Gun Laws - Precursor to Takeover?

Do you think that gun laws and regulations are the precursors to a government take-over?

It would seem obvious that poor media image of guns, and gun laws and regulations would make it less easy for people to obtain firearms. Do you think this "unarming" of the people might be one step in a greater conspiracy?

There are any number of historical references to gun-control being among the steps taken in ultimately totalitarian societies.

I believe that is an extreme view in the case of the United States.

But it is without question not in the interests of law-abiding citizens to allow such a firearms prohibition to be enacted.

Those criminal elements of society that wish guns for unlawful activities will always be able to procure them, prohibitions notwithstanding.

Such restrictive laws would only be observed by the law-abiding who would have then no means of self defense.

Dialing 911 would then only serve as notice as to which location the hearse should be directed.

Ever notice that whenever the media publishes articles and editorials about the need for gun control there is a surge in gun sales?

Why would it be precursor to government takeover when England has been doing this for a while I have yet to see a totalitarianism government over there. Well it's been a while since I've been over there so maybe it chnged. ya right

There is no doubt in my mind that it is.

I remember being able to buy any firearm VIA a sporting goods store, the only thing you had to do was to sign a disclosure that said you were over 16 for a rifle, and 18 for a pistol.

Since the stringent anti-Gun laws have gone into effect Firearms are harder to get (By Law abiding Citizens - Look at NYC and WDC - if there were two places I would carry those would be the places) and Gun Related crimes (Using a gun in a crime, not the crime of having a gun) has gone way way up.

The Right to bear arms (Read as ANY AND ALL FIREARMS PRODUCED)
is a G-D given right (At least that is what the Bill of Rights says) so No man, or entity on earth has the right to say you can't have one. (sure, they could make you a criminal - but know in your imprisioned heart that you are not one)

If this was the case, then why would they allow the assault weapons ban to expire and not even make an attempt at renewing it???

If the government wants to take over complete control of the nation then you'd think they would do more to get rid of AK-47's than 9mm handguns.

I'm pro-gun, I'm just playing Devil's advocate.

Got you in a lull, did they, Rassy?

I live in a state where it is typical that a household has a weapon; most have more than one weapon. Many states, though, have strict gun control laws, and D.C. is extremely strict. It doesn't curb crime, though, so what is its purpose? That is the question one should ask.

The Founding Fathers made it clear that the 2nd amendment was to protect the nation from tyrannical government. That is to say, they expected each one of us to be armed with weapons that are sufficient to take back our government from tyrannical or arbitrary rule. The problem isn't weapons ownership, but a citizenry that is unknowledgeable of the constitution, the words of the Founding Fathers, their God-given rights or their responsibilities as citizens. This is more dangerous, and those who plan on a takeover are aware of our ignorance and reliance upon the allmighty government for everything. Could it be we are already all but taken over, already?

I think in a way it's a precursor to takeover.

And oh, BTW, the Second Amendment IS your gun permit! I'm against having to register guns. Who knows who's using that information, and for what purpose!

My husband wouldn't mind getting his hands on an AK-47!

Gun ownership is widespread in NZ and yet the government hasnt enslaved me funny that.
The 2nd amendment gives americans the right to bear arms that means anything from a handgun to a nuke.

Anybody who thinks the government can be brought down by a handgun is either mentaly retared or brainwashed. The NRA is a very effictive brainwashing machine.

Xpert, are you following your own words?
"Gun ownership is widespread in NZ and yet the government hasnt enslaved me funny that."
Were you trying to say that gun ownership is not widespread, yet the government has not attempted to take you over?
Regardless, the point of the second amendment is to deter such attempt. If such an attempt is made, you and your neighbors will be very successful with your butterknives!

What are you talking about, nukes? Furthermore, who said the second amendment is only referring to handguns? Who mentioned the NRA?

Your thought process is extremely convoluted. Please try again when the substance wears off!

Heres my point 200 years ago the likes of tanks aircraft and WMDs didnt exist if you owned a musket you were on equal terms with the government that isnt the case today.
Explain to me how a Ak-41 will stop a tank or protect you from WMDs?

My bad forgot to re read my post.
#embassed face#
Should have read
Gun ownership isnt wide spread in NZ and yet the government hasnt enslaved me funny that.
The 2nd amendment gives the right to bear arms nukes are arms right?
NRA is relavant to this debate surely?
#inhales green gas #

Dancer,

Originally posted by dancer
The Right to bear arms (Read as ANY AND ALL FIREARMS PRODUCED)
is a G-D given right (At least that is what the Bill of Rights says) so No man, or entity on earth has the right to say you can't have one. (sure, they could make you a criminal - but know in your imprisioned heart that you are not one)

I think you will find that the Bill of Rights and the US Constitution are not godly documents.

They are not, they are not, they are not.

They were written by men two hundred plus years ago.

If you want to continue down the line of what was right 200 years ago is right now then fair enough. I shall expect to hear no more from you on this forum and look forward to your move to Amish country.

The world has moved on since the 1700s.

For those who desire guns please just come out and say it.

Do not hide behind outdated laws.

The time is coming when you will rightly be considered as criminal as racists and slavers.

Cheers

BHR

I woundnt gave said slavery , crimnal and racists never the less
You have Voted for BillHicks for the AboveTopSercet award of the month you have two more votes left.

TC,

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne

The Founding Fathers made it clear that the 2nd amendment was to protect the nation from tyrannical government. That is to say, they expected each one of us to be armed with weapons that are sufficient to take back our government from tyrannical or arbitrary rule. The problem isn't weapons ownership, but a citizenry that is unknowledgeable of the constitution, the words of the Founding Fathers, their God-given rights or their responsibilities as citizens. This is more dangerous, and those who plan on a takeover are aware of our ignorance and reliance upon the allmighty government for everything. Could it be we are already all but taken over, already?

The problem is that it is illegal to attempt to overthrow your government.

"Clause 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. "

from the US Constitution.

It is treason to "levy war against""the United States".

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The Second Amendment does not say that is a citizens right or responsibility to overthrow the government if they feel it is "tyrannical or arbitrary "

When attempting to interpret legal phrasing it is important not to read more into the wording than is actually there.

As can be seen from the quotes I have given from the two main documents for the operation of the United States, there is no right to overthrow the government no matter how you read the documents.

What is happening now is a drive to amend the 2nd Amendment. This is allowed. One only has to look at the amendments covering the beginning and ending of Prohibition.

Cheers

BHR

I often wonder if the 2nd Amendment gives me the right to own a surface-to-air missile. Or a 75 millimeter cannon, etc.

I suspect if my Militia isn't well-regulated, I may not have that right. But mine is, actually. In Noumenon's Militia, we don't let the crazies and the bigots and the borderline-retarded run the show, take point position, or get out in the front at all. We try to keep them on KP. Out of action.

Originally posted by Noumenon
I often wonder if the 2nd Amendment gives me the right to own a surface-to-air missile. Or a 75 millimeter cannon, etc.

The point made earlier regarding what a weapon was when the framers wrote the ammendment answers that. The arms you mention did not exist at that time. (Other than a cannon)

I support the 2nd ammendment.

I agree w/comments regarding the fact that criminals will always get their hands on guns. Law abiding citizens should definitely have the right to own firearms to defend themselves, their families/loved ones and property.

Are gun control laws a precurser to take over? They could be. However, at this point, all that would need to happen really is some massive horrific incident for the government to declare martial law and a total handover. (Again, tho, criminals aren't gonna just hand them over.)

At this point, I see gun control laws more as a reaction to a nation that has expanded exponentially and is trying to deal with members of society who have abused the privlege of ownership.

Originally posted by Noumenon
I often wonder if the 2nd Amendment gives me the right to own a surface-to-air missile. Or a 75 millimeter cannon, etc.

Noumenon, I just read a Molly Ivins op/ed and thought of your question. Here is what she says:

It's the old slippery slope argument. Look, all of law is a process of drawing lines on slippery slopes. The difference between misdemeanor theft and felony theft is one penny. The difference between misdemeanor and felony drug possession is one gram. For that matter, the difference between a pig and a hog is one pound. We're always drawing distinctions, and it is necessary to do so - hunting rifles, OK; .50 caliber rifles, don't be a fool.

Ya but it is legal to have a .50 calibur rifle but I think I get the point she is trying to get accross

Originally posted by 9890
Ya but it is legal to have a .50 calibur rifle but I think I get the point she is trying to get accross

Yeah. It just made me think of his comment. The laws on such weapons vary from state to state. It could be argued, tho, that most citizens have no real need for that kind of hardware.

I'm not arguing for or against, tho.

BillHicksRules,

I Never said that the Bill of Rights and the US Constitution were godly documents. The implication is that our founding Fathers were astute enough to mention it, along with other rights. These are the rights of every human on the planet. Not the sole property of the USA. They are Thusly God given rights.

Sure, they were writen over 200 yrs ago, That does not make them any less valid today than upon the day they were writen.

I am not only in favor of Eveyone having guns, but I would not object to anyone having a howitzer, SAM, a nucular device, or anyother weapon that lets them sleep better at night. (As long as they are used Responcibly - that being the key)

If you wish to lay down your guns and rights to them, then by all means do so - and allow yourself to be enslaved.

It is of no concern to you if I will become concidered a criminal, a racist, etc.
(Although labeling me a racist could be a hard sell) I am, and will remain armed, and continue to arm to the best of my ability to arm regardless of the law.

Side note - Anyone interested in the AK-47 - Get the folding stock it is lighter than the wood. The AKS (paratrooper model is preferable) Also, full auto looks good in the movies and on TV - but it is not effective.