View Full Version : Retired ATF agent says AR-15 rifles should be regulated like machine guns
polymorpheous
11-03-18, 12:33
Members and mods of this very board advocated for this idea during the post Sandy Hook panic.
https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/413619-retired-atf-agent-says-ar-15-rifles-should-be-regulated-like-machine-guns
**** that! There should be no NFA! There should be no BATFE!
As much of a struggle just getting suppressors de-regulated has been, why the F would we give up our ability to to buy/own AR's without additional "permission"?
Screw David Chipman. Figures a former BATFAG would support some bullshit like this.
Sure, register your AR. Then somewhere down the road another mass shooting happens (and it will) and they decide "That's it, hand 'em over!" Guess what? You have no choice at that point, there is no deniability or "I sold it to some guy at a gun show". Nope, you better cough it up or you go to prison.
Of course the powers-that-be would smell a rat right away when only a small fraction of the AR's out there are actually registered. They'd know damn well that there were still a gazillion that weren't registered.
Nah, no thanks.
PatrioticDisorder
11-03-18, 13:57
Forget that noise, when discussing the left we are not dealing with reasonable people, we are dealing with people who would be members of the communist party if it were socially acceptable or if they were born in Cuba. No “compromises” to be made with people like this.... If our elected officials went for that, next to be put on the list are handguns, the mass killers would move to using handguns like the Virginia Tech shooter used, 10 round limit or not, it really doesn’t make a tiddly winks difference in body count.... And once handguns are there we will need truck control and control of anything you can make a bomb with, followed by sharp object control. The real agenda of the “common sense gun control” crowd is disarmament to implement further people control.
Now if we were dealing with rational people (and we are not, so I say not one inch more), I’d be cool with making AR’s & similar rifles NFA for the repeal if 922(o). I mean, every long gun I own is NFA anyway, so it wouldn’t change my life much.
FromMyColdDeadHand
11-03-18, 13:58
It all comes down to SCOTUS and how fast and how they rule. We need a definitive ARs and 30rnd mags are Kosher ruling, toot sweet. Then you are negotiating from a position of strength.
ETA: It is funny to listen to McDonald, after Heller gave the individual right, that even with this codified, the left still could come up with all kinds of ways to make it meaningless. Registrations, fees, gun locks and others things that make the right hard to use.
In the next round of SCOTUS oral arguments, someone needs to make it explicitly clear that we, the people, have the right to defend ourselves no matter what their interpretation of the 2A. Blacks had the right to be free before and after the Emancipation Proc and 14A. If you recind the 14A, blacks still have the right to be free. Stop trying to say you are 'giving' me these rights. The 2A acknowledges my right and makes clear to the govt that they don't have the power to take away that right. If they try to take away that right, they are only reinforcing the need and validity of my right.
PatrioticDisorder
11-03-18, 14:00
Screw David Chipman. Figures a former BATFAG would support some bullshit like this.
Sure, register your AR. Then somewhere down the road another mass shooting happens (and it will) and they decide "That's it, hand 'em over!" Guess what? You have no choice at that point, there is no deniability or "I sold it to some guy at a gun show". Nope, you better cough it up or you go to prison.
Of course the powers-that-be would smell a rat right away when only a small fraction of the AR's out there are actually registered. They'd know damn well that there were still a gazillion that weren't registered.
Nah, no thanks.
Why worry about if a gun is NFA registered or not, if someone is coming to confiscate it you either nut up or you become a serf, there is no “oh, I sold it to so and so before.”
Now if we were dealing with rational people (and we are not, so I say not one inch more), I’d be cool with making AR’s & similar rifles NFA for the repeal if 922(o). I mean, every long gun I own is NFA anyway, so it wouldn’t change my life much.
That may be one of the most disappointing posts I've ever read on this site. Isn't it high time we learned that compromise does not work with the left or the right for that matter? Maybe you're ok with Uncle Sugar knowing all your business, but I sure as hell am not.
Who cares what some .gov parasite thinks? This is all just B.S. to get people fired up.
polymorpheous
11-03-18, 15:06
That may be one of the most disappointing posts I've ever read on this site. Isn't it high time we learned that compromise does not work with the left or the right for that matter? Maybe you're ok with Uncle Sugar knowing all your business, but I sure as hell am not.
Enemies of the 2nd amendment are abundant on this board.
Go back to the big Sandy Hook thread.
polymorpheous
11-03-18, 15:07
Funny that my thread title was edited.
The post doesn’t show that it was edited at all.
BoringGuy45
11-03-18, 15:21
It all comes down to SCOTUS and how fast and how they rule. We need a definitive ARs and 30rnd mags are Kosher ruling, toot sweet. Then you are negotiating from a position of strength.
ETA: It is funny to listen to McDonald, after Heller gave the individual right, that even with this codified, the left still could come up with all kinds of ways to make it meaningless. Registrations, fees, gun locks and others things that make the right hard to use.
In the next round of SCOTUS oral arguments, someone needs to make it explicitly clear that we, the people, have the right to defend ourselves no matter what their interpretation of the 2A. Blacks had the right to be free before and after the Emancipation Proc and 14A. If you recind the 14A, blacks still have the right to be free. Stop trying to say you are 'giving' me these rights. The 2A acknowledges my right and makes clear to the govt that they don't have the power to take away that right. If they try to take away that right, they are only reinforcing the need and validity of my right.
One of the Circuit Court rulings may have opened up a can of worms for the anti-gunners. This is from an NPR article in 2016, when the SC declined to hear an appeal to a 2nd Circuit ruling that upheld the NY and CT bans:
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/06/20/482786044/high-court-lets-connecticut-new-york-assault-weapons-ban-stand
The question before the Second Circuit, then, was whether assault weapons are commonly owned and whether the weapons are "dangerous and unusual" in hands of law-abiding citizens.
The Second Circuit answered yes to the first question but found that empirical evidence to answer that second question was "elusive." The Court decided that owning weapons like the AR-15 is, indeed, protected by the Second Amendment.
But, the Court argued, government can sometimes have a legitimate interest in impinging upon a Constitutional right. In this case, the Court ruled, banning assault weapons can save lives.
So the liberal judges admitted that AR-15s are protected by the Constitution (and, we can safely assume, most other semi-auto weapons). BUT, they also ruled that the government can simply ignore the Constitution whenever they claim they need to do so. In other words, the Constitution is like the Pirates Code in Pirates of the Caribbean: More like guidelines rather than actual rules. I can't see how the conservative/originalists on current court, even Roberts, would agree with a ruling like this.
It was a blessing that the SC did not take this case when it came before them, as with the then 4-4 bench, this whole ruling would have been upheld. It wouldn't be the end of civilian ARs; it would be the end of all our rights.
Yup. And while watching the Georgia v Kentucky game on CBS as we speak, 60 Minutes is touting highlights for tomorrow night’s episode: “The Weapon”... What 60 Minutes has uncovered about the weapon that been used in the recent mass shootings...”
Remember, there just as many retired and current ATF reps who don’t share the same opinion as this wanker. Of course, their opinions don’t fit the desired narrative.
And the beat goes on... blah blah blah
Who cares what some .gov parasite thinks? This is all just B.S. to get people fired up.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
PatrioticDisorder
11-03-18, 15:41
That may be one of the most disappointing posts I've ever read on this site. Isn't it high time we learned that compromise does not work with the left or the right for that matter? Maybe you're ok with Uncle Sugar knowing all your business, but I sure as hell am not.
Apparently you didn’t read the first part of my post.
Why worry about if a gun is NFA registered or not, if someone is coming to confiscate it you either nut up or you become a serf, there is no “oh, I sold it to so and so before.”
Something I posted in the other thread:
Discretion is the better part of valor. An M4 by each window as a SWAT team bum-rushes your house isn't the brightest idea; yeah, you might get one or two but you'd be toast. The smarter person has nothing to find and "stabs them in the back" at some point in the future.
In other words the wise person lives to fight another day when he can choose the battle and it's circumstances. ;)
Straight Shooter
11-03-18, 16:13
In the first 5 seconds of that tripe, I wanted to punch that guy in his shiney ass teeth. No diff than Fienstein, Boxer, Pelosi, Schmuck Schumer,ect.
FromMyColdDeadHand
11-03-18, 16:28
So the liberal judges admitted that AR-15s are protected by the Constitution (and, we can safely assume, most other semi-auto weapons). BUT, they also ruled that the government can simply ignore the Constitution whenever they claim they need to do so. In other words, the Constitution is like the Pirates Code in Pirates of the Caribbean: More like guidelines rather than actual rules. I can't see how the conservative/originalists on current court, even Roberts, would agree with a ruling like this.
It was a blessing that the SC did not take this case when it came before them, as with the then 4-4 bench, this whole ruling would have been upheld. It wouldn't be the end of civilian ARs; it would be the end of all our rights.
I think this is the tact that they will play. Yes we have the right, but we can restrict that right. Now if you can add restrictions on rights so that the right is meaningless, what is the use of the Constitution. Obviously, there is a balance there. The left's favorite argument revolves around the 1A and is that you can't yell "Fire' in a crowded theater, you can't call for violence, you can't perjure, slander, or libel someone. Look at all of these restrictions, in the name of 'safety' and fairness.
That is a pretty weak argument, since there is no real limit to what you could say is a potentially legitimate restriction on firearms in the name of safety. Firearms are meant to, designed for, and used to kill people; words are not. If preventing death by firearms is your goal, the only way to achieve that is through getting rid of them all. And what right is protected then? The restrictions around 'free speech' are about the misuse of the right. By all means make it illegal to threaten people with a gun, kill (unjustly) people with a gun, restrict people like felons from guns. The last one goes far further than any 1A restriction.
Actually, I got a bit wordy and off-track. I really think that we need to (and I am guilty of it too at times) saying that the collectivists assault on the 2A takes away our rights. It does not. We have that right whether the 2A held holy or thrown in the garbage. We never so clearly had the right that is explained in the 2A as when the govt tries to take away our ability to exercise that right.
Something I posted in the other thread:
Discretion is the better part of valor. An M4 by each window as a SWAT team bum-rushes your house isn't the brightest idea; yeah, you might get one or two but you'd be toast. The smarter person has nothing to find and "stabs them in the back" at some point in the future.
In other words the wise person lives to fight another day when he can choose the battle and it's circumstances. ;)
Fights are won by sneaky bastards, wars are won by brave, smart, sneaky bastards- and then you write the history.
Dr. Bullseye
11-03-18, 17:18
Forget that noise, when discussing the left we are not dealing with reasonable people, we are dealing with people who would be members of the communist party if it were socially acceptable or if they were born in Cuba. No “compromises” to be made with people like this.... If our elected officials went for that, next to be put on the list are handguns, the mass killers would move to using handguns like the Virginia Tech shooter used, 10 round limit or not, it really doesn’t make a tiddly winks difference in body count.... And once handguns are there we will need truck control and control of anything you can make a bomb with, followed by sharp object control. The real agenda of the “common sense gun control” crowd is disarmament to implement further people control.
Now if we were dealing with rational people (and we are not, so I say not one inch more), I’d be cool with making AR’s & similar rifles NFA for the repeal if 922(o). I mean, every long gun I own is NFA anyway, so it wouldn’t change my life much.
Hell yes!!!!!!!!!!! Maybe we should take AR 15s away from the ATF? The very idea is to have a weapon of war JUST as GOOD as the military has. By the way, it says "arms", not guns. This means arms just like the Army has---all forms of arms. So, if you don't like civilians having weapons of war, change the Constitution.
Fights are won by sneaky bastards, wars are won by brave, smart, sneaky bastards- and then you write the history.
Spot on! That is exactly my point.
PatrioticDisorder
11-03-18, 17:39
Something I posted in the other thread:
Discretion is the better part of valor. An M4 by each window as a SWAT team bum-rushes your house isn't the brightest idea; yeah, you might get one or two but you'd be toast. The smarter person has nothing to find and "stabs them in the back" at some point in the future.
In other words the wise person lives to fight another day when he can choose the battle and it's circumstances. ;)
If you ever even purchased a firearms accessory with a credit card, .gov will be kicking your door out if/when the confiscation happens. You are deluding yourself if you think otherwise.
FromMyColdDeadHand
11-03-18, 18:27
There will be no confiscation, outside of very concentrated urban areas (who have few ARs anyways). They collectivists just outlaw stuff and require you to deal with it. Then they pick off people at traffic stops, home fires and especially divorces and ugly family fights. You can't take them to the range anymore and the trip back and forth becomes Hollywood shootout if you get pulled over.
That is how it goes. They force us underground as they bring illegal aliens into the light.
If you ever even purchased a firearms accessory with a credit card, .gov will be kicking your door out if/when the confiscation happens. You are deluding yourself if you think otherwise.
Don't think I ever said that. I DID say that you will know it's coming (something that big and controversial will not happen quietly) so if you actually have something to find you're a fool.
Who cares what some .gov parasite thinks? This is all just B.S. to get people fired up.
I agree. I don't think being a retired government employee , especially a retired ATF agent, makes him any kind of authority on the Constitution and my freedoms. Quite the contrary, the more the government can regulate and take from me the fatter his wallet gets.
Who cares what some .gov parasite thinks? This is all just B.S. to get people fired up.
This. He is retired. The only value in his opinion is that it offered click-bait.
For the record, anyone who seriously thinks we should register more guns can pound salt.
This. He is retired. The only value in his opinion is that it offered click-bait.
For the record, anyone who seriously thinks we should register more guns...
+1 to both.... SSDD
Moose-Knuckle
11-03-18, 19:47
NRA-ILA wrote an excellent piece on this.
Former ATF Agent Pulls Mask Off Giffords’s Plans for Federal AR-15 Registration
Not only is a national gun registry a priority for gun control advocates generally, as former Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives agent and current Giffords Senior Policy Advisor David Chipman made clear to The Hill this week, it is an explicit policy priority for Giffords.
In response to a question about AR-15 rifles, Chipman responded, “What I support is treating them just like machineguns.”
Reiterating that America’s most popular rifle should be subject to the National Firearms Act (NFA), Chipman went on to state,
To me, if you want to have a weapon of war, the same gun that was issued to me as a member of [the] ATF SWAT team, it makes sense that you would have to pass a background check, the gun would have to be in your name, and there would be a picture and fingerprints on file. To me, I don't mind doing it if I want to buy a gun.
Chipman and Giffords’s preferred policy is similar to that supported by gun confiscation advocate Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). In early 2013, Feinstein proposed legislation that would have subjected tens of millions of commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms to NFA regulation and registration.
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20181102/former-atf-agent-pulls-mask-off-giffords-s-plans-for-federal-ar-15-registration
Good
I can't wait to get new MGs.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Good
I can't wait to get new MGs.
Yeah, well, except you know it wouldn't happen like that.
cell phones are killing more kids then any AR ever will yet no registration or age limits on cell phones ? long term effects of the new distracted idiocy is going to get worse
when folks keep saying LEO or others wont come for your guns they are on our side ! I keep saying NO not all of them are and more and more we are finding out many might not be on our side
AND the reality is the ones at the top giving orders are pretty much all against gun owners it seems
same thing with the thread when someone mocked the FBI ! its not the few ground agents its the high up and sadly the way the FBI is the high ups are the majority
Moose-Knuckle
11-03-18, 20:14
If our elected officials went for that, next to be put on the list are handguns, the mass killers would move to using handguns like the Virginia Tech shooter used, 10 round limit or not, it really doesn’t make a tiddly winks difference in body count.... And once handguns are there we will need truck control and control of anything you can make a bomb with, followed by sharp object control.
If you read the direct quote from the former BATFE agent he blathers on about . . .
"To me, if you want to have a weapon of war, the same gun that was issued to me as a member of [the] ATF SWAT team, it makes sense that you would have to pass a background check, the gun would have to be in your name, and there would be a picture and fingerprints on file."
The whole "weapons of war" talking point he is just regurgitating. I surmise the GLOCK he was issued along with it's magazines and ammunition while on that SWAT team are also "weapons of war", why stop there?
The real agenda of the “common sense gun control” crowd is disarmament to implement further people control.
This cannot be over emphasized.
Who cares what some .gov parasite thinks? This is all just B.S. to get people fired up.
well it keeps it forward in minds and keeps the antis having new fuel from a so called expert to break down the ones not sure or on the fence the fuds etc..
when they hear WOW even some ATF agent wants them regulated well he was a pro maybe he knows something I do not
this is purely BS of course and its the way the left keeps the pond full of ripples by poking the water every chance they can get ! we will never have calm sadly
I wish the republicans could get on board with this weapons of war and pass a weapons of war bill so it opens up all weapons :) we could just register for some rocket launchers or whatever true WEAPONS of war we wanted to play with and take out any and all other fire arms since they are not used in war
would love to hear the dems say NO NO we meant ....
not to make it pass of course just to call it out for what it is nothing to do with war pure control grab
Moose-Knuckle
11-03-18, 20:27
well it keeps it forward in minds and keeps the antis having new fuel from a so called expert to break down the ones not sure or on the fence the fuds etc..
when they hear WOW even some ATF agent wants them regulated well he was a pro maybe he knows something I do not
That and he has an intimate knowledge of all the gun control red tape and legalese that disarmament proponents like Gifford's has no idea about.
Moose-Knuckle
11-03-18, 20:27
double tap.
Maybe trade ar-15 registration for open registry.
Then I can get the 249 I always wanted... oh, and DD so We can get HEDP for 203s.
That may be one of the most disappointing posts I've ever read on this site. Isn't it high time we learned that compromise does not work with the left or the right for that matter? Maybe you're ok with Uncle Sugar knowing all your business, but I sure as hell am not.
It isn't compromise like it is always portrayed.....where each side gets something.
"The hull of the ship was compromised" is the accurate example. The 12" hole will become the size they want over time.
It isn't compromise like it is always portrayed.....where each side gets something.
"The hull of the ship was compromised" is the accurate example. The 12" hole will become the size they want over time.
Better analogy:
Lib walks up and says "Give me your sandwich".
You say "Get bent".
Lib says "Okay, just give me half of it".
You say "Okay".
What just happened here? That was a compromise right? :rolleyes:
I never heard anyone on M4C advocate making ARs NFA items.
I have said that if Dems were strategically smart they would put that forward because it would get more support (and legal precedent) than their stupid outright bans.
But their donors (Bloomberg and his advocacy army) want bans. So they push bans.
Agree the NFA should be abolished. It’s archaic and unconstitutional.
MountainRaven
11-03-18, 23:31
I never heard anyone on M4C advocate making ARs NFA items.
I have said that if Dems were strategically smart they would put that forward because it would get more support (and legal precedent) than their stupid outright bans.
But their donors (Bloomberg and his advocacy army) want bans. So they push bans.
Agree the NFA should be abolished. It’s archaic and unconstitutional.
I remember it.
I was one of them.
And I was wrong.
I remember it.
I was one of them.
And I was wrong.
Why did you feel that way? Why did you change your mind ?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If you ever even purchased a firearms accessory with a credit card, .gov will be kicking your door out if/when the confiscation happens. You are deluding yourself if you think otherwise.
I have less than zero concerns about confiscation...If we want to play that game, though, I imagine they can track you down just based on your participation in this forum.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtgxz9PlV5M
MorphCross
11-04-18, 00:25
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtgxz9PlV5M
Jamb Armor. When $90.00 dollars can make Anchorage SWAT look like Barney Fife :jester:
FromMyColdDeadHand
11-04-18, 00:26
Why did you feel that way? Why did you change your mind ?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
BEcause with Obama in and a Dem controlled Senate there was a real push after Sandy Hook that enough middle of the road GOP House members might go wobbly on ARs. Looking at what happened at a state level in CT, NY, CO, MD?- there was a lot of gun stuff passed. Maybe there is enough to push a new AWB through. An NFA registration is better than an out right ban. Sandy Hook was right after an election, and I think the GOP base held enough House members feet to the fire to make sure nothing got past the House. While TRump gets a lot of credit, rightly, of turning the tide on the lefty control of the narrative, after Sandy Hook there was a pretty good push of "No, HELL NO" from gun owners. "Your dead don't trump my rights" appalled progressives, but enough of the GOP agreed.
Jamb Armor. When $90.00 dollars can make Anchorage SWAT look like Barney Fife :jester:
Let me just run back over to where we left that M4 leaning against that garage door and grab the flash/bang.. ughh... While this was going on, Anchorage PD Swat was tied up for a day for a single guy holed up in his house that they eventually knocked down with an excavator.
There are 20,000 FBI and BATFE agents combined. I imagine that there are less than 1/10 of that who are qualified to do raids. Who is going to lead the charge for confiscation? The Army? The Marines? Local PD... there'd be enough division in the ranks that it wouldn't happen. That's the beauty of this whole conundrum, the numbers just don't work for the LEO/.Gov Nowhere on earth has a government confiscated anything near the amount of firearms we have in the U.S. Australia was 650,000 guns... we are pushing 400 million in circulation in this country.
Confiscation isn't even on the radar for me.. it's the death by a thousand cuts of them regulating ammunition, accessories and actual places we can shoot/train.
BEcause with Obama in and a Dem controlled Senate there was a real push after Sandy Hook that enough middle of the road GOP House members might go wobbly on ARs. Looking at what happened at a state level in CT, NY, CO, MD?- there was a lot of gun stuff passed. Maybe there is enough to push a new AWB through. An NFA registration is better than an out right ban. Sandy Hook was right after an election, and I think the GOP base held enough House members feet to the fire to make sure nothing got past the House. While TRump gets a lot of credit, rightly, of turning the tide on the lefty control of the narrative, after Sandy Hook there was a pretty good push of "No, HELL NO" from gun owners. "Your dead don't trump my rights" appalled progressives, but enough of the GOP agreed.
We lost a little ground in CT, NY, CO and MD.. and gained ground in a bunch of states with constitutional carry, post Sandy Hook.
PatrioticDisorder
11-04-18, 06:02
I have less than zero concerns about confiscation...If we want to play that game, though, I imagine they can track you down just based on your participation in this forum.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtgxz9PlV5M
Absolutely, in fact if you are worried about such a thing, it may not be a bad idea to come on and announce how you’ve gotten rid of all your firearms and basically turned into a full blown anti-gunner leftist.
Looks like 60 minutes is going to run a segment on how “devastating” the AR-15 is because of ammunition. They are playing on the ignorance of the public not understanding pistol vs. rifle terminal ballistics. So this will create a vision of the AR-15 specifically having unusually devastating ammo and therefore needs to be banned. Our news media has gone beyond what pravda could have ever dreamed of being.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mass-shootings-forcing-americans-to-train-for-battlefield-life-saving-procedures-60-minutes/
PatrioticDisorder
11-04-18, 06:06
BEcause with Obama in and a Dem controlled Senate there was a real push after Sandy Hook that enough middle of the road GOP House members might go wobbly on ARs. Looking at what happened at a state level in CT, NY, CO, MD?- there was a lot of gun stuff passed. Maybe there is enough to push a new AWB through. An NFA registration is better than an out right ban. Sandy Hook was right after an election, and I think the GOP base held enough House members feet to the fire to make sure nothing got past the House. While TRump gets a lot of credit, rightly, of turning the tide on the lefty control of the narrative, after Sandy Hook there was a pretty good push of "No, HELL NO" from gun owners. "Your dead don't trump my rights" appalled progressives, but enough of the GOP agreed.
And since then we’ve been complacent and lost ground in my adopted home state of Florida. Albeit the GOP nibbled around the edges, it was still an erosion of rights.
Let's cut through the internet BS, if the government wants to confiscate AR's and other such rifles, they are going to have a hard time doing it. Also the question has to be asked what percent of gun owners will say enough is enough and fight back.
Just look at the above video again of the FBI raid, now ask yourself if 5 vets of the war on terror showed up and started sniping at the FBI?
I am not advocating violence at this point in time, but as a lime long operator I would refuse he job of confiscating any guns based on morality and longevity.
PatrioticDisorder
11-04-18, 06:14
Let me just run back over to where we left that M4 leaning against that garage door and grab the flash/bang.. ughh... While this was going on, Anchorage PD Swat was tied up for a day for a single guy holed up in his house that they eventually knocked down with an excavator.
There are 20,000 FBI and BATFE agents combined. I imagine that there are less than 1/10 of that who are qualified to do raids. Who is going to lead the charge for confiscation? The Army? The Marines? Local PD... there'd be enough division in the ranks that it wouldn't happen. That's the beauty of this whole conundrum, the numbers just don't work for the LEO/.Gov Nowhere on earth has a government confiscated anything near the amount of firearms we have in the U.S. Australia was 650,000 guns... we are pushing 400 million in circulation in this country.
Confiscation isn't even on the radar for me.. it's the death by a thousand cuts of them regulating ammunition, accessories and actual places we can shoot/train.
Let’s not forget that many of these people who would be tasked for such an order are like minded and perhaps a few are even members on this very forum. We also have SCOTUS that would likely take up any serious federal gun control cases, with the current make up of the court, it would almost certainly be a favorable outcome... and if Ginsburg kicks the bucket and Trump replaces her with an originalist, it’s a slam dunk win for outside. I’ve said it before, the younger generations are actually very pro 2a. I see the left having maybe a 6-10 year window of even having a small chance of serious gun control (that would likely be successfully challenged at the SCOTUS) and if you don’t believe that just look at public opinion polls of banning handguns from the 60s (polls were like 70-80% supported a ban back then vs. 20-30% supporting a handgun ban currently). Even if the left were successful, it would be like Senator Frankenstein’s 2013 proposal, which was making all ARs, etc. NFA items, nobody is confiscating a damn thing.
A mass nationwide confiscation is highly unlikely. It would have the potential to get "messy".
What is within the realm of possibility is an outright ban (passively enforced) or an NFA conversion (also passively enforced), both of which set you up as a felon if you don't comply. As has been mentioned previously, a break-in, fire, jilted ex (probably the single biggest dime-dropper), pissed off teenager, nosey neighbor, etc. would be the catalyst for your home to be raided. Then you go to Club Fed for 10+ years. On the other hand if you manage to make it through the rest of your life without drawing attention to your "hobby", always looking over your shoulder and daring to only fire a round or two at a time somewhere out in the country, you will die and your family will most likely turn the stuff over 'cause they just don't want the headache.
None of the above is acceptable to me. NONE of it.
FromMyColdDeadHand
11-04-18, 09:15
It's funny that a major reason not to overturn RoevWade is the number of women that would die in back alley abortions. And what would happen if they tried to confiscate guns?
No, it's the slow boiling from, passive-aggressive attack on gun rights. Remember, by far most of the Progressive-Collectivist people shouting about guns really don't care- they are just virtue signaling. Spend money, risk their lives, doing something meaningful about guns is not in their tool box of things to do.
Study the Warsaw ghetto uprising.
Apparently you didn’t read the first part of my post.
I absolutely did read it. However, your proposed compromise (that I can only hope was stated in jest) in the finale undid everything in the first paragraph and was almost more than I could bear. ;)
Something I posted in the other thread:
Discretion is the better part of valor. An M4 by each window as a SWAT team bum-rushes your house isn't the brightest idea; yeah, you might get one or two but you'd be toast. The smarter person has nothing to find and "stabs them in the back" at some point in the future.
In other words the wise person lives to fight another day when he can choose the battle and it's circumstances. ;)
Tell that to those who fought in the Warsaw ghetto...
Study the Warsaw ghetto uprising.
I replied before I saw your post. :)
I have less than zero concerns about confiscation...If we want to play that game, though, I imagine they can track you down just based on your participation in this forum.
Yeah, that's where I am. They're playing the long game. They'll just make possession illegal and confiscate them as they encounter them. It will take longer but it won't be nearly as messy.
Yeah, that's where I am. They're playing the long game. They'll just make possession illegal and confiscate them as they encounter them. It will take longer but it won't be nearly as messy.
That won't even happen as there are way too many in circulation. That would become a full time job in itself. When that is going on the real criminals would be having a LEO free time like in the purge movies.
maybe old enough and lived in other countries and studied history enough to never say never !!!!
taxes on ammo and so on the idea of taking over time ? sure full time job they could hire more looser workers to do it that would be happy to do it and claim see we created jobs and you would have the expansion of the losers at airports coming into your homes !!!
I do not trust the gov lefties to do this
who thought Russia would fall as quick as it did ?
who thought the wall would come down the way it did ?
how fast did land lines go away and cell phones take over internet and the way we live now compared to say even 30 years ago are radical life shifts
so even if things change over 30 years ?
do I think they will ? yes that is the end game so it will be never ending until they do and unless the next gen radically shifts into conservative values ?
Tell that to those who fought in the Warsaw ghetto...
Not sure of your point, but I don't think that's what Yoni was referring to. The Warsaw Ghetto was surrounded and enclosed by superior forces. The scale of what I was referring to encompasses an entire nation (and one MUCH bigger than Poland), not an isolated, cut-off ghetto.
The whole idea of "living to fight another day" is to do just that: LIVE to fight another day, and another after that, and so on. If you die in the process so be it, but suicidal missions may make a splash yet really have no long-term benefit. The Jews in the ghetto knew it was a last stand, in fact they wanted "....to choose the time and place of our death". Different situation altogether than I was referring to.
OK this is my never say never and exactly how they will start this nonsense
no its not law yet but can see it creeping in to law
and of course remember what is hate speech ? well anything conservative of course
Brooklyn borough president Eric Adams (D) and New York State Sen. Kevin Parker (D-21) are both pushing to require a social media background check before allowing individuals to purchase firearms.
The social media/search engine background check would be seeking out certain forms of hate speech and other indicators that would be used to deny the exercise of Second Amendment rights to would-be gun buyers.
WCBS 880 quotes Adams saying, “A three-year review of a social media profile would give an easy profile of a person who is not suitable to hold and possess a firearm.”
Not sure of your point, but I don't think that's what Yoni was referring to. The Warsaw Ghetto was surrounded and enclosed by superior forces. The scale of what I was referring to encompasses an entire nation (and one MUCH bigger than Poland), not an isolated, cut-off ghetto.
The whole idea of "living to fight another day" is to do just that: LIVE to fight another day, and another after that, and so on. If you die in the process so be it, but suicidal missions may make a splash yet really have no long-term benefit. The Jews in the ghetto knew it was a last stand, in fact they wanted "....to choose the time and place of our death". Different situation altogether than I was referring to.
My point is compromise which the Jews certainly thought would work did not lead to them being able "to fight another day". They would have been better off fleeing to somewhere safer. Then again there weren't that many nations at the time willing to take them in. So they were stuck taking whatever deal they could get which was in a nutshell: we're gonna assign you where you can live, take away your means of livelihood, then we're gonna take away all your shit even the gold fillings from your teeth, and then on top of that exterminate you. That's some seriously grim shit right there, and it's happened everywhere that socialism has taken hold. Germany, Russia, China, Cambodia, etc...
Yes the Warsaw ghetto fought, but they're failure had much to do with their hope of Russian support that never happened more than anything. No doubt it was their last resort, but imagine if the Jews of Europe had a magic ball and could have seen what was coming down the pike in the 1920's and early 1930's. Do you think they and the rest of Europe would have done things differently? I would hope so!
No thank you. I'll pass on a helping of that shit sandwich. We should all be vigilant to prevent anything like this from happening again. Make no mistake they fear us and our guns as they know with us law abiding gun owners and the Constitution they can't take the power away from the people by outright force. Once we are disarmed we will be their prey. It will not go down easy and soft. It will go down just like the Night of the Long Knives. BAM they'll be beating down doors to take away our shit and slitting our throats before anyone can organize and assemble. The organization will happen underground once everyone has been alarmed that shit has gone south hard and fast in the first wave.
Don't get me wrong, I understand "living to fight another day". Unfortunately if I learned anything from the Obama administration is that we're not as far from the left taking over as we thought we were. And they have learned with the Trump administration that they weren't as close as they thought they were either. Imagine what our life would be like two years into a Clinton administration. IMHO we dodged one hell of a bullet there. I hope we dodge another in three days too!
My point is compromise which the Jews certainly thought would work did not lead to them being able "to fight another day". They would have been better off fleeing to somewhere safer. Then again there weren't that many nations at the time willing to take them in. So they were stuck taking whatever deal they could get which was in a nutshell: we're gonna assign you where you can live, take away your means of livelihood, then we're gonna take away all your shit even the gold fillings from your teeth, and then on top of that exterminate you. That's some seriously grim shit right there, and it's happened everywhere that socialism has taken hold. Germany, Russia, China, Cambodia, etc...
Yes the Warsaw ghetto fought, but they're failure had much to do with their hope of Russian support that never happened more than anything. No doubt it was their last resort, but imagine if the Jews of Europe had a magic ball and could have seen what was coming down the pike in the 1920's and early 1930's. Do you think they and the rest of Europe would have done things differently? I would hope so!
No thank you. I'll pass on a helping of that shit sandwich. We should all be vigilant to prevent anything like this from happening again. Make no mistake they fear us and our guns as they know with us law abiding gun owners and the Constitution they can't take the power away from the people by outright force. Once we are disarmed we will be their prey. It will not go down easy and soft. It will go down just like the Night of the Long Knives. BAM they'll be beating down doors to take away our shit and slitting our throats before anyone can organize and assemble. The organization will happen underground once everyone has been alarmed that shit has gone south hard and fast in the first wave.
Don't get me wrong, I understand "living to fight another day". Unfortunately if I learned anything from the Obama administration is that we're not as far from the left taking over as we thought we were. And they have learned with the Trump administration that they weren't as close as they thought they were either. Imagine what our life would be like two years into a Clinton administration. IMHO we dodged one hell of a bullet there. I hope we dodge another in three days too!
Okay so perhaps there wasn't really any disagreement in what each of us was referring to, except the speed at which things occur. Although extremely unlikely that it will ever happen that way, any mass confiscation wouldn't happen overnight. It's logistically impossible. Not to mention the fact that the politics surrounding it would signal far in advance of doing the actual dirty deed. Unless you were a hermit living in a cabin in Montana you'd know that storm clouds were gathering and if prudent would take appropriate measures to ensure you weren't (proof-wise) a lawbreaker. They might know you're full of shit but then again a million other guys (not an exaggeration) would be in the same boat with you. Then the sheer logistics of the situation rears it's ugly head again. Unless of course Due Process and most other Constitutional rights were thrown out the window, and then we're talking a whole new level of treachery.
Okay so perhaps there wasn't really any disagreement in what each of us was referring to, except the speed at which things occur. Although extremely unlikely that it will ever happen that way, any mass confiscation wouldn't happen overnight. It's logistically impossible. Not to mention the fact that the politics surrounding it would signal far in advance of doing the actual dirty deed. Unless you were a hermit living in a cabin in Montana you'd know that storm clouds were gathering and if prudent would take appropriate measures to ensure you weren't (proof-wise) a lawbreaker. They might think you're full of shit but then again a million other guys (not an exaggeration) would be in the same boat with you. Logistics rears it's ugly head again. Unless of course Due Process and most other Constitutional rights were thrown out the window, and then we're talking a whole new level of treachery.
Exactly.
What's painfully obvious to me now is that the Democrats are totally capable, and willing to take it to that "whole new level of treachery". That's what quite frankly scares the hell out of me. They've put it out there unashamedly. Just look at what Antifa has gotten away with. Unfortunately I think we're closer than anyone of us realized.
Averageman
11-04-18, 19:05
It's kind of nice that a guy who bled the system in a freedom sucking unconstitutional bureaucracy was kind enough to his former colleagues to recommend this.
I mean with ideas like this, they will be able to retire also, well except for the ones who'll die on some shabby doorstep or hallway trying to enforce this BS.
The question I continue to have is: Why are we issuing weapons of war to a beurocratic government agency?
MountainRaven
11-04-18, 20:41
Why did you feel that way? Why did you change your mind ?
My entire idea was:
Make silencers OTC (remove them from the NFA and either make it a simple 4473 or make them just another gun part), open the machine gun registry, and then move semi-automatic rifles to the NFA. Maybe even add in a little federal pre-emption to end the AWBs in NY and CA....
As for why: Because I was pretty sure we were going to lose hard in late 2012/early 2013 (my enthusiasm for this compromise waned when it became obvious that nothing was going to change - when the voting for proposed gun legislation was slated for May). So with my proposed, "compromise," we would get something out of it and the gun-grabbers who - largely - were just after political masturbation would feel like they got something out of it. It could also have dissuaded mass shooters from acquiring semi-automatic rifles to commit their shootings with (as no mass shootings, to the best of my knowledge, have ever been committed with either registered machine guns or registered or unregistered SBRs). It would mean nothing would be banned and would simply make getting a new semi-automatic rifle a pain - albeit no greater a pain than getting a machine gun or an SBR (and I imagine that sales of semi-auto-only rifles would drop like a rock, with people being able to get an LE6933 as easily as an LE6920 - why buy the LE6920?).
So of all the possible, likely outcomes (in which something happened), that struck me as the least painful possibility.
Why did it change? Because f___ 'em. We aren't getting anything out of them. Silencers aren't coming off the NFA. The NFA machine gun registry isn't getting re-opened. It wasn't going to happen with the Democrats in charge, it ain't happening with the GOP in charge. I see no reason to give the opposition an inch if they aren't willing to give an inch in return (and they aren't and putting semi-automatic rifles on the NFA isn't an inch - but neither is removing silencers from the NFA nor reopening the machine gun registry). (I would be interested in seeing some science done on the whys and wherefores of mass violence and use that as a starting point for crafting national policy on everything that might be involved, including gun control - or the lack thereof - but since nobody has any interest in it - neither the NRA nor the Brady Bunch have any reason to actually find solutions when they're making so much screaming about how we're all going to die, &c.)
Bottomline: It was a momentary weakness.
Please post which mods are guilty of what you claim. I certainly don't recall any.
Members and mods of this very board advocated for this idea during the post Sandy Hook panic.
https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/413619-retired-atf-agent-says-ar-15-rifles-should-be-regulated-like-machine-guns
My reference to the Warsaw Ghetto, was this.
If a handful of starving Jews with ZERO gun background were able to hold the German army at bay for over a month. Just think what a whole bunch of vets of military and LE, plus current members of the same. Plus the numbers of country boys that hunt, could do to any group that seeks to destroy the Constitution.
If G-D forbid this day comes we will lose our guns only if we refuse to fight back. If all of us use the talents we have to fight tyranny, we will stay free. If we can see high taxes on ammo will be a way to dry up our ability to use our guns, then buy a box a month to put in your defend liberty bank. Also government tyranny in this case looks like a path to make money. If for 50 years plus we havent slowed the drugs coming into this country, what chance do they have with stopping ammo.
My family for centuries were smugglers, I would shift gears and hire retired Tier 1 lads to smuggle in ammo.
I will never accept tyranny!
One of the Circuit Court rulings may have opened up a can of worms for the anti-gunners. This is from an NPR article in 2016, when the SC declined to hear an appeal to a 2nd Circuit ruling that upheld the NY and CT bans:
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/06/20/482786044/high-court-lets-connecticut-new-york-assault-weapons-ban-stand
We have two new SC Judges now. Hopefully that will change in our favor....I sure hope so!
RetroRevolver77
11-05-18, 14:28
deleted
Moose-Knuckle
11-06-18, 05:00
maybe old enough and lived in other countries and studied history enough to never say never !!!!
taxes on ammo and so on the idea of taking over time ? sure full time job they could hire more looser workers to do it that would be happy to do it and claim see we created jobs and you would have the expansion of the losers at airports coming into your homes !!!
I do not trust the gov lefties to do this
who thought Russia would fall as quick as it did ?
who thought the wall would come down the way it did ?
how fast did land lines go away and cell phones take over internet and the way we live now compared to say even 30 years ago are radical life shifts
so even if things change over 30 years ?
do I think they will ? yes that is the end game so it will be never ending until they do and unless the next gen radically shifts into conservative values ?
I'm with you.
The argument that confiscation won't happen because it's too messy is a fallacy. Does anyone believe the Bill and Hillary's, the Obama's, the Holder's, the Feinstein's, et al. of the world give an actual phuc about the lives of citizens, LEO's, and or military personnel? They would be warm and cozy in their ivory towers shielded by their Praetorian guards.
Another talking point is that it will never happen because there are too many guns out there and not enough personnel that would actually obey such orders. While I agree, who says the disarmament proponents would not still try? Since when has the left ever used logic? That of course is not to even mention the use of a multi-national / foreign occupying force on US soil.
People talk about confiscation as if were to transpire at present while everyone has food in their stomachs, potable water flowing, plugged into their smart phones, going about their lives like everything is normal on any given ordinary day. Yeah no, that ain't how it would go down at all.
Normalcy bias is a thing.
My point is compromise which the Jews certainly thought would work did not lead to them being able "to fight another day". They would have been better off fleeing to somewhere safer. Then again there weren't that many nations at the time willing to take them in. So they were stuck taking whatever deal they could get which was in a nutshell: we're gonna assign you where you can live, take away your means of livelihood, then we're gonna take away all your shit even the gold fillings from your teeth, and then on top of that exterminate you. That's some seriously grim shit right there, and it's happened everywhere that socialism has taken hold. Germany, Russia, China, Cambodia, etc...
Yes the Warsaw ghetto fought, but they're failure had much to do with their hope of Russian support that never happened more than anything. No doubt it was their last resort, but imagine if the Jews of Europe had a magic ball and could have seen what was coming down the pike in the 1920's and early 1930's.
We have a magic ball now days, it's called the internet. Gleichschaltung or the "Nazification" of Germany is an interesting time in history we would be wise to learn from. See my sig line for an example of the modern accepted and politically correct propaganda of a targeted demographic no different from those targeted by the Nazis.
People talk about confiscation as if were to transpire at present while everyone has food in their stomachs, potable water flowing, plugged into their smart phones, going about their lives like everything is normal on any given ordinary day. Yeah no, that ain't how it would go down at all.
Hurricane Katrina is a good example- police going door to door confiscating guns, executing people. It did not take long for society to break down and the people tasked with protecting the citizens to turn criminal. This is not an indictment on all police (I was one and still have friends at the PD) but shows that the attitude that "they will not confiscate guns" is false.
MountainRaven
11-06-18, 14:07
We have two new SC Judges now. Hopefully that will change in our favor....I sure hope so!
Supreme Court refuses to hear case challenging California conceal carry law | The Hill (https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/414917-supreme-court-refuses-to-hear-case-challenging-california-conceal)
Hope in one hand, defecate in the other....
BoringGuy45
11-06-18, 14:29
Supreme Court refuses to hear case challenging California conceal carry law | The Hill (https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/414917-supreme-court-refuses-to-hear-case-challenging-california-conceal)
Hope in one hand, defecate in the other....
Still, it's not a ruling. It's simply saying "not at this time". The SC has thousands of cases filed before them every year, many quite significant. They can't hear them all. At some point, however, they will have to take the case. And when they do, I'd bet that more likely than not they'll rule in our favor.
FromMyColdDeadHand
11-06-18, 15:23
Wasn't there another case in CA/HI were a court ruled that there was right to firearms outside the house- open carry?
The_War_Wagon
11-06-18, 19:30
Retired ATF agent says AR-15 rifles should be regulated like machine guns ]
Clearly being a BATman for his career, did NOTHING to raise his IQ... :rolleyes:
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.