[Palmguy]

Originally Posted by TeoK

"This is not a "gun" issue. This is a legal system and mental health system issue."

Respectfully, it is both. The kids were killed by a madman with guns. We need to try to prevent madmen from getting guns. It seems to me that one positive step - which has nothing to do with banning anything - would be to make sure law-abiding gun owners are not unknowingly selling their guns to people who are "mentally defective."

No, a background check would not have prevented this particular crime. It might, however, prevent a future crime. One more massacre like Sandy Hook and you can be sure that our gun laws will look like Great Britain's in short order.

And when private sales are illegal, and all transfers must be done through FFLs with BG checks, and another Sandy Hook inevitably happens, what is the next compromise we will be making?

[HerrGlock]

Originally Posted by Palmguy

And when private sales are illegal, and all transfers must be done through FFLs with BG checks, and another Sandy Hook inevitably happens, what is the next compromise we will be making?

"We" white man?

[PhotoFeller]

Originally Posted by gommer

I wouldn't say it's the plan to disarm society and then immediately create a dictatorship.

I would envision it something more like this.

First, guns would go away. Maybe not all guns, but most. At least your right to have them. Then would come enforcement. That would be crazy. You would see people fight back, and depending on how that goes -- anyone who defended their rights would be portraid as crazies - terrorists.

Much as the British portraid the Americans revolting against them.

Losing the guns isn't really the scary part. Granted, it won't be pretty. But, assuming the government wins that battle - which I don't think it could -- but assuming they did, what is scary is what comes after.

Now that we've established the Second Amendment can be ignored -- we now have precident to also recognize that the other rights can be ignored.

You would see a slow but steady erosion of the rest of those rights over decades. Not some wham bam explosion, no, I think it would take decades. All in the name of safety, right?

We'll keep you safe. Safe from people talking bad about you, so you are no longer protected by the First Amendment. Were you going to write an article about a corrupt politician? Ohh no, we can't have that. That would insight panic and distrust in the government - you will need to go to jail.

What's this, we think there might be an uprising being planned. We're going to perform random home searches to we can seek out these terrorists.

That sounds INSANE! I know. But, to anyone who thinks Amercians just wouldn't stand for such a think - I point to the Patriot Act.

YOU ALREADY HAVE.




Anyway, I digress, to get to your question more specifically -- I don't think there is anyone in politics with an agenda driven plan to confiscate or ban firearms so they can take over the world. I think those who are after them are genuinly doing so because they are scared.

But, again - I point to the Patriot Act. A piece of legislation that was put in place with the intent to deliver safety at the cost of liberty. Bush didn't put that in place because he wanted to take over your life and rule you with an iron fist - no I believe his intent was genuine, much as I believe even Feinstein's intent is genuine.

But just because they mean well doesn't mean it's right.

So no, no giant conspiracy. Yes, Feinstein has said she'd take all our guns if she could. But I don't think what she's after is a means to an end - she's made it clear she'll take anything she can get towards that goal. So it's no secret on that end.

Whatever, I'm rambling now...

Thanks for a civil, straightforward answer. I had the impression disarmament was all about a conspiracy based on making us unable to defend ourselves against an oppressive government...you know, the 2A right to bear arms. I've never read an explanation that the Progressives are genuinely scared of guns as a public safety issue.

I'm not sure everyone agrees with your view, gommer, but it seems more plausible than a 'disarm to dominate' theory.
Thanks for your post.

If there is a theory that progressives are after our guns for reasons other than genuine public safety concerns, I'd like to hear more about it.

[Palmguy]

Originally Posted by HerrGlock

"We" white man?

I'm with you.

[Roger1079]

The only thing I find funny is that some of you are actually seriously talking about a revolution in the event of a forced confiscation.

Not a single civilian legal weapon of any kind can compare to what our military posseses today. The playing field is far from level as it was in the late 1700's.

Any type of opposition would be nothing more than commiting suicide.

On a side note, I do agree with gommer's assesment of both this proposed legislation and the Patriot Act. I feel that the intentions are good however the execution is already or will be a failure.

[Cybercowboy]

Originally Posted by Roger1079

The only thing I find funny is that some of you are actually seriously talking about a revolution in the event of a forced confiscation.

Not a single civilian legal weapon of any kind can compare to what our military posseses today. The playing field is far from level as it was in the late 1700's.

Any type of opposition would be nothing more than commiting suicide.

On a side note, I do agree with gommer's assesment of both this proposed legislation and the Patriot Act. I feel that the intentions are good however the execution is already or will be a failure.

Over 80 million American households have one or more guns.

If only 1% of that number resist that's 800,000 very determined and likely heavily armed households, in a country with 700,000 police officers. Once the blood began to flow, you could see a lot of fence sitters jump into the fray.

Look, if the military is going neighborhood to neighborhood clearing out weapons, we don't even live in America anymore and I would probably go down fighting. However, most police and military are actually on our side. It would play out very very badly.

[svtpwnz]

Originally Posted by Roger1079

The only thing I find funny is that some of you are actually seriously talking about a revolution in the event of a forced confiscation.

Not a single civilian legal weapon of any kind can compare to what our military posseses today. The playing field is far from level as it was in the late 1700's.

Any type of opposition would be nothing more than commiting suicide.

On a side note, I do agree with gommer's assesment of both this proposed legislation and the Patriot Act. I feel that the intentions are good however the execution is already or will be a failure.

I will agree that the military does have a huge advantage as far weaponry is concerned. However, the sheer number of armed civilians is staggering not to mention our armed forces are spread very thin as it is. I honestly feel that the military wouldn't have a chance in hell of taking over the armed populous here. Then again, it really depends on how many citizens would be willing to face an armed conflict with US troops and how many troops would follow orders to murder civilians.

[ShotRePeter]

Originally Posted by gommer

I wouldn't say it's the plan to disarm society and then immediately create a dictatorship.

I would envision it something more like this.

First, guns would go away. Maybe not all guns, but most. At least your right to have them. Then would come enforcement. That would be crazy. You would see people fight back, and depending on how that goes -- anyone who defended their rights would be portraid as crazies - terrorists.

Much as the British portraid the Americans revolting against them.

Losing the guns isn't really the scary part. Granted, it won't be pretty. But, assuming the government wins that battle - which I don't think it could -- but assuming they did, what is scary is what comes after.

Now that we've established the Second Amendment can be ignored -- we now have precident to also recognize that the other rights can be ignored.

You would see a slow but steady erosion of the rest of those rights over decades. Not some wham bam explosion, no, I think it would take decades. All in the name of safety, right?

We'll keep you safe. Safe from people talking bad about you, so you are no longer protected by the First Amendment. Were you going to write an article about a corrupt politician? Ohh no, we can't have that. That would insight panic and distrust in the government - you will need to go to jail.

What's this, we think there might be an uprising being planned. We're going to perform random home searches to we can seek out these terrorists.

That sounds INSANE! I know. But, to anyone who thinks Amercians just wouldn't stand for such a think - I point to the Patriot Act.

YOU ALREADY HAVE.




Anyway, I digress, to get to your question more specifically -- I don't think there is anyone in politics with an agenda driven plan to confiscate or ban firearms so they can take over the world. I think those who are after them are genuinly doing so because they are scared.

But, again - I point to the Patriot Act. A piece of legislation that was put in place with the intent to deliver safety at the cost of liberty. Bush didn't put that in place because he wanted to take over your life and rule you with an iron fist - no I believe his intent was genuine, much as I believe even Feinstein's intent is genuine.

But just because they mean well doesn't mean it's right.

So no, no giant conspiracy. Yes, Feinstein has said she'd take all our guns if she could. But I don't think what she's after is a means to an end - she's made it clear she'll take anything she can get towards that goal. So it's no secret on that end.

Whatever, I'm rambling now...

I'd like to use this exchange, because when talking to my father, who is not an anti, but a non gunner, he always asks WHY would the gov't do this stuff? whats the motivation, and I always say that its their nature, not to rule/oppress us, but to make us "safe" from ourselves so they sort of just naturally end up as oppressors. Its unfortunate, but just goes to show why the road to hell is paved with good intentions

[Gunboat1]

http://westernrifleshooters.blogspot...-army-ten.html

Google "Warsaw Ghetto Uprising".

Read. Learn. Be prepared and willing to resist.

[cowboy1964]

It's Tuesday, the panic is over? Where can I buy some ammo?

[Bruce M]

Originally Posted by Roger1079

The only thing I find funny is that some of you are actually seriously talking about a revolution in the event of a forced confiscation.

Not a single civilian legal weapon of any kind can compare to what our military posseses today. The playing field is far from level as it was in the late 1700's.

Any type of opposition would be nothing more than commiting suicide.

....

Originally Posted by Cybercowboy

Over 80 million American households have one or more guns.

If only 1% of that number resist that's 800,000 very determined and likely heavily armed households, in a country with 700,000 police officers. Once the blood began to flow, you could see a lot of fence sitters jump into the fray.

....

On the one hand determined people living in caves have had some success in not faling to our military, although they do have the home field advantage.
When we look at 800000 households versus 700000 officers the odds look very good. But I am going to go out on a limb here and guess that next Tuesday when the confiscation starts the police may use more than one or two officers and not go to all the residences in question simultaneously. They might even not knock first.

[BradD]

Originally Posted by Cybercowboy

Over 80 million American households have one or more guns.

If only 1% of that number resist that's 800,000 very determined and likely heavily armed households, in a country with 700,000 police officers. Once the blood began to flow, you could see a lot of fence sitters jump into the fray.

Look, if the military is going neighborhood to neighborhood clearing out weapons, we don't even live in America anymore and I would probably go down fighting. However, most police and military are actually on our side. It would play out very very badly.

Such a scenario would seem likely only if someone with enough power says "All [or at least most] guns are banned. Turn them in by ##/##/####. After that, we'll go door-to-door searching homes in which we think are guns." I don't think they're stupid enough to do that.

Much slower, incremental limits and bans will only affect a limited number of people. If they resist, they'll just be arrested or killed and labelled terrorists or criminals, and many gun owners (e.g., the "go ahead and take his evil black rifle; just don't take my hunting rifle" crowd) will even agree. Is anyone at GT going to go fight over the kinds of limits being passed in NY? Unlikely. The next 17 increments will probably be similar.

I don't know what needs done for us to retain our freedoms. The situation is looking pretty bleak to me.

Someone please type something that'll encourage me!

[Bren]

Originally Posted by Palmguy

And when private sales are illegal, and all transfers must be done through FFLs with BG checks, and another Sandy Hook inevitably happens, what is the next compromise we will be making?

You mean at the point where they have a record of even more of our guns? What could go worng then?

[Bren]

Originally Posted by BradD

Such a scenario would seem likely only if someone with enough power says "All [or at least most] guns are banned. Turn them in by ##/##/####. After that, we'll go door-to-door searching homes in which we think are guns." I don't think they're stupid enough to do that.

Much slower, incremental limits and bans will only affect a limited number of people. If they resist, they'll just be arrested or killed and labelled terrorists or criminals, and many gun owners (e.g., the "go ahead and take his evil black rifle; just don't take my hunting rifle" crowd) will even agree. Is anyone at GT going to go fight over the kinds of limits being passed in NY? Unlikely. Next next 17 increments will probably be similar.

I don't know what needs done for us to retain our freedoms. The situation is looking pretty bleak to me.

Someone please type something that'll encourage me!

You are correct. However, in the absence of a credible movement and/or major event, people will never take physical action, regardless of what happens to the government, economy, freedom, safety, etc.

[PAGunner]

Originally Posted by Bren

You are correct. However, in the absence of a credible movement and/or major event, people will never take physical action, regardless of what happens to the government, economy, freedom, safety, etc.

With every day that goes by it seems Obama is intentionally destroying the Us economy. Wait till the quantitative easing bubble bursts, food and fuel will be nationalized and rationed, that is when guns will be confiscated. Make the registry now, attempt to ban the most effective weapons for the masses to fight to government tyranny and you've now "changed" America to Amerika. Most gun owners will cower and give up their guns without resistance. Some will peacefully resist, be arrested and have their lives completely destroyed.

[BradD]

Originally Posted by Bren

You are correct. However, in the absence of a credible movement and/or major event, people will never take physical action, regardless of what happens to the government, economy, freedom, safety, etc.

That wasn't very encouraging. LOL

[Keepreloading]

is it the end yet?

[TX OMFS]

Originally Posted by skorper

The mental health issue is going to be bantered about a lot. Look for these issues to be integrated into future background checks. (ie. If you have ever been diagnosed with certain conditions, and possibly even the medications you are on).

This is a big deal. Mental illness is medically defined in the USA by the DSM manual (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnos...ntal_Disorders). This manual is based on a consensus opinion and is ever evolving. Homosexuality was once listed as a disease, hoarding will soon be listed as a symptom of disease.

It is not hard to invision "hoarding" of guns and/or ammunition being labelled a mental illness...

[spcwes]

Originally Posted by Cybercowboy

Over 80 million American households have one or more guns.

If only 1% of that number resist that's 800,000 very determined and likely heavily armed households, in a country with 700,000 police officers. Once the blood began to flow, you could see a lot of fence sitters jump into the fray.

Look, if the military is going neighborhood to neighborhood clearing out weapons, we don't even live in America anymore and I would probably go down fighting. However, most police and military are actually on our side. It would play out very very badly.

This, as a high ranking police officer in charge of operations or having say so in almost all operations I will not go against what I am sworn to protect being the Constitution and will not participate or allow any of my officers to participate in such illegal acts. If my views cost me a job there will be a mass exodus and you will have more allies.

[Palmguy]

Originally Posted by Bren

You mean at the point where they have a record of even more of our guns? What could go worng then?

Exactly.

So many people who are allegedly on our side are arguing to "give them the gun show loophole", as if that will make the Brady Bunch say "Ok folks, mission accomplished, time to go home".

The goal is to turn us into England. We give up rights in the name of "compromise" at our peril.

[JuneyBooney]

Originally Posted by Roger1079

The only thing I find funny is that some of you are actually seriously talking about a revolution in the event of a forced confiscation.

Not a single civilian legal weapon of any kind can compare to what our military posseses today. The playing field is far from level as it was in the late 1700's.

Any type of opposition would be nothing more than commiting suicide.

On a side note, I do agree with gommer's assesment of both this proposed legislation and the Patriot Act. I feel that the intentions are good however the execution is already or will be a failure.

But look at Afghanistan and remember the trouble that we as well as the Russians have had and you see what would lie in store in the citizens revolted in the US. It would be an unending situation for the military.

[TBO]

Originally Posted by JuneyBooney

But look at Afghanistan and remember the trouble that we as well as the Russians have had and you see what would lie in store in the citizens revolted in the US. It would be an unending situation for the military.

Is there just a wee bit of difference between there and here?

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Copatalk 2

[chrisbroz]

I liked the Roman Legionary's solution for his problems...a Gladius to the gut!!!

[Armanius]

In my opinion, the intent of gun control laws is to consolidate the power of the big central government. Without guns, the people would have to rely even more on the police for protection. Who controls the police? The government. Who pays the police? The government with taxpayer's money. This will justify additional taxes on the people. The goal of government nowadays (whether Dem or Rep) is the growth of government. Because government is a money making business for politicians. And the more people need government, the more money will government get. And the politicians become richer. There are very few politicians today that believe in limited government. Otherwise, we wouldn't be in the mess that we are in today.

[Bren]

Originally Posted by Roger1079

The only thing I find funny is that some of you are actually seriously talking about a revolution in the event of a forced confiscation.

Not a single civilian legal weapon of any kind can compare to what our military posseses today. The playing field is far from level as it was in the late 1700's.

Any type of opposition would be nothing more than commiting suicide.

On a side note, I do agree with gommer's assesment of both this proposed legislation and the Patriot Act. I feel that the intentions are good however the execution is already or will be a failure.

Nothing funny about it.

A. The military are also citizens - the last 2 times there was a revolution in this country (1776 and 1861) the side that revolted was mostly made up of and led by former members of the military of the side being revolted against, using the equipment they brought with them. Robert E. Lee, Braxton Bragg, Kirby Smith, Stonewall Jackson and pretty much every confederate leader you have ever heard of was a U.S. Army officer, West Point graduate, and had fought for the U.S. in the Mexican-American War, Seminole Wars, etc.

B. Even in the unbelievable event that the entire military backed the current government, an insurgency is virtually impossible for a conventional military to "defeat." See...every insurgency we have ever fought, for example.