Ugh ... they're at it again ... new AWB a comin' - Page 2

jednp · February 14th, 2007, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SIXTO

I know this is a little off topic, but if they come to get our guns, who are they going to send? I'm not going to do it.

I have a friend in the Marines and I was talking to him about gun confiscation and how in N.O. they went door to door treating law abiding gun owners like criminals, guns drawn. He said he'd do the same thing. You have to go in expecting the worst. And he said if given the order to confiscate guns he has to follow or he could be punished by death.

What he fails to realize, and obviously what the military fails to inform them of is that they have the right to disobey orders if the order is illegal and forces them to enact an illegal law. Right to keep and bear arms is our right.. you do not have to follow an order to disarm people.

So that worries me.. when you ask.. who are they going to send? Obviously our national guard and police were up for the task of doing so in N.O. How many other police and military members are up for the task to come in the future?

Most importantly, when that day comes... what are we gun owners going to do? One person by theirself is a lunatic on the news, many people together is a different story.

Knight · February 14th, 2007, 09:10 PM

Just curious, has there been a major increase in violent crime since the last AWB expired? Lets see here...
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_01.html

Nope

SIGguy229 · February 14th, 2007, 09:25 PM

As a servicemember...I have the obligation to disobey an unlawful order...gun confiscation is an unlawful order.

dimmak · February 14th, 2007, 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by p8riot

Ray Nagin

Just fell out of my chair.....

Zundfolge · February 14th, 2007, 10:14 PM

Quote:

I have a friend in the Marines and I was talking to him about gun confiscation and how in N.O. they went door to door treating law abiding gun owners like criminals, guns drawn. He said he'd do the same thing.

After watching this, I believe it too. (NSFW ... login required, but BugMeNot works).

srfl · February 15th, 2007, 01:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SIXTO

I know this is a little off topic, but if they come to get our guns, who are they going to send? I'm not going to do it.

...ditto.

jednp · February 15th, 2007, 02:11 AM

Well all you guys that are in the service or are an officer, you need to try to convince your fellow men to not follow that order when it comes. There is absolutely NO reason for people in this country to be disarmed.

The damn people who did these shootings, especially the guy who used the AK, could have used ANY gun for this shooting. And it would have been just as deadly. Not to take the shootings of the 4 people he killed lightly, but c'mon... he killed 4 people, almost ANY gun could have done that without reloading. Even though this guy had an AK, he didn't spray bullets out of it. A damn shotgun with slugs or buckshot would have been just as effective. Even without an extended mag most shotguns will hold 4-5 shots. That's plenty enough to kill a few people.

So this "and for other reasons"BS that's on this bill, it will be used to attack a lot more of our guns. We have not remained free from tyranny all these years by having single shot weapons. they illegally took away easy access to machine guns, now they are going to take away access to any gun that can fire more than 1 shot without having to be reloaded.

I see all these people online talking about, "they can take my guns, but they'll have to take the lead first". I wonder how many are dead serious about that. When are we as gun owners going to actually make a stand against this type of stuff? We are on a downward spiral with gun ownership if this bill passes into law. The day our high capacity weapons are permanently taken away from us, is the day that all of our freedoms are in serious danger.

These moron politicians have hunters believing that they won't go after their hunting weapons.. so it's OK to ban assault rifles and pistols with over 10 round magazines. As long as you can still hunt, then it's OK. Yeah, well have fun hunting! Your other rights will start to erode once those single shot hunting rifles and shotguns aren't even capable of defending against a group of 2 people. The 2nd amendment is not about hunting. Why don't some hunters understand this? Do they not care about the freedoms they enjoy?

And they are truly stupid if they believe a vast majority of their hunting weapons won't one day be banned. Because guess what? Once they take away our assault rifles.. instead of taking 1-2 shots to kill someone with an AK, people will be doing it with a remington 700 bolt action. When that begins, the same outcry will be.. "these weapons are very powerful and deadly and do not need to be in the hands of people. We need to get them off the streets because too many murders happen with them." This mentality will continue until all guns are gone. I don't understand how hunters and some gun owners turn a blind eye to finding out the truth on these gun control measures.

My father owns guns, rarely shoots them. But ALL he cares about is protecting things with his job, and his ability to have medication paid for. He votes democrat no matter what. And it's all based on what his Union spews out. He sits and says.. nobody wants to take the guns away from the people.. it won't happen. WAKE UP! It's been happening around the country for a while now. One type of gun years ago, another type of gun yesterday, tomorrow will be another type of gun. This city will ban certain weapons, another city will ban some other weapons. They will not stop until guns are gone. I don't care if that's 200 years from now. We owe it to future generations to protect our gun rights at all costs. Yet we never do. People talk big, but we let the govt come in and take them.

Gun owners need to form in large groups and stand up to the govt. Not just by joining the NRA or GOA or contacting our senators. We need to make a physical stand. Our founding fathers would be ashamed at how little we truly defend our rights.

SubNine · February 15th, 2007, 03:26 AM

Great, more laws! That's just what we need to clean up the streets! (Sarcasm)

jednp · February 15th, 2007, 03:36 AM

I don't know about any of you, but I'd actually be more scared of someone pointing a 300 win mag my way, than a shotgun or an AR, or even an AK. It's much more lethal when you think about it. So big deal, it only holds 3-4 rounds and you have to work it by bolt action. You get hit by one of those, you probably stand less of a chance of surviving it than shots from the other guns.

I honestly don't want to make light of the situation that happened in these shootings. But lets just be thankful that in the mall shooting this guy didn't use buckshot or slugs. But we all know the guy with the AK used "armor piercing rounds". Because any high velocity full metal jacket round is armor piercing to morons.

But I suppose, on the other hand.. the fact that this kid used a shotgun, which appears to have been loaded with birdshot.. an obviously less lethal round for humans compared to buckshot or slugs.. This will provide much more fuel for their "and for other reasons" addition. His shotgun held at most.. what.. 9 rounds? that is depending on model of gun and whether it had a mag extension. But even if it had no extension and only held 4 rounds.. that is 3 rounds too many and causes more people to die. So, "and for other reasons" becomes shotguns and rifles that hold more than 1 round at a time.

Clovis27 · February 15th, 2007, 04:11 AM

In answer to Sixto's question, the California Highway Patrol seems like a likely department based on their recent experience (training) in New Orleans, but only so long as they know that there are only little old ladies inside.
In all seriousness, there are a lot of good people in the department, one of whom is one of my closest friends. That being said, the department sadly has established itself as willing to accept an illegal order and carry it out with little, if any, apparent concern as to the legality of the order.
In regards to the original topic, I guess we'll have to see if the new members of Congress, the bulk of which ran on pro-second amendment campaigns, will be able to stand up to their anti-gun leadership.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

February 14th, 2007, 09:10 PM	#12
Knight Member Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: ici Posts: 182	Just curious, has there been a major increase in violent crime since the last AWB expired? Lets see here... http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_01.html Nope

February 14th, 2007, 09:25 PM	#13
SIGguy229 VIP Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Virginia Posts: 2,004	As a servicemember...I have the obligation to disobey an unlawful order...gun confiscation is an unlawful order.

February 15th, 2007, 02:11 AM	#17
jednp Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Omaha, Nebraska Posts: 164	Well all you guys that are in the service or are an officer, you need to try to convince your fellow men to not follow that order when it comes. There is absolutely NO reason for people in this country to be disarmed. The damn people who did these shootings, especially the guy who used the AK, could have used ANY gun for this shooting. And it would have been just as deadly. Not to take the shootings of the 4 people he killed lightly, but c'mon... he killed 4 people, almost ANY gun could have done that without reloading. Even though this guy had an AK, he didn't spray bullets out of it. A damn shotgun with slugs or buckshot would have been just as effective. Even without an extended mag most shotguns will hold 4-5 shots. That's plenty enough to kill a few people. So this "and for other reasons"BS that's on this bill, it will be used to attack a lot more of our guns. We have not remained free from tyranny all these years by having single shot weapons. they illegally took away easy access to machine guns, now they are going to take away access to any gun that can fire more than 1 shot without having to be reloaded. I see all these people online talking about, "they can take my guns, but they'll have to take the lead first". I wonder how many are dead serious about that. When are we as gun owners going to actually make a stand against this type of stuff? We are on a downward spiral with gun ownership if this bill passes into law. The day our high capacity weapons are permanently taken away from us, is the day that all of our freedoms are in serious danger. These moron politicians have hunters believing that they won't go after their hunting weapons.. so it's OK to ban assault rifles and pistols with over 10 round magazines. As long as you can still hunt, then it's OK. Yeah, well have fun hunting! Your other rights will start to erode once those single shot hunting rifles and shotguns aren't even capable of defending against a group of 2 people. The 2nd amendment is not about hunting. Why don't some hunters understand this? Do they not care about the freedoms they enjoy? And they are truly stupid if they believe a vast majority of their hunting weapons won't one day be banned. Because guess what? Once they take away our assault rifles.. instead of taking 1-2 shots to kill someone with an AK, people will be doing it with a remington 700 bolt action. When that begins, the same outcry will be.. "these weapons are very powerful and deadly and do not need to be in the hands of people. We need to get them off the streets because too many murders happen with them." This mentality will continue until all guns are gone. I don't understand how hunters and some gun owners turn a blind eye to finding out the truth on these gun control measures. My father owns guns, rarely shoots them. But ALL he cares about is protecting things with his job, and his ability to have medication paid for. He votes democrat no matter what. And it's all based on what his Union spews out. He sits and says.. nobody wants to take the guns away from the people.. it won't happen. WAKE UP! It's been happening around the country for a while now. One type of gun years ago, another type of gun yesterday, tomorrow will be another type of gun. This city will ban certain weapons, another city will ban some other weapons. They will not stop until guns are gone. I don't care if that's 200 years from now. We owe it to future generations to protect our gun rights at all costs. Yet we never do. People talk big, but we let the govt come in and take them. Gun owners need to form in large groups and stand up to the govt. Not just by joining the NRA or GOA or contacting our senators. We need to make a physical stand. Our founding fathers would be ashamed at how little we truly defend our rights.

February 15th, 2007, 03:26 AM	#18
SubNine Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Anchorage Alaska Posts: 989	Great, more laws! That's just what we need to clean up the streets! (Sarcasm)

February 15th, 2007, 03:36 AM	#19
jednp Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Omaha, Nebraska Posts: 164	I don't know about any of you, but I'd actually be more scared of someone pointing a 300 win mag my way, than a shotgun or an AR, or even an AK. It's much more lethal when you think about it. So big deal, it only holds 3-4 rounds and you have to work it by bolt action. You get hit by one of those, you probably stand less of a chance of surviving it than shots from the other guns. I honestly don't want to make light of the situation that happened in these shootings. But lets just be thankful that in the mall shooting this guy didn't use buckshot or slugs. But we all know the guy with the AK used "armor piercing rounds". Because any high velocity full metal jacket round is armor piercing to morons. But I suppose, on the other hand.. the fact that this kid used a shotgun, which appears to have been loaded with birdshot.. an obviously less lethal round for humans compared to buckshot or slugs.. This will provide much more fuel for their "and for other reasons" addition. His shotgun held at most.. what.. 9 rounds? that is depending on model of gun and whether it had a mag extension. But even if it had no extension and only held 4 rounds.. that is 3 rounds too many and causes more people to die. So, "and for other reasons" becomes shotguns and rifles that hold more than 1 round at a time.

February 15th, 2007, 04:11 AM	#20
Clovis27 Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Clovis Posts: 24	In answer to Sixto's question, the California Highway Patrol seems like a likely department based on their recent experience (training) in New Orleans, but only so long as they know that there are only little old ladies inside. In all seriousness, there are a lot of good people in the department, one of whom is one of my closest friends. That being said, the department sadly has established itself as willing to accept an illegal order and carry it out with little, if any, apparent concern as to the legality of the order. In regards to the original topic, I guess we'll have to see if the new members of Congress, the bulk of which ran on pro-second amendment campaigns, will be able to stand up to their anti-gun leadership.