Who is Obama? Does anyone really know? I’m supposed to accept his radical tendencies as a young man. I’m supposed to accept his hate filled church leader. I’m supposed to accept his wife’s disappointment in this country. And I’ve learned I’m a racist cause it’s bred in me. Now it’s I was against guns before I was for them. It’s say anything, promise anything, do anything season. Yet, he may be the next president.

Several friends and I are saving up money to make our gun purchases if either Hillary or Obama is elected in November.

#1 AW, All excellent questions with as yet no satisfactory answers eminating from the penumbra surrounding Obama.

Why is it ok for Obama to say whites are “bred” one way or another but “Jimmy the Greek” was branded racist for discussing the subject ?

“BO” needs to be like John “Flip/Flop” Kerry and have his picture taken carrying a rifle the wrong way and going hunting. Or maybe he needs to follow his bowling instincts and go target shooting.

Dang, I didn’t really need to know all this since I wasn’t planning to vote for him anyway. Look, there should be no surprises about who he is - all you have to do is look and then know he’s also a socialist Dim. Watch what he does, not what he says.

#6 There are LST readers planning to vote for him and some of them are gun owners. They should think twice.

Hitlery or Obama are both abominations! They both are rabid socialists/marxists and should rightfully be tarred and feathered. McLAME is only a little less offensive but definitely nothing to write home about. Hopefully M will pick a righteous VP and get elected with long R coat-tails and the R’s can take back the govt and remember why they wear the R label. Any way this goes down it is time to stock up on ammo and non registered weapons. The non-registered part is crucial because if the D’s win they may try to grab the registered ones and the CHP holders will likely get the first visit.

Bonecrusher, yep, I always say that if my guy doesn’t win we should all turn to illegal acts.

Duh

What was illegal in comment # 8 ?

#9 Duh; When the feds try to illegally take our arms so that they can more easily control/bully us it is our DUTY to vigorously fight against them! Otherwise we are nothing more than slaves or sheep led to slaughter.

Dov, the implication in the comment is that we need to circumvent the existing laws before they become more intrusive. To me that is wrong and borderline encouraging illegal behavior. If you don’t like the way the gun laws are now, you should have worked harder to get them defeated or changed.

Bonecrusher, can you point to me where the Feds are trying to illegally take your guns?

If my purchase or possession of a firearm requires me to register my name and address with any government entity, I would consider the sidestepping of such horrendous laws to be civil disobedience.

The effort to invade privacy and make gun ownership illegal is world wide, and still underway.

This is an introduction of a 2003 bill that tried UN in it’s place.

This legislation prohibits taxpayer support of any UN actions that could in any way infringe on the Second Amendment. The bill also expresses the sense of Congress that proposals to tax, or otherwise limit, the right to keep and bear arms are “reprehensible and deserving of condemnation.”

Over the past decade, the UN has waged a campaign to undermine the right to keep and bear arms, which is protected by the Second Amendment of the US Constitution. UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan has called on members of the Security Council to “tackle” the proliferation and “easy availability” of small arms and light weapons. Just this June, the UN tried to “tackle” gun rights by sponsoring a “Week of Action Against Small Arms.” Of course, by small arms, the UN really means all privately owned firearms.

Sadly, Dr. Paul’s bill died in committee.

What I thought was fairly clear was that, if the D’s win, the never ending assault on 2nd amendment will gain substantial momentum. One doesn’t have to have that great of a crystal ball to see that if another natural/manmade disaster strikes (understand Katrina or 9-11) and the D’s are in power they could/would use “emergency powers act” to confiscate weapons to “insure safety and law and order” or prevent “civil unrest”. Underestimating the desire of politicians, particularly the socialist/marxist/D’s, to gain absolute power is folly of the highest order.

Bonecrusher, The President does not have the power to take your guns right now. It would take an act of Congress to give him that ability. Make sure you elect Conservatives, or at least pro-Second Amendment candidates to Congress. Then support them.

My understanding is that, under the emergency war powers act, he can temporarily suspend parts or portions of the Constitution at will. We have been under “emergency war powers act” since WWII; this is evident when you see the fringe on the flag when it is beside the president. Were we not under that act the fringe would not be there. Few people recognize this fact, that fringe is not there just for decoration, it has significant meaning. We have gotten so far away from the original intent of the Constitution that is may as well not be there. The D’s have been wiping their backsides with it for years as have the liberal judges/justices.

Bonecrusher, you and I are sure thinking the same on this issue. If the dems win and control 2 of the 3 branches of the govt, it won’t be long until they control all 3. Then you watch the assault on the 2nd Amendment!

Duhmoose, that’s all fine and good, but in the meantime I’m going to be very well stocked with guns and ammo, all of it “off the books.” If it’s on the books, it’s only a matter of time before “they” come after them, and at that point it’s our duty to resist. The right to bear arms is an unalienable right.

#17 Bonecrusher:

this is evident when you see the fringe on the flag when it is beside the president. Were we not under that act the fringe would not be there. Few people recognize this fact, that fringe is not there just for decoration, it has significant meaning.

No, it doesn’t. It doesn’t mean we’re under military occupation, it doesn’t mean the Constitution has been suspended.

Hell, my church’s Knights of Columbus banner has fringe on it, and I haven’t noticed the Pope rolling tanks down Memorial Drive.

Even The Honorable Doctor Ron Paul has fringe on his flag.

HE’S ONE OF THEM!

I think Bonecrusher has been watching too much “Jericho”.

Well, I don’t know about Bonecrusher, flag fringe or Jericho. What I do know is the liberals will attack the 2nd Amendment if they can.

Let’s hope for the best (conservatives elected who will protect the 2nd Amendment) and by all means work towards that, but I for one will be ready for the worst.

From the military website, armystudyguide.com:

Gold fringe is used on the National flag as an honorable enrichment only. It is not regarded as an integral part of the flag and its use does not constitute an unauthorized addition to the design prescribed by statutes.

Records of the Department of the Army indicate that fringe was used on the National flag as early as 1835 and its official use by the Army dates from 1895. There is no record of an Act of Congress or Executive Order which either prescribes or prohibits the addition of fringe, nor is there any indication that any symbolism was ever associated with it. The use of fringe is optional with the person or organization displaying the flag.

A 1925 Attorney General’s Opinion (34 Op. Atty. Gen 483) states:

“The fringe does not appear to be regarded as an integral part of the flag, and its presence cannot be said to constitute an unauthorized additional to the design prescribed by statute. An external fringe is to be distinguished from letters, words, or emblematic designs printed or superimposed upon the body of the flag itself. Under the law, such additions might be open to objection as unauthorized; but the same is not necessarily true of the fringe.”

It is customary to place gold fringe on silken (rayon-silk-nylon) National flags that are carried in parades, used in official ceremonies, and displayed in offices, merely to enhance the beauty of the flag. The use of fringe is not restricted to the Federal Government. Such flags are used and displayed by our Armed Forces, veterans, civic and civilian organizations, and private individuals. However, it is the custom not to use fringe on flags displayed from stationary flagpoles and, traditionally, fringe has not been used on internment flags.

http://www.armystudyguide.com/content/army_board_study_guide_topics/flags/about-the-gold-fringe-on-.shtml

Another conspiracy theory ruined. You guys take all the fun out.

Wow, thanks texpat. I thought that sounded wacky. I’ve seen fringe on flags all my life.

Back to the subject, BO is a lying liberal who will attack the 2nd Amendment.

#23 Yeah, but what about that all-seeing eye on our fiat currency? Explain THAT one away!

When the government passed unconstitutional laws outlawing marijuana, they didn’t deter people from smoking it. When they poisoned fields and financed wars in foreign countries to reduce the supply, people simply started growing more of it domestically.

So when your nanny-state/police-state government unconstitutionally regulates your 2nd Amendment rights to the point of making them irrelevant (and it only a matter of time…) keep in mind that you can still “grow your own” guns with readily available technology.

Whether it’s the war on drugs, the war on guns, or any of the other wars on our liberties, I’m continually amazed at the arrogant, self-absorbed stupidity of our elected officials. Those imbeciles (from both parties) actually think that any law they pompously thrust upon us is automatically enforceable.

Fools!

bob, just out of curiosity, by what grounds do you claim that outlawing marijuana is unConstitutional?

Is it “bob42″ because “bob420” was just too obvious?

duhmoose, The mistake of prohibiting alcohol required a Constitutional Amendment because, at least back then, people realized that giving the government the authority to regulated people’s behavior anytime they liked was a dangerous step.

hamous, the “42″ is a reference to “The Answer” in Douglass Adam’s Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy.

bob42, so you have no Constitutional argument is what you are saying.

Matt #19, the Popemobile is really a tank, and soon it will be rolling down American streets.

Now remember, we were wanted about Democrats by the Founding Fathers more than 200 years ago. Note carefully the last sentence:

RICHARD HENRY LEE: “A MILITIA WHEN PROPERLY FORMED ARE IN FACT THE PEOPLE THEMSELVES, AND INCLUDE ALL MEN CAPABLE OF BEARING ARMS. TO PRESERVE LIBERTY, IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT THE WHOLE BODY OF PEOPLE ALWAYS POSSESS ARMS. THE MIND THAT AIMS AT A SELECT MILITIA, MUST BE INFLUENCED BY A TRULY ANTI-REPUBLICAN PRINCIPLE.

SOURCE: LETTERS FROM THE FEDERAL FARMER, 1788.

Make that we were warned. Darned fingers.

I have a recommendation. Don’t go out buying all kinds of guns…. buy ammo! If you don’t have ammo, what good does a gun case full of guns do? That’s my plan and I’m sticking to it!

17 years ago in Houston I undertook a project to find out if the NRA’s representation of the 2nd Amendment was:

A. The truth
B. A half truth (a lie if liberals don’t know that)
C. A complete misrepresentation

At the downtown Houston public library, I spent many hours researching the thoughts of the founding fathers in the ratification process of the entire Constitution, and the 2nd Amendment in particular before the various state legislatures.

In the course of my research what I discovered is that the founding fathers were in fact adamant that the 2nd Amendment was meant to solely be an INDIVIDUAL right.

I also attempted to find any argument before any legislature which indicated that the 2nd Amendment was NOT meant to be an individual right. I found NOTHING. Zippo, zero, zilch, nada. I have a standing $100 reward that I will pay to anybody who can show me that there was such an argument or a serious nature during each state legislature’s ratification process, and that the argument was seriously entertained. I would leave you the judge of the validity of such a claim.

Here is what I transcribed. Some of the writings are partial, but I was very careful to ensure that nothing I copied was taken out of context from the whole within which the writing is contained. I found that in fact the NRA’s position on the 2nd Amendment is milk toast compared to how adamant the founding fathers were on the subject. First I am posting census figures on the colonies and then the first U.S. census to ensure there is a background to prove out some of the statements:

NOTES: Population of the American Colonies:
1743 1,000,000 1767 2,000,000
1775 2,500,000*
1790 3,929,214(1)

SOURCES: * ENCYCLOPEDIA AMERICANA
(1) U.S. CENSUS BUREAU

NOAH WEBSTER, IN A PAMPHLET ADVOCATING PENNSYLVANIA’S RATIFICATION OF THE CONSTITUTION:

BEFORE A STANDING ARMY CAN RULE, THE PEOPLE MUST BE DISARMED; AS THEY ARE IN ALMOST EVERY KINGDOM IN EUROPE. THE SUPREME POWER IN AMERICA CANNOT ENFORCE UNJUST LAWS BY THE SWORD, BECAUSE THE WHOLE BODY OF THE PEOPLE ARE ARMED, AND CONSTITUTE A FORCE SUPERIOR TO ANY BAND OF REGULAR TROOPS THAT CAN BE, ON ANY PRETENSE, RAISED IN THE UNITED STATES.

SOURCE: DEBATES AND OTHER PROCEEDINGS OF THE CONVENTION OF VIRGINIA, CONVENED AT RICHMOND,
VIRGINIA, ON MONDAY, THE 2D DAY OF JUNE, 1788 (PRINTED BY HUNTER AND PRENTIS, 1788, PETERSBURG, VA)

JAMES MADISON, FATHER OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT: AMERICANS HAVE THE RIGHT AND ADVANTAGE OF BEING ARMED - UNLIKE CITIZENS OF OTHER COUNTRIES WHOSE GOVERNMENTS ARE AFRAID TO TRUST THE PEOPLE WITH ARMS.

SOURCE: IBID.

…STILL, IT WOULD NOT BE GOING TOO FAR TO SAY, THAT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS WITH THE PEOPLE AT THEIR SIDE WOULD BE ABLE TO REPEL THE DANGER. THE HIGHEST NUMBER TO WHICH, ACCORDING TO THE BEST COMPUTATION, A STANDING ARMY
CAN BE CARRIED IN ANY COUNTRY, DOES NOT EXCEED ONE HUNDREDTH PART OF THE WHOLE NUMBER OF SOULS; OR ONE TWENTY-FIFTH PART OF THE NUMBER ABLE TO BEAR ARMS. THIS PROPORTION WOULD
NOT YIELD IN THE UNITED STATES AN ARMY OF MORE THAN TWENTY-FIVE OR THIRTY THOUSAND MEN.
TO THESE WOULD BE OPPOSED A MILITIA AMOUNTING TO NEAR HALF A MILLION CITIZENS* WITH ARMS IN THEIR HANDS, OFFICERED BY MEN CHOSEN FROM AMONG THEMSELVES, FIGHTING FOR THEIR COMMON LIBERTIES, AND UNITED AND CONDUCTED BY GOVERNMENTS POSSESSING THEIR AFFECTIONS AND CONFIDENCE. IT MAY WELL BE DOUBTED WHETHER A MILITIA THUS CIRCUMSTANCED COULD EVER BE CONQUERED BY SUCH A PROPORTION OF REGULAR TROOPS. THOSE WHO ARE BEST ACQUAINTED WITH
THE LATE SUCCESSFUL RESISTANCE OF THIS COUNTRY AGAINST THE BRITISH ARMS WILL BE MOST
INCLINED TO DENY THE POSSIBILITY OF IT. BESIDES THE ADVANTAGE OF BEING ARMED, WHICH THE AMERICANS POSSESS OVER THE PEOPLE OF ALMOST EVERY OTHER NATION, THE EXISTENCE OF SUBORDINATE GOVERNMENTS TO WHICH THE PEOPLE ARE ATTACHED, AND BY WHICH THE MILITIA OFFICERS ARE APPOINTED, FORMS A BARRIER AGAINST THE ENTERPRISES OF AMBITION, MORE INSURMOUNTABLE THAN ANY WHICH A SIMPLE GOVERNMENT OF ANY FORM CAN ADMIT OF.

SOURCE: THE FEDERALIST NO. 46, A LETTER FROM JAMES MADISON TO THE PEOPLE OF NEW YORK, JANUARY 26, 1788,
(THE FEDERALIST PAPERS, BANTAM BOOKS, 1982)

* The population of the United States, then being less than 3.9 million, this would constitute more than 1 in 8 people, or almost all of the adult men of an age to bear arms. The militia clearly here means all the people, not a select militia.

GEORGE MASON, CO-AUTHOR OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT: IN DEBATE ON THE RATIFICATION OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION BEFORE THE VIRGINIA ASSEMBLY: “I ASK SIR, WHAT IS THE MILITIA? IT IS THE WHOLE OF THE PEOPLE, EXCEPT FOR A FEW PUBLIC OFFICIALS.”

SOURCE: MICHIGAN LAW REVIEW (1983), PAGES 203-224.

SAMUEL ADAMS: “THE SAID CONSTITUTION SHALL NEVER BE CONSTRUED TO AUTHORIZE CONGRESS TO INFRINGE THE JUST LIBERTY OF THE PRESS, OR THE RIGHTS OF CONSCIENCE; OR TO PREVENT THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, FROM KEEPING THEIR OWN ARMS.”

SOURCE: MASSACHUSETT’S’ U.S. CONSTITUTION RATIFICATION CONVENTION, 1778.

THOMAS JEFFERSON:

LAWS THAT FORBID THE CARRYING OF ARMS DISARM ONLY THOSE WHO ARE NEITHER INCLINED NOR DETERMINED TO COMMIT CRIMES. SUCH LAWS MAKE THINGS WORSE FOR THE ASSUALTED AND BETTER FOR THE ASSAILANTS; THEY SERVE RATHER TO ENCOURAGE THAN TO PREVENT HOMICIDES, FOR AN UNARMED MAN MAY BE ATTACKED WITH GREATER CONFIDENCE THAN AN ARMED MAN.

SOURCE: THOMAS JEFFERSON, ‘ON CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS, 1764, QUOTING ITALIAN CRIMINOLOGIST CASARE BECCARIA

#30 duhmoose, no argument… Just an observation that in 1919, respect for the Constitution was such that it took passing the 18th Amendment to prohibit alcohol, and nobody in their right mind would have thought of proposing the level gun control we have today.

Gun control advocates, like drug war advocates, have little respect for individual liberties.

I didn’t realize that controlling drugs had anything to do with personal liberties, I guess they fall under the “pursuit of happiness?”

#29

But what happened to the other 41 bobs ?

#37, They were all dedicated to PaulBot applications.

Bob42, I missed that part in the Constitution. Now I know that the Constitution says what the governments powers are, and they are supposed to be limited to those powers and the all the rest left to the states. I just don’t recall that many alcohol addicts killing people to support their habit. Now you might say that is because alcohol is cheap and readily available. But you must remember also that alcohol is SPECIFICALLY lawful according to the Constitution. True, I don’t see narcotics specifically outlawed by the Constitution either. Firearms are protected specifically. Drugs are not. The quick way to resolve this is a constitutional amendment saying narcotics are legal. That would quickly settle the matter. Good luck.

Ok, the very last paragraph of this story frightens me. WHO slipped in an amendment that guns would or would not be confiscated during a National Emergency? I am not sure how to read that last paragraph. Good luck to who ever wants to try that crazy idea.

HAMOUS can you explain further?

Good eye Redneck. We should find that out.

In 2006, he voted with an 84 to 16 majority (and against Clinton) to prohibit confiscation of firearms during an emergency, but that is his only pro-gun vote in Springfield or Washington. The National Rifle Association (NRA) grades him (and Clinton) at “F.”

From Robert Novak’s column yesterday.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/RobertDNovak/2008/04/07/obamas_gun_dance

To all - see the correction above.

…and sorry for getting the yea/nay good/bad thing reversed. My original point that this was the only pro-gun owner vote by Obama still stands.

This is too ridiculous to comment on.
Be afraid. Be VERY AFRAID! Big Bad Boogyman Obama is gonna rip off your head and eat your children!

#45 LizBV

I am interested to know exactly what facts or items contained in Hamous’ piece you find to be too ridiculous to merit a comment.

#46 Cont’d.

Barack Obama would, in fact, be the most leftist President elected to that office in the history of this nation. His positions as a matter of past record and behavior, as opposed to the Obama campaign spin, place him decidedly to the left of any man elected in any of our lifetimes.

I believe a majority of the American voters will find that to be alarming if they have not already. Clearly, his positions on race and religion, Israel and the Jewish people are radical in the eyes of most Americans regardless of their party affiliation.

#46 texpat - it’s not in the piece, but in the subsequent comments. You and I both know NO ONE can confiscate our guns under ANY circumstances. And to inject FEAR of such a thing occurring is a juvenile tactic at best to sway voters.

#48 Liz, Is it worrisome to you that there are people who would like to try to disarm us? The people of Washington D.C. were disarmed.

Liz - Out of respect, I’ve been holding back commenting on your blind obedience to Obama. As a gun owner you aren’t the least bit concerned that he consistently votes against your right to keep and bear arms??? It appears there is nothing that the man can do that would make you question your loyalty to “change”. THAT is what is ridiculous!

#48 Liz

In the nearly two weeks since Hurricane Katrina, the government of New Orleans has devolved from its traditional status as an elective kleptocracy into something far more dangerous: an anarcho-tyranny that refuses to protect the public from criminals while preventing people from protecting themselves. At the orders of New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, the New Orleans Police, the National Guard, the Oklahoma National Guard, and U.S. Marshals have begun breaking into homes at gunpoint, confiscating their lawfully-owned firearms, and evicting the residents. “No one is allowed to be armed. We’re going to take all the guns,” says P. Edwin Compass III, the superintendent of police.

September 10, 2005
By Dave Kopel
Attorney & Second Amendment Scholar
Reason Magazine

http://www.reason.com/news/show/32966.html

texpat - I am fully aware of what happened in New Orleans during the aftermath of Katrina, which only inforced my beliefs and resolve to maintain our rights to arm ourselves.

Am I missing something here?

Obama voted for the amendment which would make it illegal for federal agents to confiscate firearms during an emergency or major disaster.

Hamous, I am constantly questioning and attempting to learn. My mind is not a steel trap and I am open to “change.”

#52 - I gave Obama credit for that vote. The point is it has been his only vote in favor of gun owners. That makes him, or any politician, a dangerous man.

#52 Liz

The example I gave in #51 is only one, but there are others. Concerning Obama’s stand on gun rights, I quote Robert Novak from the column I link to in comment #42:

Obama’s dance on gun rights is part of his evolution from a radical young state legislator a few years ago. He was recorded in a 1996 questionnaire as advocating a ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns (a position since disavowed). He was on the board of the Chicago-based Joyce Foundation, which takes an aggressive gun control position, and in 2000 considered becoming its full-time president.

I have been out of pocket for a while, otherwise I would have responded sooner. I stand (actually sit) corrected on the flag fringe thing; please forgive me. The rest of the text; ie in an emergency you can NOT count on the feds to NOT overstep their bounds. #39 Big 45 has it correct: The constitution is a list of restrictions of the powers of the various branches of the federal government; the 10th amendment is clear on this point. . . ‘all powers not specifically granted to the federal government are the perview of the states or the individuals thereof’ or something to that effect. If the above is correct in meaning, why does the federal govt have anything to do with education? They are not specifically granted that power therefore it is under the stattes jurisdiction. The civil war was fought primarily over the feds ignoring the 10th amendment; slavery was an ancillary issue along with taxes, duties, and proportionate representation.

I find this particular comment insulting:

…strongly supports the right and traditions of sportsmen.

This shows a complete lack of understanding what the 2nd Amendment is all about. I am an avid hunter but that is basically a hobby. Boneheads like this think if they pacify “sportsmen” they can whittle away at the 2nd amendment and everyone will be happy. Fools!

#56 hamous

It is the oldest pander in the Democratic book. “Sportsmen” is a thin bone to throw to hunters and the Obama operatives obviously think Americans don’t see through that in 2008 ? Really, very lame if you ask me and I was surprised they resorted to that sort of 60s/70s rhetoric.

I know for a fact that weapons of every type were confiscated at several locations in Texas as the buses were unloaded after Katrina. The locals informed the occupants that they would be searched. The empty buses were full of weapons and drugs. Many were taken off persons.

Currently, it is NOT illegal to buy a firearm from an individual. And if my inventory increases, it will definitely be from private sales. And yes, ammo prices are going up, don’t wait too long.

I would not be so jubilant over Obama’s single pro-gun vote. When the gun grab begins, it’ll become a moot point. It will become illegal to possess firearms, much less keep them when the next storm comes.

I happened to like Jericho and most would do well to study the story closely as life often imitates art. Ask the East Texas folks; it doesn’t take a nuke to bring civilization to it’s knees.

I agree that the Second Amendment represents an individual right.

I agree that there should be no central registration of guns.

I agree that the guns in my house will be hidden before they will be volutarily surrendered to anyone.

I agree government is capable of getting out of control and acting in the extreme, including seizing privately-owed weapons on the premise that such is demanded by some national emergency.

I agree that the purpose of the Second Amendment was primarily to protect the citizens against their government.

I DISagree that hoarding guns and ammunition is anythign more than a symbolic gesture. If the governement chose to confiscate our weapons, there are not enough armed and determined American citizens to resist. Those who do will be found dead in their living rooms or carted off to the pokey. That’s how namby-pamby the USA has become about guns. I really have no use for people who act as if guns are radioactive and run away like little girls when they see one - or worse, lecture me on how there is no real reason to own one..

Just MHO.

57. texpat

Obama is a reasonably smart fellow who is ignorant about much of life.

RickG, I think there are more of us out there than you think. Other than that, you are the Voice in My Head.

The list of those who voted against the Vitter bill is interesting:

Both senators from New York;
Both senators from Maryland;
Both senators from California;
Both senators from Hawaii.

Pansies to the left, pansies to the right, pansies in the ocean.

(Texpat excepted, of course).

IF the government decides to “take away our guns” the lines will be so long (insert how long the lines will be here_________________) to turn them in, I will set up a refeshment stand and get rich in 3 days.

#63 squawkbox, IF the government decides to “take away our guns” I’ll invest in a few lathes and drill presses. It will take them a year or two to realize that they created a black market for gun manufacturing. They’re slow, ya know…

Liz #45

Big Bad Boogyman Obama is gonna rip off your head and eat your children!

Why not? They already go in a woman’s womb and rip a baby’s head off.

This is only a test to see if Hal is awake and will give me my next comment back.

Okay, we’ll try it again. England confiscated guns. Australia confiscated guns. New Orleans confiscated guns. And if you didn’t know it, California confiscated guns:

http://www.nrawinningteam.com/states/c2980128.html

So please do not tell me it can’t happen here. It already has. Also remember the Weimar Republic of Germany had virtually the same constitutional guarantees of liberty that we had. The Jews never thought it could happen there either.

It did.

Hal is hungry!!

I suggest that any person who voluntarily hands their guns over to the government doesn’t deserve to own them.

But RickG, I have to disagree with this:

If the governement chose to confiscate our weapons, there are not enough armed and determined American citizens to resist.

I think if the government tried to forcibly confiscate our weapons their primary method of doing so, the armed forces, would very quickly evaporate.

Since the whole ‘TIDE” of government Jujitsu regarding getting guns out of our hands, reminds me of the whole Social Security Card business, since the Depression……….. I know it sounds Obtuse, but listen. 1st we have Social Security, with cards that are NEVER to be ID cards. 2nd. We moan that the money is never going to be there, so why do we have to pay it. in the first place. ( they tell us it’s a Tax on the one hand, and an account on the other) 3rd then we get the States being PUSHED to combine SS#s with Driver’s license #s. That reason being that we must find those dead-beat Dads. ( if the States don’t comply, ….you guessed it, NO Fed money for Roads. At this point I say to the Feds, collect your own Gas tax and we’ll collect ours.) 4th the Feds send the Treasury bloke out a few weeks ago and tell us that they’ve spent the ’surplus’ from the Social Security ‘fund’. Therefore we can presume that: a. they’ll keep collecting SS taxes. b. We no longer should expect anything. c. the account no longer exists but why don’t you all be goods little ’suckers’ and keep using the SS#s for ID ANYWAY! ……………… I expect the Gun confiscations to be in the same vein.

Hamous, I suspect you are correct that there would be mass mutiny in the military if they tried to use the armed forces to get them. More likely they would use police in a block to block effort if they were really to get serious about it. I don’t really have enough confidence in LEOs for them to say not only no, but hell no, we’re not going to do it, and we’ll join the other side if need be. That’s just my opinion, and I hope I’m as wrong as I could be. But after I saw Elian Gonzalez ripped from away from a free nation and given back to a communist dictator, after his mother died to get him here, I just quit trusting LEO’s to stand up to the bureacracy and give them the finger.

If history is any indicator to what the military would do if called to “enforce laws”…..

During emergencies who is called in to “insure” order?

Kent State

Waco

Just sayin’

I think those were different situations than a mass de-arming of the population. Kent State was a few outnumbered NGs facing off against a bunch of hippies that were not looked upon very highly. Waco was a bunch of cultists following around a guy who literally proclaimed to be Jesus. That in no way excuses the government’s actions in those cases. I’m just saying that if the government started sending troops block by block to confiscate weapons from “normal” law-abiding citizens there would be an uprising.

Kent State was a bunch of poorly-trained, young terrified National Guardsmen. Waco and previous and subsequent incidents involving FBI and ATF personnel were really quite small retail actions. Try, really try wholesale, broad confiscation of weapons in America and you will have a serious and violent insurrection on your hands. It will not be pretty and I dispute anyone’s scenario there will be Americans voluntarily standing in line to turn in their weapons. My mother, grandmother and great-grandmother were all crack shots and they would be, if they were here, the first to man the barricades.

Squawk, don’t compare Waco and Kent State. Students at Kent State were throwing Molotov cocktails before the shooting started. Buildings on campus were being burned.

And at Waco, the whole mess started with LEOs. The military tank that was used at Waco was used to partially knock open the building and to pump tear gas into the structure. The justice department under Bill Clinton/Janet Reno also LIED to the military and told them that there were children inside being abused.

So not much blame for the military here. We will never really know the truth about the fire …. whether it was Koresh and company that started the fire, or the combustibility of the tear gas, or a combination of both.

What I do know is that the BATF could have taken Koresh any time they wanted to in town. They had funding hearings coming up, and they wanted a big show before the hearings. After the Waco and Ruby Ridge incidents, the BATF was severely reigned in by congress, and much of the abuse by them stopped.

But Kent state was NOTHING compared to the Colorado National Guard’s massacre of the minors at Ludlow in 1914. And none of these things would compare to an attempt by the government to disarm citizens. Keep in mind we have hundreds of thousands of citizens out there who know how to fly those planes and use those tanks. If need be, armed Americans will fight, and they know how to fight using the very latest in technology.

The all-volunteer military branches in America are comprised primarily of people who hail from that historical and very important segment of our country called Jacksonian. They were born and bred in Appalachia, the Deep South, Ohio Valley, the Great Southwest and the Mountain West. They are descendants of the Scots-Irish, Scottish and English immigrants of the early and mid 1800s. The present day relatives of nineteenth century German immigrants to the South and Southwest are current soul brothers to these fighter/pioneers. These Americans constitute most of the non-commissioned officer corps, special forces, combat infantry and front-line forces in all parts of the military. They will not move against their fellow citizens and in most cases would join them in rising up against a government hell-bent on taking their guns away. These people, who have produced virtually all of the great heroes of every war since 1812, will not go quietly or lightly.

Man this is scary, I thought Liz knew better.
HamBone, as usual, you are dead right in your # 50 and most especially Your # 56.

…strongly supports the right and traditions of sportsmen.
This Idea of sportsmen’s rights was created in the sixties to separate hunters from everyone else, as if the second amendment was about hunting, nothing could be further from the truth. Divide and conquer.
Remember, The U.N. wants to Dis-arm the whole world, someone like Hitlery and Osama would love for us to sign their treaty to disarm us, soverenty be Damned! You say it can’t happen? With a DemoncRATic House and Senate, I can’t risk it.

O.K. I give up on the Damn Blockquotes! It works very good but once it gets started, it just will not quit!

Once again, I’ll attempt to point out the similarities between the War on Drugs and the upcoming War on Guns. In #75 Big45Iron says, “What I do know is that the BATF could have taken Koresh any time they wanted to in town. They had funding hearings coming up, and they wanted a big show before the hearings.”

Last month, police in Kentucy went on a 24-hour drug raid blitz. According to local media accounts, the raids uncovered 23 methamphetamine labs, seized more than 2,400 pounds of marijuana, identified 16 drug-endangered children and arrested 565 people for illegal drug use.

That’s quite a day’s work.

What inspired the blitz? Complaints from the citizenry? A vicious string of drug-related murders? An outbreak of overdoses?

No, none of that.

It seems that they were concerned that the federal government is about to turn off the funding spigot.

(more here…)

Once the federal government decides they want your guns, no amount of common sense will talk them out of that (futile) effort, and any complaints about excessive enforcement techniques will generally fall on deaf ears.

Hold on Bob. I’m still looking for that part of the Constitution that specifically states that narcotics are protected like alcohol and firearms. I’ll let you know as soon as I find it.

And I quote once again………

During emergencies who is called in to “insure” order?

EVERY FREAKING TIME THERE IS A KATRINA TYPE INCIDENT (I am done yelling) who the freak is called to assume law enforcement duties? Oh I am sorry to secure the situation.

The military in some shape form or fashion.

I ain’t going no further in this discussion but to say the majority of soldiers will follow the orders of their commanding officers and most Americans will willingly give up their weapons without nary a wimper or complaint.

Texpat, my experience in the military was that it’s made up of just about everybody….except liberals. When I was in though, I’d say 10% of all Marines came from Texas, and another 10% from Pennsylvania. It really doesn’t matter. Keep in mind that only 1/3 of the colonists supported the American Revolution. And most studies agree that only 5-10% of the colonists were actually engaged in the American Revolution:

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=what+percentage+of+the+colonists+supported+the+revolution%3F&fr=yfp-t-501&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8

I have faith in Americans to stand up and fight when it really counts….at least enough to make a difference.

#80, Big, While you’re looking, let me know if you find anything in the Second Amendment that prohibits my owning a bazooka, flame thrower, or rocket propelled grenade launcher.

Thanks!

So Squawk, what would you do? Give yours up?

Squawk

Sorry, you are wrong about Americans giving up their guns. We will have to agree to disagree and I dearly pray we don’t ever have to find out which one of us is right.

I know it’s late but I need calm, intelligent, well read people to explain something to me. Bush, Calderone, and the Prime Minister of Canada are meeting in New Orleans, April 21. Should I be worried?

Texpat can you tackle this question for me? It’s late and I have to get up early, but will read your answer, or Hamous, or BigJ or someone’s in the morning. Bob42 do you know anything about this?

Bob42, I have absolutely no problem with you owning any of those things either. I have all of them. Trouble is, it’s really difficult to get ammo. 2nd Amendment needs to be amended to allow us to own the ammo for them. And technically, it’s not a bazooka. It’s either a 2.6 inch or 3.5 inch rocket launcher. And the 3.5 inch was a real pain in the butt to carry along with the backboard to carry the rounds. You’ll have to trust me on this.

Ain’t nobody gettin’ my registered guns. Or ammo. They were stolen. Yeah, that’s the ticket. If ya want to call me a law breaker, so be it.

That’s all’s I got’s to say about thaa-aat.

From Senator James Webb’s book, Born Fighting: How the Scots-Irish Shaped America:

The Scots-Irish (sometimes called the Scotch-Irish) are all around you, even though you probably don’t know it. They are a force that shapes our culture, more in the abstract power of emotion than through the argumentative force of law. In their insistent individualism, they are not likely to put an ethnic label on themselves when they debate societal issues. Some of them don’t even know their ethnic label, and some who do don’t particularly care. They don’t go for group-identity politics any more than they like to join a union. Two hundred years ago the mountains built a fierce and uncomplaining self-reliance into an already hardened people. To them, joining a group and putting themselves at the mercy of someone else’s collective judgment makes as much sense as letting the government take their guns. And nobody is going to get their guns.

#87 AW

Only if they get shot by some crack dealer on Canal Street who gets pissed because their security runs off all of his customers.

First of all Big45 this is not about whether I will or not, that dog ain’t gonna hunt.

It is human nature to follow authority no matter who that authority is. Given the right time, circumstances and story from the government people in this country will give up their weapons. What I am hearing from here is regional “blustering”. I am not saying that y’all will give up your weapons willingly but most of the folks in the US will. When 7000 people in New York city give up their weapons in the first day of a collection and I have read stories of hundreds of people turning in their weapons in Houston I stand vindicated in my thoughts.

This country IMO has lost its independent spirit, the things that have made this country great. Funny how the “uproar” over Janet Renos’ action with Gonzalez just went away. “We” just accepted it. IMO Waco falls under the same misuse of military. Where is the outrage? We just accept it.

I see it here in these forums, on the one hand “Don’t trust the government”…. then on the other hand arguments why we should take the word over one candidate over another followed by some little agenda that depends on something the government is involved in. All the whiole refusing to hold their candidates feet to the fire now. Demanding certain assurances.

Yup given the right circumstances the American People on the whole will willingly trade their guns for some promise made to them. We accept way to much crappola that we should not accept in the name of……. well you call it.

#91 Texpat, I hope your right, but I think the government’s become pretty good at “keepin us citizens in our place.”

#90 ST, report them stolen soon. In the event that your property becomes illegal to possess, the database entry the records your ownership may be enough probable cause for a legal search and seizure.

#88 AW, Sounds like a PR gig to me.

Hey! I’m Scotch-Irish,BTW; one of the most decorated Guard group’s from England in WW II were an Irish group. Sorry I can’t remember their name but I’ll Google it.

Seven thousand punks in a city of over eight million turn in an extra, probably stolen, Saturday night special for some cash to buy some blow. Yeah, that really reflects the will of the American people to me. Phffft !

Here Ya Go;
http://www.irishguards.org.uk/pages/history/ww2.html

Muhwahahaha
I figured as much Texpat, but not from you. That’s ok. Nope it was law abiding folks and the hardware sure did not look like saturday night specials. Every time I have seen some city “asking” people to turn in their weapons I am just floored at the hundreds of dolts that turn in their weapons.

Oh and the usual TV line is “I am turning this gun in to keep it out of the hands of the bad guys.”
SUHWEET

/Gotta find that story of Houston……

The Elian Gonzalez situation was an ugly chapter in American history, but I don’t understand how anyone could construe that episode as evidence the American people are passive in acceptance of unacceptable government intervention.

#98 Squawk

You don’t know the hustlers in the City like I do. Oh, the scams they run !

“I am turning this gun in to keep it out of the hands of the bad guys.”

LMAO

Just amazing at how many guns are collected in so called Gun Amnesty Programs, gun buybacks, gun turn in days etc. Each story talked about how if just one murder was stopped because the bad guy could not steal that gun yada yada yada then it is worth it.

Make the story just right and the mass of the country will turn in their guns. The next step make it illegal to own a gun and your next wave will hit. Just keep turning up the heat and the frog will never know he got boiled.

That is my point Texpat. The Gonzalez debacle is a prime example of how the American folks get all wrapped around the axle for a short time and just accept the injustice as a norm. Oh well we can’t do anything about it etc.

I won’t out anyone, but an example of the blustering I see here is revealing. We gots some folks that swear we need to run all incumbants out, don’t vote republican and all that stuff. They have had it etc etc etc. Now the heat is turned up and those same people tell me how I should make sure I vote McCain. How it is not worth time demanding assurances from him. you know holding his feet to the fire. We have to just blindly go along to get along and don’t rock the boat demanding better from McCain.

It ain’t just here.

You don’t know the hustlers in the City like I do.

Oh and please…… I have had to deal with just as many vermon in the trucking industry. I have seen more than I want to think about much less remember.

#101 SB, for that to happen, it would have taken generations of social engineering, aided by a federally controlled system of public education that turned local schools into Citizen Indoctrination Centers.

{why am I writing in past tense?}

{why am I writing in past tense?}

For the same reason that if this was 1940’s or 1930’s and I was reading then what I am typing now I would have to call bovine processed hay on myself.

BS Squawk. You’d turn yours in. Just refusing to answer the question is sufficient answer enough. You also forget those gun buyback programs came to a complete halt when those cities were forced to try and find the rightful owners of those firearms. They were stolen. You know it. Completely bogus comparison. You’ve obviously forgotten just what the colonists endured before they revolted. Here, I’ll help you to remember. They put up with alot of crap. But when they had a belly full, they got the job done - and it took 8 years and another country to help us at at that. And let me make sure I understand you right Squawk. Because our founding fathers had to go through all this before they revolted, you think they were wimps without spirit?

The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history