Gun Bracelets for Hunters

Posted by $ Tap2Golf 11 years ago to Politics
40 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

I received this in an email and admit I did not fact check it, however, I thought it might be of interest following up on Eudimonia's post re Holder's Gun Bracelets......Hope the photo's come through...

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

A blogger added up the deer license sales in just a handful of states and arrived at a striking conclusion:

There were over 600,000 hunters this season in the state of Wisconsin ...
Allow me to restate that number: 600,000!

Over the last several months, Wisconsin 's hunters became the eighth largest army in the world.
(That's more men under arms than in Iran . More than France and Germany combined. )
These men, deployed to the woods of a single American state, Wisconsin , to hunt with firearms,
and NO ONE WAS KILLED!
That number pales in comparison to the 750,000 who hunted the woods of Pennsylvania and
Michigan 's 700,000 hunters, ALL OF WHOM HAVE RETURNED HOME SAFELY.
Toss in a quarter million hunters in West Virginia and it literally establishes the fact that the
hunters of those four states alone would comprise the largest army in the world!
And then add in the total number of hunters in the other 46 states.
It's millions more.

America will forever be safe from foreign invasion with that kind of home-grown firepower!

Hunting... it's not just a way to fill the freezer.
It's a matter of national security!

***************************************
That's why all enemies, foreign and domestic, want to see us disarmed!

Food for thought, when next we consider gun control.


Over all it's true, so if we disregard some assumptions that hunters
don't possess the same skills as soldiers, the question would still remain...


What army of 2 million would want to face 30 million, 40 million, or 50 million armed citizens???


For the sake of our freedom, don't ever allow gun control, or confiscation of guns!

All Comments

  • Posted by Stormi 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    I also liked that line about the UN members. It should also apply to all our legislators on both sides of the aisle who sit back and allow this agenda to progress. Above all it should apply to all presidents and potential candidates who give the UN assurance they will support this theft from citizens.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Tap2Golf 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Thank you. I had heard of this UN initiative, but did not know its name. I read an earlier post today, but can't rememer where or I would give credit to the author....I paraphrase and plagerize....everyone in the UN should practice birth control and go *&%$ themselves.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Stormi 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    UN Agenda 21 is global. Our President has agreed to implement it in this country. It is in place in Romania, growing in Europe, and is a sham by the United Nations, under the guise of environment protections, to control all aspects of lives wherever it is in place. It seeks to move people to inner city apartments. do away with autos, and ultimately do away with the rights of individuals to own private property. It will eventually control reproduction, making it a government, not personal, decision. Where it is in place, people are seeing brown outs of electric, air conditioning and food refrigeration are things of the past, gas prices and air fares have sky rocketed. It seeks total UN control of people, from what they may eat to where they may live. Housing costs soar, when people are herded into small areas, with more people than apartments. It is always explained as a necessary action to "save the environment", which is UN speak for total control. Religion is replaced with Gaia (Mother Earth) worship, a stepping stone to world government worship. The UN outspokenly calls private property "unsustainable", and would see the end of both that right and another they put on the hit list - capitalism. Non governmental organizations have trained at the UN on how to spread the implementation to local governments, with offers of free planning or grants, which include the elements of Agenda 21 - readily grabbed by uninformed local mayors and planning commissions. HIllary also is in favor of the UN plan.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Tap2Golf 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    In a normal world, I would strongly agree, however, I think the scenario we are picturing here would be big time govt take of our rights.....The second amendment supporters/patriots feel pretty strongly about their arms and our right to bear them. I like blarman's earlier comment to you.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by starguy 11 years ago
    How about a bracelet for lying, crooked politicians, instead?

    What PART of "shall not be infringed" do they not understand?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by NealS 11 years ago
    Gun Bracelets? Right after we get Politician Bracelets (those dual bracelets, sometimes quad {with a belt}).
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Not in a one-on-one fight, but even the SEAL's can't fight 200-1 odds - especially not when backed by the most important tool of all: willpower.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Eyecu2 11 years ago
    Sir, at the top you qualified your post with the statement that you have not done any fact checking on these numbers and while fact checking would show that several of these hunters have licenses in more than one state. The fact remains that you are on point and even if your numbers were reduced by half the hunters in this country still greatly outnumber the military and police combined.

    Your closing statement is the crux of the thing and I agree completely with you.
    For the sake of our freedom, don't ever allow gun control, or confiscation of guns!
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by loessin 11 years ago
    If gun owners must wear a bracelet, then voters must have photo ID, and (illegal) immigrants must have documentation that they are allowed to be in the United States, AND the same rules MUST apply to the military and law enforcement... This bracelet thing is obviously unconstitutional, and the government cannot be trusted to insure that they will not
    "shut down" the ability to fire weapons--which I suspect is the entire point of this. They will have the guns, we will have our guns too, but they will be rendered inoperable...a technological way around the Second Amendment. Be careful...when it sounds reasonable and a good idea, individual rights are again willfully sacrificed.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by DaveM49 11 years ago
    Supposedly, private firearms ownership was a significant factor in Japan never making any serious plan to invade the United States. They wanted to control the Pacific, but they knew they could never take and hold the American mainland.

    Mind, that was a different breed of Americans. I have to wonder how many would "obey" a foreign invader simply "because it's the law".
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by amagi 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    redoty09, Have they not secured themselves
    against that by putting Eric Holder in charge of
    "justice" ?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by NealS 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Unfortunately you have to remember that the military likes to recruit young, young that can be easily trained (brainwashed). I was drafted at age 25 (between wives). I experienced the mentality of the very young in AIT in South Carolina. They scared me so bad I signed up for OCS and was fighting in Vietnam at age 27 (the old guy). If confronted by our military I hope it's some old guy with a little experience that confronts me.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Stormi 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    I am hopeful you are right about the military not going against US citizens. However, we heard from a law enforcement officer in N. South Carolina, who said they were being asked if they were willing to use arms against US citizens to enforce UN Agenda 21. He wrote back to us, as he was not clear what Agenda 21 really was, and wanted details..
    Also, Obama is forming his own personal military, outside the armed forces, his own personal thugs, as it is.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jlc 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Herb -

    Your point is well taken, but you must remember that this is an iterative process. If several million Americans were to take arms, and the US military were called out against them, the moral stance of the military would be in question and many of the enlisted, officers and commanders would not be willing to go against such a 'vote with your bullets' stance by the American people. They would hesitate, not because of personal danger or being outnumbered but because they know that Their mandate is to protect Us. Remember that the hunters would contain a large number of ex-military folk themselves (some of whom could call out to the military commander, "Chuck! Hey - this is Jim. What'cha doing over there? Come on over and I'll buy you a beer. Let's talk!")

    Were a foreign army to become involved, the US military would no longer be in any sort of a moral quandary: they would stand shoulder to shoulder with the 'hunters' against any foreign invasion by arms.

    The problem we have is that we do not have a foreign armed invasion. We are a 'big bumbling puppy' sort of a country: basically good natured and naive. If you attack us, we can understand something that simple, and respond (tear throat out, piss on corpse). It is the slow and subtle that eludes us as a society. (There are worse faults to have.)

    Incidentally, if everyone who reads this post has not read/acquired a copy of Maj H. von Dach Berns' book titled Total Resistance...you should do so ASAP.

    Jan
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by wiggys 11 years ago
    I know many who are not on the gulch who would agree whole heartedly with Tap2Golf as I do.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Tap2Golf 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Don't you think the tide of public opinion is changing a bit in regards to reducing the size of our military?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    True, but that does not apply to foreign armies. We also think that's a stretch. It isn't as stretchy as you might imagine, especially if the military decimation continues.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo