Gun Control

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
361

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

Outed. I didn’t get to watch the second half as I had to go to work. That’s what I get for posting early. [/quote]

Get your mind made up, Cortes. In the event of a complete failure of government to protect our people from forceful action to disarm us, which flag will you wave?

White? Or Old Glory?[/quote]

I just need to watch the rest and make my own decision. I have agreed with you on most every point you’ve made on this subject. I’ll admit I am sounding wishy washy here. I can assure you I am not.

362

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:

I liked the first half, although the video was definitely geared towards an unsophisticated audience. The second half, culminating in either a military coup d’etat or civil war is just silly.
[/quote]

A move to forcibly disarm the citizenry of the United States will indeed be an act of treason for knowingly and willfully violating the 2nd Amendment, and an act of war against our people. I have no doubt that our armed forces will carry out their duties in that event, and that you and I will never suffer any danger or harm as a result.[/quote]

How does this work when it happens slowly over a period of 100 to 200 years through attrition and not force? I really don’t see any scenario where that will not happen.

363

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:

I liked the first half, although the video was definitely geared towards an unsophisticated audience. The second half, culminating in either a military coup d’etat or civil war is just silly.
[/quote]

A move to forcibly disarm the citizenry of the United States will indeed be an act of treason for knowingly and willfully violating the 2nd Amendment, and an act of war against our people. I have no doubt that our armed forces will carry out their duties in that event, and that you and I will never suffer any danger or harm as a result.[/quote]

How does this work when it happens slowly over a period of 100 to 200 years through attrition and not force? I really don’t see any scenario where that will not happen.[/quote]
That can be effectively fought on the political front in several different ways, and is a completely different scenario.

364

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

A move to forcibly disarm the citizenry of the United States will indeed be an act of treason for knowingly and willfully violating the 2nd Amendment, and an act of war against our people. I have no doubt that our armed forces will carry out their duties in that event, and that you and I will never suffer any danger or harm as a result.[/quote]

You know, I’ve thought about this over the years, and I can’t possibly see a scenario where a standing military occupies the US for the sole purpose of removing arms from citizens. At least not under the sole direct orders to remove arms. Maybe under some other guise.

However, I fear more that we are moving towards a civilian police state. FBI, ATF, IRS, State, Local police have more access to our personal lives and records (read: registered firearms). Seems like the police are out of control (That’s not based on data, just my perception and increasing lack of respect for the badge).

It won’t be the Army knocking at your door, it will be ‘the police’.

Someone posted a story of the Black Panther dude who wouldn’t stand down to a cop with his weapon. I respect that. While I’m probably not a candidate for “President of the Black Panthers” anytime soon, we are on the same page with the Second Amendment.

Understanding the history of gun control, I question the sanity and intelligence of any jewish or black person who supports confiscation of civilian firearms.

365

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]b89 wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
This is the sickening, saddening reality that befalls an unarmed nation. Not even 17,000 armed peace-keeping troops can protect these people.

http://worldpress.org/Africa/3945.cfm[/quote]

The DRC isn’t an unarmed nation. All the armed citizens just so happen to belong to warring tribes and militias. However, I don’t think most people in that nation necessarily have the resources to purchase many weapons for self-defense.[/quote]
That is true. It would have been better stated as unarmed people rather than unarmed nation.

Not having the resources to provide for your own defense is a horrible situation.[/quote]

I remember hearing about a militia entering a village and they literally beat people to death or killed them with machetes. If those villagers had some weapons it would probably be enough of a deterrent brazen attacks like that.

366

.

367

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

You know, I’ve thought about this over the years, and I can’t possibly see a scenario where a standing military occupies the US for the sole purpose of removing arms from citizens. At least not under the sole direct orders to remove arms. Maybe under some other guise.[/quote]
Maybe under the guise of public safety? If lunatics are committing mass murder with guns stolen from law-abiding citizens, then that means we need to remove guns from everybody, right?

[quote]However, I fear more that we are moving towards a civilian police state. FBI, ATF, IRS, State, Local police have more access to our personal lives and records (read: registered firearms). Seems like the police are out of control (That’s not based on data, just my perception and increasing lack of respect for the badge).

It won’t be the Army knocking at your door, it will be ‘the police’.[/quote]
Assuming that every gun owner in the country refused to give up their arms willingly; There are not nearly enough police willing to go along with this. Even if they were to all agree with it, it would be over before it hit the news. They would need every officer, agent, guardsman, reservist and soldier in the U.S. plus reinforcements from NATO and the UN.

Sounds ridiculous, doesn’t it? There are 800,000 combined law enforcement officers in the country. We have 1.5 million active service members in all five branches of the military plus 1.5 million reservists. Compare that to 75 million armed citizens with enough weapons to supply 155 million citizens with primary and secondary weapons.

To further put that in perspective, there are only 20.5 million people serving in military forces worldwide. That’s why they need to convince you to hand them over before even thinking about doing anything else

But I digress. Secure peace, by all means, but keep calm and carry on. Our saving grace will be the military itself, if it’s not taken care of before it gets to them.

368

[quote]b89 wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]b89 wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
This is the sickening, saddening reality that befalls an unarmed nation. Not even 17,000 armed peace-keeping troops can protect these people.

http://worldpress.org/Africa/3945.cfm[/quote]

The DRC isn’t an unarmed nation. All the armed citizens just so happen to belong to warring tribes and militias. However, I don’t think most people in that nation necessarily have the resources to purchase many weapons for self-defense.[/quote]
That is true. It would have been better stated as unarmed people rather than unarmed nation.

Not having the resources to provide for your own defense is a horrible situation.[/quote]

I remember hearing about a militia entering a village and they literally beat people to death or killed them with machetes. If those villagers had some weapons it would probably be enough of a deterrent brazen attacks like that.[/quote]
Absolutely horrendous. Take the weapons from the guilty and give them to the villages of the victims, and things would take an upward turn rather quickly.

I think the biggest problem I have with the situation is that there are so many armed UN troops in their country, and nothing is being done to help them.

U.N. ‘peacekeeping’ is a joke.

369

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]However, I fear more that we are moving towards a civilian police state. FBI, ATF, IRS, State, Local police have more access to our personal lives and records (read: registered firearms). Seems like the police are out of control (That’s not based on data, just my perception and increasing lack of respect for the badge).

It won’t be the Army knocking at your door, it will be ‘the police’.[/quote]
Assuming that every gun owner in the country refused to give up their arms willingly; There are not nearly enough police willing to go along with this. Even if they were to all agree with it, it would be over before it hit the news. They would need every officer, agent, guardsman, reservist and soldier in the U.S. plus reinforcements from NATO and the UN.
[/quote]

This is not how a gun ban works. It doesn’t happen overnight. Here’s how we can get it going, in 3 easy steps:

1st
‘Assault’ weapons ban: This is already happening whether you like it or not. No explanation needed.
Hi-Cap pistol ban: Why would anyone need more than 5 shots in a pistol? Most shootouts are over in 3-5 shots.
Ammo restrictions: What kind of nutcase-wannabe-SWAT would need JHP (too deadly), or FMJ (armor piercing). This includes mil-surplus, only wackjob End of the World types buy so much ammo at once.
Caliber restrictions: What can’t be hunted in North America with a .308? Why would anyone need anything larger than that?

2nd
Semi-auto rifle ban: Since semi-auto rifles are pretty much the same as Assault Weapons, it makes sense to ban these as well.
Military Surplus ban: Civilians do NOT need Military grade armaments. Simple to just deny importation of firearms. Doesn’t affect the hunters.
Pistol ban: Aren’t shotguns and rifles better home defense weapons anyway? Why would anyone need a pistol?

3rd
Reloading stamp: How is reloading not building your own destructive device? Each cartridge must have a $200 BATFE stamp. And the reloading die must have micro-stamping.
Caliber restrictions: Why would we want people to have deadly Military calibers? These are the bullets the Military uses to KILL people! .223, .308, 7.62x54R, 7.62x39, 9mm, .45, etc.
Magazine/clip ban: Isn’t the point of hunting ‘one shot, one kill’? Why do you need more than one round?

370

The current chatter is not supportive of that scenario. There is talk of forcible confiscation on a time frame of just a few years. I’d love to believe this could be fought solely by political means, but I believe the political game is over. The public terror and coercion tactics have already begun.

371

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
The current chatter is not supportive of that scenario. There is talk of forcible confiscation on a time frame of just a few years. I’d love to believe this could be fought solely by political means, but I believe the political game is over. The public terror and coercion tactics have already begun.[/quote]

I’m actually laughing at all the gun owners who voted for Obama.

But, don’t worry about gun confiscation it is not on the horizon just yet. First they will throw in more restrictions to owning guns. Then several years will pass there will be more shootings. then there will be more laws, throwing road blocks in front of honest people who legitimately want to own a hand gun. Then more years will pass more shootings and then the strictest of gun laws will be passed.

After about a decade or two of this…then comes confiscation.

372

One argument I’ll make against that time frame, ZEB, is that it would take patience. Not exactly a trait that I’ve seen much of from this bunch.

It could be done within a couple years, if the cards are played right. One shooting before the ‘talks’ and one right before the bill gets voted on would push the bill through, no matter what restrictions are in it. A couple more after it goes into effect, and they can claim “This isn’t working. It’s not enough.”

373

I’d say two to three decades before guns are not realistically available in most areas, ala NYC.

But there will never be a confiscation. They can only ban so much. So much easier to tax it out of existence. How about a Certified Home Gun Safety Inspector that comes to your house to make sure your firearms are properly secured (at a nominal fee to the gun owner, of course)? A yearly Gun Registration Tax? Ammo Tax? Yearly Firearms Inspection Tax to make sure you are up to code on the newest safety (microstamping, GPS, loaded indicator, etc) measures (retrofitted)? Gun License? After all, no one is trying to take your guns away…

374

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
One argument I’ll make against that time frame, ZEB, is that it would take patience. Not exactly a trait that I’ve seen much of from this bunch.

It could be done within a couple years, if the cards are played right. One shooting before the ‘talks’ and one right before the bill gets voted on would push the bill through, no matter what restrictions are in it. A couple more after it goes into effect, and they can claim “This isn’t working. It’s not enough.”
[/quote]

Yeah, 5, 10, 20 years who knows? It depends on what happens and who is in power. But I have no doubt that there will eventually be a ban on owning hand guns. The left has taken over the media and they absolutely hate guns. And they largely control what people think.

375

[quote]johnnytang24 wrote:
I’d say two to three decades before guns are not realistically available in most areas, ala NYC.

But there will never be a confiscation. They can only ban so much. So much easier to tax it out of existence. How about a Certified Home Gun Safety Inspector that comes to your house to make sure your firearms are properly secured (at a nominal fee to the gun owner, of course)? A yearly Gun Registration Tax? Ammo Tax? Yearly Firearms Inspection Tax to make sure you are up to code on the newest safety (microstamping, GPS, loaded indicator, etc) measures (retrofitted)? Gun License? After all, no one is trying to take your guns away…[/quote]

Excellent point!

It seems that everything the government doesn’t like which is already legal gets taxed to death. Just about to the point where it is not worth having.

376

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
One argument I’ll make against that time frame, ZEB, is that it would take patience. Not exactly a trait that I’ve seen much of from this bunch.

It could be done within a couple years, if the cards are played right. One shooting before the ‘talks’ and one right before the bill gets voted on would push the bill through, no matter what restrictions are in it. A couple more after it goes into effect, and they can claim “This isn’t working. It’s not enough.”
[/quote]

Yeah, 5, 10, 20 years who knows? It depends on what happens and who is in power. But I have no doubt that there will eventually be a ban on owning hand guns. The left has taken over the media and they absolutely hate guns. And they largely control what people think. [/quote]

Don’t forget about the education system.

377

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Our saving grace will be the military itself, if it’s not taken care of before it gets to them.[/quote]

Jay,

What gives you so much confidence in the military?

I thought they were under the government and obeyed their orders?

378

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Our saving grace will be the military itself, if it’s not taken care of before it gets to them.[/quote]

Jay,

What gives you so much confidence in the military?

I thought they were under the government and obeyed their orders?
[/quote]
here is the oath of enlistment and notice the defense of the constitution is mentioned first. UCMJ states unlawful orders are not to be obeyed. Who gives the unlawful order is of no consequence.
I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

379

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Our saving grace will be the military itself, if it’s not taken care of before it gets to them.[/quote]

Jay,

What gives you so much confidence in the military?

I thought they were under the government and obeyed their orders?
[/quote]
I grew up with the Army all around me. My dad retired as a high-ranking senior NCO. I have a lot of contact with the military through my job, my family, and my extra-curricular activities. I have discussed these things with many of the military folks around me, and you would be hard pressed to find even one who would knowingly break their oath and act against the citizens.

They are bound to follow all lawful orders. Lawful meaning Constitutional, as they are bound to uphold the Constitution first and foremost. No citizen is bound to follow a law that is unconstitutional and no LEO, GI, or court is bound to uphold said law.

One problem among the younger GI’s is uncertainty about what is constitutional and what is not, but this is one issue that is certain. They will stand with us.

380

[quote]SHREDTODEATH wrote:

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Our saving grace will be the military itself, if it’s not taken care of before it gets to them.[/quote]

Jay,

What gives you so much confidence in the military?

I thought they were under the government and obeyed their orders?
[/quote]
here is the oath of enlistment and notice the defense of the constitution is mentioned first. UCMJ states unlawful orders are not to be obeyed. Who gives the unlawful order is of no consequence.
I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.[/quote]
Right on, and God bless the keepers of that oath.