Heres a hypothetical for you - re: gun confiscation

[mikem317]

They also might start by eroding the general understanding of the second amendment. See http://www.whitehouse.gov/our-government/the-constitution#bill

The Second Amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms.

BULL.

The Second Amendments doesn't give citizens anything. Our Creator gave us a right to self-preservation, not some piece of paper. We are born with these rights. They are unalienable. Now that I think of it, this speaks volumes of Dear Leader's disposition on privately owned firearms. He thinks, wrongly, that the Second Amendment gives people something. Of course, it doesn't. It simply says that this right shall not be infringed.

AND these are unalienable rights that should be enjoyed by all people in the world. Not ones that happened to be borne into what was the United States of America. Doesn't an Iraqi person have the right to self-preservation as much as an American?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident..." I guess they're not that evident to a bunch of Chicago-commu-criminals that seized control of the government. You know who I'm talking about.

 

[Finalygotabeltfed]

The OK are fine and I agree with them however in MA the problem is not the federal government, it's state. How do you keep the federal government out but at the same time prevent local government from jacking you? If the Ma legislature had it's way taxes would be high to help the "less fortunate" and no one would have guns.

The coffin ridge story is a bit more believable then most people think. It's happened on the state level more than once. Internationally more times then you want to think about.

State or federal, doesn't matter. If those who are in the enforcement end of things refuse to obey unlawful orders, people's rights will not be oppressed and those who give the unlawful orders will have nobody to carry out their oppression. They themselves are surely not going to be in the thick of it, they'll be in a bunker surrounded by their privately paid security.

If they choose to obey unlawful orders, they are subject to and well deserving of whatever befalls them.

 

[mikem317]

The OK are fine and I agree with them however in MA the problem is not the federal government, it's state. How do you keep the federal government out but at the same time prevent local government from jacking you? If the Ma legislature had it's way taxes would be high to help the "less fortunate" and no one would have guns.

The coffin ridge story is a bit more believable then most people think. It's happened on the state level more than once. Internationally more times then you want to think about.

Get as many people on our side as possible. Freedom sells itself if people are shown its inherent awesomeness.

Then watch what happens when the 10% of the statists try to force the other 90% of the freedom lovers to fork over their wages, guns, and liberty.

I know where I'm putting my chips.

 

[Monadnock]

have you read anything about Australia? Try starting there.

Ed Chenel

Hi Yanks, I thought you all would like to see the real figures from Down Under.

It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by our own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.

The first year results are now in:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 6.2 percent,
Australia-wide, assaults are up 9.6 percent;
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. (Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not and criminals still possess their guns!)

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.

There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly, while the resident is at home.

Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in 'successfully ridding Australian society of guns..'

 

[vlad]

They are unalienable.

No they are not and this where we get into trouble. This is why the anti-second amendmenters got the society to where it is today. Governments in the past have taken these away many times when people chose to let it happen. It is the people's duty to change said government when these right are infringed. Raving like idiot serves the course of the progressives (or what ever the new term for the extreme left is) as it makes it easy to paint you an rabble rouser or a nut.

We the people formed the government then assuming those truths to be self evident to all let it go. It is our greatest failure as Americans and one I try to work every day to correct, as should we all.

Freedom sells itself if people are shown its inherent awesomeness.

No, no it doesn't again if it did we wouldn't be here. Safety and security (real or perceived) sell far better. Welfare and social security make that self evident.

As the lawful owners of fire arm it is out duty to educate other on what a gun is and what it isn't. Screaming platitudes like the village drunk (even if you are correct) is for now protected speech but will not advance your cause.

Then you have those gun owners that give progressives a raging hard on. I went to a NH gun show and everything was great all the people were friendly, except one. This hyper conservative moron with all sorts of anti-gov, anti-women, anti-gay and anti-minority stickers. Now I will strive to protect the ignorant flesh blob's right to say what he wants when he wants but I will also hate him. I view him as a traitor to the 2nd amendment cause by giving aid and ammunition to those that would strip of our rights. If for no other reason than those groups he so openly reviles would be a welcome addition to helping protect our rights. Second Amendment Sisters, Pink Pistols and JPFO were the first three I though of.

As far how I would hide them. I'd keep the wood parts in my basement in a log pile and all the metal parts stored in drums of motor oil where no one can find them. There is no why I'm aware of to store metal and wood together with out one or the other being damaged.

 

[Bogview]

No need to take away all the guns. They would cut off the ammo supply. Then snipe off anyone caught looking for ammo or components.

Any one tried to get primers lately?

 

[mikem317]

No they are not and this where we get into trouble. This is why the anti-second amendmenters got the society to where it is today. Governments in the past have taken these away many times when people chose to let it happen. It is the people's duty to change said government when these right are infringed. Raving like idiot serves the course of the progressives (or what ever the new term for the extreme left is) as it makes it easy to paint you an rabble rouser or a nut.

No. This is an example of an overt attempt to usurp those Creator given rights. They are unalienable but insofar that there's a truly limited government that can't get its dirty paws on our rights. The Second Amendment (nor does any amendment) give any citizen squat. These are simply "Government shall nots". Nothing more, nothing less.

I guess I should have expanded my thoughts: We could have total freedom or total slavery.

Total freedom: Benefits - You decide what's best for you; focus is on the individual. Costs - You bear the costs of the decisions you make; make good decisions; you win, make bad decisions; you lose.

Total slavery: Benefits - You receive whatever the authority makers give you; focus is on the collective. Costs - The authority (usually the state) can decide to renege on these entitlements any time. Direct costs are distributed throughout the collective in the form of taxation (either direct or via inflation of the money supply).

We the people formed the government then assuming those truths to be self evident to all let it go. It is our greatest failure as Americans and one I try to work every day to correct, as should we all.

American voters are surely to blame. But a lot of it can be traced to private interest groups that have made significant inroads into Congress and other decision-making authorities.

No, no it doesn't again if it did we wouldn't be here. Safety and security (real or perceived) sell far better. Welfare and social security make that self evident.

For the gullable and weak-kneed, yes. This war will be won though in the hearts and minds and not on a battlefield (I hope). Education works. Just get people to turn off the TV for a few minutes.

As the lawful owners of fire arm it is out duty to educate other on what a gun is and what it isn't. Screaming platitudes like the village drunk (even if you are correct) is for now protected speech but will not advance your cause.

True. You'll get turned off. We need somebody with the oratory ability of Dear Leader Obama, the looks of Ronald Regan, and the youth of John F. Kennedy. I hate to say it, but it might be just a PR campaign.

 

[P-14]

No need to take away all the guns. They would cut off the ammo supply. Then snipe off anyone caught looking for ammo or components.

Any one tried to get primers lately?

In times of crisis, we must all conserve our ammo!

My round count is waaaaaay down since O became king.