Gents, this is very bad.

[VikingKing]

http://gunssavelives.net/blog/court...s-and-unusual-not-protected-by-2nd-amendment/

It's coming. stalin took away fire arms, as did hitler, mao, ect.

Don't worry. I'm sure many people have already been stockpiling rifles and ammunition.

This is just not a good thing at all.:trouble: :trouble: :trouble:

“The usual road to slavery is that first they take away your guns, then they take away your property, then last of all they tell you to shut up and say you are enjoying it.”
James A. Donald


I dated a girl who came from a communist country. I talked about it with her for hours, especially what it was like for her parents. Every day we are getting closer and closer. Crawl, walk, run... into communism.

 

[Special EDy]

Im a gun owner, and I was shooting clay pigeons before I knew how to tie my shoes. But please explain to me what difference gun ownership makes for your freedom. Wouldnt they take away your freedom regardless of you owning a firearm? Would you really form a militia and fight it out with the national guard? Are guns really the only weapon available to the public? How effective are armed civilians in the middle east against US troops? How much more effective are explosives and combustibles?
Not trying to argue any point other than what makes you think that "guns=freedom".

 

[Fatal Jay]

you stockpiling guns wont mean nothing when they make them illegal to own, and have martial law enforced to where the military will ram sack your house to see if you have any, and if you have any you going to concentration camps.

 

[( . )( . )]

Im a gun owner, and I was shooting clay pigeons before I knew how to tie my shoes. But...

At least your stories are getting a bit more realistic. That last one from a few weeks ago had us in stitches.

I voted red the last two presidential elections, but...

:crackup:


Yeah yeah I'm with you guys BUT (insert barrage of textbook libtard talking points) only this time it's "but do we reeeeaallly need guns?"*wink wink nudge nudge*

Stuff like this is why I joined the NRA. Even though I'm from a flaming-blue state and am likely to stay here for the next couple of years due to job matters, I do what I can to keep people aware of the importance of lawful civilian possession of militia-suitable arms.

I find it very scary too. I only hope it gets overturned soon.

What's really nasty is that the forcible-civilian-disarmament crowd seems to have been successful at falsely branding all modern semi-automatics as being "assault weapons" even when they clearly are not.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Chronocidal again.

 

[BeDJ]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-12/california-seizes-guns-as-owners-lose-right-to-bear-arms.html

This happened last year and nobody did sh!t about it. They were seizing firearms even if you were accused, not convicted, of domestic violence charges.

 

[Special EDy]

At least your stories are getting a bit more realistic. That last one from a few weeks ago had us in stitches.



:crackup:


Yeah yeah I'm with you guys BUT (insert barrage of textbook libtard talking points) only this time it's "but do we reeeeaallly need guns?"*wink wink nudge nudge*



You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Chronocidal again.

You can postulate all you want but your vote isn't worth more than anybody else's. Consequently your opinions aren't either.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...bear-arms.html

This happened last year and nobody did sh!t about it. They were seizing firearms even if you were accused, not convicted, of domestic violence charges.

Felons aren't even allowed to vote, much less own a fire arm. There are some mentally unstable people who don't need access to guns. And the reasoning behind them taking guns from domestic violence situations is obvious. Clearly the are worried about the welfare of those involved, not some hidden agenda.
I would analogize it to drivers license ownership. Some people aren't capable of being behind the wheel in a safe manner, either determined in advance or after severe violations. We dont give them licenses.

Not everyone should be able to own a gun, the overwhelming majority sure, but not everyone...

 

[BeDJ]

You can postulate all you want but your vote isn't worth more than anybody else's. Consequently your opinions aren't either.



Felons aren't even allowed to vote, much less own a fire arm. There are some mentally unstable people who don't need access to guns. And the reasoning behind them taking guns from domestic violence situations is obvious. Clearly the are worried about the welfare of those involved, not some hidden agenda.
I would analogize it to drivers license ownership. Some people aren't capable of being behind the wheel in a safe manner, either determined in advance or after severe violations. We dont give them licenses.

Not everyone should be able to own a gun, the overwhelming majority sure, but not everyone...

Merely being in a database of registered gun owners and having a “disqualifying event,” such as a felony conviction or restraining order

These people are not felons, the officers 'talk' their way into possessing these firearms. I'm certain, in case you have never dealt with law enforcement, they aren't going to politely ask if you want to turn in your guns. If you are a gun own in these times, you're guilty until proven innocent.

 

[Special EDy]

For someone who claims to be "voting republican", I have yet to see you support one value they support.

Not.

One.


But to answer your question, guerilla warfare and guns have done a great deal of damage to militaries over the years. That is exactly the benefit of guns.

Does that mean going toe to toe with military personnel? Possibly, but more likely it would erupt into a civil war of sorts. None of which would happen if civilians were incapable of standing up to Government force to begin with.

You've seen my stance on like 2 social issues. I didnt even make an arguement for or against here, I just asked for an explanation of the ridiculous fear mongering. They dont want us to have "assualt" weapons, therefore they are taking away "all" guns, therefore they are taking away "all" freedoms. Its a quantum leap. I dont see anybody complaining about needing a license for full auto weapons, grenades, brass knuckles or switchblades? Did your freedom evaporate when they banned those?

Yeah I became a libertarian. A humanistic view came with age, and thus the empty reasoning for my social authoritarianism/conservativism went out the window. The liberals are a lot closer now, but sometimes they overshoot the issue.
I am however fiscally conservative, except when it comes to wealth distribution. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Just give me a smaller government and I'll be happy.

 

[( . )( . )]

For someone who claims to be "voting republican", I have yet to see you support one value they support.

Not.

One.

Whilst I agree this dude makes the average muffington poster look like a meat eating, problem solving net contributor. I can't tell a lie and have to give "him?" credit where credit is due.

He did mention once that the U.S should stop sending money to Israel. BUT to be fair I've noticed a lot of sackless rabbits are now jumping on that bandwagon. I think it's their "safe" way of showing their anger at our handlers. They may talk a good PC game but most libtards deep down are starting to realize the current Western toilet bowl trajectory.

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

The issue is much deeper than "can a bunch of hillbillies with guns outfight a trained military or militarized police."

If many Americans own guns, then any order to any member of the cops or military, to do anything "contrary to freedom" would be a lot harder to swallow, than if citizens were passively unarmed.

Take the Bundy Ranch showdown. I know that there are a lot of deeper issues, but the fact that a bunch of dudes showed up WITH GUNS to protect property had a lot to do with it.

The feds could easily have mowed everybody down, but they backed off.

Now, if the Bundy Ranch dudes showed up ONLY with signs and banners, they would have been teargassed and rubber bulleted.

Military, cops, those dudes are all humans too. They would much rather round up a bunch of passive, non-gun owners that have to shoot at people, and be shot back at by people.

The people that pull the strings KNOW THIS.

The bottom line is the American Empire is spread too thin, outside AND inside the borders, just like the Roman Empire was up to the slow and irreversible collapse.

Controlling Americans WITHOUT guns is much easier than controlling ARMED Americans.

As an aside, just take a few moments to think about what we're heading into. The French Revolution was bloody. Everybody was killing everybody. The Cultural Revolution was bloody. Everybody was killing everybody.

If there's anything that's even similar coming in the U.S., it's going to be much, much worse.

A literal bloodbath awaits.

Previous rulers took away guns because they wanted more power. I think a lot of U.S. politicians want to take away guns because they are terrified.

 

[Colossus]

^ I dont think it's so much about "power" per se as it is an attempt to control gun violence and a growing public dissatisfaction with guns.

Every time you turn on the news, some black kid was shot in the ghetto, some white kid brought a gun to school, some quack is shooting people from a bridge, some thug wasted a store clerk, or someone wants to bring their gun to the mall and open fire.

It's happening a LOT, and it's making people (read: women and liberals) more and more uncomfortable. People increasingly look to our government to solve society's problems, and so far their only solution is tighter and tighter regulations, which will eventually translate into banning of certain weapons altogether.

The death of our gun rights in America will be a slow one, but it is coming. The obvious irony is it wont solve our nation's public violence problems. It will just make guns harder to get, not necessarily harder to keep. Additionally, it will turn the most fervent gun owners (conservatives, rednecks, the wealthy) into "infidels" of sorts who will just find more clandestine methods of owning, trading, and manufacturing guns and ammo.

Americans may be daft in many ways compared to the rest of the first world, but we have always been good at improvising, and if there is one thing we are passionate about it is our right to bear arms. Guns will not be going away, not by a long shot. Our RIGHTS to own them, however, will.

 

[dasein]

Moonbat judge shuffles a case up to the Circuit when a nonleft principle is at play. Folks need to realize that unlike lots of other judges, these don't really care that much about being reversed or their records, they don't have to run for office. We've had lots of AA and partisan benchpacking for decades by the left, much less so by the right, so what used to be the venue for a more intelligent approach to the law than state courts is no longer.

Don't know about other places, but in my jurisdiction, there won't be any kind of systematic gun confiscation going on... ever. The issue is not "can a bunch of armed yahoos compete with the military?" but rather "how long will morale hold for people firing on their non-loony, non-Waco neighbors in broad daylight?" The answer to that latter question, at least where I'm from in the Deep South, is "not very long, if at all, maybe not even one single shot."

Such confiscation effort would likely near instantly backfire and lead to a secessionist movement with very sharp teeth. You see, there is no more slavery to rally around as a false "prime mover" for federal power grab, and Civil War in the US would be very, very bad for the govt-edu-union-MSM complex that we didn't have -any- of in the 1800s, also devastating to a world economy that is far more interconnected than in the Antebellum era. The federal government is on thinner ice morally, economically and socially in the modern US than it ever has been, and such a wholesale violation of the 2d amendment would equate to dropping the Titanic on that ice.

Those who don't like open carry and free possession of firearms can move to Maryland. Those who like freedom and the 2d Amendment can move to my state, where we make people own guns, and have the low crime rates (outside Atlanta proper) to demonstrate the results of that:

http://rense.com/general9/gunlaw.htm

 

[Vulpine]

I like the "can hillbillies hold off an organized army" question.

Our forefathers certainly succeeded at just that.


A developing nation of hillbillies and rednecks defeated England's Army. In fact, it was SO important that we remember the tyranny they left behind for green shores that they made it MANDATORY in the Militia Acts of 1792 that...

I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.

In other words, when tapped, be ready to report for duty and fight.

If you are able-bodied, 18-45, and don't own a gun, you are un-American, based on the very criteria outlined in the DEFINITION OF AMERICA.

If you don't like guns, you can't just change or misconstrue the constitution, or it's laws, you need to ƒucking leave the country, because you are WRONG. Period. You are Non-American, as defined by the this country's standards.

No "yeah but's" or "that's not modern" or any of the emotional crap. Read it for yourself. Love it, or leave it in a body bag. End of topic.

Or is it? Here we are, right back in the tyranny that our forefathers tried to escape. Where can a person go these days to escape tyranny the same way?
There is no "I'll just go over here and be left alone" place short of space anymore. So what? Ban guns? Or ban tyranny?

Clearly, there is no such thing as an anti-gun American. That's an oxymoron. If you consider yourself anti-gun, you are not following the rules of the country, and thereby are a terrorist; a saboteur, and simply CANNOT refer to yourself as AMERICAN despite being born on this soil.

Any veteran will tell you that they said something along the lines of "protect my country from enemies both foreign and domestic." Anti-gun people are domestic enemies.

Still wanna fight about it?

To be fair, I used to see the point of the "No Guns! I'm scared!" crowd. But, I didn't do my own research at that point and see what all the fuss was about. So, I took it upon myself to read for myself. Now, I cannot sympathize at all with non-gun owners fears. I still don't know who my local sergeant-at-arms is, but I DO know where the town hall is... and it still flies old glory over my land of the free and home of the brave. I'm able-bodied, 18-45, have a pack, and am ready to mount up when Paul Revere rides by a-yellin', or a shot is heard around the world, whichever comes first. "Musket and musket balls" part does need modernization to read "modern sporting rifle in .223 (5.516mm) or .308 (7.62mm) chambering." It also needs to be updated to omit "white" in the description of who's obligated.

I'm no sociopath, I use my tools for good, not evil. I also use my tools for harvesting food and being humane to prey. And since I am an active participant in things like voting, I can't just stop there. I MUST comply with the rest of obligation that being an American entails. Nothing you can say will convince me otherwise: it's not what our forefathers intended for this place. It is your DUTY to be active in your local militia. But where's your militia?

 

[Special EDy]

Ultimately your question rests on the presupposition that the State is morally superior to individuals.

Or to put another way. You think people are far too dangerous and erratic to hold guns, and only Governments should hold that privilege.

There is only one problem with that.

Governments are FAR more dangerous than individuals.

According to the UN there were 93k homicides by guns in 2010. So if we extrapolate that backwards for a century (which is generous since there were far fewer people back 100 years ago), that means there were 9.3 million gun homicides over a century.

That is a terrible number. But it is MUCH better than the 200 million killed by Governments.

Among the people who live closest to you, how many fistfights have you seen during the last few years? One? Maybe two?

Among the 200+ Countries in the world over the same time, there have been at least 30.

The numbers show that Countries fight far more often and more deadly than individuals do. So who really should be holding the guns?


What I find most interesting on your question on gun-rights with the presupposition that Governments have the moral authority.....is that only yesterday in this thread, you tried to blame Christians for mass deaths, when in fact it was Governments who were the true supporters of killing Jews and supporting the Conquistadores.

So again I posit, who really should be holding the guns?

Dont bring me into this, Im not giving up my SKS or shotguns anytime soon. But I just like owning guns for the heck of it, I dont have some convoluted idea of guns=freedom. Go live in the wilderness if your that concerned. They wont come in force and bring you to your knees, they would do it passively and legally. So unless you plan on going and shooting up a courthouse or legislature your guns arent doing jack **** for your freedom.

And TBH the government and military are the real ones we should be disarming, citizens are more irrelevant.

The problem is that just like not everyone should qualify to drive a car, not everyone is responsible enough to own a firearm. We have the highest per capita rate of gun violence, by an enormous margin. Taking them away wont help, having more wont help. There has yet to be a logical solution to the problem. I dont think people should need to register or ID themselves for gun ownership any more than they should to go vote.

 

[Bible_Belt]

The businesses in Florissant, Missouri, that have *not* been burned to the ground by a mob of looters this week largely still exist because they were protected by their armed owners. I'm not far from St Louis, and have seen a lot of pics scroll by on facebook. Many of those business owners are holding AR-15s and other assault-style rifles.

So there is one very legitimate reason to want to be able to shoot a lot of people at once, when an angry mob is threatening you. Merely the sight of that assault rifle is keeping the peace. Try holding off a mob with a single-shot hunting rifle. You had better be damn fast at reloading.

 

[Vulpine]

The latter's been done long ago. Here's the current definition of militia, as per the United States Code.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

(On a related note, I'm sure there's plenty more historical data about other militia acts.)

Ah, yes. I remember now. There's your militia. It's no longer about the people protecting themselves from tyranny, it's about the body of government doing whatever the government tells us that body of government is doing.

I must've somehow misconstrued the original. The "update" is not a bastardization, it was meant to be tinkered with and streamlined and misconstrued when originally written, right? I'll go back to sleep now.

 

[Vulpine]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. I'm pointing out that "militia" is "pretty much everyone".

Everyone, except for those boogeyman "militant" "terrorists" as defined in subsect 30129, of 23455, of article 263b8, of the CIA's thingamabob. Or was it the FBI? DHS? NSA? DEA? Department of Love? My local Sheriff? No, wait, I'm crazy, that's it, so I'll go to jail any which way: it's clear in 2135, ss2(b) in the DSM.

That's where your militias are: Jail.
They are there because they are crazy for owning a gun. That, or crazy for resisting tyranny. The thought police got 'em.
I know, for one, that I'm absolutely petrified by the fact that my neighbor hunts deer. I can't understand how or why the DNR would encourage people to hunt. More hunters = more guns! That's just crazy.

Get my drift?
No? Well let me type a memo quick and release it to the media a'la paint the target around the arrow style.

By the way... I'm sure you're not going to get much talk about Fight Club these days. Revert to rule #2.

Edit:
I think someone is using my computer. I don't remember typing this at all.
*googling 'how to pass a lie detector test'*

 

[VikingKing]

Im a gun owner, and I was shooting clay pigeons before I knew how to tie my shoes. But please explain to me what difference gun ownership makes for your freedom. Wouldnt they take away your freedom regardless of you owning a firearm? Would you really form a militia and fight it out with the national guard? Are guns really the only weapon available to the public? How effective are armed civilians in the middle east against US troops? How much more effective are explosives and combustibles?
Not trying to argue any point other than what makes you think that "guns=freedom".

I've shot so many rounds. Over, and over, and over. buddy and squad rushing 600 and 800 ranges. Four dry runs before we actually go get it. Food deprived sleep deprived, woke up at 2 am after a 30 k hump up and down raw mountains.

I'm a expert with an assault rifle. I slept with it. I used to cuddle with an assault rifle.

Iraqi's are untrained. Real easy to kill. Plus with an ak-47 you couldnt hit the side of the barn at 600 meters. Plus they go fully automatic, and that just makes a 7.62 really inaccurate.

5.56 is much better. A little more kick than a .22, but proportionally more powder behind the round, compared to the 7.62.

Its better to just shoot one at a time, unless your very, very close to the enemy.

One shot, one kill.

Now Afghanistan is different. They are very hard to get. The reason: home field advantage.

at 10 yearold Afghan boy would smoke the best fit navy seal, in a race up a mountain.

These people have been living in those mountains for thousands of years. Their lungs are different, or somthing about their bodies.

The best thing to do is just win the hearts and the minds of the non-radicals, hook them up. Drill wells for them so two villages arn't killing each other over who controls the only well in the area. Give them water bottles. Soccer balls (they love that). Especially medical care.

I mean you can kill people all day long. That's easy, fast and efficient.

But if you find out what they want, and/ or need and hook them up. They will even give you information.

But if they help you, you must keep a strong presence in and around that village to protect them. The muji, and the taliban will murder their babies if they find out they helped Americans.

Oh you shot a gun? Great man.

 

[Epimanes]

I live in BC canada and we have the right to own guns... However attaining them requires you to jump through some hoops before your allowed to own them.

1. You must have a clean record.
2. They must be registered (this just got removed from the gun laws not long ago)
3. Hand guns are for trappers or target shooting at the range unless your a police officer
4. You MUST have a fire arms licence.
5. Automatic weapons are a restricted firearm and you must pass addidtional fire arms training to have one.
6. All fire arms are to be trigger locked and locked inside a gun cabinet when its in your home.
7. Ammunition MUST be stored seperately in a locked metal box away from your guns
8. When transporting a fire arm it must be out of public view and trigger locked inside of the gun case.

Although its tough to get a firearms licence I believe its a good idea to have the hoops to jump through. Not everyone should have guns. Keeps the honest people honest. The people who are a problem are going to be a problem because they don't care about the gun laws and public safety. Do you think criminals will follow gun laws? Hell no.. So the laws are in place for public safety to prevent people from being so... Casual.. About guns. I read many americans just drop their gun on the kitchen table like it was a set of keys. Its carelessness like that that get little kids hurt.. And accidents that could have been prevented.

But on the other hand... Give all the careless people guns so they can foolishly kill themselves off... Too many people in the world anyhow.

*shrugs*

Epi

 

[VikingKing]

I live in BC canada and we have the right to own guns... However attaining them requires you to jump through some hoops before your allowed to own them.

1. You must have a clean record.
2. They must be registered (this just got removed from the gun laws not long ago)
3. Hand guns are for trappers or target shooting at the range unless your a police officer
4. You MUST have a fire arms licence.
5. Automatic weapons are a restricted firearm and you must pass addidtional fire arms training to have one.
6. All fire arms are to be trigger locked and locked inside a gun cabinet when its in your home.
7. Ammunition MUST be stored seperately in a locked metal box away from your guns
8. When transporting a fire arm it must be out of public view and trigger locked inside of the gun case.

Although its tough to get a firearms licence I believe its a good idea to have the hoops to jump through. Not everyone should have guns. Keeps the honest people honest. The people who are a problem are going to be a problem because they don't care about the gun laws and public safety. Do you think criminals will follow gun laws? Hell no.. So the laws are in place for public safety to prevent people from being so... Casual.. About guns. I read many americans just drop their gun on the kitchen table like it was a set of keys. Its carelessness like that that get little kids hurt.. And accidents that could have been prevented.

But on the other hand... Give all the careless people guns so they can foolishly kill themselves off... Too many people in the world anyhow.

*shrugs*

Epi

I think most people should be able to own a handgun, or rifle. Even my 63 yo father always has a (sig) .45 under his night stand (with two loaded clips under his nighstand) He also, always has one in the trunk of his car. My brother and dad have a conceal and carry licence (I live in a good state) and always carries unless he goes out drinking.

Neither of them have ever had to use it though.

Actual violent n thieves, ect. shouldn't be able to own one.

But its very easily to obtain a fire illegally, or there are some laws that allow "gun collectors" to obtain fire arms personally, unregulated.

My dad works for the ATF. He thinks the "gun collector" exceptions are not good.

Regardless there are so, so, so many firearms here. Legal, illegal. They could make all fire arms illegal here, but they doesn't make them go away.

Some people stock pile them. You can't get them all, and honestly thats a good thing.

Some things are not black and white.