without denial, distortion and outright deception, there'd be no RKBA posts at all.

[slackmaster]

41. My false dichotomy was a response to MrBenchley's false dichotomy

See his reply #24. A simple tit for tat, an absurd statement in kind with an equally absurd one.

The criminal justice system is of course the ONLY entity competent to determine whether or not to charge the student with a crime, if so what actually transpired, and what to do about it. None of us here are capable of getting inside the teacher's head and playing back what that individual actually saw. None of us are competent, given the information presented, to make any kind of judgement about that individual's ability to know whether or not an actual gun was ever present. The fact that no gun was recovered and the back-pedaling that is documented in the article cast significant doubt IMO that the student can be successfully prosecuted for having a gun at the school.

As far as I can tell, the "you" in question was supporting the decision to arrest and charge the student alleged to have committed a (rather serious) crime.

No, "you" in question was impugning Superfly with one of his trademark smartass smears. And neither Superfly nor anyone else has suggested that a prosecution should not proceed should there be found enough evidence to pursue one.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

33. the fallacy of equivocation

"Better safe than sorry" Let's just lock up anybody who we think is a threat...after all, it's for the children.

"Lock up"?

I think most people understand that to mean "imprison" (verb meaning # 2a in my Concise Oxford).

And yet in the thread you subsequently linked to, apparently as substantiation for the claim that this statement reflected "the anti-gun mentality", the issue was actually that someone had been arrested -- and "arrest", while it may involve a temporary deprivation of liberty, isn't quite what most people mean when they say, or think when they hear, "lock up".

(It is in fact quite common, and accepted, for someone whom the arresting authorities "think is a threat" to be arrested, particularly when there are reasonable grounds to believe - not proof beyond a reasonable doubt, y'know - that s/he has committed a criminal offence.)

That's called the fallacy of equivocation. An example would be your accusing me of saying that your dog is "a malicious and spiteful woman" when I call it "a bitch", or pretending that my reference to having a "computer monitor" is a claim to having someone who supervises my computer.

So it seems to me that you have cited, as authority for your attribution of an opinion to some person or persons, an expression of an opinion that is quite different from what you have characterized it as being.

And you have accused ... someone ... of having a "mentality" that I haven't noticed anyone having.

Anyone I know?

From the fact that you quoted, and then linked directly to, CO Liberal's statement Better Be Safe Than Sorry, I'd almost imagine that you were accusing HIM of having the mentality expressed by "Let's just lock up anybody who we think is a threat".

Heavens to betsy -- what a dreadful idea that would be, and what a complete falsehood that would have been.

.

[alwynsw]

26. All blizzards start with a single snowflake

Therein lies the rub in ignoring even this misguided fool. Every government, every cause, every war, and yes, every great and good accomplishment in the history of the world began as a thought in the mind of a single individual.

This (gun confiscation/elimination)is not one of the great and good things.

[MrBenchley]

10. Hahahahaha....

""I see groups like this..."
Posted by beevul
and wonder where things turned south."
Perhaps it was seeing what sort of scum are beating the "gun rights" drum in public....

"How can people have lost the will to defend themselves. They became defenseless the moment it happened."
Pretty funny, considering that in the "defensive use" thread you started, some of your hand-picked gunowners were defending themselves against cops come to arrest them for their crimes. Perhaps not every one feels the somewhat neurotic need to pack popguns in their pocket or itches for an assault weapon.

[beevul]

11. Really bench...

"Pretty funny, considering that in the "defensive use" thread you started, some of your hand-picked gunowners were defending themselves against cops come to arrest them for their crimes."

Actually, it was cops defending themselves with a gun, but you already knew that.

[MrBenchley]

12. Really Beev...

It was gun owners pegging shots at cops, and you trying to justify the resulting mess because the cops shot back.

Meanwhile, worth noting that we don't see the Goodbye Guns guy urging people to fraudulently pressure legislators in states they don't live in to get his way...

[beevul]

13. Your close...

"It was gun owners pegging shots at cops, and you trying to justify the resulting mess because the cops shot back."


It was CRIMINALS shooting at cops and POLICE defending themselves with guns.

[MrBenchley]

14. No, I was on the money

but if it doesn't bother you, I'll just sit here and laugh...

By the way, we still don't see you putting up those posts where somebody said all gun owners are racists...it couldn't be that wasn't true, could it?

I can show you plenty of posts of the RKBA crowd howling in rage because actual pro-gun racists, such as Mary Rosh, Larry Pratt or Ted Nugent, are identified as pro-gun racists...

[beevul]

15. *Chuckles* ok, you do that.

[MrBenchley]

16. Happy to....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=36348&mesg_id=36348

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=27216

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=22031

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=18011

And among my favorites, some RKBA threads that actually link enthusiastically to sites with racist gibberish...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=23759

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=35549&mesg_id=35549

Your turn...let's see the posts you said people were putting up. I think you'll find nobody but the RKBA crowd has been saying that....wonder why? Maybe they know something the rest of us don't.

[MrBenchley]

19. By the way, what's to denounce?

They've made a proposal and are honorably trying to build support by making their case. And the people who are supporting that proposal are, as far as we know, not the racist scum of the earth.

They're not urging people to pressure legislatures in states they don't live in or anything.

And they're not making wildass claims like "1 racist or repuke who believes in gun rights is supposed to make all gun owners into racists and/or repukes. Read some threads down here. That is the logic peddled by the opposition down here. " and then proving themselves UTTERLY unable to back those claims up.

[iverglas]

30. and oddly enough ...

And the people who are supporting that proposal are, as far as we know, not the racist scum of the earth.

... they -- at least the website operator -- seem to do some other actually decent things.

http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2000/04/03/mksa0403.htm

How to sue your HMO

Many physicians rant about managed care plans, but relatively few have translated that rage into a lawsuit. If you're that angry, here's how to get ready for court.

... But just as important is the decision about whether to file a lawsuit, and that major decision comes down to a matter of whether the doctor decides the grievance is an irritant or a matter of "trying to right a wrong," says Clark Garen, Dr. Hodgkin's attorney in his lawsuits against Blue Shield of California and UnitedHealthcare of California. The complaints were filed in December 1999 and are still in their very early stages.

I would assume that non-payment to doctors is just one of the many ways that outfits like HMOs interfere in individuals' ability to get medical care in the US; yup, I follow a link there ... and I was right, almost word for word:

http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2004/02/02/edsa0202.htm

The committee and these meetings <between doctors and Aetna insurance> are a result of the 97-page settlement, reached late last year, of a class-action lawsuit against Aetna over its cutting of physician claims, thereby interfering with recommended treatment to patients.

The NRA done much lately to promote access to healthcare?


They've made a proposal and are honorably trying to build support by making their case.

Oh look: http://www.tpromo.com/gk/mar01/031601.htm

ANTI-GUN vs PRO-GUN
A Personal Dialogue Between Gentlemen

Editor's Note: The following E-Mail conversation took place between Albert Coggs, one of our steady readers, and Clark Garen, an attorney and radio talk show host who happens to take an anti-gun stance. ...

... Thank you for chatting with me on this issue. We have common ground, and I do hope that you'll work as well toward sensible content on our televisions. Perhaps we ought to have a domain/organization called www.goodbye-tv-violence.org :-).
Albert Coggs

YOUR VIEWS ARE VERY VALID, IMPORTANT, AND WELL THOUGHT OUT. PLEASE CONTINUE TO JOIN IN THE PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF THESE ISSUES. THANK YOU,
CLARK

Democratic discourse, looks like to me. (The website looks a little weird to me, so I'm not citing it as anything but a source for the above info.)

I don't agree with Garen, of course, since I do think that there are perfectly legitimate uses for and reasons for possessing firearms in my society, and that it would be improper (apart from impractical) to completely prohibit and attempt to eliminate possession of firearms. But he seems to be able to argue his case civilly -- i.e. to appeal to fact and reason, rather than emotion and prejudice, in making it.

.

[MrBenchley]

31. You will notice

he doesn't have just about every progressive group that can be found on a hate list either...

Seems to me learning how to sue an HMO is a lot more important to folks these days than waving a popgun around.

[iverglas]

32. "condemning"??

I don't believe that the Brady group, or HCI, or VPC or the rest of them are condemning this iether.

What's this new standard for <whatever it is> that you're apparently proposing?

If I disagree with something, I must CONDEMN it??

Excuse me if I'd expect to be met with a chorus of "it's his right to say what he wants, First Amendment, blah blah blah".

Whatever became of the Voltaire thingy that seems so ever-popular in some contexts, and not quite so quick to be quoted in others?

Je ne suis pas d'accord avec ce que vous dites, mais je me battrai jusqu'au bout pour que vous puissiez le dire.

Yup, I think it's perfectly possible to defend to the death someone's right to say something and at the same time condemn what s/he says. I think it's more than possible, I think it can be a democratic duty in many instances.

I also think that I can perfectly well disagree with something without condemning, or having to condemn, it or the person who says it. I will disagree with someone who proposes to discontinue firearms registration in Canada, but I won't necessarily condemn them. Okay with you?

I'm probably relatively unlikely to condemn someone of his/her position strikes me as silly and/or unlikely to be taken seriously enough to succeed or otherwise jeopardize the exercise of some fundamental right. Seen any lately?


I wouldn't bet the farm much of anyone will be denouncing this group, except pro-gunners. By the logic from the other side of the aisle, that implys support.

I'll now get to look forward to you "denouncing" a whole lot of things, I imagine; I'll be sure to bring them to your attention when I see something I figure you disagree with. Plainly, that will call for you to denounce the person/group proposing it.

Whom have you denounced today, may I ask? Surely there are hordes of people in need of it.

.

[MrBenchley]

37. You don't understand

I HAVE TO have a popgun in my pocket at all times in order to feel safe, as well as an assault rifle and a .50 caliber sniper rifle. Otherwise I won't be safe. And if you don't want a gun, then you've lost the will to defend yourself and have no backbone and you are the enemy.

And nobody can know I have them either, because if they knew I had a gun and you didn't, they would rob me of my guns and then I would be as defenseless as you and be weak and have no backbone.

And I only have this gun because I love freedom so much, unlike you backboneless enemies that have lost the will to defend yourselves, and anybody who says otherwise is an enemy with an ugly face who should be denounced by everyone else who are backboneless enemies that have lost the will to defend themselves because it only takes one snowflake to begin a great big blizzard.

And if they don't denounce the person who says I shouldn't have a gun, then it will just confirm that they are all plotting against me, the pediatricians and the newspapers and the Bnai Brith and the NAACP and the PTA and the League of Women Voters and Britney Spears and Vinny Testaverde...I can hear them all whispering in the night, plotting to take my guns away, whispering through the walls...and it was the mess boys who took the strawberries, I had a duplicate key made....

[beevul]

47. Thank you...

I have to be honest. I was hopeing for a response from you.


"What's this new standard for <whatever it is> that you're apparently proposing?"

I'm not proposing anything. Do you recall someone saying something along the lines of "where are the non racist gun owners? I can't find one person on a pro-gun board saying anything bad about racism" ? Well, I'm sure someone with the search feature could find it for you, if you haven't. I'm simply applying some of that same logic, to the folks who seem to be entertaining such logic, and here you are shooting holes in that logic. I appreciate that.

"If I disagree with something, I must CONDEMN it??"

No, of course not. But that logic has been applied to groups like the pink pistols. It has been implied that since they don't have anti-gay people on thier anti-gun list, they must not be real, because if they were, anti-gay people would be on thier anti-gun list. Its just the same standard "guilt by association"/"demonize the opposition" that anyone who frequents this forum can see. All one has to do is look.

"I also think that I can perfectly well disagree with something without condemning, or having to condemn, it or the person who says it. I will disagree with someone who proposes to discontinue firearms registration in Canada, but I won't necessarily condemn them. Okay with you?"

Yep, thats fine by me. I think you can disagree without necessarily condemning too. I think I can too. I just wonder about some folks that can't or wont. We had a nice discussion last nite, with a poster who I had never seen in J/PS, and the discussion stayed civilized. It stayed civilized because we discussed facts. Noone started calling names, or implying racism, loonies, grabbers, or anything of the sort. He didn't condemn or try to smear us. We didn't condemn or try to smear him. Pretty much all interested partys involved in that discussion just happened to be interested in facts, and discussing them civilly. There was a small amount of heat, but just a spark, really.

In short, thank you for confirming how rediculous that kind of logic really is. May I direct anyone who I see using that logic to your post?

On an OT note, your right, what have they done to star trek...

[MrBenchley]

51. Who are you trying to kid, beev?

You're actually trying to pretend this tame proposal is equivalent to racist filth? Un-frigging-believable.

Remember, the reason the question about "where are the non-racist gun owners" was valid was that the board was assured over and over again without a speck of proof that racists were just a tiny subset and that there were lots of rootin' tootin' gun totin' liberals....who mysteriously never seemed to raise even the slightest objection to open racism by other gun owners on gun owners forums. Nor did they object to the open racism of the gun owners' groups leadership in any manner detectable by humans.

"that logic has been applied to groups like the pink pistols."
On what planet was that? Again, show us this guy's hate list....oh,, that's right he doesn't have one. Nor does the VPC or HCI or any other gun control group you can point to.

"It has been implied that since they don't have anti-gay people on thier anti-gun list, they must not be real...Its just the same standard "guilt by association"/"demonize the opposition" "
Are you still crying about that? The group drew up its own list of ITS opposition...and it mysteriously excludes EVERY right wing nutcase who wants gay people dead and in hell yesterday, while demonizing liberal people supportive of gay rights. The wonder isn't that it's phony, the wonder is that it is so transparently phony.

And while we're on the subject, let's also mention that the group had a link on its site to the far right wing foundation that whistled them up, which chortled on its own page about what a good trick the group was on liberals.

[MrSandman]

6. The "Fair Market Value"

Would triple once this ban was passed.
After the ban was passed with the free market provision, how long before that would get repealed?

[slackmaster]

29. It's just a Bliss Ninny site

[Romulus]

36. *ROFL* (eom)

[funkyflathead]

38. Metal detectors would still be in place gun ban or no

Wanna get stabbed??

[CO Liberal]

39. I See This Site is Linked to "Think Radio"

A concept that is quite foreign to many on the pro-gun side, who simply parrot whatever Ted Nugent, Wayne LaPierre, and/or John Lott/Mary Rosh say.

[CarinKaryn]

42. Not perfect, but a start...

Create a one year period for the United States of America to purchase at fair market value ...Lets pay a fair market value for the 80,000,000 guns in the US...we would still have to come up with $80,000,000. Now the average gun is about $500.

How about a trade for tax credits or services? Let corporate sponsors offer a trade for services or goods in exchange for the sponsors getting a tax write off.

Getting the pissed off gun owner, who is now a criminal, to give you his gun without a fight....that could be a little harder.

Don't worry about this part. I think most militia members are "all hat" as they say. I haven't seen anyone standing up to the state in areas where guns are outlawed.

[1a2b3c]

43. Ok

How about a trade for tax credits or services? What about people, like myself, who dont want to trade anything the government may have to offer for my belongings?

Don't worry about this part. I think most militia members are "all hat" as they say. I haven't seen anyone standing up to the state in areas where guns are outlawed.
Well you havent seen it because the people arent stupid. What chance would a few people in 1 state have against a standing army in the other 49 states? And what state outlawed guns? You can bet in states where certain types of guns are outlawed, like Kalifornia, there are many individuals with a few illegal guns hidden away in their homes. If all guns were outlawed you might not see a big war, but you wouldnt see too many guns being turned in to the "proper" authorities.

[CarinKaryn]

44. This is still a good step toward ending the gun culture

If most gun owners turn their weapons in for cash, services or tax credits and if a few are arrested for non - compliance and if a few more keep their precious guns (which evidently are worth more than their families and their liberty) hidden away, the end result is still no guns on the street.

[demsrule4life]

45. No guns on the street

just like England.

[MrBenchley]

46. Seems perfectly fine to me...

It's not like the National Guard's going to be suddenly reduced to parasols and hatpins...

[-..__...]

48. Wait a minute....

Is this the head-case that want's to ban guns because they're upset about having to go through metal detectors?

<pause>
.
.
.
.
<checking URL>
.
.
.
.
.
</pause>

LOL!!! It is! (and no, I haven't read any of the responses yet... should be amusing).

[slackmaster]

49. D__S gets a cigar

:toast:

Yeepers, THAT head-case.

[-..__...]

50. I don't smoke.

How about a box of XM-193 instead? :)

[davidinalameda]

52. locking

turning into a flame fest