Obamas executive order gun grab

This is a discussion on Obamas executive order gun grab within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; For those that say it isn't happening. Fox News ran an interesting story on July 11th. ATF To Require Information on Frequent Gunbuyers Under the ...

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 82
Like Tree129Likes

Thread: Obamas executive order gun grab

  1. #46
    Member Array MikeNice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    217
    For those that say it isn't happening. Fox News ran an interesting story on July 11th.

    ATF To Require Information on Frequent Gunbuyers

    Under the new policy, federal firearms licensees in Texas, California, Arizona and New Mexico must report purchases of two or more of some types of rifles by the same person in a five-day span. The requirement applies to purchases of semi-automatic rifles that have detachable magazines and a caliber of greater than .22.

    ATF estimates it will generate 18,000 reports a year.
    The New American claims that it was an executive order. I'm not sure that it was. I have yet to find any listing of the executive order number. With that said here is their article.
    Obama Uses Executive Order

    A little more refined searching and I found the executive order that gave the ATF the ability to do this.
    Executive Order--Blocking Property of Transnational Criminal Organizations

    In a nut shell it allows the ATF to set up procedures and rules it deems needed to prevent the transfer of funds or materials to Los Zetas. So, by supposedly targeting one drug cartel he gives the DOJ the ability to require this reporting.

    The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of State, is hereby authorized to take such actions, including the promulgation of rules and regulations, and to employ all powers granted to the President by IEEPA, as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this order. The Secretary of the Treasury may redelegate any of these functions to other officers and agencies of the United States Government consistent with applicable law. All agencies of the United States Government are hereby directed to take all appropriate measures within their authority to carry out the provisions of this order.
    He also lists the Yakuza, the Cammora, and The Circle of Brothers. So, those four groups together constitute a national state of emergency that allows him to by pass the second ammendment and the legislature to get gun control. That is the jist of things.

    He does mention groups "such as those listed in the Annex to this order, that includes one or more foreign persons; that engages in an ongoing pattern of serious criminal activity involving the jurisdictions of at least two foreign states; and that threatens the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States." So, how long does it take for this reporting requirement to move to places where the Commora have a presence in America? At what point does a person or group become a threat to national security, foreign policy, or the economy? It doesn't say.

    The order leaves a lot of wiggle room to make a run around the judicial and legislative process.
    Bark'n likes this.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #47
    Moderator
    Array Bark'n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    West Central Missouri
    Posts
    9,916
    Quote Originally Posted by Stubborn View Post
    Just remember, Heller and McDonald were both 5-4 decisions. Which tells me we're only one more Obama justice away from both of those cases having gone the other way.
    Gun control is like pregnancy, there's no such thing as just a little. Registration IS the pre-cursor to confiscation.
    Thank God Justice Kennedy, (and he ain't exactly a conservative by any means) has said, he isn't going anywhere (retirement) until after Obama is out of office.

    I've been up all night and I'm too tired to post anything more complex at this time (and source my thoughts) so I'll just let it go at that for now. Several others seem to have this discussion well in hand.
    -Bark'n
    Semper Fi


    "The gun is the great equalizer... For it is the gun, that allows the meek to repel the monsters; Whom are bigger, stronger and without conscience, prey on those who without one, would surely perish."

  4. #48
    Ex Member Array Doodle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Tomball TX
    Posts
    948
    Quote Originally Posted by adric22 View Post
    For those of you who think we should have no gun control whatsoever, I ask that you re-examine your thinking. Should we also have no control over "controlled substances?" Should we not bother to license people to drive cars, or check people before they get on an airplane? Should we just sell machine guns in the toy department at Wal-Mart so that 6 year olds can buy them and go "look what I bought with my allowance, Mommy!" Wake up guys, we always have to sacrifice a little bit of freedom to solve certain problems.

    As for Obama. yes, I'm aware of his previous statements regarding gun control when he was a senator. No, I don't like them. However, judging by his actions and not his words, I'd say he hasn't done much of anything regarding gun control. There are a lot of things Obama talked about before getting elected and many of those things have not come to pass. Much of it I believe is simply the same thing that every president encounters upon being elected. Some things aren't as easy to change as they thought it would be.

    You know, I've only lived long enough to remember presidents back to Reagan. But it doesn't matter who has been in office there have always been people who hated the guy and thought he was an idiot. Guess what, if you ever get elected president there will be tons of people who hate you and think you are an idiot, a criminal, need to be impeached, etc. It all comes with the job. I give each and every president respect because I know it is a hard job. If I don't agree with a particular policy, I will state that I do not agree with it. I will also say whether or not I voted for him. (And no, I didn't vote for Obama) But if he came over to my house for dinner, I would treat him with respect.

    I hate to be the one to play devil's advocate. But I'm pretty sure this forum represents one specific side to the gun-control debate. And believe me, we're all on the same side. If we had a bunch of anti-gun liberals come in here talking about their ideas of gun control, it would be obvious who's side I'm on. (and it wouldn't be theirs)
    I honestly would love to reply to this expressing my feelings but my blood is boiling over. This is the moment where I HAVE to keep my mouth shut because I would regret my reply.

  5. #49
    VIP Member Array oakchas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    6,510
    Quote Originally Posted by MikeNice View Post
    ....
    A little more refined searching and I found the executive order that gave the ATF the ability to do this.
    Executive Order--Blocking Property of Transnational Criminal Organizations

    ....

    In a nut shell it allows the ATF to set up procedures and rules it deems needed to prevent the transfer of funds or materials to Los Zetas. So, by supposedly targeting one drug cartel he gives the DOJ the ability to require this reporting.

    ....

    The order leaves a lot of wiggle room to make a run around the judicial and legislative process.
    There, that's what I was looking for. Now I have a real windmill to tilt against. Thank you for doing the closer inspection I should have done.

    I am glad to see the NRA and other organizations going after this.

    That said, I have purchased a number of guns at one time... more than 5, all handguns. I know that was reported as required by the BATFEDS to my local law enforcement agencies. And that was LONG before this new requirement.

    I hope the NRA suit is effective. And will be writing to POTUS to tell him of my displeasure.
    Politicians, take note of Colorado 9/10/2013.
    "You are elected to service, not power.
    Your job is to "serve us" not to lord power over us."
    Me, 9/11/13

  6. #50
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,745
    So can someone direct me to the portion of the executive order that specifies which weapons they are confiscating and how we are supposed to turn them in? I don't want to be in violation of the law.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  7. #51
    Member Array 40strapped's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    119
    Quote Originally Posted by glockman10mm View Post
    I am on the far right side of this thing. I believe all guns should be unrestricted. The law abiding citizen should have the same rights as criminals.

    You want Utopia? The answer is simple to me. Form posses of civillian volunteers to patrol the borders, with clear rules of engagement. Hunt down criminals like dogs and hang them for all to see, on a regular basis. Let the children watch so they can get it clear early on what side they don't want to be on.
    Make it mandatory for all homes to have firearms, and carry legal anywhere anytime.
    I would even go so far as to say a homeowner should be fined if they let a burglar escape without putting some lead in their arse.

    Tell the United Nations to go to hell, because we are a United Nation.
    I'll bet ya it won't take long for this country to get strong and proud again if we did that.
    GET DOWN GLOCKMAN!!! If I was a Pentecostal I would be doing the Holy Ghost Stomp to that!!!

  8. #52
    VIP Member Array oakchas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    6,510
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    So can someone direct me to the portion of the executive order that specifies which weapons they are confiscating and how we are supposed to turn them in? I don't want to be in violation of the law.
    While there is no direct confiscation (yet), MCP, I do understand that incremental increases in gun and ammo restrictions may be a detriment to law abiding citizens owning certain weapons.

    As an example:

    There was a time when anyone could own fully automatic weapons in this country. After the enactment of a law, all owners of such weapons who did not pay the tax associated with such ownership were required by the law to turn them in. Many states enacted laws banning them as well, regardless of a federal license to own one. Your choice would then be to move out of that state, or surrender those weapons.

    Now, currently, there is no registration of extended capacity mags... but, if there had been, don't you think there would be some chance that owners of them might be required by law to turn them in sometime in the future, after the event in Tucson...

    What about the new regs possibly coming into effect for .223 (IINM) ammo being pistol ammo and falling under the "armor piercing round" regs for pistols?

    This administration (whom I mistakenly helped vote into office), seems bent on doing all it can to "infringe" on the 2nd amendment, while all the time touting it's defense of the 2nd by saying things like "We allowed carry in National parks, how can we be against the 2nd amendment?"

    Nope, I don't like O's Chicago style politics, and I voted for him, and Chicago is my home town... why was I so blinded? Insert facepalm smiley here.

    Well, I learn from my mistakes... Not gonna happen again.
    Politicians, take note of Colorado 9/10/2013.
    "You are elected to service, not power.
    Your job is to "serve us" not to lord power over us."
    Me, 9/11/13

  9. #53
    Senior Member Array adric22's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Fort Worth, TX
    Posts
    1,146
    Quote Originally Posted by oakchas View Post
    What about the new regs possibly coming into effect for .223 (IINM) ammo being pistol ammo and falling under the "armor piercing round" regs for pistols?
    This one is tough for me.. Not specifically the .223 (and hence the AR-15, etc) but any assault weapon or machine gun. Just logically speaking I can't think of any reason for citizens needing to own them for protection against crime. Don't get me wrong, I'd like to have one and have come really close to buying an AR-15 on several occasions. But on the flip-side of that, I don't see that this type of weapon is ever used much in any sort of crime. So that makes it hard for me to see why the government would want to ban them. So that leaves only one logical explanation. The government does not want the weapons used against the government itself.
    "Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws." -Plato

  10. #54
    Senior Member Array Bubbiesdad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    East TN
    Posts
    1,013
    Quote Originally Posted by adric22 View Post
    This one is tough for me.. Not specifically the .223 (and hence the AR-15, etc) but any assault weapon or machine gun. Just logically speaking I can't think of any reason for citizens needing to own them for protection against crime. Don't get me wrong, I'd like to have one and have come really close to buying an AR-15 on several occasions. But on the flip-side of that, I don't see that this type of weapon is ever used much in any sort of crime. So that makes it hard for me to see why the government would want to ban them. So that leaves only one logical explanation. The government does not want the weapons used against the government itself.
    I don't see the need for anyone to own a vehicle capable of going over the speed limit. But then, automobiles aren't a right, firearms are.
    Always remember that others may hate you but those who hate you don't win unless you hate them. And then you destroy yourself.
    Richard M Nixon
    Owning a handgun doesn't make you armed any more than owning a guitar makes you a musician.
    Jeff Cooper

  11. #55
    Senior Member Array Spidey2011's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    887
    Quote Originally Posted by adric22 View Post
    This one is tough for me.. Not specifically the .223 (and hence the AR-15, etc) but any assault weapon or machine gun. Just logically speaking I can't think of any reason for citizens needing to own them for protection against crime. Don't get me wrong, I'd like to have one and have come really close to buying an AR-15 on several occasions. But on the flip-side of that, I don't see that this type of weapon is ever used much in any sort of crime. So that makes it hard for me to see why the government would want to ban them. So that leaves only one logical explanation. The government does not want the weapons used against the government itself.
    Are you TRYING to sound like a card carrying member of the Brady Bunch? First off, they aren't "assault weapons." An assault rifle is a military grade automatic rifle, not a civilian AR-15 style rifle. A "machine gun" is the same thing. A military grade automatic rifle. AR-15 is a designation given to a rifle produced by the Armalite company. Second, an AR-15 is an EXCELLENT home defense weapon, especially in rural areas.

    You may have good intentions, but the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. You need to rethink your stance as a gun owner.
    Doodle and 64zebra like this.

  12. #56
    VIP Member
    Array 64zebra's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Panhandle of Texas
    Posts
    6,384
    Quote Originally Posted by adric22 View Post
    This one is tough for me.. Not specifically the .223 (and hence the AR-15, etc) but any assault weapon or machine gun. Just logically speaking I can't think of any reason for citizens needing to own them for protection against crime. Don't get me wrong, I'd like to have one and have come really close to buying an AR-15 on several occasions. But on the flip-side of that, I don't see that this type of weapon is ever used much in any sort of crime. So that makes it hard for me to see why the government would want to ban them. So that leaves only one logical explanation. The government does not want the weapons used against the government itself.
    This is a profound paragraph written by you.

    First....with my logical thinking.....if I am being attacked by a criminal with a firearm, I want equal or superior (preferable) force to use on him/her. Same concept as military/LEO. When I go to a call involving shots fired/shooting.....I don't get out and draw my pistol to assess.....I bust out the AR-15 and tactical gear. I want the best tool for that situation and the same logic should be used for homeowners....if I had a choice of grabbing 9mm glock or grabbing my AR-15 with eotech, light, and 30 round mag...it makes more sense to grab the AR, especially if there could be more than one attacker....and if they could possibly be wearing body armor.
    Its to each their own. If we want to use a glock 19 or an AK-47 (have one of those too) then we should be able to make that choice to defend us and ours, not what the gov't tells us we can use or how many rounds it can have in it.

    Next.....your statement bold/underlined above holds heavy weight and I hope my point here sinks in with you concerning your previous comments on gun control....because your posts sound like you are confused on this topic and you may not have the education needed in this arena. (not an insult, there are many 'young' gun owners like you)
    You are right...these types of weapons are not used in many crimes but the gov't sure as heck banned dozens of them based on what they looked like, what features they had, and some because of being imported in the brady bill/assault weapons ban fiasco.
    Statistics showed that these types of banned rifles were used in less than 1% of gun crimes....so why did the gov't ban them??? because they could
    This ban, the ban on mags above 10 rounds, were all stepping stones. The politicians and gun grabber groups even admitted that it was a first step and they would continue from there. What do you think they would do with your idea of ID card for purchasing guns? Bad, bad things to us gun owners whenever they see fit to enact it.

    England/Great Britain experienced banning of certain types of rifles...then it was capacity of said rifles/shotguns, then types of actions on firearms, then handguns, then weapons all together except for a few types for sport/hunting...and even those can't be used for self-defense now
    same with Austrailia.....and that is the model our gun grabbers here want to follow

    If we give in an inch they see it as a victory and exploit the media/voters to support more gun control because it makes people feel better, and think they are doing some good against the criminal element.
    But the only things that do good against the criminal element are:1)laws being enforced and sentences/punishments being carried out to prevent them from committing the crimes again and set examples for other would-be dirtbags, 2)people working each day to stop crime, catch criminals, and protect the public (and I don't mean Congress/Legislatures/politicians, I mean LEOs), and 3)people being equipped to stop crime when it is happening via their use of firearms to convince the criminal to stop or being forced to use the firearms to stop them, and that means whatever firearm they see fit, and whatever they want for their particular situation, location, and ability
    Notice I did not include new laws, gun registration, or gun-control....and I'm a cop. I don't want more gun control, contrary to what the gun grabber groups say about LEO from across the country, or heads of some LE agencies or groups. Its not the opinion of the guys/gals on the streets actually doing the daily work.

    Every time....and I mean EVERY time I catch criminals in the act with a gun, the gun was either stolen or bought on the street from someone that stole it or acquired it through other means than going to Academy/Bass Pro shops/gun show and purchasing it.
    I'm also shocked, and have to admit....frustrated, when I go on calls where persons are robbed/victims of home invasion and they do not have means of adequate protection. I wish I saw more people with guns defending themselves and their homes/property. I wish I was taking more reports on someone getting shot by a homeowner defending his home than doing burglary reports after the fact. The number of burglaries would go down....drastically.

    ....sorry, [rant /off]
    LEO/CHL
    Certified Glock Armorer
    not enough space for list, main gear: duty-G17, S&W 642 bug, 870, RRA AR-15; G30 off-duty
    Independence is declared; it must be maintained. Sam Houston-3/2/1836
    If loose gun laws are good for criminals why do criminals support gun control?

  13. #57
    VIP Member Array Harryball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Lansing Mi
    Posts
    6,506
    Quote Originally Posted by 64zebra View Post
    This is a profound paragraph written by you.

    First....with my logical thinking.....if I am being attacked by a criminal with a firearm, I want equal or superior (preferable) force to use on him/her. Same concept as military/LEO. When I go to a call involving shots fired/shooting.....I don't get out and draw my pistol to assess.....I bust out the AR-15 and tactical gear. I want the best tool for that situation and the same logic should be used for homeowners....if I had a choice of grabbing 9mm glock or grabbing my AR-15 with eotech, light, and 30 round mag...it makes more sense to grab the AR, especially if there could be more than one attacker....and if they could possibly be wearing body armor.
    Its to each their own. If we want to use a glock 19 or an AK-47 (have one of those too) then we should be able to make that choice to defend us and ours, not what the gov't tells us we can use or how many rounds it can have in it.

    Next.....your statement bold/underlined above holds heavy weight and I hope my point here sinks in with you concerning your previous comments on gun control....because your posts sound like you are confused on this topic and you may not have the education needed in this arena. (not an insult, there are many 'young' gun owners like you)
    You are right...these types of weapons are not used in many crimes but the gov't sure as heck banned dozens of them based on what they looked like, what features they had, and some because of being imported in the brady bill/assault weapons ban fiasco.
    Statistics showed that these types of banned rifles were used in less than 1% of gun crimes....so why did the gov't ban them??? because they could
    This ban, the ban on mags above 10 rounds, were all stepping stones. The politicians and gun grabber groups even admitted that it was a first step and they would continue from there. What do you think they would do with your idea of ID card for purchasing guns? Bad, bad things to us gun owners whenever they see fit to enact it.

    England/Great Britain experienced banning of certain types of rifles...then it was capacity of said rifles/shotguns, then types of actions on firearms, then handguns, then weapons all together except for a few types for sport/hunting...and even those can't be used for self-defense now
    same with Austrailia.....and that is the model our gun grabbers here want to follow

    If we give in an inch they see it as a victory and exploit the media/voters to support more gun control because it makes people feel better, and think they are doing some good against the criminal element.
    But the only things that do good against the criminal element are:1)laws being enforced and sentences/punishments being carried out to prevent them from committing the crimes again and set examples for other would-be dirtbags, 2)people working each day to stop crime, catch criminals, and protect the public (and I don't mean Congress/Legislatures/politicians, I mean LEOs), and 3)people being equipped to stop crime when it is happening via their use of firearms to convince the criminal to stop or being forced to use the firearms to stop them, and that means whatever firearm they see fit, and whatever they want for their particular situation, location, and ability
    Notice I did not include new laws, gun registration, or gun-control....and I'm a cop. I don't want more gun control, contrary to what the gun grabber groups say about LEO from across the country, or heads of some LE agencies or groups. Its not the opinion of the guys/gals on the streets actually doing the daily work.

    Every time....and I mean EVERY time I catch criminals in the act with a gun, the gun was either stolen or bought on the street from someone that stole it or acquired it through other means than going to Academy/Bass Pro shops/gun show and purchasing it.
    I'm also shocked, and have to admit....frustrated, when I go on calls where persons are robbed/victims of home invasion and they do not have means of adequate protection. I wish I saw more people with guns defending themselves and their homes/property. I wish I was taking more reports on someone getting shot by a homeowner defending his home than doing burglary reports after the fact. The number of burglaries would go down....drastically.

    ....sorry, [rant /off]
    Dont apologize You are correct in your thinking...

    Adric, I have to ask. Are you making these statements just to piss people off, or do you really believe what you are saying? Your in a pro-2A forum, I only hope you remember that.
    Don"t let stupid be your skill set....

  14. #58
    Distinguished Member Array Stubborn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Tampa Fl
    Posts
    1,530
    Quote Originally Posted by 64zebra View Post
    This is a profound paragraph written by you.

    First....with my logical thinking.....if I am being attacked by a criminal with a firearm, I want equal or superior (preferable) force to use on him/her. Same concept as military/LEO. When I go to a call involving shots fired/shooting.....I don't get out and draw my pistol to assess.....I bust out the AR-15 and tactical gear. I want the best tool for that situation and the same logic should be used for homeowners....if I had a choice of grabbing 9mm glock or grabbing my AR-15 with eotech, light, and 30 round mag...it makes more sense to grab the AR, especially if there could be more than one attacker....and if they could possibly be wearing body armor.
    Its to each their own. If we want to use a glock 19 or an AK-47 (have one of those too) then we should be able to make that choice to defend us and ours, not what the gov't tells us we can use or how many rounds it can have in it.

    Next.....your statement bold/underlined above holds heavy weight and I hope my point here sinks in with you concerning your previous comments on gun control....because your posts sound like you are confused on this topic and you may not have the education needed in this arena. (not an insult, there are many 'young' gun owners like you)
    You are right...these types of weapons are not used in many crimes but the gov't sure as heck banned dozens of them based on what they looked like, what features they had, and some because of being imported in the brady bill/assault weapons ban fiasco.
    Statistics showed that these types of banned rifles were used in less than 1% of gun crimes....so why did the gov't ban them??? because they could
    This ban, the ban on mags above 10 rounds, were all stepping stones. The politicians and gun grabber groups even admitted that it was a first step and they would continue from there. What do you think they would do with your idea of ID card for purchasing guns? Bad, bad things to us gun owners whenever they see fit to enact it.

    England/Great Britain experienced banning of certain types of rifles...then it was capacity of said rifles/shotguns, then types of actions on firearms, then handguns, then weapons all together except for a few types for sport/hunting...and even those can't be used for self-defense now
    same with Austrailia.....and that is the model our gun grabbers here want to follow

    If we give in an inch they see it as a victory and exploit the media/voters to support more gun control because it makes people feel better, and think they are doing some good against the criminal element.
    But the only things that do good against the criminal element are:1)laws being enforced and sentences/punishments being carried out to prevent them from committing the crimes again and set examples for other would-be dirtbags, 2)people working each day to stop crime, catch criminals, and protect the public (and I don't mean Congress/Legislatures/politicians, I mean LEOs), and 3)people being equipped to stop crime when it is happening via their use of firearms to convince the criminal to stop or being forced to use the firearms to stop them, and that means whatever firearm they see fit, and whatever they want for their particular situation, location, and ability
    Notice I did not include new laws, gun registration, or gun-control....and I'm a cop. I don't want more gun control, contrary to what the gun grabber groups say about LEO from across the country, or heads of some LE agencies or groups. Its not the opinion of the guys/gals on the streets actually doing the daily work.

    Every time....and I mean EVERY time I catch criminals in the act with a gun, the gun was either stolen or bought on the street from someone that stole it or acquired it through other means than going to Academy/Bass Pro shops/gun show and purchasing it.
    I'm also shocked, and have to admit....frustrated, when I go on calls where persons are robbed/victims of home invasion and they do not have means of adequate protection. I wish I saw more people with guns defending themselves and their homes/property. I wish I was taking more reports on someone getting shot by a homeowner defending his home than doing burglary reports after the fact. The number of burglaries would go down....drastically.

    ....sorry, [rant /off]

    There's only one thing that I can think of that can be added to this...AMEN !
    "The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it".
    Thomas Jefferson

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

  15. #59
    Moderator
    Array Bark'n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    West Central Missouri
    Posts
    9,916
    I really don't believe a concerted effort to ban guns will be made until the full effect of Obamacare goes into effect!

    The key to controlling the masses is to control health care. Once the private insurance companies are driven out of existence and everyone is on "The Government Plan," then you will see major confiscation of guns, ammo and every thing else go into effect.

    Everything will be tied into health considerations. And since the government will be paying the tab on your healthcare they will have the authority to mandate gun laws in the name of public safety, saving healthcare dollars, preventative measures and everything else. And they will be able to circumvent Congress when they do it.

    It will all be a matter of public health. And again, when the government is paying the tab for the health insurance, they will have the mandate to enact confiscations.

    If Obama gets a second term, we are screwed. If Obamacare isn't repealed, we are screwed for a number of other reasons as well as the gun issue.

    They've already tried using the public health issue as a way to pass confiscatory tax increases on ammo and other things. It never could get out of committee in Congress because all of our healthcare system was still "private sector", private pay, private insurance. Once the government is controlling healthcare and paying for it, look out.
    MikeNice likes this.
    -Bark'n
    Semper Fi


    "The gun is the great equalizer... For it is the gun, that allows the meek to repel the monsters; Whom are bigger, stronger and without conscience, prey on those who without one, would surely perish."

  16. #60
    VIP Member Array oakchas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    6,510
    Quote Originally Posted by adric22 View Post
    This one is tough for me.. Not specifically the .223 (and hence the AR-15, etc) but any assault weapon or machine gun. Just logically speaking I can't think of any reason for citizens needing to own them for protection against crime. Don't get me wrong, I'd like to have one and have come really close to buying an AR-15 on several occasions. But on the flip-side of that, I don't see that this type of weapon is ever used much in any sort of crime. So that makes it hard for me to see why the government would want to ban them. So that leaves only one logical explanation. The government does not want the weapons used against the government itself.
    You did get a couple of things right. I highlighted them for you.

    You, (based on age alone) are more "the militia" of this country, according to the militia act, than I.

    So:

    You should have, if you want (and can afford) them, any weapons which an armed forces member defending this country can use. That is the basis of the Constitutional 2nd. Many cannon were privately owned during the revolution.

    You should have, if you want (and can afford) them, any weapons greater than those which a criminal might have to use against you. That is the basis of the Natural Right of self defense, upon which the 2nd was built.

    As long as you are a citizen of this country, that is your birthright.
    MikeNice likes this.
    Politicians, take note of Colorado 9/10/2013.
    "You are elected to service, not power.
    Your job is to "serve us" not to lord power over us."
    Me, 9/11/13

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

2013 gun ban list
,
2013 gun grab
,

2013 gun laws

,
2013 gun legislation
,
executive order 13581
,
gun grab 2013
,

gun laws 2013

,
new gun law 2013
,

new gun laws 2013

,

new gun laws for 2013

,

new texas gun laws 2013

,

proposed gun laws 2013

Click on a term to search for related topics.