Gun confiscation

[South]

I'm basing this on nothing but observations of Obama's typical MO, reports I've seen lately from government run media (ABC, CBS, NBC), and comments made by a few supposed first hand sources from the alternative media.

Sample of the type of government run media story I'm talking about.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid...ps_thrive.html

I see Obama right now building a case for private gun confiscation. I expect him to do it by having the supreme court redefine the 2nd amendment. The appointment of Sodamayor by Obama surprised me a little at first because of Obama's extreme defense of abortion on demand. Sodamayor hasn't always towed that line. She is, however, rabidly anti second amendment.

This is purely assumption on my part, but I see it being attempted before the 2010 elections. Just wanted to be on record.

[Natural Elements]

The problem is coming from provocative bills in congress all the time from anti gun groups pushing for new anti guns laws and then trigger some pro guns. They can use medias, but nobody wins like that and it is not constructive.

The main problem is fighting criminality, not provocating the right to bear arms or to destroy the 2A.

[~kev~]

Keep in mind, slaves do not own guns. Only freemen do.

If the government does not want the people armed, there is a reason behind it.

[Natural Elements]

So you can kill to defend your country but you cannot defend yourself from armed criminals, what a joke...

[Zap]

Are you guys more upset at the actual guns being taken away or your freedom?
Because y'all didn't bat an eye when GWB did it.

[South]

Originally Posted by Zap

Are you guys more upset at the actual guns being taken away or your freedom?

Armed citizens and freedom are synonymous.

[~kev~]

Originally Posted by Zap

Are you guys more upset at the actual guns being taken away or your freedom?
Because y'all didn't bat an eye when GWB did it.

There are a lot of people that saw the truth behind the so called PATRIOT ACT, but it was still passed and signed into law.

After events such 9/11, its normal for people to overreact. This is typical human behavior. Just look at what the US Government did to Japanese - Americans after the Pearl Harbor attack. They were rounded up and put into camps.

With what obama and the anti-gun group are doing now, its not in a response to an event. They are not overreacting to anything.

What they are doing, the people in our government are planning for something that is "going" to happen. Something is in the works, and its so big that one of the governments main concerns is an armed response from the people.

Giving up your firearms is the first step towards slavery.

[Zap]

Originally Posted by ~kev~

There are a lot of people that saw the truth behind the so called PATRIOT ACT, but it was still passed and signed into law.

Sad.

Originally Posted by ~kev~

Giving up your firearms is the first step towards slavery.

Agreed with you and South on that one.

So... the question remains...

What's going to happen?

Are the citizens going to use their guns when the time comes?
Or, like the passage of the Patriot Act, is this "thing", this event that is being planned going to go unchallenged?

It's one thing to have the guns. It's entirely another to use them when needed.

[South]

Originally Posted by Zap

What's going to happen?

Are the citizens going to use their guns when the time comes?
Or, like the passage of the Patriot Act, is this "thing", this event that is being planned going to go unchallenged?

It's one thing to have the guns. It's entirely another to use them when needed.

I would never get on a public board and proclaim that people will come to guns. I will say that you never hear anyone say "You can have my rights to private interstate communications when you take them from my cold, dead ears"

(For those outside of America there's a popular saying of gun owners that's similar.)

[Zap]

Originally Posted by South

I would never get on a public board and proclaim that people will come to guns. I will say that you never hear anyone say "You can have my rights to private interstate communications when you take them from my cold, dead ears"

(For those outside of America there's a popular saying of gun owners that's similar.)

I'm not suggesting anybody incite anything.

I'm just saying that freedoms were taken away in the past without much hoopla.
I can't see this next round of freedom taking being any different.

But maybe I'm wrong. Is there something fundamentally different about the populace these days?

[G10]

Been reading through this thread and can see the pro's and con's on both sides.

Originally Posted by ~kev~

What they are doing, the people in our government are planning for something that is "going" to happen. Something is in the works, and its so big that one of the governments main concerns is an armed response from the people.

Giving up your firearms is the first step towards slavery.

Kev, I am not sure I would look so deeply into it as this was done in the UK a while back, (Gun and knife amnesty) and it hasn't led to anything as such.

Granted, it could be that the government are planning a 'mass cull' of some sorts and need to control the population but it is most likely to be because they want to try to take as many firearms off the streets and this is a very long-winded process.

My viewpoint on this is that though most people with a license are sensible, it is the small minority that will ruin it for you and cause firearms to be taken away.

It is not the average Joe with a license and gun that commits the crime, it is one of the 'crazy relatives/friends etc' that takes the gun and commits the crime.

It is one of the school kids who is on some form of anti-depressant who ends up walking into the school and taking out as many as possible before shooting himself.

The problem is that though there are a lot of sensible people in the States, there are also a lot of nut jobs that get hold of these weapons and cause the problems.

I do believe in people protecting themselves but then again I can see the other side of the coin on why they should be removed.... (Granted, I think this is an impossible task and think it will fall flat on it's face!)

[South]

Originally Posted by Zap

Because y'all didn't bat an eye when GWB did it.

And I wonder who you mean by "Y'all". There was tremendous controversy about it. I rode the fence on it because the whole time was confusing. It'll be readdressed.

As long as citizens are well armed there's always the chance to be heard and for the right changes to be made. Unarmed citizens are called subjects.

[Natural Elements]

The USA PATRIOT Act doesn't affect me because I have nothing to hide, but gun confiscation concern me.

"law-abiding citizens obey gun laws, or any other kind of law for that matter, it is an
illusion that further tinkering with the law will protect the public. No law, no matter how
restrictive it is, can protect us from people who decide to commit violent crimes."
http://www.sfu.ca/~mauser/papers/saf/GCAW290702.doc.pdf

[Zap]

Originally Posted by Natural Elements

The USA PATRIOT Act doesn't affect me because I have nothing to hide, but gun confiscation concern me.

That's a common misconception, NE.
It affects you because it takes away rights that you previously enjoyed.

The Act increases the ability of law enforcement agencies to search telephone, e-mail communications, medical, financial, and other records; eases restrictions on foreign intelligence gathering within the United States; expands the Secretary of the Treasury’s authority to regulate financial transactions, particularly those involving foreign individuals and entities; and enhances the discretion of law enforcement and immigration authorities in detaining and deporting immigrants suspected of terrorism-related acts. The act also expands the definition of terrorism to include domestic terrorism, thus enlarging the number of activities to which the USA PATRIOT Act’s expanded law enforcement powers can be applied.

Many of the act's provisions were to sunset beginning December 31, 2005, approximately 4 years after its passage. In the months preceding the sunset date, supporters of the act pushed to make its sunsetting provisions permanent, while critics sought to revise various sections to enhance civil liberty protections. In July 2005, the U.S. Senate passed a reauthorization bill with substantial changes to several sections of the act, while the House reauthorization bill kept most of the act's original language. The two bills were then reconciled in a conference committee that was criticized by Senators from both the Republican and Democratic parties for ignoring civil liberty concerns.[1] The bill, which removed most of the changes from the Senate version, passed Congress on March 2, 2006 and was signed into law by President George W. Bush on March 9 and 10th, 2006.

[Natural Elements]

Originally Posted by Zap

That's a common misconception, NE.
It affects you because it takes away rights that you previously enjoyed.

No it did not affect my life, gun confiscation concern me because I will not be able to defend my family or me against violent armed criminals.

"The Patriot Act, often criticized under President Bush, is now about to be renewed by the Obama administration"
http://www.examiner.com/x-2547-Watch...Act-Provisions

[Zap]

Originally Posted by Natural Elements

No it did not affect my life

You wouldn't necessarily know if it did affect your life.
The police are now allowed to commit what used to be crimes.
Things like tapping your phones, intercepting your e-mails, searching your home, all without a warrant.

Whether or not you think you've done something wrong, you've lost something there.

[Natural Elements]

Originally Posted by Zap

You wouldn't necessarily know if it did affect your life.
The police are now allowed to commit what used to be crimes.
Things like tapping your phones, intercepting your e-mails, searching your home, all without a warrant.

Whether or not you think you've done something wrong, you've lost something there.

Why are you so concern about this subject if not living in US? Are you a UN supporter for the small arms ban or something ?

[Allen Farlow]

Obama is making a very bad mistake if he thinks he'll be able to confiscate our weapons. To accomplish such a thing in America will take the power of every law-enforcement officer in the country and even then they will not get them all.

What mistake is he making? He's forcing normal, everyday types to become outlaws.

If he continues down this road he is going to force our hands. Kick a dog long enough and he will bite you. It is only a matter of time before we have modern-day Pancho Villa's and Bonnie and Clydes running around, only the goal won't be to rob the everyday working man, it will be to attack and weaken the government.

Militias will gain ever more members and become stronger. A militia with ten thousand willing and ready members is not a stretch of the imagination. What if three or four separate militia groups formed into one with a common goal? A militia of 30,000 angry Americans with a common goal can be a formidable force.

So will he leave us our guns but make manufacture and possession of ammunition illegal? Go ahead and try. Companies make gun powder and we can, too. We can reload, we can melt lead to form bullets. we can manufacture our own arms. Winchester and Remington did it, no reason why we can't. It's not rocket science.

You can learn just about anything with a simple Google search. (Download and burn instructional materials to disc before Obama tries to shut down the internet.)

And in the odd event that we actually can't find or make ammo for our weapons, we'll just use something else.

David slew Goliath with a simple stone. What's Barrack W. Bush gonna do, confiscate all the rocks?

And don't forget Obama is just a president, with an expiration date of Jan 21, 2013...his policies can be turned back by the next president.

I'm not all that concerned about it becoming a problem, but then I'm a gun owner and know how to defend myself...

[South]

Originally Posted by Allen Farlow

And don't forget Obama is just a president, with an expiration date of Jan 21, 2013.

He's already working on measures to get that pesky little problem out of the way. H.J.RES.5

Link to the actual resolution below.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:h.j.5:

[Allen Farlow]

If that ever succeeds he might as well change his name to John F. Kennedy, if you get my drift.