What Would Happen if the Right to Bear Arms was Taken Away.

Post Reply New Topic

Contrary to what the lamestream media would like people to believe Conservatives generally are not kooks. The media just likes to paint conservatives as kooks to promote their leftist agenda.

http://thematrixhasyou.org/the-matrix.html !

I agree. There would be many people, also, honestly, not aware where their traceable guns are, or they may have been stolen. Another issue there, someone comes to confiscate the gun, and it is lost or was stolen What can be done? Nothing.

If such a policy were enacted, and that in itself would be nearly impossible, unless another government with a huge military force takes over, it would be literally impossible to confiscate anywhere close to all of the guns. It would be like turning the Titanic around in a bathtub.

Given all the facts presented in this discussion. For what objective reason did people stock up on ammo when the administration changed. Why would someone believe that the government could take their guns, even if they tried? Are people really that afraid of Democrats? Is it just the Democrats or the whole government?

Listening to Rusty Humphries on the radio, "man up Monday", he was making fun of Democrats saying words to the effect that there were not, "real men". If so, what the heck are people afraid of; that maybe Democrats aren't real men, and somehow this phenomenon will spread into the country with Democratic control?

Not to long ago another talk show radio host was talking about Obama smoking Virginia Slims on the Beach.

I often wondered if that's what is behind most of political impasse in the country. Seriously, deep down people may be afraid of losing the Patriarchal tradition that has historically, been a strong part of our country. Gun ownership is key to it; the ability to protect the security and liberty of one's family.

Why else, would anyone be willing to die for their guns unless they thought their life or their families life could be threatened without them?

I have an old 28 gauge shot gun that was given to me by my great grandfather. I'm not sure but I don't think they even sale ammo for it. And I doubt it even works anymore. But, it does have sentimental value to me, and I would have a hard time parting with it.

I would imagine that's a big part of it too, most men might not want to admit that it is a part of the reason, but who wants to part with a rifle that was passed down through their grandfather, and father; I know it's a big part of it.

I live in an area where hunting is the most popular recreational activity right behind fishing. People have stories about their guns, it's almost like the guns are part of the family. And in someways they are.

Yeah, I honestly think people were afraid of the stunts the Democrats would attempt to pull. As mad as people can get at Republicans, Republicans are generally against trying to take people's guns away.



Uh I would actually call them Demo-rats, if that gives you the idea.



Okay, so what's the point of bringing that up?



I think it is more of people are remembering why we have the 2nd Amendment in the first place.



Well, it is that and they think their rights will be trampled on without their firearms.



The probably do sell ammo that is compatible with it, heck there is ammo compatible with guns from the 1700's. With some work I think that weapon could work again.



That may be a reason, but that isn't the only reason.



While that is part of it, people are beginning to realize again that the 2nd Amendment is the keystone amendment, it protects all the other amendments and gives said amendments real teeth.

I own a few guns. Sure I occasionally eat at burger king and outback steakhouse but I prefer duck, lamb, venison, and pork as part of the meat portion of my diet(occasionally horse or cow but horse is 250 a pop at some farms, and cows are generally expensive too, especially free-range ones), and I hunt or kill them usually using a gun.

Ive also always had a fascination with them as well. Not the power to end some ones life, but its ability to take out something from a great distance away. I also like mod weaponry with cool toys and expensive scopes on them. My scopes are always usually Leupold & Stevens because my father's worked there for 20 years building scopes so we're sort of a L&S family.

But anywho...

Forget those who are moderate and just want increased gun control (which I don't mind... I prefer a country with increased gun ownership and increased gun control)... I don't get those who shriek at horror of the USA turning into what they call a police state, and, at the same time, also advocate for the banning of all guns.

WTF?

I guess its more a Portland / San Francisco, left-coast thing. But whatever.

I've heard some talk about stricter gun control, but never have I heard anyone in politics mention the banning of all guns. Has any mainstream politician ever said something like this? Or, is it supposed to be somekind of conspiracy that is being kept secret from the American Public?

The point on the Virginia Slims comment was the connection with the fear of the loss of Patriarchy in the Country. There is no organized effort but many of the factors that separate the two political parties are related to it.

Seriously, though, there is no danger of losing the 2nd Ammendment. Much of the information discussed in this topic, makes it a ridiculous thought to be taken seriously, as long as we remain the USA.

You don't think it could really happen, do you?

It makes more sense if you know what was stocked up on specifically, semi-automatic rifles and their ammunition and accessories, especially magazines and folding stocks. You have to remember that Obama had previously pledged to reauthorize the assault weapons ban, and that many of these items became scarce and expensive afterwards. A lot of the buying that went on wasn't so much to resist the government if it came for the guns as it was to cash in on a newly scarce commodity if new regulations were enacted, or just to insure access to particular types of guns in the event of same.

That part of it I understand, but there were many scare tactics in the media that led people to believe the Government was coming for their Guns. Some of the people that live in my area still believe it could happen.

Obama wasn't going to get to reauthorize the assault weapons ban on his own without a vote, but it was possible for it to happen; it becomes a serious problem when some people think the Government has got somekind of agenda against them; or the President and Democrats have more power than they do.

To be allowed to carry a concealed weapon one does require a permit, and in some jurisdictions those can be next to impossible to obtain no matter how justified the need. There was a woman who was at a famous massacre at a McDonald's. She was a good shot, and she testified that if she had legally been allowed to have a gun with her, she could have stopped the killer before more died. I have heard similar accounts of similar mass killings, that if someone in the crowd who knew how to use a gun had one with them, not as many people would have been killed and justice would have been swift. Columbine was a bit different, being mainly kids, but if one of the teachers had a gun...of course considering the blatant disrespect shown teachers nowadays, that might not be a good idea, lol.

I don't see how you got that from what I wrote, or what the relevance is. From my viewpoint, in general conservatives are more likely to be kooks than liberals. Liberals tend to be better-educated and less motivated by fear, greed and religious brainwashing than conservatives are.

I don't recall Rush Limbaugh wishing anyone's grandchildren get AIDS and die...

I don't recall Glenn Beck saying that if he saw someone have a heart attack in front of him that he would just laugh as they died.

aghogday,

The reason people stockpiled when Obama was elected was because he had a strong history of voting anti-gun when he was a Senator and was completely for another "assault weapon ban" (scary looking semi-automatic rifle ban); plus his VP was one of the original authors of the first one back in 1994. People were not stocking up because they actually thought "the Demz r gunna git r gunz", they were stocking up because they believed there was a real chance that a ban on future sales of sem-automatic rifles was very possible. They just wanted to get stocked up now with extras; with many of those extras gaining tremendous value for resale after the ban. Luckily Obama has been smart enough to see gun control, especially any ban is a loser for Dems.

Also, this isn't about a worry on a ban on ALL guns. But the otherside loves to try to obfuscate the issue by saying things like "we aren't trying to ban ALL guns". Well, no you aren't. But you are trying to ban the most popular and commonly owned guns, not-to-mention that your definition of "assault weapon" includes almost all guns. So no, you might not be trying to ban all guns, but you are trying to ban so much that all we are left with is double barrels and bolt-action guns. Also, aghogday, the other side likes to twist definitions and pretend a ban isn't a ban. Like if they ban all future sales of certain guns (semi-auto everything), but let you keep what you already have, somehow (in their mind) that isn't really a ban. The anit-gun side is capable of doing a fit of mental gymnastics that is completely on a level of it's own.

Let me give you a few more examples of the anti-gun sides mental gymnastics:

1) When debating gun control, a pro-gun person may not use a link to the NRA, however, it is very much ok for an anti-gun person to link to the Brady Campaign.

2) If you are a gun owner that appreciates how a gun looks and you purchase your guns based on looks, that makes you evil. You aren't supposed to appreciate how a gun looks. The only reason you are against banning assault weapons is because you think they look cool and a revolver doesn't satisfy you anymore. Appreciating the looks of a gun is bad bad bad.

3) When debating gun control, any antecedotes a pro-gun person gives of self-defense uses of a gun do not show a trend that guns are good in civilian hands. However, any antecedotes an anti-gun person gives of misuses of a gun do in fact show a trend that guns are bad in civilian hands.

4) When debating gun control, any time an anti-gun person is loosing to facts, they are still in fact winning because "they are just morally right and you, the evil gun owner, are a wretched person for liking a wretched killing machine".

5) When debating gun control, often the anti-gun side will accuse the pro-gun side of not having empathy for the victims of gun violence. "Empathy" is a euphamism for "yes, I am wrong and I will disarm immediately".

6) When a pro-gun person presents an antecedote of a good defensive shoot, it still isn't a good defensive shoot in the anti-gunners mind. We should feel sorry for that guy that broke into the house at 2am, as he was just there to take a couple of stereos; who is that evil gun owner for trying stop that criminal from making the only living they can? It's just stuff. You, the gun owner, are actually worse than that person who just committed B&E for the simple fact that you own a gun.

7) Going along with #6, any and all good self-defensive shoot stories need to be ripped apart by making up facts against the person who had the audacity to defend themselves with a gun. That homeowner must have been one or some of many things: they were looking to shoot someone, they were a drug dealer, they were involved in other crimes, they should have bought a dog, they should of had an alarm system. Any or all of these factors must have been present, because we all know that there is no "good shoot".

A criminal with a gun isn't as bad as a homeowner with a gun. The reason for this is because social economical circumstances put that criminal in the position they are in, and they are just trying to survive. They can be rehabilitated. A homeowner with a gun is worse and can not be rehabilitated, because they were sick enough to actually choose to have a gun; therefore, that makes law-abidding folks with guns worse than non law-abidding folks.

I think I'll stop here, but I could go on...for a while.

Edit: Actually, let me give one more.

9) Because the 2nd Amendment does have SOME limits, that means there is no right to bear arms, as it can be limited out of existance since it can be limited in the first place.

Last edited by ManBearPig on 26 Apr 2011, 9:31 am, edited 1 time in total.

The "justice would have been swift" part of that is a serious problem in that kind of scenario. I personally have no problem with "swift justice" (as someone might perceive things) in the form of true and actual self-defense, but then the kind of thing you have mentioned hearing about is far more like "taking the laws into one's own hands" by going far beyond permissible "citizen's arrest".

If I were on a jury hearing such a case, I would definitely sympathize ... yet I would still vote for at least some low level of manslaughter since we dare not let society return to the days of "the wild west".

The US would be pwnt by Japanese ninjas. Radiated super ninjas.

You would be wrong to. This could be numer 10 on my list of mental gymnastics. Self-defense of a person's life or another's is not "taking the law into one's own hands". Trying to pin manslaughter on the woman if she had shot back at a criminal executing people in a resturaunt is so disgusting, that there are hardly in words to describe it. That's not "taking the law into one's on hands", that's trying to stop someone from killing yourself as well as others.