sirdroseph wrote: 
We haven't had any privacy for a very long time, and anyone who thinks we have is very naive.

 bokey wrote: 

Sadly probably so, but they are only supposed to be able to retrieve that information on an individual case by case basis if the officer is already checking the license during a traffic stop or other criminal investigation. They are not supposed to just give the whole freekin database to the feds for god knows what purpose!

 sirdroseph wrote: 
I'm pretty sure they already had it.

Highway patrol gave feds Missouri weapon permits data

This is truly shocking

Wars on Drugs

 sirdroseph wrote: 

Rational

adjective

having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or good sense.

Antonyms: Unreasoning, superstitious, overly suspicious, paranoid.

 sirdroseph wrote: 
It's unfortunate that the noisiest, craziest extremists (of any leaning) get so much attention, but that's nothing new, I guess.  I don't know if there is a strategy from every single Federal agency to reduce the ability of the citizens to fire weapons, for one thing, there is dissension and disagreement in the government regarding every aspect of gun control.  Gun control often seems like a political trend which wavers back and forth depending on who is in power, and much of the legislation (or lack thereof) seems pretty transitory.  It's hard to know if these agencies are necessarily "preparing" for anything to any greater extent than they have ever done throughout history, but, yes - who knows for sure?

I seem to remember something about this....

LINK

Obama's “Civilian National Security Force”

Jul 5, 2012 – Obama's Civilian National Security Force, All Dictators Need Their Own Police Force. ... as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded as the US Military. ... a police force would be at Obama's disposal and is similar to national ...

 Proclivities wrote:

I agree that there is a small pocket of rabid conspiracy theorists, but they are a very small part of the overall spectrum of those concerned about what is going on here. I am not disputing there are blogs and audiences who thrive on blowing things way out of proportion and trying to come to their own perceived and economically strategically advantageous conclusions, I am just saying that is almost irrelevant to what some serious minded, rational people are concerned about.  They and me are wondering if this is some type of strategy regarding reducing the ability of its citizens to fire weapons, in other words a run around method of achieving the gun control they so desire?  However most are probably concerned with the question; what exactly are they preparing for???
 

 sirdroseph wrote:
It's still a story because certain contributors to the "blogosphere" do not want to lose their readers (many get paid for ads, hits, and re-posts), and apparently everyone does NOT know this; there are millions of people out there who believe all sorts of internet rumors which have been dispelled long ago.  It's not "one little technicality" - it's an order for military vehicles for the Marine Corps, who happen to be engaged in armed conflict in the Middle East.  It is more than a matter of semantics for those authors to deliberately try to mislead people into believing that those armored vehicles will be driving through American streets to be used against the populace - that is matter of disinformation.  Anyhoo, I didn't mean that some valid explanations excuse everything else.

 Proclivities wrote: 
Everyone already knows that and yet this is still a story. The semantics that technically this particular order was placed by the Navy somehow does not make anyone feel any better about everything else. I am glad that this one little technicality excuses everything else in your eyes. I think that is good, gives you one less thing to worry about. But yeah, you are right what you posted is old news and everyone already knows this.

 black321 wrote: 
Old non-news; scroll back a few pages.  For one thing, DHS does not appear to have ordered 2700 armored personnel carriers.

 black321 wrote: 
I have been told all of this was urban legend and not to worry. I am a good citizen and am not worried at all. This is not a government strategy to drive ammo prices up and deprive from lack of inventory the ability for its citizens to feed their "beasts" therefore getting their gun control after all.  Well played, government, well played.  Not to mention the ever present; Just exactly what to do they know that we don't??

Not sure what exactly this thread is about, but seemed perhaps an OK setting for the following (from an investment newsletter):

Where Are Those Black Helicopters Heading? – For weeks and weeks the blogosphere has been on fire with stories
about massive purchases of ammo and weapons by Homeland Security. The questions raised are now morphing into the
main stream media and even some Wall Street watering holes. A few members of Congress have begun to raise questions.
If you haven't yet heard any of this, here is one of the less incendiary references by our pal and fellow street veteran, Jim
Brown in Monday's Premium Investor:
You may have seen the news stories on Homeland Security ordering 1.6 billion rounds of ammo, 7,000 machine
guns and 2,700 armored personnel carriers for delivery later this year. At the height of the Iraq war the military
was only using 5.5 million rounds a month and there were 500,000 soldiers. Those 1.6 billion rounds would fuel
a war of that size for 30 years. They recently put out an "emergency order" for riot gear, body armor and "bullet
proof checkpoint booths." What are they preparing to defend? Why are all the orders being placed on an
"emergency" basis?
Responses from Homeland Security, at least the ones I've seen, have been rather vague. That tends to fan the flames
rather than dispel the rumors.
Friends who are hunters and gun club members tell me that the best investment over the last twelve or sixteen months was
probably rifle ammunition. They claim the price has doubled and almost tripled. So far, there is no ETF that I know of.

 Proclivities wrote: 
Hmm. Secondhand... might... just... work...

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
Maybe you should consider buying a cape or cloak.

 sirdroseph wrote: 
That's a good Twain quote too. I'll have to temper my humility with a little flamboyance somehow.

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 

Yea and I ain't mad at ya either.

 sirdroseph wrote: 
So we're clear, then.