The Coming Of Firearm Confiscation In The United States

[X-Files]

The thing is, for neigh on two decades I have been hearing US gun owners screaming "OMG OMG OMG gubmint is eroding our rights bit by bit by bit and sometime soon jack-booted thugs will kick down our doors and confiscate our guns!!!!!111eleveneleven!!!".

 

After a quick review, the ones who seem to have the most goosebumps of excitement over this issue are the DailyKoz/DemocraticUnderground/Code Pink crowd, because their leadership broaches the subject..

In a radio interview on Thursday with Albany’s WGDJ-AM, New York governor Andrew Cuomo said that he plans to work with state legislators next month to submit a proposal for new gun-control laws; in particular, Cuomo said, “our focus is assault weapons,” because current state laws regulating the weapons “have more holes that Swiss cheese.”

“I don’t think legitimate sportsmen are going to say, ‘I need an assault weapon to go hunting,’” he said.

Cuomo continued, “

Confiscation could be an option.

Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option — keep your gun but permit it.”

http://www.nationalr...eliana-johnson#

 

http://youtu.be/v3rhQc666Sg

Edited December 28, 2012 by X-Files

[Sikkiyn]

I think I've pointed out good reasons why that dog won't hunt.

The fact it won't hunt isn't going to stop the idjits from taking it out to the field, and giving it that ol' college try...

 

I would disappointed if they didn't. Still going to be a good show. Pull up a lawn chair and enjoy it.

[Colin]

Was in a gun shop today - east Turkey

 

Semi automatic slug firing M4 look alike - about 700 USD - 20 USD paper work fee with police the collect after 3 days

 

we do not have much gun crime here

 

Those were deemed a AR varient here and made restricted so the market fell out of them. There is push to restrict every .223 semi here, in particular the Tavor because it's "easy to conceal"

Edited December 28, 2012 by Colin

[Rocky Davis]

Maybe Obama should quit being such a "successful President," go home to Chicago and conquer the violence in his home town:

 

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/28/16212238-grim-milestone-chicago-records-500th-homicide-of-2012?lite

 

From the article:

 

Larry Pickens, who is running in the special election in the 2nd Congressional seat, offered a few suggestions Thursday: "Teaching our young people alternative dispute resolution, non-violent strategies for addressing conflict and getting guns off the street."

 

"How was he killed, officer?"

 

"Well, it appeared that the victim feared for his life and offered to settle his dispute with the perpetrator by means of alternative dispute resolution that he learned in our on-going classes given to the young. However, there are not too many methods of alternative dispute resolution that will stop a .357 slug."

[Ivanhoe]

Rocky, I was thinking of how smoking used to be something done in private, among friends, during the Victorian era. Once upon a time, smoking was not to be done around ladies and children, and there were special rooms and times for it--And, then came the marketers, who eventually made smoking so pervasive that even women were lighting up. If you examine the historical record, it becomes very apparent that the popularity of smoking came about largely because of what the marketers did, not an organic, natural growth. Which is precisely what did in the vice, as well: Pervasive marketing and a general demonization of it.

 

Want to fundamentally change how things are done in America? Study the growth of the tobacco industry, how it made cigarettes so publicly pervasive, and what happened to reduce things to the current level. Of course, the argument could be made that it's all a part of the natural swing of things, but I suspect that a lot could be learned, no matter what.

 

I wouldn't discount the efforts of the Agro-Governmental Complex. Free cigarettes to servicemen in theater, subsidies for baccy farmers, etc.

[Jeff]

“I don’t think legitimate sportsmen are going to say, ‘I need an assault weapon to go hunting,’” he said.

 

And this is how they have successfully and fraudulently framed the narrative. The 2nd amendment does not say "A single shot firearm being necessary for a successful hunt, the right of the people to keep and bear deer rifles shall not be infringed".

[thekirk]

“I don’t think legitimate sportsmen are going to say, ‘I need an assault weapon to go hunting,’” he said.

 

And this is how they have successfully and fraudulently framed the narrative. The 2nd amendment does not say "A single shot firearm being necessary for a successful hunt, the right of the people to keep and bear deer rifles shall not be infringed".

 

They want you vulnerable and fearful of the mob they think they control, which is why they've put the policies in place that they have, over the decades. That's the reason they want this so badly--It's so that they can blackmail the general public into doing things they normally wouldn't.

 

Mob actions stop when they run into effective resistance, whether it's a bunch of whites trying to conduct a pogrom on blacks, or a bunch of blacks and hispanics trying to loot asian businesses. As we saw in the L.A. riots, all the people in power have to do to get their way is withdraw the police, and you're on your own. Without your own means of effective defense against a mob, which is a semi-automatic rifle with a good-sized magazine, you're pretty much fucked. Which is why they go after the semi-auto "assault rifles" so hard, in the first place. They don't want you independent, and able to take care of yourself. The most frightening thing to a statist is a free citizen who doesn't need the state.

[nitflegal]

“I don’t think legitimate sportsmen are going to say, ‘I need an assault weapon to go hunting,’” he said.

 

And this is how they have successfully and fraudulently framed the narrative. The 2nd amendment does not say "A single shot firearm being necessary for a successful hunt, the right of the people to keep and bear deer rifles shall not be infringed".

 

This seems to be another way that either the right lost or failed to try: the general belief seems to be that the second amendment is about hunting. Once shifted to that, it becomes far easier to demonize specific types of firearms based on how they apply to this single facet of their use. Sad to say, the only reason my fifth grade daughter knows about the amendments is because we've taught them at home. I suspect my daughter is not alone in what she has been not taught in school.

 

Matt

[thekirk]

“I don’t think legitimate sportsmen are going to say, ‘I need an assault weapon to go hunting,’” he said.

 

And this is how they have successfully and fraudulently framed the narrative. The 2nd amendment does not say "A single shot firearm being necessary for a successful hunt, the right of the people to keep and bear deer rifles shall not be infringed".

 

This seems to be another way that either the right lost or failed to try: the general belief seems to be that the second amendment is about hunting. Once shifted to that, it becomes far easier to demonize specific types of firearms based on how they apply to this single facet of their use. Sad to say, the only reason my fifth grade daughter knows about the amendments is because we've taught them at home. I suspect my daughter is not alone in what she has been not taught in school.

 

Matt

 

Gee, do you think there's a reason that people like William Ayers have gone about systematically dumbing down the educational standards in the US since the 1890s?

 

I hate to feed conspiracy theories, but when you go back and look at the connections between all these progressive idiots, and the ideologies they've espoused and put into place, it sure as hell looks a lot like a conspiracy. Of course, that's ridiculous, isn't it? Isn't it?

[Ivanhoe]

A workable metaphor for such things is that they are on a "long march through the institutions".

[DougRichards]

“I don’t think legitimate sportsmen are going to say, ‘I need an assault weapon to go hunting,’” he said.

 

And this is how they have successfully and fraudulently framed the narrative. The 2nd amendment does not say "A single shot firearm being necessary for a successful hunt, the right of the people to keep and bear deer rifles shall not be infringed".

 

They want you vulnerable and fearful of the mob they think they control, which is why they've put the policies in place that they have, over the decades. That's the reason they want this so badly--It's so that they can blackmail the general public into doing things they normally wouldn't.

 

Mob actions stop when they run into effective resistance, whether it's a bunch of whites trying to conduct a pogrom on blacks, or a bunch of blacks and hispanics trying to loot asian businesses. As we saw in the L.A. riots, all the people in power have to do to get their way is withdraw the police, and you're on your own. Without your own means of effective defense against a mob, which is a semi-automatic rifle with a good-sized magazine, you're pretty much fucked. Which is why they go after the semi-auto "assault rifles" so hard, in the first place. They don't want you independent, and able to take care of yourself. The most frightening thing to a statist is a free citizen who doesn't need the state.

 

So you get this:

 

http://208.84.116.223/forums/index.php?showtopic=36324&view=findpost&p=951242

[thekirk]

“I don’t think legitimate sportsmen are going to say, ‘I need an assault weapon to go hunting,’” he said.

 

And this is how they have successfully and fraudulently framed the narrative. The 2nd amendment does not say "A single shot firearm being necessary for a successful hunt, the right of the people to keep and bear deer rifles shall not be infringed".

 

They want you vulnerable and fearful of the mob they think they control, which is why they've put the policies in place that they have, over the decades. That's the reason they want this so badly--It's so that they can blackmail the general public into doing things they normally wouldn't.

 

Mob actions stop when they run into effective resistance, whether it's a bunch of whites trying to conduct a pogrom on blacks, or a bunch of blacks and hispanics trying to loot asian businesses. As we saw in the L.A. riots, all the people in power have to do to get their way is withdraw the police, and you're on your own. Without your own means of effective defense against a mob, which is a semi-automatic rifle with a good-sized magazine, you're pretty much fucked. Which is why they go after the semi-auto "assault rifles" so hard, in the first place. They don't want you independent, and able to take care of yourself. The most frightening thing to a statist is a free citizen who doesn't need the state.

 

So you get this:

 

http://208.84.116.22...ndpost&p=951242

 

Gee, let's see how "on-point" that one is: No mob. Nutjob with a weapon abusing his right to defend himself, and you use that as a counter-example?

 

Here's another one that's a bit more on point:

 

http://constitution.org/mil/tn/batathen.htm

[Wolfman]

Are you guys stateside seeing the same sort of gun/ammo buying frenzy and shortages that took place in early 2009?

Anyone here stocking up yet for fear of the new laws?

 

The current rush is far worse than 2009. Brownells sold out of their entire supply of 30rd magazines in days, AR rifles and lower receivers (stripped or complete) are out of stock everywhere, and rifles such as HKMR556 are selling for $7-8k on gunbroker.

Edited December 29, 2012 by Wolfman

[Archie Pellagio]

And this is how they have successfully and fraudulently framed the narrative. The 2nd amendment does not say "A single shot firearm being necessary for a successful hunt, the right of the people to keep and bear deer rifles shall not be infringed".

 

At the same time nobody could be envisaged going in a shooting spree with a brown bess.

The second amendment was so simple because guns of the time were.

Gubmint has muskets, we the people have muskets.

Muskets = only arms around, therefore right to bear arms IOT to form well regulated militia to keep gubmint in check should need arise.

 

While i dont particularly like gun control, The argument that the second amendment must be taken solely literally is silly unless you also advocate citizens freely owning machine guns and recoilless rifles, because at the end of the day the second amendment was designed specifically to facilitate rebellion and civil war should We The People deem the governments actions tyrannical.

 

Not advocating gun control, but yours is a piss weak argument and the reason you'll probably lose your guns.

 

 

[DKTanker]

At the same time nobody could be envisaged going in a shooting spree with a brown bess.

The second amendment was so simple because guns of the time were.

Gubmint has muskets, we the people have muskets.

Muskets = only arms around, therefore right to bear arms IOT to form well regulated militia to keep gubmint in check should need arise.

 

While i dont particularly like gun control, The argument that the second amendment must be taken solely literally is silly unless you also advocate citizens freely owning machine guns and recoilless rifles, because at the end of the day the second amendment was designed specifically to facilitate rebellion and civil war should We The People deem the governments actions tyrannical.

 

Not advocating gun control, but yours is a piss weak argument and the reason you'll probably lose your guns.

All and all, pretty bright men the framers of the constitution, wouldn't you say? If you would, and many have before you, wouldn't you grant them the wisdom to understand that firearms, which had evolved in the years prior to 1787, would continue to evolve? After all, while the flintlock had been around for about 150 years by that time, it was proceeded by the wheel lock and match lock, and it would be less than forty more years before the precussion cap was introduced.

 

Speaking of the Brown Bess, as much a pike weapon as a firearm, under Dianne Feinstein's proposed legislation, because it has a bayonet lug, it could be defined as an assault weapon. What do you think about that? Think the framers thought the Brown Bess, because of its bayonet lug, would be considered an assault weapon? If you answered no you would be wrong. The Brown Bess was a frightful weapon precisely because of the bayonet and yet I cannot find within the 2nd amendment an "except for...." passage.

 

At the same time as the Regular Army was equiped with captured Brown Besses and other assorted muskets, there were those who privately possessed Kentucky Longrifles, a weapon superior to what the Continental Congress forces used during the ARW and for a few years following the 1787 ratification. Yet neither were they prohibited to the private citizen. Imagine that. And neither were artillery pieces for that matter.

 

When people say that the framers couldn't conceive of this or that, or the evils that could and would occur in the future, they are showing their true ignorance of the life and times of the constitution.

[Archie Pellagio]

You aren't seriously comparing the technological differences of a flint lock, match lock and rifled musket with a flint lock and an AR are you?

 

 

[DKTanker]

You aren't seriously comparing the technological differences of a flint lock, match lock and rifled musket with a flint lock and an AR are you?

Yeah, that's exactly what I said. Wait, no, that isn't at all what I said. Thanks for playing with the big boys, now back to your tinker toys.

[Archie Pellagio]

Keep banging that drum with that illogic and see where it gets you...

[DougRichards]

“I don’t think legitimate sportsmen are going to say, ‘I need an assault weapon to go hunting,’” he said.

 

And this is how they have successfully and fraudulently framed the narrative. The 2nd amendment does not say "A single shot firearm being necessary for a successful hunt, the right of the people to keep and bear deer rifles shall not be infringed".

 

They want you vulnerable and fearful of the mob they think they control, which is why they've put the policies in place that they have, over the decades. That's the reason they want this so badly--It's so that they can blackmail the general public into doing things they normally wouldn't.

 

Mob actions stop when they run into effective resistance, whether it's a bunch of whites trying to conduct a pogrom on blacks, or a bunch of blacks and hispanics trying to loot asian businesses. As we saw in the L.A. riots, all the people in power have to do to get their way is withdraw the police, and you're on your own. Without your own means of effective defense against a mob, which is a semi-automatic rifle with a good-sized magazine, you're pretty much fucked. Which is why they go after the semi-auto "assault rifles" so hard, in the first place. They don't want you independent, and able to take care of yourself. The most frightening thing to a statist is a free citizen who doesn't need the state.

 

Mob?

 

Mob!

 

And just how many 'mobs' have occured in civilized democratic countries in the last 100 years that required citizens to be armed with military weapons to keep 'the mob' away from their property? The LA Riots were an interesting case and it would be interesting to see what the real underlying factors were.

 

I mean, if anyone is that scared what is wrong with a shotgun with birdshot?

 

And I thought that the 2nd Amendment was about the citizenry being armed in realtion to the state. Hate to tell you this, but 'the mob' would be mostly comprised of citizens, who would be equally entittled to 'bear arms', so what do you really want - an unarmed mob that the police should normally be able to deal with with anti-riot gear, or a mob at least some of whom were armed with 5.56mm or 7.62mm semi-autos with large capacity magazines, and body armour?

 

Or is 'the mob' that that you are referring to really just a manifestation of the coming zombie apocalypse?

 

Got to be armed against all those zombies you know!

[EchoFiveMike]

Mob?

 

Mob!

 

And just how many 'mobs' have occured in civilized democratic countries in the last 100 years that required citizens to be armed with military weapons to keep 'the mob' away from their property? The LA Riots were an interesting case and it would be interesting to see what the real underlying factors were.

 

I mean, if anyone is that scared what is wrong with a shotgun with birdshot?

 

And I thought that the 2nd Amendment was about the citizenry being armed in realtion to the state. Hate to tell you this, but 'the mob' would be mostly comprised of citizens, who would be equally entittled to 'bear arms', so what do you really want - an unarmed mob that the police should normally be able to deal with with anti-riot gear, or a mob at least some of whom were armed with 5.56mm or 7.62mm semi-autos with large capacity magazines, and body armour?

 

Or is 'the mob' that that you are referring to really just a manifestation of the coming zombie apocalypse?

 

Got to be armed against all those zombies you know!

 

You really need to come to America. These mobs spoken of now happen on many warmer nights in the shopping districts of Chitcago, much to the unhappiness of guys like the Rahmfather and to the complete and deliberate ignorance of the MSM. Nothing quite like dozens of ghetto savages running though traffic, both vehicular and pedestrian, bashing people, robbing and groping at random. Only a matter of time until that same element comes to decent residential neighborhoods. It would happen often in the ghettos if not for the fact that over half the damned CPD is concentrated in the 25% of the city that's a warzone, which pushes the shithead element elsewhere, like into the shopping districts. Actually, it has come to residential hoods, they're just not in Chicago proper anymore; they're suburban, pushed there by the rise of Section 8 and the bulldozing of the cliff dwellings(Housing Projects) What people need to realize about the 500 murder Chicago # this year is that many of the true savages have been ejected from the city. If we added in the suburban carnage that is caused by Chitcago refugees, it'd easily be over 650, probably much more. S/F.....Ken M

[Mr King]

And they move down to my city. We are a nice focal point between East St Louis and Chicago for shitheads. Plus all the drugs that pass through along I-55, south to north on their way to Chicago, then back down again.

[BansheeOne]

Bit of hyperbole there, but I understand that if you're half a world away and your primary source of information is the MSM and intertubez.

 

Actually before I got on the internet and found the abovementioned Chicken Little sentiment expressed by high-pitched choirs on various US-centric gun boards, my main insight into the American gun control debate was from random issues of "Guns & Ammo" that would for some reason show up once in a while at the local railway station newsstand. Though I will admit to also having a "Newsweek" subscription at that time, which once in a while supplied the high-pitched counterpoint.

 

I have no direct experience before ca. 1990, but I see the current national gun control debate goes back at least to the mid-80s with the 1986 machinegun ban and Handgun Control Inc. rising to prominence with the Brady Bunch. The latter goes back further of course, and there was probably controversy about the 1968 National Firearms Act and 1938 Gun Control Act, too.

 

But if the American public was supposed to be subtly re-educated about the Evil of Firearms™ over the last 30-70 years, it was obviously a failure, as anti-gun legislation has been steadily pushed back since the high point of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban. And I understand Mrs. Feinstein's new try at the latter has also just been punted to committee to die the peaceful death of old age through deliberation while public attention shifts elsewhere, as Obama may not need to stand re-election, but members of congress very much do.

 

I guess though some people just love to be scared, whether the often-quoted sheeple supposed to be afraid of mobs and thus looking for the benevolent protection of big government, or the supposedly much more rational gun rights activists being afraid of the same mobs and big government confiscating their guns.

[shep854]

We like to let them know we're watching.

[Jeff]

And this is how they have successfully and fraudulently framed the narrative. The 2nd amendment does not say "A single shot firearm being necessary for a successful hunt, the right of the people to keep and bear deer rifles shall not be infringed".

 

At the same time nobody could be envisaged going in a shooting spree with a brown bess.

The second amendment was so simple because guns of the time were.

Gubmint has muskets, we the people have muskets.

Muskets = only arms around, therefore right to bear arms IOT to form well regulated militia to keep gubmint in check should need arise.

 

While i dont particularly like gun control, The argument that the second amendment must be taken solely literally is silly unless you also advocate citizens freely owning machine guns and recoilless rifles, because at the end of the day the second amendment was designed specifically to facilitate rebellion and civil war should We The People deem the governments actions tyrannical.

 

Not advocating gun control, but yours is a piss weak argument and the reason you'll probably lose your guns.

 

I'm one of those old fashioned types that think the Constitution means what it says and if you want to change it, you have to use the methods indicated. It's a contract, one party can't just decide to change it on another. The first amendment didn't change even though the means of free speech are totally different than they were 200 years ago. 200 years ago, I could have armed a private vessel with weapons that would have overmatched many of the smaller men of war. The Founders who wrote and ratified the Constitution did so just a few years after making use of the principles of the 2nd amendment to win their freedom. It was not an esoteric theory to them, it was recent personal history.

[Simon Tan]

How daft. In the good old days, you got the whole town out and used massed volley fire when you wanted to massacre the natives etc. If you were particualrly well to do, you had a 3lber or two. If you were on the coast, you might even have an armed vessel that did double duty as a pirate ship, Really, it's no surprise that Oz was granted independence vis taking it by force of arms.