GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-14-2013, 21:44   #226
GAFinch
Senior Member
 
GAFinch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Georgia
Posts: 5,780
Quote:
Originally Posted by TeoK View Post
[I]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.
Expanded backgrounds checks sounds fine in theory, but in practice it will end being linked computerized databases without congressional or judicial oversight that create a national proto-registration database. Liberals are NEVER satisfied with what they ask for...no matter how many assurances they offer up, calling us unreasonable, they get upset again and demand something even further in a few years. After decades of compromises to them, they're getting into their endgame here - it's time to stop playing their game on this and every other issue.
__________________
Fear the government that fears your guns.
GAFinch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2013, 21:56   #227
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 39,676


Quote:
Originally Posted by GAFinch View Post
Expanded backgrounds checks sounds fine in theory, but in practice it will end being linked computerized databases without congressional or judicial oversight that create a national proto-registration database. Liberals are NEVER satisfied with what they ask for...no matter how many assurances they offer up, calling us unreasonable, they get upset again and demand something even further in a few years. After decades of compromises to them, they're getting into their endgame here - it's time to stop playing their game on this and every other issue.
Not only that but once they have a stranglehold on gun transactions all it takes is minor inconspicuous legislation attached to some other bill to tighten the noose time and again. Like in 86 but a different tool would be in place.

This is essentially giving the government complete control over who can buy and sell a gun. Instead of a grand debate it can happen in tiny bits.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2013, 22:18   #228
TeoK
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 16
Spcwes, here's one for that asylum idea of yours, Nvrl8t:

"BTW, member since 2006 and you have 12 posts and this subject brought you out of your slumber to post ad nauseam. I smell a rat, er, troll."

I think extreme paranoia should be grounds to be committed and deny firearms. What do you think, Spcwes?

Truthfully, I don't know who is worse to reason with, extreme right-wingers or extreme anti-gun people. They both demonstrate the same level of irrationality on opposite ends of the issue.

I've probably done more for gun rights than Nvrl8t and quite a few others on this forum. As I say I've been an NRA member for 26 years. I've mailed plenty of personal checks to the NRA-ILA. I volunteer part of the summer as a rifle and shotgun instructor at Boy Scout camps. I've introduced around a dozen adults who had never before fired a gun to shooting sports. And I try to have polite, rational conversations with people who disagree about guns. I might not convince them to buy a gun and join the NRA, but at least I show them that gun owners aren't "nuts."

So before anyone questions my commitment to the Second Amendment, you better have done at least as much as I have to protect it. Running your mouths and declaring that you won't "compromise," doesn't help a damned thing. If a ban ever is implemented, you will forget all about your commitments to fight to the death, "pry your cold dead fingers from around it," and all of that BS. You're not going to endanger your family, endanger yourselves, give any future dictator an excuse to confiscate not only your guns, but your homes.

Grow up and join the real world. Stop giving people on the other side justification for their "gun nuts" insult. Try to act like grownups.
TeoK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2013, 22:27   #229
TeoK
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 16
This is a rational concern, expressed like a rational person:

"Not only that but once they have a stranglehold on gun transactions all it takes is minor inconspicuous legislation attached to some other bill to tighten the noose time and again."

I'd like to see gun owners address this concern. How can we have background checks but ensure this can't happen? We trust our government enough to post our suspicions of the government online, so we must believe there are sufficient protections in place for the First Amendment. Surely, there is a way to have background checks and also ensure that anti-gun politicians can't use it as a future weapon against gun owners.
TeoK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2013, 22:31   #230
jay29
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 757
If anyone thinks they are not after your guns, you have a mental disorder. Obama will go down as one of the worst presidents ever.
jay29 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2013, 22:35   #231
jay29
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 757
Quote:
Originally Posted by TeoK View Post
This is a rational concern, expressed like a rational person:

"Not only that but once they have a stranglehold on gun transactions all it takes is minor inconspicuous legislation attached to some other bill to tighten the noose time and again."

I'd like to see gun owners address this concern. How can we have background checks but ensure this can't happen? We trust our government enough to post our suspicions of the government online, so we must believe there are sufficient protections in place for the First Amendment. Surely, there is a way to have background checks and also ensure that anti-gun politicians can't use it as a future weapon against gun owners.
What we are seeing now is just the BEGINNING of the onslaught to eradicate the 2A, not the ending.

I never have, and now certainly never will, vote for a democrat. They can all go to hell.
jay29 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2013, 22:35   #232
Mr.Reignman
Senior Member
 
Mr.Reignman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 490
Quote:
Originally Posted by pugman View Post
Good.

The tree of liberty is looking a little dry.
Without question, the most thoughtful and truthful post I've ever read.
__________________
Like knives? Like being able to carry them? Like my companies Facebook!!!
https://www.facebook.com/ForwardProgessUsa
Mr.Reignman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2013, 22:48   #233
JuneyBooney
Senior Member
 
JuneyBooney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 15,374
Quote:
Originally Posted by jay29 View Post
If anyone thinks they are not after your guns, you have a mental disorder. Obama will go down as one of the worst presidents ever.
I would tend to agree.
JuneyBooney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2013, 23:04   #234
RJ's Guns
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 757
Quote:
Originally Posted by janice6 View Post
No compromise is acceptable.

Compromise to liberals means we pro-2nd Amendment citizens will settle for less freedoms, each and every time anything comes up.

Yes, we must always remember that they are incrementalists. They will try to take away our rights, bit by bit, as fast as they can.

RJ
RJ's Guns is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2013, 23:04   #235
TeoK
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 16
Obama dislikers (haters): Just realize that if there are gun bans/restrictions, it will be because Republicans in the House lost their nerve. The President cannot do this alone. The Democrats in Congress cannot do this alone. Whatever the President can do by executive order will be minor compared to what could happen in Congress if the Republicans get weak knees.

It's the Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats who need phone calls and email messages to remind them where they are getting their votes.

We're all doing that, right?

Last edited by TeoK; 01-14-2013 at 23:07..
TeoK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2013, 23:06   #236
MrGlock21
NRA Instructor
 
MrGlock21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: North Texas
Posts: 4,193


Quote:
Originally Posted by Roering View Post
I'm for background checks so long as they are fast and cheap.
Fast and cheap?

The article in the Daily Kos is worth reiterating. Please read carefully, every day if necessary, until you get the name of the game. It's the way to go for the anti 2A

"Daily Kos Dec 21, 2012

The very first thing we need is national registry. We need to know where the guns are, and who has them. Canada has a national firearms registry. We need to copy their model. We need a law demanding all firearms be registered to a national database. We need to know who has them and where they are. We need to make this as easy as possible for gun owners. The federal government provides the money and technical expertise, and the State police carry it out. Like a funded mandate. Most firearms already have a serial number on them, so it would really be a matter of taking the information already on the ATF form 4473 and putting it in a national database. I think about 6 months should be enough time.
Along with this, make private sales illegal. When a firearm is transferred, make it law that the registration must be updated. Again, make it super easy to do. Perhaps over, the internet. Dealers can log in by their FFLs and update the registration. Additionally, new guns are to be registered by the manufacturer. The object here is to create a clear paper trail from factory to distributor to dealer to owner. We want to encourage as much voluntary compliance as possible.
Now we get down to it. The registration period has passed. Now we have criminals without registered guns running around. Probably kooky types that "lost" them on a boat or something. So remember those ATF form 4473s? Those record every firearm sale, going back twenty years. And those have to be surrendered to the ATF on demand. So, we get those logbooks, and cross reference the names and addresses with the new national registry. Since most NRA types own two or (many) more guns, we can get an idea of who properly registered their guns and who didn't. For example, if we have a guy who purchased 6 guns over the course of 10 years, but only registered two of them, that raises a red flag.
Now, maybe he sold them or they got lost or something. But it gives us a good target for investigation. A nice visit by the ATF or state police to find out if he really does still have those guns would be certainly warranted. It's certainly not perfect. People may have gotten guns from parents or family, and not registered them. Perfect is the enemy of pretty darn good, as they say. This exercise isn't so much to track down every gun ever sold; the main idea would be to profile and investigate people that may not have registered their guns. As an example, I'm not so concerned with the guy who bought that bolt action Mauser a decade ago and doesn't have anything registered to his name. It's a pretty good possibility that he sold it, gave it away, or got rid of it somehow. And even if he didn't, that guy is not who I'm concerned with. I'm concerned that other guy who bought a half dozen assault weapons, registered two hunting rifles, and belongs to the NRA/GOA. He's the guy who warrants a raid.
So registration is the first step. Now that the vast majority are registered, we can do what we will. One good first step would be to close the registry to new registrations. This would, in effect, prevent new guns from being made or imported. This would put the murder machine corporations out of business for good, and cut the money supply to the NRA/GOA. As money dries up, the political capital needed for new controls will be greatly reduced.
There are a few other things I would suggest. I would suggest an immediate, national ban on concealed carry. A ban on internet sales of guns and ammunition is a no brainer. Microstamping would also be a very good thing. Even if the only thing it does is drive up costs, it could still lead to crimes being solved. I'm willing to try every advantage we can get.
A national Firearms Owner Identification Card might be good, but I'm not sure if it's necessary if we have a national database. We should also insist on comprehensive insurance and mandatory gun safes, subject to random, spot checks by local and federal law enforcement.
We must make guns expensive and unpopular, just like cigarettes. A nationwide, antigun campaign paid for by a per gun yearly tax paid by owners, dealers, and manufacturers would work well in this regard. We should also segway into an anti-hunting campaign, like those in the UK. By making hunting expensive and unpopular, we can make the transition to a gun free society much less of a headache for us.
I know this seems harsh, but this is the only way we can be truly safe. I don't want my kids being shot at by a deranged NRA member. I'm sure you don't either. So lets stop looking for short term solutions and start looking long term. Registration is the first step.
Tell Pres. Obama and democrats in congress to demand mandatory, comprehensive gun registration. It's the only way we can ban guns with any effectiveness"
__________________
Liberalism is totalitarianism with a human face.
(Thomas Sowell)

Last edited by MrGlock21; 01-14-2013 at 23:20..
MrGlock21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2013, 23:06   #237
RJ's Guns
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 757
Quote:
Originally Posted by jay29 View Post
Obama will go down as one of the worst presidents ever.
Our Dear Leader has already earned that distinction/title

RJ
RJ's Guns is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2013, 23:26   #238
DanaT
Pharaoh
 
DanaT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: CO & Baden –Württemberg
Posts: 15,822
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by TeoK View Post
"Considerable Inconvenience for criminals? So this honor system, how does that stop someone from just exchanging a gun for cash in the privacy of his own residence?"

That would happen, of course, just like drug transactions. The difference is that both parties would risk getting busted in a sting. I think it's pretty easy to see that private background checks would make it harder for criminals to get guns. Not impossible, but harder.
The difference is police do not support gun control and would not participate in sting operations against gun purchasers.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
__________________
Quote:
Twice a week? 14 times a month?
Quote:
2x4=8, not 14.
Many of the truths that we cling to depend on our point of view.
DanaT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2013, 23:29   #239
9jeeps
Fogey
 
9jeeps's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: at the end of the road
Posts: 4,122
Quote:
Originally Posted by jay29 View Post
If anyone thinks they are not after your guns, you have a mental disorder. Obama will go down as one of the worst presidents ever.


Where have you been? That thought was established by the second year of his first term.

Back door registration is the first step of
confiscation.

We older folks fought that tooth and nail. I guess you youngers never got the picture. Oh well.
__________________
FOGEY
Trying to make
sense of it all.
9jeeps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2013, 23:53   #240
holesinpaper
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,402
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanaT View Post
The difference is police do not support gun control and would not participate in sting operations against gun purchasers.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
Holy crack smoke Batman!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/836082/posts
holesinpaper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2013, 00:10   #241
High Altitude
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 2,046
Quote:
Originally Posted by 9jeeps View Post
[/COLOR]

Where have you been? That thought was established by the second year of his first term.

Back door registration is the first step of
confiscation.

We older folks fought that tooth and nail. I guess you youngers never got the picture. Oh well.
But that would never happen................

The Okie Corral
High Altitude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2013, 00:13   #242
High Altitude
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 2,046
Quote:
Originally Posted by jay29 View Post
What we are seeing now is just the BEGINNING of the onslaught to eradicate the 2A, not the ending.

I never have, and now certainly never will, vote for a democrat. They can all go to hell.
No doubt this is the beginning.

NY today, CA, IL tomorrow etc.....

Obama gets to replace a couple SCOTUS judges.......
High Altitude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2013, 00:18   #243
charging_rhinoceros
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 4
Quote:
Originally Posted by janice6 View Post
No compromise is acceptable.

Compromise to liberals means we pro-2nd Amendment citizens will settle for less freedoms, each and every time anything comes up.
Totally agree! What part of 'not infringed' do you not understand!?
charging_rhinoceros is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2013, 00:24   #244
charging_rhinoceros
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 4
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrGlock21 View Post
Fast and cheap?

The article in the Daily Kos is worth reiterating. Please read carefully, every day if necessary, until you get the name of the game. It's the way to go for the anti 2A

"Daily Kos Dec 21, 2012

The very first thing we need is national registry. We need to know where the guns are, and who has them. Canada has a national firearms registry. We need to copy their model. We need a law demanding all firearms be registered to a national database. We need to know who has them and where they are. We need to make this as easy as possible for gun owners. The federal government provides the money and technical expertise, and the State police carry it out. Like a funded mandate. Most firearms already have a serial number on them, so it would really be a matter of taking the information already on the ATF form 4473 and putting it in a national database. I think about 6 months should be enough time.
Along with this, make private sales illegal. When a firearm is transferred, make it law that the registration must be updated. Again, make it super easy to do. Perhaps over, the internet. Dealers can log in by their FFLs and update the registration. Additionally, new guns are to be registered by the manufacturer. The object here is to create a clear paper trail from factory to distributor to dealer to owner. We want to encourage as much voluntary compliance as possible.
Now we get down to it. The registration period has passed. Now we have criminals without registered guns running around. Probably kooky types that "lost" them on a boat or something. So remember those ATF form 4473s? Those record every firearm sale, going back twenty years. And those have to be surrendered to the ATF on demand. So, we get those logbooks, and cross reference the names and addresses with the new national registry. Since most NRA types own two or (many) more guns, we can get an idea of who properly registered their guns and who didn't. For example, if we have a guy who purchased 6 guns over the course of 10 years, but only registered two of them, that raises a red flag.
Now, maybe he sold them or they got lost or something. But it gives us a good target for investigation. A nice visit by the ATF or state police to find out if he really does still have those guns would be certainly warranted. It's certainly not perfect. People may have gotten guns from parents or family, and not registered them. Perfect is the enemy of pretty darn good, as they say. This exercise isn't so much to track down every gun ever sold; the main idea would be to profile and investigate people that may not have registered their guns. As an example, I'm not so concerned with the guy who bought that bolt action Mauser a decade ago and doesn't have anything registered to his name. It's a pretty good possibility that he sold it, gave it away, or got rid of it somehow. And even if he didn't, that guy is not who I'm concerned with. I'm concerned that other guy who bought a half dozen assault weapons, registered two hunting rifles, and belongs to the NRA/GOA. He's the guy who warrants a raid.
So registration is the first step. Now that the vast majority are registered, we can do what we will. One good first step would be to close the registry to new registrations. This would, in effect, prevent new guns from being made or imported. This would put the murder machine corporations out of business for good, and cut the money supply to the NRA/GOA. As money dries up, the political capital needed for new controls will be greatly reduced.
There are a few other things I would suggest. I would suggest an immediate, national ban on concealed carry. A ban on internet sales of guns and ammunition is a no brainer. Microstamping would also be a very good thing. Even if the only thing it does is drive up costs, it could still lead to crimes being solved. I'm willing to try every advantage we can get.
A national Firearms Owner Identification Card might be good, but I'm not sure if it's necessary if we have a national database. We should also insist on comprehensive insurance and mandatory gun safes, subject to random, spot checks by local and federal law enforcement.
We must make guns expensive and unpopular, just like cigarettes. A nationwide, antigun campaign paid for by a per gun yearly tax paid by owners, dealers, and manufacturers would work well in this regard. We should also segway into an anti-hunting campaign, like those in the UK. By making hunting expensive and unpopular, we can make the transition to a gun free society much less of a headache for us.
I know this seems harsh, but this is the only way we can be truly safe. I don't want my kids being shot at by a deranged NRA member. I'm sure you don't either. So lets stop looking for short term solutions and start looking long term. Registration is the first step.
Tell Pres. Obama and democrats in congress to demand mandatory, comprehensive gun registration. It's the only way we can ban guns with any effectiveness"
Sometimes I wonder if I'm the crazy one because this seems so absurd! Let's see, knives, bats, clubs, chains, swimming pools, cars...the long list of 'possible' things that kill us. How do these utopian elitists not see this? Very frustrating.
charging_rhinoceros is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2013, 03:49   #245
jetflier1989
Member
 
jetflier1989's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Land of the Free-Home of the Brave
Posts: 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by TeoK View Post
Ok explain how a new infringement like this will work please. Just basic no need to get into the additional billions of $ and the newly funded agency required to track this. Also how it will effect the desired outcome.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TeoK View Post

I can't give all the specifics, the background-check policy would have to be hashed out. But just because it would require some work to get right, doesn't mean it can't be done. This is what wrote earlier, which, to me, doesn't seem so bad:

Buyer and seller meet at gun shop (FFL). The FFL holder runs a NICS check on the buyer. If the buyer is legal, he pays the private seller the agreed-upon price, the cost of the background check, and a little more for the FFL holder's time: $10 for the NICS and maybe another $15 to the FFL holder. That's $25 for peace of mind, and adds considerable inconvenience to criminals and just a little inconvenience for law-abiding citizens. Also, the law could and should be written so that the FFL holder and the feds cannot retain identifying information after the transaction is complete.


Won't happen. Here in CT we have a similar process in place now. Instead it's $40 to the FFL for the NICS. The FFL holder then is required by law to log the weapon (all info) for the ATF on ALL guns that pass through his hands. My view is they won't reinvent the wheel if they already have restrictive, working (in their minds) measures in place somewhere.
__________________
Gen3 - G30sf, Gen3 - G19
Kimber Custom .45 acp, Kimber TLE/RL II .45 acp
S&W Combat Masterpiece, Sig Sauer P228, S&W Model 60-7, S&W Model 19-3.
jetflier1989 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2013, 06:23   #246
BRoberts243
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by 9jeeps View Post
[/COLOR]

Where have you been? That thought was established by the second year of his first term.

Back door registration is the first step of
confiscation.

We older folks fought that tooth and nail. I guess you youngers never got the picture. Oh well.
Legilation, registration, confiscation.......


Quote:
Originally Posted by jetflier1989 View Post

Won't happen. Here in CT we have a similar process in place now. Instead it's $40 to the FFL for the NICS. The FFL holder then is required by law to log the weapon (all info) for the ATF on ALL guns that pass through his hands. My view is they won't reinvent the wheel if they already have restrictive, working (in their minds) measures in place somewhere.
and our current administration def would not see the irony in adopting the laws of a state that was the location for the catalyst for all this talk.

"Hey there was a massacre in CT... Let's pass the same laws CT's has..."

Then again, we're talking about the guy who said Chicago's gun laws are the blueprint for the nation... the only people more stupid than someone who thinks we should go to the most crime ridden city in America and base our gun laws on theirs, is the people who VOTE for the people who think that way...

Last edited by BRoberts243; 01-15-2013 at 06:26..
BRoberts243 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2013, 06:59   #247
fdesantis3
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 8
Sadly, not in the state of Connecticut
fdesantis3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2013, 07:45   #248
PhotoFeller
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Midwest and south
Posts: 2,681
Blog Entries: 2
I forget, what is confiscation of all guns by government supposed to accomplish? Is it part of a grand plan by progressives to disarm civilians in order to make us vulnerable to a new form of dictatorial government that would enslave us? Would the new government be led by a Hitler-like figure who would eliminate our democratic processes, drive us to socialism or enslavement, confiscate all private property? Would the US military be led by generals who are committed to controlling our citizens instead of national defense?

This all sounds pretty improbable to me. The notion of a grand plan to disarm us seems so unrealistic that it has to be the work of twisted imaginations.

Anyone who really believes this disarmament/confiscation theory should help us understand it in the context of modern facts, not WW2 history. Who, within or outside of government, is behind it? Is there a modern-day manifesto that lays this theory out for us? Is there an organization that orchestrates manipulation of Democrat officials at all levels of government, the media, anti-gun groups, etc.? Are Republicans in on the scheme or is it so secret that they are being fooled?

Until someone provides answers to these questions and describes the end-game vision of America under Progressive (or whatever future government domination will be called), I declare that the whole disarmament notion is BULL S___!
PhotoFeller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2013, 07:58   #249
gommer
Senior Member
 
gommer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,093
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhotoFeller View Post
I forget, what is confiscation of all guns by government supposed to accomplish? Is it part of a grand plan by progressives to disarm civilians in order to make us vulnerable to a new form of dictatorial government that would enslave us? Would the new government be led by a Hitler-like figure who would eliminate our democratic processes, drive us to socialism or enslavement, confiscate all private property? Would the US military be led by generals who are committed to controlling our citizens instead of national defense?

This all sounds pretty improbable to me. The notion of a grand plan to disarm us seems so unrealistic that it has to be the work of twisted imaginations.

Anyone who really believes this disarmament/confiscation theory should help us understand it in the context of modern facts, not WW2 history. Who, within or outside of government, is behind it? Is there a modern-day manifesto that lays this theory out for us? Is there an organization that orchestrates manipulation of Democrat officials at all levels of government, the media, anti-gun groups, etc.? Are Republicans in on the scheme or is it so secret that they are being fooled?

Until someone provides answers to these questions and describes the end-game vision of America under Progressive (or whatever future government domination will be called), I declare that the whole disarmament notion is BULL S___!
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...
gommer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2013, 08:15   #250
RC-RAMIE
Senior Member
 
RC-RAMIE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,679
Quote:
Originally Posted by holesinpaper View Post
You might have missed a thread but im sure he was being sarcastic.
RC-RAMIE is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 00:59.



Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 814
212 Members
602 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42