[Louisville Glocker]

Originally Posted by Warp

They went well enough to seemingly get every gun they tried for.

We don't know how many they got because they didn't record them.

We aren't sure how widespread it was...but it was far, FAR too much, regardless.

If they can take them there, why not anywhere else?

In my neck of the woods, they'd get heavy resistance.

[iluv2viddyfilms]

Originally Posted by Scott3670

Since there is no such thing as a national registration (Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986) we're OK on a national level. The Feds don't have a clue as to what we own. On a state level, well, those poor fools who live in a state that has a state registration might have some problems. The bottom line - for me - is that I have no guns ever since that horrible boating accident years ago.

Doesn't the government know what we have from non-private sales and purchase because of the federal form we fill out and background checks?

[Warp]

Originally Posted by iluv2viddyfilms

Doesn't the government know what we have from non-private sales and purchase because of the federal form we fill out and background checks?

From the background checks? No, they don't know anything (make, model, serial number, etc) from that.


From the form? The form stays with your dealer. (unless dealer goes out of business within a certain number of years of your purchase)

[The_Gun_Guru]

Originally Posted by Louisville Glocker

In my neck of the woods, they'd get heavy resistance.

Here as well

I can think of three states right off the bat that would be a real challenge for them to disarm....FL, TX and AZ.

Here in FL it would be a bloodbath!


TGG

[Maine1]

4473's are not kept on file by the ATF, thus allowing them to be able to say "there is NO federal registry of gun owners". However, FFLs ARE required to retain these forms, and surrender them on demand to the ATF.
Thus, they have denial, and have shifted the responsibility off to the FFL.

Don't panic. They have rattled this saber before to get people to react with fear, panic buying, ect. ( besides the fact that the source is questionable)

But also, be ready, have a plan that is not just" shoot them at my door'. Think.
We have TIME to plan. use it.
Best thing to do is NOT be there when they knock...be on vacation with your guns.

[Bruce M]

Will they maybe send you a postcard advising when they will come and knock? If you are not there do they forget about you completely or maybe come back in a few weeks? What if you are in the shower when they come?

[SpectreRider]

Originally Posted by Bruce M

Out of curiosity for those that would fight, are there any circumstances in which you might not fight when they come for your guns? Suppose you glanced out the front and back doors and there were say a couple dozen or more heavily armed and armored tactical types - the odds were overwhelmingly against you. What if instead of at home, they came for you at work, or at the grocery store?

If the deadline for voluntary turn in is July 1, 201x at noon then the battle starts July 1, 201x at noon.

Sitting around waiting for them to come is a fools move.

TAKING THE GUNS IS NOT AN END GAME, IT IS BUT A STEP ON A PATH TO ENSLAVEMENT.

[Bruce M]

Originally Posted by SpectreRider

...
Sitting around waiting for them to come is a fools move.

...

But one person attempting to fend off an entire tactical team is not a fool's move?

[The_Gun_Guru]

Originally Posted by Bruce M

But one person attempting to fend off an entire tactical team is not a fool's move?

No, it is a patrot's move, and his duty to defend the Constitution.

If enough of us do it then they will retreat back to Washington with their tails between their legs!

DO NOT be afraid to stand up for your rights! THAT would be a fool's move.


TGG

[Leigh]

Originally Posted by Warp

If they can take them there, why not anywhere else?

After the Katrina nightmare, Kentucky's General Assembly had the sense to pass laws protecting citizens from LE confiscation of firearms during times of disaster (as long as the person isn't using the weapon illegally, of course).

Of course, that doesn't mean they cannot take them, it just means that they cannot take them legally.

[mc1911]

They sure like to elect wackos and commies out there.

Leftist housewives seem to be their favorite at election time.

We had a Pelosi clone running in Iowa but sent her packing.

[ArmoryDoc]

We should all understand one very important thing. A treaty with the UN trumps states rights. Doesn't matter what each state has passed reference law regarding confiscation. The treaty will dictate the final verdict in the minds of the feds. With the treaty in place, our innocent, compassionate federal government can then divert blame to the UN, all the while gently coaxing (read FORCING) your state into abiding the mandates of the treaty.

It will be the individual that guarantees your own right, knock-by-knock and arrest-by-arrest. BTW, they USUALLY knock after o'dark thirty.

[WoodenPlank]

Originally Posted by ArmoryDoc

We should all understand one very important thing. A treaty with the UN trumps states rights. Doesn't matter what each state has passed reference law regarding confiscation. The treaty will dictate the final verdict in the minds of the feds. With the treaty in place, our innocent, compassionate federal government can then divert blame to the UN, all the while gently coaxing (read FORCING) your state into abiding the mandates of the treaty.

It will be the individual that guarantees your own right, knock-by-knock and arrest-by-arrest. BTW, they USUALLY knock after o'dark thirty.

International treaty does not trump the constitution.

[ArmoryDoc]

It doesn't in my eyes either. But this isn't the same world we used to live in. You wouldn't think municipal or state law would trump the Constitution either but I can think of places in the US you can't have a handgun, or it has to be "approved" first.

[The_Gun_Guru]

Originally Posted by ArmoryDoc

We should all understand one very important thing. A treaty with the UN trumps states rights. Doesn't matter what each state has passed reference law regarding confiscation. The treaty will dictate the final verdict in the minds of the feds. With the treaty in place, our innocent, compassionate federal government can then divert blame to the UN, all the while gently coaxing (read FORCING) your state into abiding the mandates of the treaty.

It will be the individual that guarantees your own right, knock-by-knock and arrest-by-arrest. BTW, they USUALLY knock after o'dark thirty.

20 states have already filed petitions to secede from the Union. If the UN treaty passes you will see things that you never thought you would see happen in America.

Originally Posted by WoodenPlank

International treaty does not trump the constitution.

AMEN!!!

When the knocking starts the shooting begins.

Sorry liberals, it has to be this way, you should have been smarter!


TGG

[ScaryPerryDawsy]

Originally Posted by Leigh

After the Katrina nightmare, Kentucky's General Assembly had the sense to pass laws protecting citizens from LE confiscation of firearms during times of disaster (as long as the person isn't using the weapon illegally, of course).

Of course, that doesn't mean they cannot take them, it just means that they cannot take them legally.

Or SAFELY!!!!

[SpectreRider]

Originally Posted by Bruce M

But one person attempting to fend off an entire tactical team is not a fool's move?

Again, when the patriots war starts, do not be sitting around the house waiting to be scooped up by a tactical team.

[BBMW]

Originally Posted by Warp

The standard responses are:

1. Executive order.

The president can't just do whatever he wants be executive order. Their has to be some legislation in place to authorize him (well the executive branch, but it goes up to him) to issue such orders under the legislation. AFAIK, none of the gun control laws in give him anywhere near the level of power we're talking about.

2. It will happen in 2 years when the Democrats control the house.

It's a pretty big if. If it did happen it's would be less unlikely. But that still doesn't get it out of the unlikely category.

3. A SCOTUS Justice will be a appointed that tips the balance to the liberal side and some case will come before them where it somehow results in a huge anti gun and anti 2A ruling.

Even if the two recent pro 2A rulings got overturned, the Congress would still have to pass legislation. That would then be challenged, and win. Besides the 2A, there's the whole 4A (search and seizure) issue.

None of the responses seem very good, if you ask me, for a variety of reasons.

Agreed.

[D-Ric902]

I would take my AR and remove the upper, stock, grip, trigger group and take the stripped upper out to the driveway with a BFH and beat the hell out of it. Then turn it in

[Little Joe]

Originally Posted by Bruce M

But one person attempting to fend off an entire tactical team is not a fool's move?

I have a lot more respect for this guy, than somebody who would allow the SS to subdue them and take away their rights and dignity by force. Anybody who would be enforcing the dismantling of the Constitution by the socialists would be SS.


I don't think it is going to happen. The SCOTUS has spoken. We are a nation of laws even though we have a lawless administration.

http://www.borderlandbeat.com/2010/1...-death-of.html

[oldman11]

Originally Posted by The_Gun_Guru

No, it is a patrot's move, and his duty to defend the Constitution.

If enough of us do it then they will retreat back to Washington with their tails between their legs!

DO NOT be afraid to stand up for your rights! THAT would be a fool's move.


TGG

You're absolutely right.

[VC-Racing]

Originally Posted by The_Gun_Guru

Here as well

I can think of three states right off the bat that would be a real challenge for them to disarm....FL, TX and AZ.

Here in FL it would be a bloodbath!


TGG

Don't forget SC....

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

[oldman11]

Originally Posted by Bruce M

I do wonder how many people would actually resist and would resistance be on a (well ordered) group basis or by individuals.

Of course I am also slightly skeptical of the ability of one person armed with only a handgun because they are not at home and not near their car to be able to fend off an entire tactical team. My guess is that sort of thing works better in movies and internet discussions and perhaps not quite as well in real life. I also wonder if faced with overwhelming odds at what point does the action go from a blazing act of martyrdom to a foolish act of suicide.

Gee, you seem more than willing to turn your guns over to the gov't.

[Warp]

Originally Posted by oldman11

Gee, you seem more than willing to turn your guns over to the gov't.

[TheExplorer]

Guns? What guns? I thought only cowboys used guns.