View Full Version : Official Obama/Federal Gun Control/Federal AWB Discussion Thread
GermanSynergy
07-08-11, 15:27
I'm buying more PMAGs and AK mags tomorrow just out of spite.
I think I might empty a mag or two into the air from my Yugo M92. Just for shits and giggles. :lol:
I'm buying more PMAGs and AK mags tomorrow just out of spite.
woodandsteel
07-08-11, 15:34
Anything the WH attmepts gun control wise right now will only draw attention to Gunwalker.
Real smart Barack!
Yeah. I don't get why they would want to do that.
And in related news...
Could Controversy Kill the ATF? (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/58532.html)
I could only hope so. And hopefully it will also lead to major changes in the Dept. of Justice.
woodandsteel
07-08-11, 15:42
I think they're releasing small amounts of information on their new gun control agenda to intentionally steer the media and people's attention away from Gunrunner. Most of the general public have no idea about what's going on, don't care and would rather stick their heads in the sand.
Or watch American Idol.
I find the above (in bold) to be true amongst many of my firearm owning friends.
Throwing around terms like stakeholders and commonsense has me very worried about what is coming down the road. There are many gun owners and mebers of gun organizations who don't see a problem with restricting or regulating certain types of guns, ammo or magazines. Kind of like Joe Biden talking about his Beretta shotgun. I don't think he'd approve of many of the guns posted in the many picture threads on this forum.
dookie1481
07-08-11, 16:39
sheeple believe too strongly in the atf. No way they are going away.
I don't know, I bet 4/5 people have no idea what the ATF does or even what the acronym means.
Another article published today on the subject. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2011-07-08-obama-gun-control-safety-giffords_n.htm
I think they're releasing small amounts of information on their new gun control agenda to intentionally steer the media and people's attention away from Gunrunner. Most of the general public have no idea about what's going on, don't care and would rather stick their heads in the sand.
Or watch American Idol.
Agreed.
Get with the times- AI is over- America's [not] Got Talent is on now.:D
Though I agree that anything can happen, President Obama and the Demoncrats would be committing suicide Jim Jones style by trying to enact any gun control. It will never survive for a variety of reasons. Especially due to the lastest ATF/ Gun Runner shenanigans.
It has been pointed out time and again that with record numbers of gun sales and ownership we are still enjoying low crime rates.
I think that the President is grasping at straws.
I DEARLY hope you are right, and that anything he pulls out is either relatively benign, or gets shot down immediately.
But Mr. Murphy always has a funny way of showing up uninvited....
Especially when Gov. officials start using "common sense" and "safety" in the same topic.
Get with the times- AI is over- America's [not] Got Talent is on now.:D
Haven't seen that one... But the wife does make me watch So you think you can dance! :lol:
It seems like the WH is aware of the political challenge pushing a new package of laws through the legislature would be and will instead try to do as much as they can by executive order and other means that circumvent the Congress and the Senate.
My question for the people in the know is - just how much damage can be done without legislative approval?
Heavy Metal
07-09-11, 00:29
Not a whole lot more than has already been done. If it could have been done, Clinton would have done it.
Remember, a civilian cannot be charged with a crime for violation an executive order. There has to be statutory authority backing it up.
The import ban was allowed by language in the 68 GCA.
Technically, they simply started enforcing an existing law. The law has to exist first.
Heavy Metal
07-09-11, 00:31
I think they're releasing small amounts of information on their new gun control agenda to intentionally steer the media and people's attention away from Gunrunner. Most of the general public have no idea about what's going on, don't care and would rather stick their heads in the sand.
Or watch American Idol.
Any attempt to push gun control at this time would draw attention to Operation Fast and Furious. From their standpoint, it would be an incredibly stupid move.
I think the keywords are Executive Order, DOJ and "gun safety measures".
Spokesman Jay Carney said that the new steps would be made public "in the near future." He didn't offer details, but people involved in talks at the Justice Department to craft the new measures said they expected to see something in the next several weeks. Whatever is proposed is not expected to involve legislation or take on major issues, like banning assault weapons, but could include executive action to strengthen the background check system or other steps.
"The president directed the attorney general to form working groups with key stakeholders to identify common-sense measures that would improve American safety and security while fully respecting Second Amendment rights," Carney said Thursday. "That process is well under way at the Department of Justice, with stakeholders on all sides working through these complex issues, and we expect to have some more specific announcements in the near future."
If this is an unacceptable post, Mods please delete. I don't intend this to turn into a debate, hijack the thread, or turn into a "what would you do if this happened" post.
For those that are in the know about gun legislation more than I am, my question is, what are the REAL chances that "assault rifles", NFA weapons, hi-cap weapons, ect. will get banned or "forced" to be turned in by either executive order or through legislation?
According to HeavyMetal, not adhering to an Executive Order can't result in a criminal violation (which I didn't know), but is there any real danger to this?
If there IS, do you guys think it is smart to stay out of the NFA game? I think those who have NFA items and CCW permits would be the first ones targeted since it is a little easier to track.
Again, I do not want this to turn into a "I'm not turning in such and such, and those guys better watch out if they try to take it!"...so don't take it there!
Say what? By forced to "turn in" I assume that you mean confiscation. Sorry, it will never happen.
Confiscation is not even a feasible option. I would be more concerned about the feds taking my gold or silver before they would try and attempt to take firearms.
If this is an unacceptable post, Mods please delete. I don't intend this to turn into a debate, hijack the thread, or turn into a "what would you do if this happened" post.
For those that are in the know about gun legislation more than I am, my question is, what are the REAL chances that "assault rifles", NFA weapons, hi-cap weapons, ect. will get banned or "forced" to be turned in by either executive order or through legislation?
According to HeavyMetal, not adhering to an Executive Order can't result in a criminal violation (which I didn't know), but is there any real danger to this?
If there IS, do you guys think it is smart to stay out of the NFA game? I think those who have NFA items and CCW permits would be the first ones targeted since it is a little easier to track.
Again, I do not want this to turn into a "I'm not turning in such and such, and those guys better watch out if they try to take it!"...so don't take it there!
For those that are in the know about gun legislation more than I am, my question is, what are the REAL chances that "assault rifles", NFA weapons, hi-cap weapons, ect. will get banned or "forced" to be turned in by either executive order or through legislation?
I don't see any type of confiscation happening but I do see them tightening the screws a little bit more and a little bit more. The whole "boiling a frog" analogy definitely applies.
Say what? By forced to "turn in" I assume that you mean confiscation. Sorry, it will never happen.
Confiscation is not even a feasible option. I would be more concerned about the feds taking my gold or silver before they would try and attempt to take firearms.
No, I didn't say confiscation, since I too believe that would be far-fetched due to lack of man-power among other things. I mean by "decree" declaring them illegal to own, where being caught with it is a criminal offense...something along the lines of "voluntary but mandatory" turning in of "now illegal" weapons...
GermanSynergy
07-09-11, 13:08
I can see them quietly expanding the "prohibited person" category and banning the importation of foreign made ammunition (via EO).
Confiscation? Won't happen and would be political suicide for any party that tried it. Taking grandpa Kettle's duck gun and squirrel rifle wouldn't go over well in most communities.
I don't believe that will happen. The antis have had many options to attack NFA and they haven't. I think that any proposed sillyness will be attacked legally by the NRA, GOA and SAF and the SCOTUS will make a sane ruling.
No, I didn't say confiscation, since I too believe that would be far-fetched due to lack of man-power among other things. I mean by "decree" declaring them illegal to own, where being caught with it is a criminal offense...something along the lines of "voluntary but mandatory" turning in of "now illegal" weapons...
I just dont know anymore ? these days I see things happening I cant believe are happening ?
I often think what did many of the say Dutch think in WWII ? did they know what was coming or did they think wont happen to us ?
while attacking guns are huge its also a huge power move if they can try they will try
I can also see the UN thing giving them backing and not backing from us but backing as in we have to be as one lets all hold hands
Moose-Knuckle
07-09-11, 21:02
As a student of history I don't put anything past people in a position of power. If I were them and wanted a disarmed populace I would simply implement a ruling that made any and all primers destructive devices or worse yet ban them out right. Can’t happen right? Just look at how the BATFE has ruled that the M201A1 fuse used in the M18 smoke grenades are now a DD and cannot be purchased by civilians like they once were.
If we don’t have any primers to ignite our propellant then all we have are a bunch of perfectly legal and expensive clubs.
More and more, I find myself more concerned with this:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/snyder8.html
"Walter Mitty's Second Amendment," by Jeff Snyder
Heavy Metal
07-09-11, 23:47
As a student of history I don't put anything past people in a position of power. If I were them and wanted a disarmed populace I would simply implement a ruling that made any and all primers destructive devices or worse yet ban them out right. Can’t happen right? Just look at how the BATFE has ruled that the M201A1 fuse used in the M18 smoke grenades are now a DD and cannot be purchased by civilians like they once were.
If we don’t have any primers to ignite our propellant then all we have are a bunch of perfectly legal and expensive clubs.
If people would simply read the laws in question before posting, they could disabuse themselves of these silly fears:
The definition of a "destructive device" is found in 26 U.S.C. § 5845(f). The definition reads as follows:
(1) any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas, (A) bomb, (B) grenade, (C) rocket having a propellant charge of more than 4 ounces, (D) missile having an explosive charge of more than 1/4 ounce, (E) mine or (F) similar device.
A destructive device is defined within the United States Code. Nowhere in 26 U.S.C. § 5845(f) does it say a DD is whatever Obama wants it to be.
Any attempt to push gun control at this time would draw attention to Operation Fast and Furious. From their standpoint, it would be an incredibly stupid move.
In their eyes if we had gun control we would not have all this illegal gun running going on !
I really think they think this way so they think it might help them pass gun control
Remember even here http://change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy_agenda/
They say what they want so they are not afraid of gun bans or control at all
Moose-Knuckle
07-10-11, 04:24
If people would simply read the laws in question before posting, they could disabuse themselves of these silly fears:
Go and purchase some ALS smoke canisters and get back with me. ;)
You have read what is on paper, congratulations so have I. That doesn't amount to the rings in your toilet when people in power are fearful of an armed citizenry. In case you haven’t noticed the BATFE enacts new rulings as it pleases, existing laws be damned. Remember the ban on imported barrels, or how about their current review on “non-sporting” shotguns?
montanadave
07-12-11, 14:58
Arizona state senator Lori Klein made some headlines when she insisted she be allowed to carry her concealed weapon into the state capitol building, but I don't think this was the message she wanted to send.
An excerpt from an article published in The Arizona Republic (http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/07/10/20110710arizona-guns-special-report-overview.html#ixzz1Ru0bZwf0):
"Oh, it's so cute," Klein said, as she unzipped the loaded Ruger from its carrying case to show a reporter and photographer. She was sitting on a leather couch in a lounge, just outside the Senate chamber.
She showed off the laser sighting by pointing the red beam at the reporter's chest. The gun has no safety, she said, but there was no need to worry.
"I just didn't have my hand on the trigger," she said.
After the story was published a couple of days ago, Klein apparently issued a statement contesting the reporter's version of the events during the interview, but has now gone into "no comment" mode. Needless to say, the incident has attracted more than a little attention from folks on both sides of the gun control debate (http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/07/12/20110712arizona-legislator-klein-gun-debate.html#ixzz1Ru3Zw3OZ)
Arizona state senator Lori Klein made some headlines when she insisted she be allowed to carry her concealed weapon into the state capitol building, but I don't think this was the message she wanted to send.
An excerpt from an article published in The Arizona Republic (http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/07/10/20110710arizona-guns-special-report-overview.html#ixzz1Ru0bZwf0):
"Oh, it's so cute," Klein said, as she unzipped the loaded Ruger from its carrying case to show a reporter and photographer. She was sitting on a leather couch in a lounge, just outside the Senate chamber.
She showed off the laser sighting by pointing the red beam at the reporter's chest. The gun has no safety, she said, but there was no need to worry.
"I just didn't have my hand on the trigger," she said.
After the story was published a couple of days ago, Klein apparently issued a statement contesting the reporter's version of the events during the interview, but has now gone into "no comment" mode. Needless to say, the incident has attracted more than a little attention from folks on both sides of the gun control debate (http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/07/12/20110712arizona-legislator-klein-gun-debate.html#ixzz1Ru3Zw3OZ)
Wow just wow, another short bus rider in the g-ment.
Cincinnatus
07-12-11, 15:38
I think the keywords are Executive Order, DOJ and "gun safety measures".
As well as expansion of the background check. Remember, Obama tried to get NRA on board with something like this a while back. If they can't outlaw what guns can be owned, they'll start to tighten up on who can pass the background check--think no-fly list for gun buying.
I dunno :
As a student of history I don't put anything past people in a position of power. If I were them and wanted a disarmed populace I would simply implement a ruling that made any and all primers destructive devices or worse yet ban them out right. Can’t happen right? Just look at how the BATFE has ruled that the M201A1 fuse used in the M18 smoke grenades are now a DD and cannot be purchased by civilians like they once were.
If we don’t have any primers to ignite our propellant then all we have are a bunch of perfectly legal and expensive clubs.
Nothing personal , but I don't think that kind of conjecture is helpful .
Keeping the discussion firmly grounded in objective reality might be useful right now.
FWIW & YMMV.
Forest Gump quotes pop into my heads :)
Arizona state senator Lori Klein made some headlines when she insisted she be allowed to carry her concealed weapon into the state capitol building, but I don't think this was the message she wanted to send.
An excerpt from an article published in The Arizona Republic (http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/07/10/20110710arizona-guns-special-report-overview.html#ixzz1Ru0bZwf0):
"Oh, it's so cute," Klein said, as she unzipped the loaded Ruger from its carrying case to show a reporter and photographer. She was sitting on a leather couch in a lounge, just outside the Senate chamber.
She showed off the laser sighting by pointing the red beam at the reporter's chest. The gun has no safety, she said, but there was no need to worry.
"I just didn't have my hand on the trigger," she said.
After the story was published a couple of days ago, Klein apparently issued a statement contesting the reporter's version of the events during the interview, but has now gone into "no comment" mode. Needless to say, the incident has attracted more than a little attention from folks on both sides of the gun control debate (http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/07/12/20110712arizona-legislator-klein-gun-debate.html#ixzz1Ru3Zw3OZ)
President Obama's Anti-Gun Agenda Shows No Sign Of Stopping | Fox News
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/12/28/president-obamas-anti-gun-agenda-shows-no-sign-stopping/
---
President Obama's Anti-Gun Agenda Shows No Sign Of Stopping | Fox News
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/12/28/president-obamas-anti-gun-agenda-shows-no-sign-stopping/
Good info. Here's a few more articles on the subject.
BHO has not relented and the anti-gun agenda is still being pushed. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/12/28/president-obamas-anti-gun-agenda-shows-no-sign-stopping/
Although he signed the spending bill into law, he simultaneously issued a so-called "signing statement," a note that presidents have started attaching to legislation stating how they interpret the law they are signing or whether they believe part of it is unconstitutional.
Obama’s statement claimed that Congress couldn’t put restrictions on how he wanted to spend to fund lobbying for gun control and the National Institute of Health studies of gun control.
http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-st-louis/obama-violates-his-own-words-defying-congrss-to-advance-gun-control-agenda
Additional provisions in this bill, including section 8013 of Division A and section 218 of Division F, purport to restrict the use of funds to advance certain legislative positions. I have advised the Congress that I will not construe these provisions as preventing me from fulfilling my constitutional responsibility to recommend to the Congress's consideration such measures as I shall judge necessary and expedient.
AND HERE IS SECTION 218
Sec. 218. None of the funds made available in this title may be used, in whole or in part, to advocate or promote gun control.
Another article, same subject. http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/10378-obamas-anti-gun-agenda-remains-alive-and-well
I think it's time to renew this thread. After the tragedy in Conn. all I have heard in the news is lefties screaming to renew the assault weapons ban as if that is the only cure for violence in America.
We will have to fight hard to retain our rights and make ourselves heard. Someone needs to get it through to these people that if a psycho is planning to commit mass murder a ban on high cap. mags is not going to sway him to do otherwise. A criminal does not care what the law is. I've yet to hear of anyone getting hurt by a removable flash hider.
I fear we are nearing a permanent assault weapons ban. We have to try something. Write, call, or e-mail lets make ourselves heard and try to talk some since into these people before our favorite gun becomes way to expensive or unobtainable.:(
A few links recently posted in the other thread:
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/16/15945357-top-democrat-will-seek-new-gun-law-in-next-congress?lite
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/nine-facts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/
http://thelibertyzone.wordpress.com/2012/12/15/its-on/
A few links recently posted in the other thread:
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/16/15945357-top-democrat-will-seek-new-gun-law-in-next-congress?lite
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/nine-facts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/
http://thelibertyzone.wordpress.com/2012/12/15/its-on/
Now I feel it's even worse than I thought. There spreading horrible lies.
Now I feel it's even worse than I thought. There spreading horrible lies.
http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/12/no-mass-shootings-are-not-on-the-increase/
Post rebuttals. Email the authors with rebuttals. Just make sure you have your stuff together.
--
A few links recently posted in the other thread:
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/16/15945357-top-democrat-will-seek-new-gun-law-in-next-congress?lite
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/nine-facts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/
http://thelibertyzone.wordpress.com/2012/12/15/its-on/
From the Washington Post
9. States with stricter gun control laws have fewer deaths from gun-related violence.
Flat out lie. Chicago, LA, Oakland, NYC, Washington DC, need we say nore?
I hate to say it but I gave in to a little bit of panic and ordered a round of Glock and AR magazines. 44mag.com has both in stock and decent prices on NHMTG mags, FWIW.
I don't think the political support is there, but given the slim chance of one passing and the high chance of continued semi-panic I didn't want to be backordered on magazines if I need them.
As sad as this is and is gut renching to say the least. I don't think either that the congress will do anything.
I hate to say it but I gave in to a little bit of panic and ordered a round of Glock and AR magazines. 44mag.com has both in stock and decent prices on NHMTG mags, FWIW.
I don't think the political support is there, but given the slim chance of one passing and the high chance of continued semi-panic I didn't want to be backordered on magazines if I need them.
Don't feel bad. I went on a search for pmags and ordered all I could find. Midway has a 2 per order limit already. I'm going to the bank and ordering some BCM uppers as soon as I can. I figure it'll be a good investment witch ever way it goes.
billybronco
12-17-12, 07:57
to state that i'm extremely concerned would obviously be an understatement; however, i'm terrified at the possibility of not being able to take possession on my LMT SBR which has been pending since 9/27.
i'm quite certain that IF something is rammed through, that it will be done prior to Feb/Mar when I'm guesstimating my form will be stamped.
i know there are a dozen different outcomes but what say everybody?
:confused:
wetidlerjr
12-17-12, 08:30
As sad as this is and is gut renching to say the least. I don't think either that the congress will do anything.
I agree. But, also, panic on our part won't help and all gun owners need to keep their heads out of their asses and spend some time educating the misinformed and mounting a counter offensive to the gun grabbers. Wringing our hands and pissin' and moanin' will do nothing.
We all talk a big talk but are we actually gonna ****in do anything about it if they do ban them?
They could ban guns out right tomorrow and I guarantee 100% of the "big talk, we'll revolt" in the country will just roll over and ****in take it like the lazy bitches we have become.
I'm gonna get chastised for what I'm saying but its true. Not a single one of us actually has the balls to step up and take the fight to the Fed if it would come down to it.
Would we all turn our guns in? Hell no, there are easy ways to make them disappear, but are we gonna take up arms? Sadly in this day and age, no. Our will to rebel and fight back is long gone. We've become a nation of lazy big talking cowards that when the time comes will just run and hide because everyone is to afraid of how our rebellion will be labeled and viewed and because of what the Fed's can bring to bear against us.
I agree. But, also, panic on our part won't help and all gun owners need to keep their heads out of their asses and spend some time educating the misinformed and mounting a counter offensive to the gun grabbers. Wringing our hands and pissin' and moanin' will do nothing.
I try. They mainly deal on emotion so education is very hard to accomplish.
wetidlerjr
12-17-12, 09:57
We all talk a big talk but are we actually gonna ****in do anything about it if they do ban them?
They could ban guns out right tomorrow and I guarantee 100% of the "big talk, we'll revolt" in the country will just roll over and ****in take it like the lazy bitches we have become.
I'm gonna get chastised for what I'm saying but its true. Not a single one of us actually has the balls to step up and take the fight to the Fed if it would come down to it.
Would we all turn our guns in? Hell no, there are easy ways to make them disappear, but are we gonna take up arms? Sadly in this day and age, no. Our will to rebel and fight back is long gone. We've become a nation of lazy big talking cowards that when the time comes will just run and hide because everyone is to afraid of how our rebellion will be labeled and viewed and because of what the Fed's can bring to bear against us.
I can't disagree. It would be great if I could but most of the "big talkers" will do nothing.
LowSpeed_HighDrag
12-17-12, 12:25
I can't disagree. It would be great if I could but most of the "big talkers" will do nothing.
Its funny you talk like this. A majority of us here took an oath, one that we consider a life long responsibility. Dont lump us all in with your cowardice.
nineteenkilo
12-17-12, 13:45
Flip flop.
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/12/17/va-sen-warner-changes-stance-on-assault-weapons/
Also, I take my oath seriously. I meant it and I will uphold it.
Flip flop.
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/12/17/va-sen-warner-changes-stance-on-assault-weapons/
Also, I take my oath seriously. I meant it and I will uphold it.
If this guy is up for re-election it sounds like he needs to be unelected.
GeorgiaBoy
12-17-12, 14:50
to state that i'm extremely concerned would obviously be an understatement; however, i'm terrified at the possibility of not being able to take possession on my LMT SBR which has been pending since 9/27.
i'm quite certain that IF something is rammed through, that it will be done prior to Feb/Mar when I'm guesstimating my form will be stamped.
NFA weapons were not regulated by the 94-04 ban and would most likely not be in a new ban either.
Sent from my iPhone 4S using Tapatalk
billybronco
12-17-12, 15:08
yeah, that's what i've been reading elsewhere.
i hope to God you're right.
Doc Safari
12-17-12, 15:44
We all talk a big talk but are we actually gonna ****in do anything about it if they do ban them?
They could ban guns out right tomorrow and I guarantee 100% of the "big talk, we'll revolt" in the country will just roll over and ****in take it like the lazy bitches we have become.
I'm gonna get chastised for what I'm saying but its true. Not a single one of us actually has the balls to step up and take the fight to the Fed if it would come down to it.
Would we all turn our guns in? Hell no, there are easy ways to make them disappear, but are we gonna take up arms? Sadly in this day and age, no. Our will to rebel and fight back is long gone. We've become a nation of lazy big talking cowards that when the time comes will just run and hide because everyone is to afraid of how our rebellion will be labeled and viewed and because of what the Fed's can bring to bear against us.
I couldn't have said it better myself.
In the first place, though, there will be no "turning in your guns." The antis are smarter than that. They will make you pay a small license fee to keep more than 20 guns the first year. Then the fees will gradually go up, and the number of exempt guns will go down every year after that until it simply becomes too expensive for you to keep them and pay the fees.
As for a revolt, you are spot-on. The militia movement and 'don't tread on me' people are a small minority, as are the preppers. The dot guv probably knows who every last one of them is, and is ready to pick them up on a moment's notice.
Just wait: the fact that the Connecticut shooter's mom was a prepper will become to this whole thing like the militias were to Tim McVeigh after OKC in 1995.
Nothing good can come of this.
And those that do decide to revolt are going to find themselves quickly outnumbered and hunted down. Those that survive will either have to disappear, or if they manage to form insurgent units they will unfortunately end up becoming as ruthless as Mexican drug lords in their violence as they become more and more desperate, knowing they can't just rejoin society without facing death or imprisonment. Just as Confederate sympathizers like Jesse James turned to crime to further a lost cause, people that fight back and live through what's coming anyway will be demonized into a subterranean existence--maybe both figuratively and literally.
I don't see this whole thing as anything but a lose-lose scenario.
The one bright ray of hope is that we see this socialist regime collapse under its own weight from lack of funds before it can implement much of its draconian agenda.
I'd rather the United States break up into regional powers rather than live under a totalitarian regime.
Mauser KAR98K
12-17-12, 15:56
I couldn't have said it better myself.
In the first place, though, there will be no "turning in your guns." The antis are smarter than that. They will make you pay a small license fee to keep more than 20 guns the first year. Then the fees will gradually go up, and the number of exempt guns will go down every year after that until it simply becomes too expensive for you to keep them and pay the fees.
As for a revolt, you are spot-on. The militia movement and 'don't tread on me' people are a small minority, as are the preppers. The dot guv probably knows who every last one of them is, and is ready to pick them up on a moment's notice.
Just wait: the fact that the Connecticut shooter's mom was a prepper will become to this whole thing like the militias were to Tim McVeigh after OKC in 1995.
Nothing good can come of this.
And those that do decide to revolt are going to find themselves quickly outnumbered and hunted down. Those that survive will either have to disappear, or if they manage to form insurgent units they will unfortunately end up becoming as ruthless as Mexican drug lords in their violence as they become more and more desperate, knowing they can't just rejoin society without facing death or imprisonment. Just as Confederate sympathizers like Jesse James turned to crime to further a lost cause, people that fight back and live through what's coming anyway will be demonized into a subterranean existence--maybe both figuratively and literally.
I don't see this whole thing as anything but a lose-lose scenario.
The one bright ray of hope is that we see this socialist regime collapse under its own weight from lack of funds before it can implement much of its draconian agenda.
I'd rather the United States break up into regional powers rather than live under a totalitarian regime.
Wonder if we will see Texas seceded for real. Of they do, I am going down there. I will not have my life and life style locked down by a bunch of emotionally driven, logically challenged idiots who want nothing more than total control of our lives.
I will rebel. I took the oath three times.
Doc Safari
12-17-12, 16:01
Wonder if we will see Texas seceded for real. Of they do, I am going down there. I will not have my life and life style locked down by a bunch of emotionally driven, logically challenged idiots who want nothing more than total control of our lives.
I will rebel. I took the oath three times.
Unless people are facing food or water problems, I don't see it happening. There might be a "political" revolt, but I don't see this being another 1861 or 1776 by any means. Maybe in the next 50 years.
NFA weapons were not regulated by the 94-04 ban and would most likely not be in a new ban either.
IIRC, Clinton's ban addressed the manufacture of "assault weapons", (collapsible stock, threaded muzzle, pistol grip). Feinstein's law (she says) would take aim at limiting the sale, transfer and possession of assault weapons.
Would NFA firearms (SBR, for example) still be unregulated then, even though it has (typically) all of those characteristics? You wouldn't be able to buy an assault weapon normally, but you could if you did it through NFA?
Just asking....
GeorgiaBoy
12-17-12, 16:16
IIRC, Clinton's ban addressed the manufacture of "assault weapons", (collapsible stock, threaded muzzle, pistol grip). Feinstein's law (she says) would take aim at limiting the sale, transfer and possession of assault weapons.
Would NFA firearms (SBR, for example) still be unregulated then, even though it has (typically) all of those characteristics? You wouldn't be able to buy an assault weapon normally, but you could if you did it through NFA?
Just asking....
I don't claim to be an expert, and would not object to correction, but my understanding is that NFA firearms are considered Title II firearms, a completely different category from Title I firearms. (Regular shotguns, pistols, and semi-auto AR15's). Any AWB like the 94-04, whether regulating manufacture or possession, would only apply to Title I firearms, not Title II, unless they were added.
You can deduce from that if there was a new AWB that only applied to Title I firearms, then you could still own any NFA weapon, including SBR'd AR15's/AK's/other banned firearms, and most likely could still transfer them on Form 4 from individual to individual. The only problem would be, similar to possessing full-auto NFA weapons today, you could no longer "make" a SBR from an AR/AK/whatever after the ban on possession would be implemented. You could only own/possess SBR's made before the ban.
But, I find it very unlikely a Feintstein-type ban would be passed, banning "possession". It would mostly likely be very similar to the original ban.
I couldn't have said it better myself.
In the first place, though, there will be no "turning in your guns." The antis are smarter than that. They will make you pay a small license fee to keep more than 20 guns the first year. Then the fees will gradually go up, and the number of exempt guns will go down every year after that until it simply becomes too expensive for you to keep them and pay the fees.
As for a revolt, you are spot-on. The militia movement and 'don't tread on me' people are a small minority, as are the preppers. The dot guv probably knows who every last one of them is, and is ready to pick them up on a moment's notice.
Just wait: the fact that the Connecticut shooter's mom was a prepper will become to this whole thing like the militias were to Tim McVeigh after OKC in 1995.
Nothing good can come of this.
And those that do decide to revolt are going to find themselves quickly outnumbered and hunted down. Those that survive will either have to disappear, or if they manage to form insurgent units they will unfortunately end up becoming as ruthless as Mexican drug lords in their violence as they become more and more desperate, knowing they can't just rejoin society without facing death or imprisonment. Just as Confederate sympathizers like Jesse James turned to crime to further a lost cause, people that fight back and live through what's coming anyway will be demonized into a subterranean existence--maybe both figuratively and literally.
I don't see this whole thing as anything but a lose-lose scenario.
The one bright ray of hope is that we see this socialist regime collapse under its own weight from lack of funds before it can implement much of its draconian agenda.
I'd rather the United States break up into regional powers rather than live under a totalitarian regime.
Sound info, start to finish.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/12/martin-albright/albright-awb-unlikely/
The problem with any type of citizen revolt is organization. No one is going to be a martyr and stand alone, but I can see a lot of people joining an organized rebellion or standing with a state that refused to comply.
Now who is going to volunteer to start organizing?
*To the government overlords reading this thread, I am speaking hypothetically and in no way condone this activity. Do not send black helicopters and jack-booted thugs to my house. ;-)
Not punish the tens of millions of law-abiding gun owners with ineffective and unconstitutional "assault weapons" bans.
Please sign this petition on the White House Web site! It's fast and easy to register and sign there.
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/not-punish-tens-millions-law-abiding-gun-owners-ineffective-and-unconstitutional-assault-weapons/jq9HgTxd
This ones got a much better chance:
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/we-ask-president-obama-support-law-abiding-gun-owners-time-tragedy/VBpRRMPR#thank-you=p
I don't claim to be an expert, and would not object to correction, but my understanding is that NFA firearms are considered Title II firearms, a completely different category from Title I firearms. (Regular shotguns, pistols, and semi-auto AR15's). Any AWB like the 94-04, whether regulating manufacture or possession, would only apply to Title I firearms, not Title II, unless they were added.
You can deduce from that if there was a new AWB that only applied to Title I firearms, then you could still own any NFA weapon, including SBR'd AR15's/AK's/other banned firearms, and most likely could still transfer them on Form 4 from individual to individual. The only problem would be, similar to possessing full-auto NFA weapons today, you could no longer "make" a SBR from an AR/AK/whatever after the ban on possession would be implemented. You could only own/possess SBR's made before the ban.
But, I find it very unlikely a Feintstein-type ban would be passed, banning "possession". It would mostly likely be very similar to the original ban.
The Clinton AWB applied to NFA weapons where applicable.
You could not have a SBR with evil features if the gun was post ban.
I signed. We need to spread these links and get everyone on M4C to sign.
ICANHITHIMMAN
12-18-12, 09:38
I signed. We need to spread these links and get everyone on M4C to sign.
I just read it over, I'm not sure if I want to sign it, as it blames video games right off the bat and that's not a very educated argument. Its not well written, anyone else feel this way? Of course I may be over thinking it.
I don't claim to be an expert.
No you just want to hand over OUR rights because "you've planned for it".
El Pistolero
12-18-12, 10:07
I just looked at some of the other petitions on the White House website and I LOLed at the one for "Repeal the 2nd Amendment."
I just read it over, I'm not sure if I want to sign it, as it blames video games right off the bat and that's not a very educated argument. Its not well written, anyone else feel this way? Of course I may be over thinking it.
I'm not signing it either. Guns aren't the problem and neither are video games.
There our several others, please sign one of them. Personally I would rather have my AR than any video game, so I signed. Here's another one without video games.
http://wh.gov/nY2O
platoonDaddy
12-27-12, 13:41
The key is the grandfather clause, will gun owners register them?
Lead story on Drudge
http://i933.photobucket.com/albums/ad176/slickville/handgun.jpg
CIVIL WAR: SENATE TO GO FOR HANDGUNS
http://i933.photobucket.com/albums/ad176/slickville/drudge.gif
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.