Obama to go for guns in 2013 'there will be resistance'

This is a discussion on Obama to go for guns in 2013 'there will be resistance' within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by oakchas Well. So the nation is split. About 50/50 on guns both in ownership and control. some of the owners of guns ...

Page 11 of 14 FirstFirst ... 7891011121314 LastLast
Results 151 to 165 of 205
Like Tree353Likes

Thread: Obama to go for guns in 2013 'there will be resistance'

  1. #151
    VIP Member Array cmdrdredd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    2,026
    Quote Originally Posted by oakchas View Post
    Well.

    So the nation is split. About 50/50 on guns both in ownership and control. some of the owners of guns believe in some more controls... Some who have no guns do not believe there should be any controls.. so it works out... about 50/50, still.

    The revolutionary war pitted brother against brother. The first civil war pitted brother against brother. The next civil war... if it comes... over guns? or the fiscal cliff or whatever, or all of the above... Will pit brother against brother...

    Who wins?

    Hint:

    Follow the money. And there will be money for BOTH sides... at interest... from the same people... While they watch us, in our little ... I dunno... cage match?

    Insurrections ... from the Whiskey rebellion, to the Civil War... have been put down... by the Government of the United States... with money from the moneylenders...

    If we should see a civil war over the gun issue, or any other... it will take us decades or more to recover... And we will borrow money to do that, too...

    Are we headed to civil war? are we going to do so over guns? possibly.

    I have no fear of it. why?

    Because when the m16s are locked, loaded, and aimed at your head, you will take them to the safe, just like they did in Katrina... And they will start with the most voiciferous.

    If it starts to happen, much will be accomplished before the rest of us hear a word about it. And, I believe it will be a "done deal" before an effective resistance can be mounted.

    Our best bet, at this point, IMHumbleO, is to petition for a redress of grievances. Before they become grievances.

    But where are the advertisements that explain our side? The antis, being congresscritters and POTUS... will get all the air time they want for FREE... We have to buy ours... and we ain't doin' it... And if you think it doesn't matter, look at how elections are won...

    They are won on TV and on the Radio, and in the press... And we are allowing ourselves to be painted as "clingers" "rednecks" "wannabe Rambos" etc. etc.

    We need more Suzanna Gratia Hupps on TV telling us that we cannot be made defenseless... that the second amendment is important... That our liberties are at stake... and we need good spokesmodels to do the talking... But, we will have to buy our time in front of the camera... that I can assure you.

    And nobody (the NRA, the GOA, the SAF), none of 'em seems to know this... all they do is preach to the choir (us) and while we are NOT a minority... most of us here (based on posts) won't even bother with a discussion with an anti... because they're "so illogical."


    If we don't enter into dialogue, in front of and to the masses, and the individuals... WE WILL LOSE this fight.
    I agree but the problem I have is when I try to talk to someone who is against guns they just run away from the conversation and point at me claiming "you are the problem with this country, other countries are past us." or some other nonsense.
    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
    -Thomas Jefferson

    Laws are restrictive but sometimes necessary to maintain a civil society. Rights are nonrestrictive but are always necessary to maintain a free society.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #152
    Member Array d2jlking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    419

    Obama to go for guns in 2013 'there will be resistance'

    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    They is us, my friend. We vote for them. "They" come from amongst us. Just because you or I don't like
    some particular set of laws, gives us no right to supplant our judgment over that of Congress's judgment, and no
    right whatsoever of rebellion. We have the right to petition for redress of grievances; we have a right to peacefully
    assemble; to speak out. We have no unilateral right to take up arms against the United States. I'm amazed
    that, the anarchy which would follow aside, anyone would think of such as a reasonable course.

    Believe me, posts and discussions of this sort harm gun owners. If anti-s read them on the floor of Congress and if
    the news people re-published them, we would come out looking extremely unreasonable.

    Your oath to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution, does not extend to armed challenge against lawfully elected
    officials. Get that, or you could have a fine old age in a Super Max.
    These discussions are a drop in a bucket. They are not necessary for liberals, antis and the media they control to make us look scary and unreasonable. They do it everyday. Wake up! it seems you are advocating not only the removal of second amendment rights but first amendment rights as well.
    CharlesMorri likes this.
    "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
    Thomas Jefferson

  4. #153
    VIP Member Array cmdrdredd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    2,026
    Quote Originally Posted by Darrow75 View Post
    That's funny. I do not have any ridiculous sense of oppression. I simply made a statement because when someone claims that if I don't have God I am not free and therefore some sort of Marxist, Commie...I will take exception with that. You have every right to believe in whichever god you want to believe...same as I am. I have no issues with God. It's just that when the idea of God gets intertwined with government, it has a knack for turning into religion, and religion is an interpretation by man. And that, I have many issues with.
    That's not even what was said. Your creator gives you free will, not the government. Free will is freedom in the purest form in my opinion. It is the government who attempts to put limits on your freedom. Laws don't give freedom, they only disallow certain things in the name of order. Some of them are necessary in order to keep a peaceful and orderly society(like traffic laws, noise ordenance etc), some of them are given (murder is illegal, theft is illegal), some are overly oppressive (like banning guns). Some laws can be debated as to the necessity or no, but your freedom...true freedom is never given by any man or woman. Every person born has the ability to think and come to a decision or conclusion on their own. You make your own way and while there are consequences for breaking a law, you are still free to do so. It sounds funny, but it's the truth.

    It is my firm position that you are not really free if you believe your freedoms come from a piece of paper or an elected official.
    HDusmc, mulle46 and CharlesMorri like this.
    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
    -Thomas Jefferson

    Laws are restrictive but sometimes necessary to maintain a civil society. Rights are nonrestrictive but are always necessary to maintain a free society.

  5. #154
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,158
    Quote Originally Posted by Bark'n View Post
    Hopyard, I think we all understand that. At least I do. And that is all well and good. However, reading the federalist papers, and understanding why the 2nd Amendment was put in place, is to understand that the founding fathers believed it was necessary to provide a provision for free men, to rise up and revolt against a tyrannical government. A government which through greed, and corruption at the highest levels overstep their governing authority and became nothing less than tyrants.
    The Federalist papers were mostly written by Alexander Hamilton with a bit of help from Madison and a few others--
    though it is not entirely clear if Hamilton ghost wrote some of what has been attributed to Madison. These were
    written to sell or promote the idea that the new constitution should be ratified. Many opposed it because
    they feared that the president could become a King. Later, many opposed Hamilton who they saw as a monarchist,
    and Hamilton later was at extreme odds with Madison with the split along the lines
    of Federalist v Anti-Federalist. The anti-Federalist "Virginia Dynasty," Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, and in some ways
    even JQ Adams won the day. Many who post here confuse the positions espoused by Hamilton (Federalist) with
    that of the anti-Federalists.

    Briefly, the Federalists were for a strong central government; what has evolved through the years to today's system,
    and one should not be looking for opposition to government within the Federalist Papers as that was not their
    purpose or intent. Now, when you have thousands of pages being churned out by perhaps up to 3 or more authors
    over a period of time there will be some inconsistencies and some stuff that can be picked up on to support about
    any position, but make no mistake, The Federalists were exactly what their name implies--- folks who wanted a
    very powerful central government.

    Our first two administrations, 8 years of Washington and 4 of Adams were dominated by Federalists, and the
    court system we have today was shaped by John Marshall who was an arch Federalist.

    None of these people believed there was a right of revolt, and all of them were were participants in the writing of
    the constitution. I've discussed this before.

    Now let's turn to Jefferson and Madison who became anti-Federalists. In rhetoric they spoke a certain way,
    but in practice when in office, they were (with historical hindsight) exactly what they proclaimed themselves to not be.
    They governed as Federalists.

    Bottom line, don't quote a snippet from a particular Federalist paper to bolster an argument for a right of rebellion,
    because that was not part of Federalist ideology.
    Doghandler likes this.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  6. #155
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,158
    Quote Originally Posted by d2jlking View Post
    This is not accurate. Yes the rebellion was "run" by the government but t was started by citizens. Angry citizens who banded together to protest, sometimes forcibly and illegally, a government who taxed and restricted the people without fair representation. Certainly, there were many people during that time who felt revolt was a mistake, unjust and illegal. However, it was indeed armed revolt. The "government and military formed en masse AFTER the people made it clear (often thru protest and even violent acts) that they would support such a rebellion.
    I disagree with you with the sole exception of the Boston Massacre, which was a spontaneous demonstration gone bad.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  7. #156
    VIP Member
    Array TX expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    3,632
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Re: Only to part in bold. TX Expat, in the next few hours or days I'll post Hopyard's recent reading list in the Off Topic
    and Humor forum. I've shared some of it privately with R&G who has some interest in the same reading material.

    I think you will realize on seeing that list that what I say is far from propaganda or supposition, but
    is solidly based on extensive readings, some of it the autobiographical material of the founders. Happy New Year.
    Um, OK with me. It'll be interesting to see where you get your perspective. Just realize that I've read a ton of Revolutionary history and being a Constitutionalist, I have done a fair amount of reading about most of the integral players both during and after our revolution.

    No offense Hop, but you post up a whole bunch of stuff that, at best, is contextually inaccurate and use it to 'prove' your points. I've called you out on a number of occasions and rarely do you actually address your inaccuracies. I'm far from the smartest guy in this room but I am well read and I make it my business to use my intelligence, rather than my emotion, to find the truths, even when I don't like what I find. It's the reason I part ways with the "conservatives" as much as I do the "liberals". They all seek to limit the freedoms that our country was founded upon; they just choose different freedoms to focus on.
    atctimmy likes this.
    NRA Life Member

    "I don't believe gun owners have rights." - Sarah Brady

  8. #157
    Senior Member Array Duisburg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Duisburg, Germany
    Posts
    754
    How many restrictions and hoops do law abiding citizens need heed before the hoops and bars become defacto gun criminalization ?
    Bark'n and CharlesMorri like this.
    I am sworn to protect the Constitution of the U.S.A. from all threats both foreign and domestic.

  9. #158
    Member Array HDusmc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pa
    Posts
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    The Federalist papers were mostly written by Alexander Hamilton with a bit of help from Madison and a few others--
    though it is not entirely clear if Hamilton ghost wrote some of what has been attributed to Madison. These were
    written to sell or promote the idea that the new constitution should be ratified. Many opposed it because
    they feared that the president could become a King. Later, many opposed Hamilton who they saw as a monarchist,
    and Hamilton later was at extreme odds with Madison with the split along the lines
    of Federalist v Anti-Federalist. The anti-Federalist "Virginia Dynasty," Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, and in some ways
    even JQ Adams won the day. Many who post here confuse the positions espoused by Hamilton (Federalist) with
    that of the anti-Federalists.

    Briefly, the Federalists were for a strong central government; what has evolved through the years to today's system,
    and one should not be looking for opposition to government within the Federalist Papers as that was not their
    purpose or intent. Now, when you have thousands of pages being churned out by perhaps up to 3 or more authors
    over a period of time there will be some inconsistencies and some stuff that can be picked up on to support about
    any position, but make no mistake, The Federalists were exactly what their name implies--- folks who wanted a
    very powerful central government.

    Our first two administrations, 8 years of Washington and 4 of Adams were dominated by Federalists, and the
    court system we have today was shaped by John Marshall who was an arch Federalist.

    None of these people believed there was a right of revolt, and all of them were were participants in the writing of
    the constitution. I've discussed this before.

    Now let's turn to Jefferson and Madison who became anti-Federalists. In rhetoric they spoke a certain way,
    but in practice when in office, they were (with historical hindsight) exactly what they proclaimed themselves to not be.
    They governed as Federalists.

    Bottom line, don't quote a snippet from a particular Federalist paper to bolster an argument for a right of rebellion,
    because that was not part of Federalist ideology.
    Prudence ... will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
    THOMAS JEFFERSON
    CharlesMorri likes this.

  10. #159
    VIP Member
    Array ctr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Shenandoah Valley in Virginia
    Posts
    2,205
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Practically speaking it is a crime to even join with one other toward that goal. If either then makes a single
    concrete step toward achieving that goal, all are guilty of conspiracy to commit the crime.

    That is how the hapless dudes in a FL basement got charged with conspiring to blow up the "Sears tower," (whatever they call it now), in Chicago. Anyone here think they were exercising their natural rights?

    Now, the danger to this sort of talk is that it really really really makes too many of the law abiding solid
    gun owners who want our country to succeed, look guilty by association. The theme does no good for promoting
    gun rights. To the contrary, if non-gun owners and fence sitters were to read some of this talk they'd be scared out of their
    wits. Not about guns, but about the viewpoints and the intent, the hysteria, and the panic.

    You aren't free because of your personally owned firearms. That's for sure. The firearms that have made us free, and kept us
    free were ALWAYS in the hands of government; you know, George Washington didn't just stand up and proclaim himself
    leader and top tough guy, nor did he on his own decide to rebel against the English Parliament's behavior. A
    conclave comprised of representative appointed by the legislative bodies of the various colonies met to draft The Declaration.
    The Revolutionary War was initiated by the legal authorities on this continent, much as the Civil War was initiated by the legal
    authorities of the states which went into rebellion. Both had a certain legitimacy which would be totally lacking from
    individual or small group actions because some dude from DudeLand decided he knew better than the elected officials.
    I'd like to respond to this and a couple of points you made in other posts Hop. Your arguments support your position but I don't agree. Discussion of what would or could happen, as well as discussion of the legality of rebellion is not illegal. Only a discussion planning or enticing would be illegal. Not my intent, nor what I communicated in my post. Clearly I stated I am against such action.

    Now as to the revolutionary war, the legal authorities did not rebel against King George. I can't speak to the colonial history of all the colonies, but I can speak to that of Virginia, which I believe is representative of what happened in other colonies that did not support the King. The Governor of Virginia had in fact suspended the House of Burgesses. They were no longer the lawful aka legal representatives of the King. I believe similar occurrences were the norm in many other colonies, but not all of them.

    Those powers not expressly granted to the federal government by the constitution are reserved expressly to the states. The federal government has been on a power grab for well over a 125 years and it is coming to a head.

    A once famous King of France learned a hard lesson that literally cut his life short, pun intended. Mess with the peasants too much and too often and the peasants will mess right back. There is such a thing as reasonable governance and I believe most Americans want that. There is also such a thing as unreasonable governance which is where we find ourselves today. This is not just about 2A though that may end up being the match that lights the fuse in the end. The federal statues have increased in number and size dramatically even in the last 30 years. Our country today has little resemblance to that of our grandfathers. Some can see it while some cant or won't. Perhaps it is just another boiling frog. I for one don't intended to get cooked.
    Bark'n, TX expat and 1MoreGoodGuy like this.

  11. #160
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,158
    Quote Originally Posted by d2jlking View Post
    These discussions are a drop in a bucket. They are not necessary for liberals, antis and the media they control to make us look scary and unreasonable. They do it everyday. Wake up! it seems you are advocating not only the removal of second amendment rights but first amendment rights as well.
    Good Grief. :_

    All I am arguing is that 2A does not, never has, never was intended, to support a right of rebellion. Want proof?
    Read about John Brown, a man with a most righteous reason to lead a rebellion.
    Darrow75, kerberos and d2jlking like this.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  12. #161
    Senior Member Array Darrow75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    St. Petersburg, FL
    Posts
    606
    Quote Originally Posted by cmdrdredd View Post
    That's not even what was said. Your creator gives you free will, not the government. Free will is freedom in the purest form in my opinion. It is the government who attempts to put limits on your freedom. Laws don't give freedom, they only disallow certain things in the name of order. Some of them are necessary in order to keep a peaceful and orderly society(like traffic laws, noise ordenance etc), some of them are given (murder is illegal, theft is illegal), some are overly oppressive (like banning guns). Some laws can be debated as to the necessity or no, but your freedom...true freedom is never given by any man or woman. Every person born has the ability to think and come to a decision or conclusion on their own. You make your own way and while there are consequences for breaking a law, you are still free to do so. It sounds funny, but it's the truth.

    It is my firm position that you are not really free if you believe your freedoms come from a piece of paper or an elected official.
    My comment was really more of a response to the quote below, which specifically states that not having a belief in God makes us slaves. I agree with you that our rights are not given to us by any government or piece of paper. They are natural rights as human beings but I do not believe that they are given to us by any specific God.



    Quote Originally Posted by Bark'n View Post
    You are correct. It is not coincidence. As long as we have guns and a belief in God, we remain free. Remove either one of those two components and we become slaves.

    They've been working on the end result, from multiple directions for more than a generation. Who are they? They are the athiests, the progressives, the socialists, the fascists, the Marxists, the communists... It doesn't matter what you call them, they are all the same. With the same goal. And they relied on apathy to stealthily lull us to sleep. They took their time. They came at us with babysteps, from all different sides, a little at a time. And now it seems, they think they are ready for the final blow.

    Will they be successful? I don't know. We let it go, unchecked for a long time.
    I know a few true atheists and they are no less free than the rest of us just as I see many very religious countries where the people have little to no freedom. I guess my problem is when someone brings up God, especially when it relates to government, I read religion...maybe that is wrong but in many cases they come hand in hand. To me religion and government are very very similar, and unfortunately more likely to strip us of our natural rights than work to guarantee them as should be their goal.

    That being said, I have taken this thread off topic enough already. I will respectfully bow out of the conversation.

  13. #162
    Senior Member Array kerberos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    741
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Good Grief. :_

    All I am arguing is that 2A does not, never has, never was intended, to support a right of rebellion. Want proof?
    Read about John Brown, a man with a most righteous reason to lead a rebellion.
    I gave this one a "like" because it is technically true...

    Think about not specifically what the 2A says, Hopyard, but the reasoning behind why it was included in the Bill of Rights...

    Refer back to post #109 for the entirety...

    But if it was considered "self-evident" that certain rights were unalienable...

    Exactly how were/are the people going to "alter or abolish" a government that does not suit their collective needs in your opinion???

    Talk or petition it out of existance???

    See past the black and white...

    "Death is lighter than a feather, but Duty is heavier than a mountain" Robert Jordan
    USMC veteran
    Glock 19 Gen 4
    Si hoc legere scis, nimis eruditionis habes

  14. #163
    Senior Member
    Array DaveWorkman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Bellevue, WA
    Posts
    535
    CCRKBA to Obama: ‘Yes, there will be resistance’

    CCRKBA to Obama:
    zacii likes this.

  15. #164
    Member Array d2jlking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    419

    Obama to go for guns in 2013 'there will be resistance'

    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Good Grief. :_

    All I am arguing is that 2A does not, never has, never was intended, to support a right of rebellion. Want proof?
    Read about John Brown, a man with a most righteous reason to lead a rebellion.
    I did NOT get that from your many posts. Of course the 2nd amendment does NOT give a right of rebellion. It does however guarantee that the citizenry has a right to be armed, and the most accurate interpretations of the amendment provide that the framers of the constitution and bill of rights did so in the event we would ever need to defend ourselves from a tyrannical government. So what are we arguing about?
    kerberos, Bark'n and rugergunner like this.
    "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
    Thomas Jefferson

  16. #165
    Senior Member Array kerberos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    741
    Quote Originally Posted by d2jlking View Post
    I did NOT get that from your many posts. Of course the 2nd amendment does NOT give a right of rebellion. It does however guarantee that the citizenry has a right to be armed, and the most accurate interpretations of the amendment provide that the framers of the constitution and bill of rights did so in the event we would ever need to defend ourselves from a tyrannical government. So what are we arguing about?
    Semantics IMHO...

    d2jlking likes this.
    "Death is lighter than a feather, but Duty is heavier than a mountain" Robert Jordan
    USMC veteran
    Glock 19 Gen 4
    Si hoc legere scis, nimis eruditionis habes

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 missouri gun laws
,
2013gunband
,
feds and guns 2013
,
gun laws 2013
,
new firearms for 2013
,
new gun laws in texas 2013
,
new guns for 2013
,
new missouri gun laws 2013
,
new pistols for 2013
,

new texas gun laws 2013

,
proposed federal gun laws 2013
,
second civil war 2013
Click on a term to search for related topics.