Obama Attacks Gun Owners

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

Yes, but nothing happened to said soldiers. The government didn’t come flying in and take the soldiers away in a black van.[/quote]

The very definition of apathy. You guys are ranting about what happens if your government turns on you and how you need guns just in case…yet you sit here and act like it can’t happen with just these very types of events.

That makes ZERO sense and if you can’t see that, you need help.

[quote]
Hell they didn?t even know they were being listened to until after the fact?.[/quote]

Gee, THAT would be the bad part.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:

Yes, but nothing happened to said soldiers. The government didn’t come flying in and take the soldiers away in a black van.

The very definition of apathy. You guys are ranting about what happens if your government turns on you and how you need guns just in case…yet you sit here and act like it can’t happen with just these very types of events.

That makes ZERO sense and if you can’t see that, you need help.

Hell they didn?t even know they were being listened to until after the fact?.

Gee, THAT would be the bad part.
[/quote]

I like how you say “Your government” When we can’t defend ourselves it will be “our” fault that’s for sure.

The government would have to do a little bit more then just listen in on our conversations to take over this country.

You essentially made my point…

“yet you sit here and act like it can’t happen with just these very types of events.”…

With this event already taking place now is not the time to allow the government to take guns away or make guns less accessible. Clearly the government is capable of taking away the rights of the people so we have to prepare ourselves to take them back.

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:

Yes, but nothing happened to said soldiers. The government didn’t come flying in and take the soldiers away in a black van.

The very definition of apathy. You guys are ranting about what happens if your government turns on you and how you need guns just in case…yet you sit here and act like it can’t happen with just these very types of events.

That makes ZERO sense and if you can’t see that, you need help.

Hell they didn?t even know they were being listened to until after the fact?.

Gee, THAT would be the bad part.

I like how you say “Your government” When we can’t defend ourselves it will be “our” fault that’s for sure.

The government would have to do a little bit more then just listen in on our conversations to take over this country.

You essentially made my point…

“yet you sit here and act like it can’t happen with just these very types of events.”…

With this event already taking place now is not the time to allow the government to take guns away or make guns less accessible. Clearly the government is capable of taking away the rights of the people so we have to prepare ourselves to take them back.
[/quote]

The point you have continued to miss is that THEY HAVE BIGGER GUNS THAN YOU. They also HAVE BETTER TECHNOLOGY. That is what was meant by pointing out that this isn’t the 1700’s. If it really came down to it, who do you think would win, some 45 year old guy with a rifle…or several government agents surrounding his house and shooting nerve gas into it after cutting off his finances?

I am very interested in how some of you think this will go down outside of some complete overthrow of government where all of the people fight together as one alongside some country’s military forces.

People don’t have to spend 30+ seconds pouring gun powder into their rifle to make it shoot anymore. With the development of technology, the fight no longer needs to take place gun against gun. That was why I brought up freezing your accounts before.

In all out war, they have you and everyone else beat no matter how many guns you personally have stored in your basement or closet.

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Professor X wrote:
…In all out war, they have you and everyone else beat no matter how many guns you personally have stored in your basement or closet.

The Russians could have used your expertise in Afghanistan in the 80s.[/quote]

Shit, the afghans were supplied advanced tech military weapons by whom?

[quote]Professor X wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Professor X wrote:
…In all out war, they have you and everyone else beat no matter how many guns you personally have stored in your basement or closet.

The Russians could have used your expertise in Afghanistan in the 80s.

Shit, the afghans were supplied advanced tech military weapons by whom?[/quote]

I guess that we will get help from the Russians then?

[quote]Christine wrote:
Professor X wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Professor X wrote:
…In all out war, they have you and everyone else beat no matter how many guns you personally have stored in your basement or closet.

The Russians could have used your expertise in Afghanistan in the 80s.

Shit, the afghans were supplied advanced tech military weapons by whom?

I guess that we will get help from the Russians then?[/quote]

We’d need help from someone. A bunch of dudes running around with rifles ain’t gonna cut it.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:

Yes, but nothing happened to said soldiers. The government didn’t come flying in and take the soldiers away in a black van.

The very definition of apathy. You guys are ranting about what happens if your government turns on you and how you need guns just in case…yet you sit here and act like it can’t happen with just these very types of events.

That makes ZERO sense and if you can’t see that, you need help.

Hell they didn?t even know they were being listened to until after the fact?.

Gee, THAT would be the bad part.

I like how you say “Your government” When we can’t defend ourselves it will be “our” fault that’s for sure.

The government would have to do a little bit more then just listen in on our conversations to take over this country.

You essentially made my point…

“yet you sit here and act like it can’t happen with just these very types of events.”…

With this event already taking place now is not the time to allow the government to take guns away or make guns less accessible. Clearly the government is capable of taking away the rights of the people so we have to prepare ourselves to take them back.

The point you have continued to miss is that THEY HAVE BIGGER GUNS THAN YOU. They also HAVE BETTER TECHNOLOGY. That is what was meant by pointing out that this isn’t the 1700’s. If it really came down to it, who do you think would win, some 45 year old guy with a rifle…or several government agents surrounding his house and shooting nerve gas into it after cutting off his finances?

I am very interested in how some of you think this will go down outside of some complete overthrow of government where all of the people fight together as one alongside some country’s military forces.

People don’t have to spend 30+ seconds pouring gun powder into their rifle to make it shoot anymore. With the development of technology, the fight no longer needs to take place gun against gun. That was why I brought up freezing your accounts before.

In all out war, they have you and everyone else beat no matter how many guns you personally have stored in your basement or closet.[/quote]
The Soviets had much better technology then the Afghan fighters look how that turned out. We have much better technology then the Vietnamese look how that turned out.

I don?t see either loading any black power muskets. Like I?ve said some one that is motivated can be a serious problem for some one that is just collecting a pay check. Also like I?ve said and you have ignored is the military would be split between fighting for the government and against it. Just like during the civil war it wouldn?t matter brother might be fighting brother.

It will go down the same way the civil rights movement and the revolution went down. People would organize and leaders would emerge to lead the people against the government. You act like this hasn?t happened before all over the world.

If the government freezes accounts people would fight that much quicker.

In an all out war it is anyone?s game. You are naïve to think the government is impervious to its citizens because ?they have bigger guns? it is about spirit and the warrior mentality and fighting for a cause above your self. David vs. Goliath worked out before.

Honestly if a revolution or civil war broke out in this country do you honestly think the military would just back the boys in Washington? Some will fight for America some will fight WITH America. Either side could win.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

The point is don’t underestimate the mitigating force provided by 60 - 80 million gun owners with an excess of 100 million guns.[/quote]

Oh, but I will because most of the people in this country were not raised to fight or think as soldiers. Those people were. Their terrain was also an advantage.

[quote]

Would it be a fair fight? Not hardly. Would it be a huge obstacle for military planners to have to deal with? Yes.

Would it give pause to a government intent on tyranny? Yes.[/quote]

Good word. Pause.

[quote]

Whether or not a loose knit civilian force would be capable of defending itself against the full power of the U.S. military is undebatable. It wouldn’t. [/quote]

Glad we agree on something. That means maybe we should be paying a little more attention to these little expansions of government power that some here seem to think don’t matter much.

[quote]

So it comes down to the principle of the thing. Should we flush the Second since some have decided resistance to a tyrant is futile? Is that the argument now? If so, which one is next? (The Tenth has already been flushed) The First? [/quote]

Gee, that wasn’t the argument at all. Are you even paying attention? Take off the “right wing rhetoric” glasses for a second.

[quote]

Bottom line is if you don’t think the Second is viable/applicable/necessary/whatever then you can’t just ignore it. You have to repeal it. Until then it remains the law of the land.[/quote]

I don’t see a waiting period as destruction of the Second.

[quote]

I know one thing for sure. If it ever came down to a real fight as discussed before and in our lifetime, the good guys will need a good oral surgeon. Whose side will you stand on?[/quote]

Whichever can afford my bill.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Whichever can afford my bill.[/quote]

LMAO

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
<<< The Soviets had much better technology then the Afghan fighters look how that turned out. We have much better technology then the Vietnamese look how that turned out. >>>[/quote]

One thing the underdogs in both of those cases had they it is debatable would be present here was a ferocious commitment to a common cause.

We haven’t been really untied in anything in this country in great numbers since WWII.

[quote]Professor X wrote:

He is prevented from voting so why would he not be prevented from getting a gun?

You all are starting in the wrong place. [/quote]

This is on a state by state basis.

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Honestly if a revolution or civil war broke out in this country do you honestly think the military would just back the boys in Washington? Some will fight for America some will fight WITH America. Either side could win. [/quote]

The US Military will not fight on the side of the government they do not see as legitimate. Certain units may but guard units certainly will not and many would stay in the garrison before they would attack a civilian population. Count on it.

Scary to think this is being debated now. Never thought I would see it.

Obama better be a wise man. The moonbats went nuts over Bush but I see the backlash against Obama after a few years being much worse. I certianly hope he and his administration do not lead the nation towards an armed rebellion.

However, I don’t have much hope for a naive and inexperienced idealist who feels he has a mandate and whose supporters view him as the messiah. Recipe for disaster.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Sifu wrote:
The founding fathers never wanted this country to be tightly regulated with the government having unlimited power over the people, they wanted to people to be a bit ungovernable. The government forcing the people to provide to it records of how and when they have excercised their civil rights completely goes against the principles this country was founded on.

I didn’t respond to everything you wrote because I feel we would just be going round in circles. You have your opinion and I have mine, however, I did want to respond to this.

This is the same argument made against the Patriot Act which I see as much more sweeping and damaging than gun registration yet NONE of these voices were being given much of a platform when it comes to the conservative party as a whole. Instead, we got, “if you didn’t do anything wrong then why worry about it”. [/quote]

Just for the record I have not been supportive of the patriot act. In my opinion a bill that so blatantly infringed on civil rights being named patriot is an insult to the patriots who founded this country. Destroying the constitution is not a patriotic act.

The British have been using the old if you have nothing to hide then you should have nothing to fear excuse since before the revolution. Only ignorant idiots buy that one.

[quote]

No doubt many will now say that they don’t feel that way now that republicans are no longer in office. However, hopefully you won’t claim as such and will actually address the real concern here.

My point is, while some people rant and rave about gun control that hasn’t even happened, the real 400lbs gorilla in the room isn’t that but the act pushed through which seems to give our current government the right to call its own citizens ‘enemy’ if it sees fit.[/quote]

The patriot act was a treasonous act on the part of the congress, because they did serious damage to the constitution without even debating it or subjecting it to scrutiny. I am glad a lot of the traitors responsible for it are out of office or soon will be.

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Quote from a friend of mine:

"“Yes We Can . . . Ban Guns”~~Obama Announces Gun Ban Agenda Before The Final Vote Count Is In

Friday, November 07, 2008

Senator Barack Obama?s presidential campaign slogan, “the audacity of hope,” should have instead been “the audacity of deceit.”

After months of telling the American people that he supports the Second Amendment, and only hours after being declared the president-elect, the Obama transition team website announced an agenda taken straight from the anti-gun lobby~~four initiatives designed to ban guns and drive law-abiding firearm manufacturers and dealers out of business:

1 [i]“Making the expired federal assault weapons ban permanent.” Perhaps no other firearm issue has been more dishonestly portrayed by gun prohibitionists.

Notwithstanding their predictions that the ban?s expiration in 2004 would bring about the end of civilization, for the last four years the nation?s murder rate has been lower than anytime since the mid-1960s. Studies for Congress, the Congressional Research Service, the National Institute of Justice, the National Academy of Sciences, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have found no evidence that gun prohibition or gun control reduces crime.

Guns that were affected by the ban are used in only a tiny fraction of violent crime-about 35 times as many people are murdered without any sort of firearm (knives, bare hands, etc.), as with “assault weapons.”

Obama says that “assault weapons” are machine guns that “belong on foreign battlefields,” but that is a lie; the guns are only semi-automatic, and they are not used by a military force anywhere on the planet.[/i]

2 “Repeal the Tiahrt Amendment.” The amendmentendorsed by the Fraternal Order of Policeprohibits the release of federal firearm tracing information to anyone other than a law enforcement agency conducting a bona fide criminal investigation.

Anti-gun activists oppose the restriction, because it prevents them from obtaining tracing information and using it in frivolous lawsuits against law-abiding firearm manufacturers. Their lawsuits seek to obtain huge financial judgments against firearm manufacturers when a criminal uses a gun to inflict harm, even though the manufacturers have complied with all applicable laws.

3[i] “Closing the gun show loophole.” There is no “loophole.” Under federal law, a firearm dealer must conduct a background check on anyone to whom he sells a gun, regardless of where the sale takes place. A person who is not a dealer may sell a gun from his personal collection without conducting a check.

Gun prohibitionists claim that many criminals obtain guns from gun shows, though the most recent federal survey of convicted felons put the figure at only 0.7 percent.

They also claim that non-dealers should be required to conduct checks when selling guns at shows, but the legislation they support goes far beyond imposing that lone requirement. In fact, anti-gun members of Congress voted against that limited measure, holding out for a broader bill intended to drive shows out of business.[/i]

4 “Making guns in this country childproof.” “Childproof” is a codeword for a variety of schemes designed to prevent the sale of firearms by imposing impossible or highly expensive design requirements, such as biometric shooter-identification systems.

While no one opposes keeping children safe, the fact is that accidental firearm-related deaths among children have decreased 86 percent since 1975, even as the numbers of children and guns have risen dramatically. Today, the chances of a child being killed in a firearm accident are less than one in a million."[/quote]

That about sums it upNot even inaugurated yet and first thing, after putting out all those TV ads “I’m not gooing after your guns” eyewash, he and his boy “I banned steroids against the advice of the FDA, AMA & DEA” Biden, goes straight after milclone militia rifles and other “do nothing” grandstanding “make instant criminals by a stroke of a pen” tyranny “laws”…I’m disgusted & disappointed, you betcha’…

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Christine wrote:
Professor X wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Professor X wrote:
…In all out war, they have you and everyone else beat no matter how many guns you personally have stored in your basement or closet.

The Russians could have used your expertise in Afghanistan in the 80s.

Shit, the afghans were supplied advanced tech military weapons by whom?

I guess that we will get help from the Russians then?

We’d need help from someone. A bunch of dudes running around with rifles ain’t gonna cut it.[/quote]

The US military cannot hold downtown Baghdad without the Iraqis co-operating but they could hold Los Angeles?

Texas?

Always moving in enemy territory, no places to rest, everything could be a bomb and a possible rifle behind every window?

The military could not even feed their soldiers without civilian co-operation.

[quote]orion wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Christine wrote:
Professor X wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Professor X wrote:
…In all out war, they have you and everyone else beat no matter how many guns you personally have stored in your basement or closet.

The Russians could have used your expertise in Afghanistan in the 80s.

Shit, the afghans were supplied advanced tech military weapons by whom?

I guess that we will get help from the Russians then?

We’d need help from someone. A bunch of dudes running around with rifles ain’t gonna cut it.

The US military cannot hold downtown Baghdad without the Iraqis co-operating but they could hold Los Angeles?

Texas?

Always moving in enemy territory, no places to rest, everything could be a bomb and a possible rifle behind every window?

The military could not even feed their soldiers without civilian co-operation.

[/quote]

I think I’ve written this enough times…but in this “what if” scenario, why do you think military tactics would take precedence over shooting down the infrastructure so that people would rely on the government more? If you can’t buy food, they don’t have to worry about you as much.

Revelations seems to imply that all commerce will require “the mark of the beast”. This isn’t foreign territory.