Obama to go for guns in 2013 'there will be resistance' - Page 7

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 zacii If Feinstein has her way, they'll become NFA items. You'll have to carry your ATF form with you every where, and ...

Page 7 of 14 FirstFirst ... 34567891011 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 205
Like Tree353Likes

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

  1. #91
    Distinguished Member Array zamboni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    North of the Line
    Posts
    1,219
    Quote Originally Posted by zacii View Post
    If Feinstein has her way, they'll become NFA items. You'll have to carry your ATF form with you every where, and ask for permission to cross state lines. Papers, please?
    So then what-ever falls under any ban we have to pay and get a tax-stamp and register them/it as AOW? Or what/ever synonymous The Hill chooses to call any firearms contraband?

    Then we will be able to still, own it and/or use it? And through their regulations transfer ownership?


  2. #92
    VIP Member Array Kilowatt3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    SW Louisiana
    Posts
    3,082
    Quote Originally Posted by Rock and Glock View Post
    Biden is as stupid as a sack of rocks. Spare me. If he runs, it is proof positive of my statement.
    Hah! I've never heard anyone insult a sack of rocks before!

  3. #93
    VIP Member
    Array TX expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    4,099
    Quote Originally Posted by zamboni View Post
    So then what-ever falls under any ban we have to pay and get a tax-stamp and register them/it as AOW? Or what/ever synonymous The Hill chooses to call any firearms contraband?

    Then we will be able to still, own it and/or use it? And through their regulations transfer ownership?
    Not quite. It'll be registered so when they decide to take it from you, they'll know exactly what and how much you have to take. Also, as with NFA items now, your ability to transport and use those items is regulated by the BATF. So once your handgun becomes a registered item, you would have to apply for permission to cross state lines with it. Also, selling or transferring ownership will be expressly prohibited, so once you pass on, I assume, your NFA items will become property of the government.
    NRA Life Member

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

  4. #94
    Distinguished Member Array Hodad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Roswell, GA
    Posts
    1,683
    It seems that every time anyone mentions the prospect of stricter gun control the sales of weapons and ammo take another leap forward.

    By the time "they" get some watered down piece of crap legislation through congress a majority of the country will be armed to the teeth and
    ready to rumble.

    Do you really think that armed citizens in this country are just going to hand over their weapons?

    Do we stand a chance against if the military decides to side with the governing elite? Heck no!!

    However

    I have a sneaky suspicion that the military might just side with the voices of truth, justice and the American way!!

    A lot of you guy's on this forum are current or former military. What would you do?
    "Life is tough but it's really tough if you are stupid"

  5. #95
    Member Array BeefyG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    166
    The way I see it is we need to let the courts work and do all we can to support things moving in the right direction.

    If all else fails, and we are left with a violation of our rights and a desecration of the constitution... militia up and do what is necessary.

    Until then, pushing for an armed response undermines our cause and paints us in a bad light.

  6. #96
    VIP Member Array zacii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    arizona
    Posts
    3,818

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

    Quote Originally Posted by zamboni View Post
    So then what-ever falls under any ban we have to pay and get a tax-stamp and register them/it as AOW? Or what/ever synonymous The Hill chooses to call any firearms contraband?

    Then we will be able to still, own it and/or use it? And through their regulations transfer ownership?
    Feinstein's website lists all the details. As I understand it, all semi-auto firearms, and firearms that use detachable magazines (whether they be semi-auto or not) would fall under the NFA.

    If you want a really good explanation of it, look up the AWB video on YouTube by Military Arms Channel.

    ETA: Here's the video, it's also been posted elsewhere on the forum:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDglp...e_gdata_player

    Sent from my Galaxy S2
    Trust in God and keep your powder dry

    "A heavily armed citizenry is not about overthrowing the government; it is about preventing the government from overthrowing liberty. A people stripped of their right of self defense is defenseless against their own government." -source

  7. #97
    VIP Member Array cmdrdredd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    2,037
    Quote Originally Posted by Darrow75 View Post
    If any of you think we would be sitting in a different position regarding talk of gun control with Romney in the White House, I have a bridge to sell you...maybe if Gary Johnson had won, but either of the two major parties have little if any regard for our rights or really care what we think.

    If they did they could all look at the polls regarding gun control, the fiscal cliff, or whatever and act accordingly. Do they? Any of them? Not many care about anything other than staying in office and truly believe if they stick to their parties pre-written talking points they will do just enough to stay there. Our best option is to do what we can in the midterms to vote everyone of these career politicians out of office if for no other reason the to remind them that we can. If we do that, maybe, just maybe, they will start listening to us.
    The great people who have good ideas and are very loyal to morals and sound principals, never get elected.
    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.

  8. #98
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    12,118
    Quote Originally Posted by ksholder View Post
    And some who post here have this insane notion that the constitution was written to allow the feds to do whatever they want, that anything they do is, ipso facto, legal.
    It is. That is reality and not fantasy. Everything Congress does is legal and presumed constitutional until
    such time as Federal courts find otherwise. If you don't believe that, you don't really believe in our constitutional
    form of government, so stop complaining about government not following the constitution you don't seem to believe in.
    You (general you, not meaning you as an individual) have no right of rebellion. That is not in our constitution.

    Note, you have a right to peacefully assemble, to petition, and to seek redress of grievances. That
    part of 1A isn't in there by accident. It is the safety valve so many here seem to overlook.
    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

  9. #99
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    12,118
    Quote Originally Posted by BeefyG View Post
    The way I see it is we need to let the courts work and do all we can to support things moving in the right direction.

    If all else fails, and we are left with a violation of our rights and a desecration of the constitution... militia up and do what is necessary.

    Until then, pushing for an armed response undermines our cause and paints us in a bad light.
    I find that an amazing post on a forum which has a rule prohibiting the discussion of unlawful activities.

    It is one thing to discuss and debate whether or not such a right exists, it is quite something else to write
    "militia up and do what is necessary."
    kapnketel 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

  10. #100
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    12,118
    Quote Originally Posted by kerberos View Post
    Yep...

    Took that oath and still adhere to it today...

    To preserve, protect, and defend The Constitution...

    Not the Federal Government...

    Big difference.

    No difference. The Federal Government is the product of the constitution.
    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

  11. #101
    Senior Member Array kerberos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    747
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    No difference. The Federal Government is the product of the constitution.
    Eh...

    Subjective IMHO...

    "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

  12. #102
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    12,118
    Quote Originally Posted by Hodad View Post
    It seems that every time anyone mentions the prospect of stricter gun control the sales of weapons and ammo take another leap forward.

    By the time "they" get some watered down piece of crap legislation through congress a majority of the country will be armed to the teeth and
    ready to rumble.

    Do you really think that armed citizens in this country are just going to hand over their weapons?

    Do we stand a chance against if the military decides to side with the governing elite? Heck no!!

    However

    I have a sneaky suspicion that the military might just side with the voices of truth, justice and the American way!!

    A lot of you guy's on this forum are current or former military. What would you do?
    They would hide. It is easy to talk big on a forum.
    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

  13. #103
    VIP Member Array peckman28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    2,109
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    It is. That is reality and not fantasy. Everything Congress does is legal and presumed constitutional until
    such time as Federal courts find otherwise. If you don't believe that, you don't really believe in our constitutional
    form of government, so stop complaining about government not following the constitution you don't seem to believe in.
    You (general you, not meaning you as an individual) have no right of rebellion. That is not in our constitution.

    Note, you have a right to peacefully assemble, to petition, and to seek redress of grievances. That
    part of 1A isn't in there by accident. It is the safety valve so many here seem to overlook.
    It is the duty of all three branches, not just the courts, to obey and follow the Constitution. That includes its restraints. Congress has very specific enumerated powers, and anything it does that moves beyond that is not constitutional unless it follows an amendment that grants them additional powers (like the ridiculous 16th amendment does). The presumption that everything they do is constitutional and that it's just for the courts to sort out is a big problem, and quite frankly it's incorrect. I don't dispute that's the way it's handled in reality right now, what I do dispute is that it's acceptable or legitimate. It's not. The oath to uphold the Constitution is not just taken by judges, it's taken by those in all three branches.

  14. #104
    Member Array HDusmc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pa
    Posts
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    I find that an amazing post on a forum which has a rule prohibiting the discussion of unlawful activities.

    It is one thing to discuss and debate whether or not such a right exists, it is quite something else to write
    "militia up and do what is necessary."
    I find it amazing that a "VIP member" on this forum would be cowardly enough to honestly suggest that we lay down and allow our rights to be taken from us while our "government" tears the constitution to shreads.
    CharlesMorri, tkruf and Doodle like this.

  15. #105
    VIP Member
    Array ksholder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    4,016
    Quote Originally Posted by ksholder View Post
    And some who post here have this insane notion that the constitution was written to allow the feds to do whatever they want, that anything they do is, ipso facto, legal.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    It is. That is reality and not fantasy. Everything Congress does is legal and presumed constitutional until such time as Federal courts find otherwise.
    Hop - we have two radically different understandings of reality.

    In your world if:
    - O changed Kennedy or one of the conservative justices out for a Sotomayer/Kagan clone
    - And O declares, under EO, that the 2A no longer applies and everyone must turn in all guns, swords, knives and baseball bats or face imprisonment
    - And if SCOTUS would reinterpret the 2A to mean that only the government can possess guns, which it would if so reconstituted

    This would mean that even if the 2A had not been repealed, disarming the people of the USA would be a perfectly legal act of the federal government.

    In my world, this would not be so. Just sayin.

    ETA, if the feds were to decide that genocide of a particular race or religion was now federal policy and the courts were to go along with that, you are OK with that - right?
    tkruf and DC like this.
    "I've noticed that everyone that is pro-abortion has already been born." - Ronald Reagan

    "When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny." Thomas Jefferson

    You are only paranoid until you are right - then you are a visionary.

Page 7 of 14 FirstFirst ... 34567891011 ... LastLast

Sponsored 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.