'No one wants to take your guns' - it's a lie

http://washingtonexaminer.com/sen.-...-buyback-of-guns/article/2516648#.UNsRCny9KSP

Gun confiscation is now a public plan. Common, we all know that they have been planning this for years.

 

Ayuh,.... That's, No doubt, been the plan since the beginnin' of the Liberal Progressive movement....

Create a Demon, then ban it....

 

Wow... compulsory buyback or confiscation. Let's allow the government to force its citizens to sell their legally owned, private property or outright steal their private property. Power and control... typical liberal aphrodisiacs. Do these people even have any idea what principles this country was founded on? This is insane.

 

Feinstein can go f**k herself, really.

 

There has been a lot of stuff like that for a long time. There are some Democrats that don't want to take all your guns. But there are many who do. And many more that want your semi-autos.

 

Ayuh,.... Yer Right,... That's why we should all stay informed...

[video=youtube_share;JDglpt8hpyg]http://youtu.be/JDglpt8hpyg[/video]

 

So then if this passes, what are the odds of the internet chest beaters actually doing something?

I say the odds are 45,567:1.

 

It will not pass the senate even without a filibuster. DOA at the house even if it did. Nothing will happen till after the midterms then we might have to worry. It would take a large scale confiscation program to find out how many issues would arise from people defending their property.

 

If they try to confiscate semi-automatics, it could start a civil war, and not without good reason!
What exactly will be standing in the way between the people and the potential of a tyrannical government seizing power?

 

You really think all people need are guns to keep them free?

Its really alot more than than guns. In fact you dont even need guns. Its willpower you need.

Oh and by the way there is no plan in the current administration to seek compulsory gun confiscation. None.

 

I would argue that the very presence of a free United States of America is a powerful influence keeping the Western world free. The issue of guns in America is an issue that could indirectly effect everyone else.
If it was not for America, there are several governments I can name off the top of my head that would be likely to seize power away from their people. And I wonder how long it would be before people in positions of power in the UK or Australia would get the same idea. In 500 years, historians may be looking back and saying what a terrible mistake it was for free people to utterly surrender the means of force. History has a way of repeating itself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1t9nfq6zyzA

I do not believe this for a second. The USA could easily go the way of the UK and Australia, if gun rights activists are not vigilant.

 

Its not going to start a civil war; who in there right mind wants to die over a bunch of guns? If the military were to show up at your front door with loaded M-16's and you pull out your .38 caliber revolver or Glock, who do you really think is going to win the battle?? The civilians simply do not have the resources to win this one via violence.

 

Any military force with half a brain would. Of course, it is not about the guns themselves. It is about surrendering the means of force. The government is, and should be, subject to the will of the people (at least indirectly through a Republic system of governance, if not directly). Guns are inextricably tied to the right to vote, just as free speech and freedom of publication is. What else exactly is there that is guaranteeing the right to vote? Should you put all your trust in your own government to protect this right for you? To me, that seems as senseless as asking your personal accountant to make sure he does not defraud you of all your money you have entrusted him with.

This is exactly why an "assault weapon" ban may not be such a particularly good idea. I am okay with restricting automatic guns, but the line has to be drawn somewhere.

In light of the recent "Arab Spring", I just do not know how Americans can just dismiss such a concept as having guns to protect individual freedom. You do not have to own a gun yourself, but the fact that many of your neighbors do may be making the difference. I am not at all suggesting your government would turn tyrannical all at once. But it is a possibility, and its potential needs to be seriously considered to protect the freedom of future generations. You can just look at the history of Roman Empire to see how easily power can be seized from a Republic and consolidated into the hands of an individual strong man. The Roman Republic lasted 518 years before being overthrown. The United States is only 230 years old, relatively short compared to the many ancient empires that rose and fell.

 

Well the thing is, there is no evidence that a lack of widespread arms in the populace keeps people enslaved. Just look to the middle east for your example, there every hourse has an AK, which they fire often at weddings etc. None of them are free.

Moreover, none of Britains former colonies or any colony anywhere freed itself through having armswidely in the population. India for example was substantially underarmed in comparison with the forces of empire. As was Ireland. History does have a way of repeating itself but will arms make a difference? No. Because its will, not arms that will decide.

Indeed you do not believe such and such, as an ornery American born to distrust, you have little other choice. There is no such wide confisca tion pan because its simply politically unacceptable. Its not necessary anyway, Europe has much easier gun control than the UK and will, like the USA, remain that way - so its perfectly possible for you to keep your guns and make school children safer. Stop being so negative.

 

Well that is one reason people do not wish to lose the right to buy ARs and other high capacity weapons. If the military starts having to police US citizens the idea of America would already be dead. You are correct it would be suicide to try to fight them. I do however believe you underestimate how many feel about their weapons. Every time a civilian was arrested or killed the government will create more enemies. That would cause some to fight back in ways that have been
used very successfully against the US military around the world. Most gun owners including myself would not try to fight the government with weapons. Does not mean we would not fight however.
The US has survived this long and became this powerful because most Americans have loved their country and think we are better than other nations. Once you take that illusion away it will never be the same.

 

If guns can be in every house, and society still functions reasonably well (at least in terms of gun crime), why can other countries like the USA and UK not have these same guns?
If gun crime was really that bad, why are the people in Saudi Arabia and Jordan not demanding action?

I think you are the one being so negative about guns. They are rarely ever used in indiscriminate mass shootings, and if a serial killer really wanted to kill a crowd of random innocent people there are plenty of other ways (poison for example).

I do not see how further gun control is about public safety. It's either complete stupidity, or there is some hidden alterior agenda.

 

Nowhere in the constitution says that individuals have the right to own guns . Nowhere!

 

This is nice, but how is it demonstrated in reality?

 

Just look at all the crap going on in Britain since their ban on guns. The people ove there are getting regulated to death.

 

Their society does not function well. Blood fueds and gangsterism abound, every action is always done in the most violent manner. To keep order they require the severest of punishments which gives further gris to their tyrannical mill.

The USA can indeed have guns, as can the UK,but the controls must be most severe. Average joe having arsenals, with little or no training, no guaranteed safe locking and storage etc etc is not an option.

How can I be positive when innocents are massacred such as in this episode? In the USA there is a mass shooting almost every year. Even in the UK, it still happens. And no, guns are the only way to be effective in mass murder, poisoning etc etc is far too difficult and has uncertain results - thats why its not done.

Why couldnt it be about public safety? Do you let anyone drive cars whoever and however they wish? Nope.

 

One thing I've learned in life is that there is more power in the vote as opposed to using violence to achieve your goals. If enough American's feel the need to allow anyone to own whatever type of weapons they want, then they'll elect those who will work to change the laws to what they believe are best for their interests.

Sure beats resorting to violence; dead people don't need weapons since they are already dead.

 

What do you mean?

 

Watch this video. It is self-evident.

[video=youtube;n9ZvwPmjJu4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9ZvwPmjJu4[/video]

 

That's why Obama had those little kids killed in Connecticut, USA. He knew a drone strike on a school would be too difficult to explain via a "natural gas explosion" and he saw the feeble attempts at Fast and Furious so he resorted to indoctrinating the mentally ill to do his "dirty work".

 

Granny says, "Dat's right...

... anybody try to take her gun...

... dey gonna have to pry it...

... outta her cold, dead hands.