• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Straight up confiscation, yep taking them by force.

CRUE CAB

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 21, 2013
Messages
16,763
Reaction score
4,344
Location
Melbourne Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Here is how "I" think it would go down.
First the scales have to tip just alittle more of general public opinion towards stricter gun control laws. Much stricter.
It will start, like it is now with certain "types" of guns. New ones being labled as the latest "killing machine", "weapon of war", "military grade", "child killer", "of no hunting use" or some other buzz word or term that even hasnt been thought up yet.
As those buzz terms spread throught the gun brand and type/style and the demonizing is close to being done. You will see legislation passed based on this as it tugs at the progressives heart strings.
As fewer and fewer conservatives vote and split into different minor parties, killing chances of true conservatives. The progressives in the democratic party will have a free hand to make many federal laws pertaining to guns spread from state to state. They will call it the will of the people.
And because they are winning elections, it kind of will be.
Then comes the actual ban.
Say its a list of "assault weapons", but now fully expanded to include many types and brands of guns.
Not just ARs and AKs and such.
Grandfathering in? Na, not a chance.
My money is it will be a 90 to 120 day grace period to turn them in or have them picked up.
Bounties will be offered after that for anyone who turns in a person that has held on to his.
Coming to "get them", thats another whole can of worms.
Police? Our Military? (illegal by the way), UN troops?
How many of our military or police will do it? That is another debate. I know some that will have no problem doing it, but I know many that will refuse and not do it. May even walk off the job.
Question.
At what point do you think there will be actual blood in the streets in revolt?
 
Perhaps we should consider a more rational and effective approach to gun control. Consider:

*In 1863 a Democrat shot and killed Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States.
*In 1881 a left wing radical Democrat shot James Garfield, President of the United States who later died from the wound.
*In 1963 a radical left wing socialist shot and killed John F. Kennedy, President of the United States.
*In 1975 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at Gerald Ford, President of the United States.
*In 1983 a registered Democrat shot and wounded Ronald Reagan.
*In 1984 James Hubert a disgruntled Democrat shot and killed 22 people in a McDonalds restaurant.
*In 1986 Patrick Sherrill a disgruntled Democrat shot and killed 15 people in an Oklahoma post office.
*In 1990 James Pough a disgruntled Democrat shot and killed 10 people at a GMAC office.
*In 1991 George Hennard a disgruntled Democrat shot and killed 23 people in a Luby's cafeteria.
*In 1995 James Daniel Simpson a disgruntled Democrat shot and killed 5 coworkers in a Texas laboratory.
*In 1999 Larry Asbrook a disgruntled Democrat shot and killed 8 people at a church service.
*In 2001 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at the White House in a failed attempt to kill George W. Bush, President of the US.
*In 2003 Douglas Williams a disgruntled Democrat shot and killed 7 people at a Lockheed Martin plant.
*In 2007 a registered Democrat named Seung - Hui Cho shot and killed 32 people in Virginia Tech.
*In 2010 a mentally ill registered Democrat named Jared Lee Loughner shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and killed 6 others.
*In 2011 a registered Democrat named James Holmes went into a movie theater and shot and killed 12 people.
*In 2012 Andrew Engeldinger a disgruntled Democrat shot and killed 7 people in Minneapolis.
*In 2013 a registered Democrat named Adam Lanza shot and killed 26 people in a school.

One could go on, but you get the point, even if the media does not.

Clearly, there is a problem with Democrats and guns. No NRA member, Tea Party member, or Republican conservatives are involved.

SOLUTION: It should be illegal for Democrats to own guns.
 
Here is how "I" think it would go down.
First the scales have to tip just alittle more of general public opinion towards stricter gun control laws. Much stricter.
It will start, like it is now with certain "types" of guns. New ones being labled as the latest "killing machine", "weapon of war", "military grade", "child killer", "of no hunting use" or some other buzz word or term that even hasnt been thought up yet.
As those buzz terms spread throught the gun brand and type/style and the demonizing is close to being done. You will see legislation passed based on this as it tugs at the progressives heart strings.
As fewer and fewer conservatives vote and split into different minor parties, killing chances of true conservatives. The progressives in the democratic party will have a free hand to make many federal laws pertaining to guns spread from state to state. They will call it the will of the people.
And because they are winning elections, it kind of will be.
Then comes the actual ban.
Say its a list of "assault weapons", but now fully expanded to include many types and brands of guns.
Not just ARs and AKs and such.
Grandfathering in? Na, not a chance.
My money is it will be a 90 to 120 day grace period to turn them in or have them picked up.
Bounties will be offered after that for anyone who turns in a person that has held on to his.
Coming to "get them", thats another whole can of worms.
Police? Our Military? (illegal by the way), UN troops?
How many of our military or police will do it? That is another debate. I know some that will have no problem doing it, but I know many that will refuse and not do it. May even walk off the job.
Question.
At what point do you think there will be actual blood in the streets in revolt?

what you need are a few people-perhaps "pillars of society" who have a poor end game scenario--a decorated soldier with say early stage ALS or Stage IV pancreatic cancer and not much in the way of family. They resist and are brutally put down but not before taking out a few of the political pimps who pushed the law. That could start the ball rolling and once the politicians start worrying that every time they open a door or get out of a car, some guy a few football fields away might be lining them up with a 30-06 bolt gun or walk up to them and still a glock up their nose, the wet dreams of the gun control pimps might become nightmares for them
 
Perhaps we should consider a more rational and effective approach to gun control. Consider:

*In 1863 a Democrat shot and killed Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States.
*In 1881 a left wing radical Democrat shot James Garfield, President of the United States who later died from the wound.
*In 1963 a radical left wing socialist shot and killed John F. Kennedy, President of the United States.
*In 1975 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at Gerald Ford, President of the United States.
*In 1983 a registered Democrat shot and wounded Ronald Reagan.
*In 1984 James Hubert a disgruntled Democrat shot and killed 22 people in a McDonalds restaurant.
*In 1986 Patrick Sherrill a disgruntled Democrat shot and killed 15 people in an Oklahoma post office.
*In 1990 James Pough a disgruntled Democrat shot and killed 10 people at a GMAC office.
*In 1991 George Hennard a disgruntled Democrat shot and killed 23 people in a Luby's cafeteria.
*In 1995 James Daniel Simpson a disgruntled Democrat shot and killed 5 coworkers in a Texas laboratory.
*In 1999 Larry Asbrook a disgruntled Democrat shot and killed 8 people at a church service.
*In 2001 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at the White House in a failed attempt to kill George W. Bush, President of the US.
*In 2003 Douglas Williams a disgruntled Democrat shot and killed 7 people at a Lockheed Martin plant.
*In 2007 a registered Democrat named Seung - Hui Cho shot and killed 32 people in Virginia Tech.
*In 2010 a mentally ill registered Democrat named Jared Lee Loughner shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and killed 6 others.
*In 2011 a registered Democrat named James Holmes went into a movie theater and shot and killed 12 people.
*In 2012 Andrew Engeldinger a disgruntled Democrat shot and killed 7 people in Minneapolis.
*In 2013 a registered Democrat named Adam Lanza shot and killed 26 people in a school.

One could go on, but you get the point, even if the media does not.

Clearly, there is a problem with Democrats and guns. No NRA member, Tea Party member, or Republican conservatives are involved.

SOLUTION: It should be illegal for Democrats to own guns.

I believe the Columbine turds were the offspring of Mercedes Marxists-registered Dems
 
what you need are a few people-perhaps "pillars of society" who have a poor end game scenario--a decorated soldier with say early stage ALS or Stage IV pancreatic cancer and not much in the way of family. They resist and are brutally put down but not before taking out a few of the political pimps who pushed the law. That could start the ball rolling and once the politicians start worrying that every time they open a door or get out of a car, some guy a few football fields away might be lining them up with a 30-06 bolt gun or walk up to them and still a glock up their nose, the wet dreams of the gun control pimps might become nightmares for them
If it comes to that I agree, but the antis think that is our wet dream. To kill "fellow Americans", which is no where near the case.
 
There was a document produced in the "Hand Gun Control Inc." offices a few decades ago that noted exactly what Eric Holder contended - we must change the publics view about guns. This is no different then obummer saying we'll socialize medicine but it might take 20 years and we will get there a little at a time - first they must demonize the capitalist and make people mad at their products.

Going back to guns they have too many gun owners to contend with right now; that must be reduced. The actions are illustrated in California quite well but in a few other states too. Mandatory registration, eliminating the right to transfer even to children at death, likely taxes (can be in many forms such as mandatory insurance), increasing the cost of gun ownership equals a decrease in gun ownership - its just a fact. If Gov. Brown signs AB 374 in the next 10 days California will lose about 66 to 90% of its gun shops as sales are now focused on guns that will be illegal to transfer after January 1, 2014. That means the guns that can still be sold will go up in price from fewer retailers that were big enough to hold on.

In 5-10-20 years the guns that can't be transferred begin to be reduced in CA. I've already moved all my impacted guns, legally, to my Nevada residence and have made NV my home - legally - in large part because I have 3 generations of firearms and will not be giving them up to a state that cares nothing about my families heritage.

Once they get the numbers of owners down they can win more and more controls at the ballot box. Eventually they will go the Aussie way and start buying back guns, voluntary at first, then mandatory (see CA SKS - its already happened - mandatory). After that they simply make retaining a firearm a felony and start locking up those who refuse to give them up.

The idea of jack booted thugs going door to door and collecting guns is not likely at all. Its not going to happen. 80 million Gun owners, even if cut 75% leaves 20 million and they can't possibly handle that population - that is armed.


Here is how "I" think it would go down.
First the scales have to tip just alittle more of general public opinion towards stricter gun control laws. Much stricter.
It will start, like it is now with certain "types" of guns. New ones being labled as the latest "killing machine", "weapon of war", "military grade", "child killer", "of no hunting use" or some other buzz word or term that even hasnt been thought up yet.
As those buzz terms spread throught the gun brand and type/style and the demonizing is close to being done. You will see legislation passed based on this as it tugs at the progressives heart strings.
As fewer and fewer conservatives vote and split into different minor parties, killing chances of true conservatives. The progressives in the democratic party will have a free hand to make many federal laws pertaining to guns spread from state to state. They will call it the will of the people.
And because they are winning elections, it kind of will be.
Then comes the actual ban.
Say its a list of "assault weapons", but now fully expanded to include many types and brands of guns.
Not just ARs and AKs and such.
Grandfathering in? Na, not a chance.
My money is it will be a 90 to 120 day grace period to turn them in or have them picked up.
Bounties will be offered after that for anyone who turns in a person that has held on to his.
Coming to "get them", thats another whole can of worms.
Police? Our Military? (illegal by the way), UN troops?
How many of our military or police will do it? That is another debate. I know some that will have no problem doing it, but I know many that will refuse and not do it. May even walk off the job.
Question.
At what point do you think there will be actual blood in the streets in revolt?
 
If it comes to that I agree, but the antis think that is our wet dream. To kill "fellow Americans", which is no where near the case.

I don't think gun grabbers qualify as fellow americans any more than the rats in the sewers do
 
It has always amused me who some radicals are so insistent the parts of the Constitution they like are sacred but the rest, like say the 14th A, are to be ignored especially when resorting to blow hard rhetoric.

Doing my best radical right whiner voice- "Only 'Mericans who think just like me are REAL 'Mericans!"

Wadda Country.... another round for the ranters!!!! :2wave:
 
It has always amused me who some radicals are so insistent the parts of the Constitution they like are sacred but the rest, like say the 14th A, are to be ignored especially when resorting to blow hard rhetoric.

Doing my best radical right whiner voice- "Only 'Mericans who think just like me are REAL 'Mericans!"

Wadda Country.... another round for the ranters!!!! :2wave:

can someone explain what the purpose of this moronic post above is? is it another passive aggressive attack on gun rights or is it just another inane attack on people who don't think socialism is a good idea?
 
can someone explain what the purpose of this moronic post above is? is it another passive aggressive attack on gun rights or is it just another inane attack on people who don't think socialism is a good idea?

Laughing, more CON games from a master CON, I'm just marveling at the selectivity in which some 'Mericans apply the Constitution.

Only 'Mericans who think like me are REAL 'Mericans... :roll:
 
Perhaps we should consider a more rational and effective approach to gun control. Consider:

*In 1863 a Democrat shot and killed Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States.
*In 1881 a left wing radical Democrat shot James Garfield, President of the United States who later died from the wound.
*In 1963 a radical left wing socialist shot and killed John F. Kennedy, President of the United States.
*In 1975 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at Gerald Ford, President of the United States.
*In 1983 a registered Democrat shot and wounded Ronald Reagan.
*In 1984 James Hubert a disgruntled Democrat shot and killed 22 people in a McDonalds restaurant.
*In 1986 Patrick Sherrill a disgruntled Democrat shot and killed 15 people in an Oklahoma post office.
*In 1990 James Pough a disgruntled Democrat shot and killed 10 people at a GMAC office.
*In 1991 George Hennard a disgruntled Democrat shot and killed 23 people in a Luby's cafeteria.
*In 1995 James Daniel Simpson a disgruntled Democrat shot and killed 5 coworkers in a Texas laboratory.
*In 1999 Larry Asbrook a disgruntled Democrat shot and killed 8 people at a church service.
*In 2001 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at the White House in a failed attempt to kill George W. Bush, President of the US.
*In 2003 Douglas Williams a disgruntled Democrat shot and killed 7 people at a Lockheed Martin plant.
*In 2007 a registered Democrat named Seung - Hui Cho shot and killed 32 people in Virginia Tech.
*In 2010 a mentally ill registered Democrat named Jared Lee Loughner shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and killed 6 others.
*In 2011 a registered Democrat named James Holmes went into a movie theater and shot and killed 12 people.
*In 2012 Andrew Engeldinger a disgruntled Democrat shot and killed 7 people in Minneapolis.
*In 2013 a registered Democrat named Adam Lanza shot and killed 26 people in a school.

One could go on, but you get the point, even if the media does not.

Clearly, there is a problem with Democrats and guns. No NRA member, Tea Party member, or Republican conservatives are involved.

SOLUTION: It should be illegal for Democrats to own guns.

Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people including 19 children and wounding countless more... a registered Republican.

He almost evens out hte death toll and that is just one Republican all by himself... think I should list some more?
 
I thought there was something to this thread, turns out its a circle jerk about how we won't let a far fetched and completely hypothetical situation ever happen and if it did happen what we'd do about it.
 
Confiscation is a reality, a very real reality. 262 million killed by their own governments says anyone stupid enough to ignore government, think government is benign or will not do they is certifiably insane or just a moron.

What is 262 Million bodies sacrificed by citizens because they were to stupid to listen to the warning they got? A lesson? Nobody knows? Just happened? A natural disaster nobody could prevent? Nothing they could have done anyway?

Every genocide was preventable. Every single one of them. All it would have taken was citizens who acted like good citizens should and kept government in check by OBJECTION and demonstration of their right to control their EMPLOYEES at all times.

Why is the US government given special power by US citizens to flaunt the constitution and citizen rights? Is there something wrong with the constitution that did not apply when it was drawn up? Something valid not rubbish excuses.

Is it that citizens are just to bone idle to bother or can find thousands of excuses why it is impossible? 262 Million thought so as well. Why is the question that needs to be answered if we do not want to go the same way.
 
I thought there was something to this thread, turns out its a circle jerk about how we won't let a far fetched and completely hypothetical situation ever happen and if it did happen what we'd do about it.

When the word "confiscation" actually comes out of our elected officials mouths, there is more to it.
You may wish to ignore it, thats your right. But dont think its that far fetched.
May not happen today or tomorrow, but the right set of circumstances and it can happen.
 
Here's a suggestion for model legislation.


General Retrieval And Ban

An act to introduce reasonable gun control. This act may be cited as the GRAB Act.

Section 1 - Responsibility

1. Responsibility for enforcing the General Retrieval and Ban shall be vested in the National Firearms Retrieval Service. NFRS shall be empowered to use whatever means generally are available to law enforcement agencies.

2. The General Retrieval and Ban permits retrieval and banning of firearms without the requirement they be covered specifically by legislation. Firearms covered by GRAB shall be included at the discretion the Director of the National Firearms Retrieval Service who shall be required to hold hearings and consult with interested parties before adding any firearm to the Schedule of Banned Firearms. The President of the United States shall approve implementation of Retrieval for any firearm added to the Schedule of Banned Firearms.

Section 2 - Process

1. Retrieval: Within 30 days of implementation, scheduled firearms in private possession shall be delivered to a law enforcement agency.

2. Prosecution: Persons found to be in possession of a scheduled firearm after the expiration of the 30 day Retrieval period will be guilty of a Class A felony and shall be prosecuted.

3. Reeducation: Convicted offenders found to be in possession of a scheduled firearm, shall be transported to a reeducation camp for instruction in the community's expectations.

4. Transistion: Persons found to be in possession of a scheduled firearm after reeducation shall be transitioned to a harmless condition.

Section 3 - Financing.

1. Financing for GRAB and related agencies and their operations shall be provided by taxes on firearms and operations.

2. Taxes on firearms shall include but not necessarily be limited to an excise tax and an annual property tax.

3. Taxes on ammunition shall include an excise tax.

4. Any tax levied by GRAB shall not preclude any tax levied by a state or local jurisdiction.

Section 4. - Judicial Review and Severability

1. The GRAB shall not be subject to judicial review.

2. Should any part of the GRAB be determined to be unlawful or in conflict with another law, the discrepancy shall not affect any other part of GRAB.

Section 5. - Registry

1. The Director of the National Firearms Retrieval Service shall maintain a registry of all firearms within the national borders.

2. The Director shall record all pertinent information related to each firearm. The information recorded shall included but not necessarily be limited to the serial number of the firearm, the description of the firearm, name and address of the possessor and owner if different. The Director is empowered to collect any other information which may be pertinent to retrieving the firearm should it be added to the Schedule of Banned Firearms.
 
Last edited:
Here's a suggestion for model legislation.


General Retrieval And Ban

An act to introduce reasonable gun control. This act may be cited as the GRAB Act.

Section 1 - Responsibility

1. Responsibility for enforcing the General Retrieval and Ban shall be vested in the National Firearms Retrieval Service. NFRS shall be empowered to use whatever means generally are available to law enforcement agencies.

2. The General Retrieval and Ban permits retrieval and banning of firearms without the requirement they be covered specifically by legislation. Firearms covered by GRAB shall be included at the discretion the Director of the National Firearms Retrieval Service who shall be required to hold hearings and consult with interested parties before adding any firearm to the Schedule of Banned Firearms. The President of the United States shall approve implementation of Retrieval for any firearm added to the Schedule of Banned Firearms.

Section 2 - Process

1. Retrieval: Within 30 days of implementation, scheduled firearms in private possession shall be delivered to a law enforcement agency.

2. Prosecution: Persons found to be in possession of a scheduled firearm after the expiration of the 30 day Retrieval period will be guilty of a Class A felony and shall be prosecuted.

3. Reeducation: Convicted offenders found to be in possession of a scheduled firearm, shall be transported to a reeducation camp for instruction in the community's expectations.

4. Transistion: Persons found to be in possession of a scheduled firearm after reeducation shall be transitioned to a harmless condition.

Section 3 - Financing.

1. Financing for GRAB and related agencies and their operations shall be provided by taxes on firearms and operations.

2. Taxes on firearms shall include but not necessarily be limited to an excise tax and an annual property tax.

3. Taxes on ammunition shall include an excise tax.

4. Any tax levied by GRAB shall not preclude any tax levied by a state or local jurisdiction.

Section 4. - Judicial Review and Severability

1. The GRAB shall not be subject to judicial review.

2. Should any part of the GRAB be determined to be unlawful or in conflict with another law, the discrepancy shall not affect any other part of GRAB.

Section 5. - Registry

1. The Director of the National Firearms Retrieval Service shall maintain a registry of all firearms within the national borders.

2. The Director shall record all pertinent information related to each firearm. The information recorded shall included but not necessarily be limited to the serial number of the firearm, the description of the firearm, name and address of the possessor and owner if different. The Director is empowered to collect any other information which may be pertinent to retrieving the firearm should it be added to the Schedule of Banned Firearms.
Sadly, many Americans would be fine with that.
Fortunatly many more would fight it.
 
Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people including 19 children and wounding countless more... a registered Republican.

He almost evens out hte death toll and that is just one Republican all by himself... think I should list some more?
McViegh voted Libertarian, corresponded regularly with a New York democrat representative, and what does any of that mean? Would you like to use McVeigh as the springboard for your campaign to ban fertilizer? U Hauls?
 
When the word "confiscation" actually comes out of our elected officials mouths, there is more to it. You may wish to ignore it, thats your right. But dont think its that far fetched.
May not happen today or tomorrow, but the right set of circumstances and it can happen.

The right set of circumstances are pretty easy to achieve. The simple fact 262 million yes that is 6 times more than all the wars thought it was impossible and paid the price of stupidity.

So war is 6 times less likely to kill us than government. Maybe that put it in better perspective. However we forget one thing. The only currency of politics is power. Therefore every single government or ruler seeks only MORE power. It is a recipe for disaster just sitting on ones bum thinking nothing can happen or only if the right person and circumstance....

Democide is not a rare unique thing as fools are want to think. They are a natural result of citizens allowing government to usurp more and more power. It's the nature of the beast. Not an unusual phenomena and Plato had quite a good handle on it. A vicious circle because citizens shirk their duty and do not value their rights. They trust government to provide everything for free. Government has no problem pandering to the demands and fostering the myth. Dependence = Control and power.

Government will provide and do for us until its boot is on our neck. Then we wake up, to late.
 
Perhaps we should consider a more rational and effective approach to gun control. Consider:

*In 1863 a Democrat shot and killed Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States.
*In 1881 a left wing radical Democrat shot James Garfield, President of the United States who later died from the wound.
*In 1963 a radical left wing socialist shot and killed John F. Kennedy, President of the United States.
*In 1975 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at Gerald Ford, President of the United States.
*In 1983 a registered Democrat shot and wounded Ronald Reagan.
*In 1984 James Hubert a disgruntled Democrat shot and killed 22 people in a McDonalds restaurant.
*In 1986 Patrick Sherrill a disgruntled Democrat shot and killed 15 people in an Oklahoma post office.
*In 1990 James Pough a disgruntled Democrat shot and killed 10 people at a GMAC office.
*In 1991 George Hennard a disgruntled Democrat shot and killed 23 people in a Luby's cafeteria.
*In 1995 James Daniel Simpson a disgruntled Democrat shot and killed 5 coworkers in a Texas laboratory.
*In 1999 Larry Asbrook a disgruntled Democrat shot and killed 8 people at a church service.
*In 2001 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at the White House in a failed attempt to kill George W. Bush, President of the US.
*In 2003 Douglas Williams a disgruntled Democrat shot and killed 7 people at a Lockheed Martin plant.
*In 2007 a registered Democrat named Seung - Hui Cho shot and killed 32 people in Virginia Tech.
*In 2010 a mentally ill registered Democrat named Jared Lee Loughner shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and killed 6 others.
*In 2011 a registered Democrat named James Holmes went into a movie theater and shot and killed 12 people.
*In 2012 Andrew Engeldinger a disgruntled Democrat shot and killed 7 people in Minneapolis.
*In 2013 a registered Democrat named Adam Lanza shot and killed 26 people in a school.

One could go on, but you get the point, even if the media does not.

Clearly, there is a problem with Democrats and guns. No NRA member, Tea Party member, or Republican conservatives are involved.

SOLUTION: It should be illegal for Democrats to own guns.

When we look at demographics we see that a huge majority of murders with firearms are by young black men. And yet, if I suggest we not sell firearms to black men people cry racist. Well, it's demographics. Statistics don't have feelings.
 
Sadly, many Americans would be fine with that.
Fortunatly many more would fight it.

Unfortunately you are wrong. If they will not fight now they will not fight later.

How true is this statement? Nobody fights what they accept.

If that is true every single firearm owner I know will not be fighting gun control ever. Right now they are to busy asking for sensible gun control legislation. That is acceptance of gun control no matter how much bluster, bravado and denial there is.

Once you accept gun control all you can now do is argue over how much to accept.

And we see this example. A few people object to gun control laws. Once passed EVERYONE does absolutely nothing, it is accepted. Firearm organisations preach obedience and compliance, offer training and help, tell everyone it is impossible to fight government and they must accept this law. It's not so bad, we can still own guns. They indoctrinate and bully firearm owners into acceptance by doing and saying absolutely nothing. Disillusionment and hopelessness sets in. Check the firearm owners of UK, South Africa or Australia. You could not get 100 of them demonstrating anywhere. They have lost hope and reason.

Look at organisations in the US "celebrating" a great victory over gun control they had little of nothing to do with. The police actually had more influence than they did. GOA was one for the few firearm organisations that could be seen protecting peoples rights.

The NRA was asking for armed guards it could train or agreeing with back-ground checks. Not once in any media release were peoples rights and safety considered of any importance. Money and collaboration with gun control was more important.

What kind of message does that send to the grass roots and citizens. We don't care about you or your rights? It cannot be we are protecting your rights that is for sure.
 
When we look at demographics we see that a huge majority of murders with firearms are by young black men. And yet, if I suggest we not sell firearms to black men people cry racist. Well, it's demographics. Statistics don't have feelings.

I'm sure you have a point what is it? You have stated a bunch of stuff but not shown what the relevance is

"a huge majority of murders with firearms are by young black men" So what? Are you saying blacks are more prone to violence of something else?

"If I suggest we not sell firearms to black men" Are you suggesting that if sales to blacks were restricted it would make some kind of difference? What difference?

I'm suggesting we let common sense and example prove what is known. We restricted alcohol and that did what? We restrict drugs and they are shipped in by the TON, so these restriction have done what? Will guns be any different? If so why? Can we learn from past lessons or do we need to repeat them.?
 
The new law in California goes beyond banning - to making it a felony offense to not report yourself to the government to turn in your now-banned firearms. It is not merely having the banned firearms, but also failing to turn yourself in that is a felony.

Literally, in California, exercising your "right against self incrimination" is a felony offense. That concept of law is unique to this anti-gun law.
 
The new law in California goes beyond banning - to making it a felony offense to not report yourself to the government to turn in your now-banned firearms. It is not merely having the banned firearms, but also failing to turn yourself in that is a felony.

Literally, in California, exercising your "right against self incrimination" is a felony offense. That concept of law is unique to this anti-gun law.

Gun control and government love setting precedents. It means we could not be bothered to object, go ahead there will be little or no repercussions. People who will not object will not punish a politician either. Win win for government. You test the water....

California is not the precedent of confiscation. It was very succesful in Louisiana with no real damage to government. California is proving to be no different. People will not risk death or imprisonment for a gun.

The clueless who think all we have to do is get enough guns out there are misguided fools, What are they doing? Selling guns and clinging on to guns instead of protecting our rights which would prevent even a foothold by gun control. Best they wise up real soon. Those who exchange their rights..... Nah! they would not understand..
 
Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people including 19 children and wounding countless more... a registered Republican.

He almost evens out hte death toll and that is just one Republican all by himself... think I should list some more?

McVeigh used a truck bomb. This thread (and forum) are about gun control.
 
The new law in California goes beyond banning - to making it a felony offense to not report yourself to the government to turn in your now-banned firearms. It is not merely having the banned firearms, but also failing to turn yourself in that is a felony.

Literally, in California, exercising your "right against self incrimination" is a felony offense. That concept of law is unique to this anti-gun law.

Very true. And frightening.
 
Back
Top Bottom