Defensive Carry banner

Either I am Ignorant or Confused but..

3K views 45 replies 34 participants last post by  Guardian 
#1 ·
I have a problem believing that the Government is out to take (besides a minor majorityof politician wackos that think this way) or has the ability to take our weapons. Is this the same government that couldn't even organize a good relief effort in New Orleans (very tiny compared to taking guns) or the same country that thought that Saddam had WMD (that we are still looking for i suppose) right before we attacked it or the same country that can't find one man (Bin Laden) but we the people (some not all) believe that they can come and get our guns. I am not naive nor am I paranoid I just don't think it can happen and "no" the gun confiscation in Germany was not even close to what this task would be for a government that is in debt and would have a hard time justifying spending alot of money on gun confiscation to we the people. I think that the american people have learned from confiscations in history (Stalin/Hitler) and would never let it happen. Please help me understand?
 
#2 ·
I also do not think that there will ever be a national attempt to take our guns. There are too many lawmakers who would not go along with it.
They will never get the votes to outlaw guns, although there are some who wish they could.

But one way we keep the border liners in line is to band together in organizations like the NRA. Although I do not believe confiscation will ever take place there could be repressive laws passed, such as ammunition ID or even outlandish taxes on guns and ammo.

I must admit that one of my worries is that one of the conservatives on the SCOTUS will die or have to retire while we have Obama or another liberal president. One more liberal justice would have changed the latest rulings in our favor.

Regards,
Jerry
 
#5 ·
It is a very interesting perspective, and one I would be inclined to agree with---except---most folks really are law abiding. So if there was some law passed requiring you to get rid of your guns, most (including many here who say they never would) would comply; because that is what law abiding folks do.
 
#9 ·
It is a very interesting perspective, and one I would be inclined to agree with---except---most folks really are law abiding. So if there was some law passed requiring you to get rid of your guns, most (including many here who say they never would) would comply; because that is what law abiding folks do.
I think you're right, also many who own guns are not that avid in using them for a sporting interest. Many don't even have them as home protection, I know people who own guns that keep them in the attic or basement packed away. The only reason they have them is they were passed down or they once had an interest in them but have changed interest. These people will hand them over before then put their neck on the line.

Right now my concern is more with the state in which I live, NY has some rabid anti gun legislation they are trying to pass.
 
#10 ·
I can't speak for anybody else but, for certain you can believe that they are not ever taking mine.


The expression..."It Is A Good Day To Die." comes to mind.

Now...quit hoggin' that popcorn. :hand5:
 
#12 ·
They do it in small grabs, not in huge broad based moves like the health care bill they've been unsuccessful passing.
Like the Brady Bill, it wasn't the huge gun confiscation, it was a bunch of "reasonable" restrictions. (High cap magazines, certain features on "assault weapons", etc)
A little at a time, over decades if necessary.
 
#13 ·
Can it happen here?

I think so. We only have to look as far as Canada,England or Australia. While they didn't actually go house to house taking guns, they simply legislated them into oblivion. Here on this forum we read about the ridiculous happening in England where they go to great expense to prosecute people that use guns in self defense while letting the thugs that caused the use of them to go free.

Some of our own states even require registration of firearms and for what purpose? History will prove that the only reason for registration of weapons is for the purpose of confiscation. There is no other reason.

Can you use a handgun to defend yourself in Illinois?
Can you buy ammo without a "firearm owners I.D. card? Why not?
How about D.C.? Until recently, you couldn't even legally own a handgun if you happened to live there.

We have a President that has surrounded himself with known anti-gunners in his Administration. The POTUS, The VPOTUS, the Speaker of the House, the Secretary of State,the Attorney General, all of them would eliminate private ownership of firearms if they thought they could get away with it and many of them have publicly stated that fact. The United Nations, which many of them believe in, works around the clock to eliminate private ownership of weapons though various methods.

Our own Senators and Congressmen can tax them to death or legislate them into oblivion or make them so difficult to manufacture with bogus legislation that it will eventually cost a fortune to buy one, which will effectively prohibit the average American from being about to buy one because they cant afford it.

Can it happen here?

I believe that it can. Look around at some of the ridiculous regulations. You don't have to look far or long to figure out what they are about.
 
#14 ·
Can it happen here?

I think so. We only have to look as far as Canada,England or Australia. While they didn't actually go house to house taking guns, they simply legislated them into oblivion. Here on this forum we read about the ridiculous happening in England where they go to great expense to prosecute people that use guns in self defense while letting the thugs that caused the use of them to go free.

Some of our own states even require registration of firearms and for what purpose? History will prove that the only reason for registration of weapons is for the purpose of confiscation. There is no other reason.

Can you use a handgun to defend yourself in Illinois?
Can you buy ammo without a "firearm owners I.D. card? Why not?
How about D.C.? Until recently, you couldn't even legally own a handgun if you happened to live there.

We have a President that has surrounded himself with known anti-gunners in his Administration. The POTUS, The VPOTUS, the Speaker of the House, the Secretary of State,the Attorney General, all of them would eliminate private ownership of firearms if they thought they could get away with it and many of them have publicly stated that fact. The United Nations, which many of them believe in, works around the clock to eliminate private ownership of weapons though various methods.

Our own Senators and Congressmen can tax them to death or legislate them into oblivion or make them so difficult to manufacture with bogus legislation that it will eventually cost a fortune to buy one, which will effectively prohibit the average American from being able to buy one because they cant afford it.

Can it happen here?

I believe that it can. Look around at some of the ridiculous regulations. You don't have to look far or long to figure out what they are about.
+1 It has already started.
 
#16 ·
I forgot to put that there is 33 million Canadians and 7.5 million firearms so 22% of the people own guns

or

Since there are 300 million people in the US that same percentage would be 66 million registered guns. That is alot of guns for a country that allegedly has no guns even if they are registered.
 
#17 ·
Actually, there are no national registration requirements here. Some states have them but most do not.

The number of guns here has been suggested at anywhere from 180 million to over 200 million. How they came up with that number I have no idea.

I can name at least a dozen of my close friends that have anywhere from 50 to over 100.

I believe the difference between our country and most is that we have the right to bear arms in our constitution. I doubt that Canada, England or Australia say anything about that in whatever they have
That is correct. That fact is the ONLY reason that we still have them and it greatly perplexes those that would have us get rid of our guns.

As for Canada, how difficult is to carry a handgun there? Can you use one for hunting or self defense? Does it have to be registered? Why? What is the penalty if you dont? Why is there a penalty?
See where I am going with this?
 
#19 ·
:sport59:

Im not riding that wave...

I whole heartedly believe that the Govt. can and will eventually make an attempt, an all out attempt to take our 2a.

You can disbelieve all you want but I will continue my end of the world stockpile!
 
#20 ·
It can happen by process of erosion. Some people are so stupid as to sign a petition repealing the First Amendment (yes, they really are). They have no concept of history except to rattle off the games that were available for PlayStation 1.0 and the make of their first cell phone.

One need only look at the patchwork of existing and wholly unnecessary firearms laws to realize that the possiblity exists. Will stormtroopers go door-to-door turning homes inside out? No. Will there be taxes upon taxes covering firearms and ammo? Yes. Fines and fees in the guise of "health care" for the added risk of owning a firearm? You bet. Regulations galore covering ever-tightening restrictions on carry and storage? Yep. Excessive taxes levied against firearms manufacturers, importers, and dealers? Oh yes.

Universal Health Care is a bureaucratic wet dream waiting to happen. The potential for far-reaching power in the name of "health" and the ability to squeeze revenue from the people and private businesses to support it is all right there.

It's harder and harder to legally own a gun in this country, while fewer and fewer people appreciate their value.
 
#22 ·
You put it better than I could have. I believe it will take decades, but they'll continue to slowly erode gun rights as they can and brainwash the public into voting the 2nd amendment out of existence if they can.

If they make an immediate type confiscation push, well, there's supposedly 80 million firearms owners in this country, and if only 10% of them fight back.... Well, just saying... :comeandgetsome:
 
#23 ·
I think it would go over like prohibition and the banning of various narcotics. There would be those that comply, those that pretend to comply, and those that profit tremendously by providing the people what they want.
 
#25 ·
QUOTE=Horsetrader;1450433]Maybe I don't get the big deal. My grandpappy used to say "Politicians can pass any stupid law they want. FREE men decide whether that law gets complied to or whether that law goes on the trash heap of politicians' great ideas. It is citizens accepting and being compliant that makes a law stick." Good example: buy booze lately. Prohibition didn't work. So they outlaw private ownership of guns....the amount of NON-Compliance by FREE AMERICANS will decide if it works out the way the politicians desire. But maybe their true desire is to crush the "will of the people". Using the Constitution argument has worked for us in the past...but this new crowd of PROGRESSIVES do not view the Constitution as we do. THEY see the Constitution as a living document that shifts with the winds of time. In the Progressive mind the 2A is outdated in this modern world and time. Watch these guys, they are slippery using language that sounds good and is dangerous to LIBERTY.

Just my opinion and no, I'm not suggesting rioting in the streets or lawless behavior or encouraging anyone to act against any law or authority.[/QUOTE]
 
#24 ·
Maybe not an outright ban, but little by little, in obscure pieces of buried legislation, it might become extemely difficult to purchase guns, or to get ammo, or to get permits... the list goes on.

We just need to stay vigilant as to the laws that are being passed, and to protest by writing letters to lawmakers, when necessary.
 
#27 ·
I don't think there is a danger of sudden confiscation. It is quite simply not feasible as you pointed out (due to the massive number of arms and reluctance of people to give them up).

The bigger danger is a gradual erosion over many decades. First machine gun registration, then Brady background checks, requiring dealers to sell firearms interstate, then stopping issuing tax stamps for the machine gun registration, prohibiting possession in certain places (schools, fed buildings), then an assault weapons ban...then a handgun ban, then a semi-automatic ban, then a sniper rifle ban, and so on.

The constitution states that we are to have an armed populace. As long as the constitution stands, we will.
 
#29 ·
The US Supreme Court is 5 - 4 on this issue right now. The one appointment Obama made tells us his standard for supreme court justice does not include a person that believes in the right to self protection. We are one appointment away from not having the Heller decision or a chance to prevail in Chicago or myriad other potential cases. As others have said, it will be loss by 1000 cuts with each cut upheld by an anti self protection Supreme Court. As many have said, elections have consequences.

The tragedy in my mind is the people most in need of self protection are minority and poor. The very group that supports politicians that are anti self protection.
 
#30 · (Edited)
So they outlaw private ownership of guns....the amount of NON-Compliance by FREE AMERICANS will decide if it works out the way the politicians desire. But maybe their true desire is to crush the "will of the people". Using the Constitution argument has worked for us in the past...but this new crowd of PROGRESSIVES do not view the Constitution as we do. THEY see the Constitution as a living document that shifts with the winds of time. In the Progressive mind the 2A is outdated in this modern world and time. Watch these guys, they are slippery using language that sounds good and is dangerous to LIBERTY.
Many in our wonderful body of elected "leadership" are already using the Constitution as toilet paper. It very well could happen. Many will comply. Others, as quoted above, won't - until it becomes a self-defense situation. Then, as in England, the victim is hung out to dry with ZERO legal defense. An example is made and more people willingly turn in their guns under an amnesty program. It's very possible here....

Perhaps people will wake up and realize that we the people have to hold our elected "wise ones" accountable. Elections have far-reaching consequences.
 
#31 ·
#32 ·
Can it happen here?

I think so. We only have to look as far as Canada,England or Australia. While they didn't actually go house to house taking guns, they simply legislated them into oblivion. Here on this forum we read about the ridiculous happening in England where they go to great expense to prosecute people that use guns in self defense while letting the thugs that caused the use of them to go free.

Absolutely right. Never say never, because I can remember being in merry olde England back in 1985 when this discussion came up. They said then around a family dinner this could never happen in England and look at what happened 20 years later. Ronald Reagan truly spoke this when he said that Liberty lost was only one generation away......
 
#36 ·
I agree that the government WILL NOT simply confiscate all firearms. Not right now.

we are all missing one very big factor:

IF NObama were to confiscate all weapons tomorrow, just think about how many people will INSTANTLY GO ON UNEMPLOYMENT

I would guess conservatively, NObama would put 10 MILLION people out of work. NObama can't afford to put that many people on unemployment at this time.


NO! NObama will simply tax/regulate us out of business. In a few years when our firearms are regulated to the point of being useless......THEN the government will confiscate them.:aargh4:
 
#39 ·
Just because I am paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't trying to get me.

Will there be an attempt, yes, through the courts and administrative nickel and dime regulations.

Roadless areas that are not wilderness areas are a great example.

If you want to see it in action, just take a look at how the environmental laws are being used in court and by the agencies, ever so slowly, to exclude human interaction on large blocks of terrain except for those that are most fit and adhere to their regulations.

Example:

Wilderness areas: must carry out everything brought in, including your excrement. You must walk or only use horses/mules in approved areas and approved trails and they must eat certified weed free hay. You cannot land in wilderness areas with helicopters or airplanes except for the few approved places and you are not allowed to repair those strips (will eventually make them unusable)

Now take a look at the size of those areas. Ya think that that many of those areas will get many visitors? Do you think that the vast majority of the population is essentially excluded from using those areas?

Now take that same method, apply it to guns (magazines over 10 rounds only to qualified individuals, semi autos only for specific individuals, ammo types restricted to LE/military, only 1 gun per month).

It is already happening or is being attempted. Based upon your title for the thread, I believe it is the former.
 
#40 ·
One state, one tax, one fee, one person, etc. at a time. There are times I'm glad I'm old, I only hope my grandkids and great grandkids haven't been brainwashed by the school systems to go along with the anti-weapon agenda in years to come. Our granddaughter is "passive" toward firearms now, but was raised in a career military family that uses and supports guns. Four years of college changed her "point of view".

It will happen, albiet slowly.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top