Buy Guns Now Before You Can't

reply to post by Retseh


Will firearms owners resist? I would like to say yes, but history tells me otherwise. The only thing we have going for us now is the crappy economy and general feelings of doom/gloom. When the 1994 ban happened we were sitting quite a bit better economy-wise, and 9/11 obviously had not happened yet.

Perhaps the people have finally had enough. Maybe they will wake up and realize that the government cannot take care of everything. Check out the suspension of social programs in California. Hopefully things like this will alert people to how things really are.

All we can do right now is prepare ourselves and become self-sufficient. The next year or so will be very interesting. Best of luck to you!

reply to post by PrepareForTheWorst


ty i was hoping you got that!!!
and i went to school in anchorage so i know the people up there are adement about their guns
stay warm

Originally posted by Valorian
Buy guns b4 u cannot?????

What kind of message does that give me?
it tells me that you are scared or confused.

That kind of post really does not sit well with me at all, the kind of mssages that we should be putting out to the ppls is about peace and opportunitites that are coming.

Well not if there are posts stating the above all the time.

I know most of you will say "Guns protect me" and "It is my right to carry weapons" BUT

That right was upheld 200 yrs ago and is no longer needed as that constitutional right anymore.

Provide peaceful solutions to your probelms and fears and you WILL find that a peaceful outcome will present itself to you.

PEACE to all

Valorian


[edit on 8-12-2008 by Valorian]

lol!

oh the naivety of your average sheep...

some of you guys need some serious work.

You can project all the feelings you want on the 2nd Amendmemt. The amendment says nothing about hunting whatsoever.

The concept or argument from the point of hunting is a placebo or straw argument used by intellectuals or politicians or others who would steal your very souls by arguing useless arguments.

The amendment also says nothing about protecting or defending ones self. This point is implicit and explicit both in court case after court case in our long legal historys.

The Amendment says a well regulated militia necessary to the security of the state.. the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. THe right is of the people..not the government or national guard etc etc. Most certainly not the right of politicians or politicians who finance public education standards on an ignorant and unawares public.

It says nothing about single shot, semi auto, bolt actiion, break open action etc etc ad naseum....no shot or anything else. Nothing said about this.

Be especially careful of those who would use the hunting argument to enforce gun control. Nothing at all is stated in the amendment about hunting. I am all for hunting and outdoor sports as such. But do not buy into the phoney debate points that you dont need this or that to hunt. The amendment says nothing about hunting whatsoever. This is an attempt to offer a cheap placebo point and switch priorities in the debate about the intent of the amendment.

Thanks,
Orangetom

I have a lot of ammo saved up. A friend asked me why I need so much ammo. I told him "I dont need it, I want it, because one day I may need it. If you wait until you need it then you wont be able to get it". People dont really think too far ahead in the general population. Right now I have no need for ammo, but since I have thought about possible situations the future may bring I bought and continue to buy ammo. Buy ammo now. Dont wait until something happens then decide you need it because you wont be able to get it. Even if your the type who believes we live in a perfect world where 911 will always pick up the phone, still buy some ammo. No harm will come, and if it turns out in 2 years theres world peace, then sell it or get rid of it. Just buy it store it and forget about it.

If worst comes to worst, and guns are outlawed and the government gives us 10 days to turn them in, just hide them then report them stolen. That is if you dont have the means to fight for what ever reason. Just bear in mind they may search our houses with trained K9s so they have to be hidden away from your house and hidden well.

reply to post by KyoZero


Wow. You people just will not not ever understand. Have fun at the re-education camps.

I don't plan on hunting any deer or other animals. I don't want firearms for the purpose of defense against burglars/muggers. (That is just a bonus.)

I want my firearms to hunt HUMANS!

That's right, humans. If and when circumstances dictate.... the purpose of my firearms is to hunt down and kill scoundrels, traitors, lawyers, bankers, politicians, any and all persons who abuse their position to destroy our society, deny our liberties, steal our freedom, deny our rights and so on.

I do not believe that any handgun or deer rifle alone is suitable to carry out these tasks.

I want to be equally or better (preferably) equipped than the enemy.

The gangsters, terrorists, governments and other armed orginazations/individuals aren't about to turn over their firearms, and neither am I.

One day.... this land most likely WILL be a "foriegn battlefield". How hard is that to understand?

In fact it has been a foriegn battlefield, many times. It is now a battlefield. You need to wake up, buddy. Just because you don't see soldiers outside your window doesn't mean they aren't there or will not be there in the future.

You ever see the movie "Red Dawn"??

At least they had the good fortune of knowing who the enemy was.
These days, we are not so lucky.

Did you hear about the attack on the hotel in Mumbai???????

And you are military? Just one more reason I am not depending on the government/military to protect me.

[edit on 28-1-2009 by slimpickens93]

Originally posted by grover
The whole premise is absurd.

The right to own guns is written into the constitution... they can control and or limit sales but they cannot eliminate the right to own and use guns not without an amendment to the constitution (remember they had to amend the constitution in order to end prohibition)...

and to do that you need 2/3 approval of both houses of congress and then 3/4 of the states approval...

and that is simply not going to happen.

Sorry, I have to point out something here just so folks don't get confused.

"The right to own guns" is not written or mentioned anywhere in the constitution. It recognizes "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" and states that right "shall not be infringed."

Any contols or limits on possession of guns is therefore an infringement of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms".

If you believe our rights haven't already been severely infringed, just go try to buy some Hellfire missiles.

Originally posted by slimpickens93
I want to be equally or better (preferably) equipped than the enemy.

But you ARE "the enemy."

As your ramblings make clear, you just want to be able to shoot certain people, simply because you feel they might be a danger to your "liberty," regardless of the law of the land or what anyone else says. That puts you right on a par with the terrorists , gangsters and anyone else who wants to make their own way by force.

Originally posted by Valorian
Buy guns b4 u cannot?????

What kind of message does that give me?
it tells me that you are scared or confused.

That kind of post really does not sit well with me at all, the kind of mssages that we should be putting out to the ppls is about peace and opportunitites that are coming.

Well not if there are posts stating the above all the time.

I know most of you will say "Guns protect me" and "It is my right to carry weapons" BUT

That right was upheld 200 yrs ago and is no longer needed as that constitutional right anymore.

Provide peaceful solutions to your probelms and fears and you WILL find that a peaceful outcome will present itself to you.

PEACE to all

Valorian


[edit on 8-12-2008 by Valorian]

Sorry to point a couple of things out but....

Expect the worst and hope for the best. Guns won't protect me, I'LL protect me. a well placed shot at 1200 meters is going to keep a great deal of distance between me and those who would infringe upon my rights or those of my wife and children.

Perhaps I've said too much already.

reply to post by Wembley


When tyranny is is full-blown and the U.S. constitution is thrown in the garbage, or if the govt. collapses, those are the people who will be the enemy, those with finanical/political power, those who have control over tanks, missiles, prisons, food supplies, electricity, fuel, etc...

Unless you are one of them, then they will be your enemy too.

Even if no such scenario ever comes too pass.... there are still terrorists, drug cartels, and foriegn armies to be concerned with.

I'll keep my firearms, thank you.

(If you think I meant that I will personally hunt down each and every person that fits those profiles, you're an idiot.)

I don't plan to wait for the "enemy" to come get me and try to pick them off as they come.. And I sure won't be in the FEMA camps getting re-educated. I will be out in the field with the rest of the real patriots, hunting the enemy down and chasing them out.

Call me a gangster, terrorist, freedom fighter, patriot or anything else... I don't care.

Give me liberty or give me death.

Originally posted by Wembley

Originally posted by slimpickens93
I want to be equally or better (preferably) equipped than the enemy.

But you ARE "the enemy."

As your ramblings make clear, you just want to be able to shoot certain people, simply because you feel they might be a danger to your "liberty," regardless of the law of the land or what anyone else says. That puts you right on a par with the terrorists , gangsters and anyone else who wants to make their own way by force.

And stop putting words in my mouth that I didnt say. If I just wanted to be able to shoot certain people, I could easily do that right now. I don't need anyones permission.

Furthermore, "the law of the land" isn't always the will of the people, as evident by the recent parade of financial bailouts.

If only you guys lived in Australia when all our dodgy laws were passed.

Like I want to shoot with two shot shotties and bolt action rifles.

I want some semi auto action. I need at least five shots from a semi auto shotty to hit a duck.

Originally posted by TheKingsVillian
If only you guys lived in Australia when all our dodgy laws were passed.

Like I want to shoot with two shot shotties and bolt action rifles.

I want some semi auto action. I need at least five shots from a semi auto shotty to hit a duck.

You just need training and practice. My Browning A-Bolt 7MM Magnum and I will take out a target at 1000-1200 meters almost everytime. one-shot, one kill...

reply to post by exfed


Does that target move. I have no skill.

Originally posted by slimpickens93

Originally posted by Wembley

Originally posted by slimpickens93
I want to be equally or better (preferably) equipped than the enemy.

But you ARE "the enemy."

As your ramblings make clear, you just want to be able to shoot certain people, simply because you feel they might be a danger to your "liberty," regardless of the law of the land or what anyone else says. That puts you right on a par with the terrorists , gangsters and anyone else who wants to make their own way by force.

And stop putting words in my mouth that I didnt say. If I just wanted to be able to shoot certain people, I could easily do that right now. I don't need anyones permission.

Furthermore, "the law of the land" isn't always the will of the people, as evident by the recent parade of financial bailouts.

These were your words "the purpose of my firearms is to hunt down and kill scoundrels, traitors, lawyers, bankers, politicians, any and all persons who abuse their position to destroy our society, deny our liberties, steal our freedom, deny our rights and so on. "

The law of the land isn't the will of the people. But it's what you have to obey, as the cops will explain to you. And they're right.

The right to own a gun was granted to protect citizens from 'rogue governments'. How ironic a government wants to remove them.

Here in Australia many people buried their firearms when they were banned rather than hand them in. Used to see utility's driving around with a sticker on the back saying "Hand in my gun? - no way. I buried mine".

[edit on 30-1-2009 by Nonchalant]

Originally posted by Wembley


The law of the land isn't the will of the people. But it's what you have to obey, as the cops will explain to you. And they're right.

Sure it is. People elect representatives. Reps make laws. Of course, "people" must mean majority.

At the same time, in 1776 the law of the land said we paid taxes to a king, the people disagreed.

reply to post by exfed


Thank you.

Some people just don't get it. Apparently they never will because their mind has been crippled by their masters.

Originally posted by exfed

Originally posted by Wembley


The law of the land isn't the will of the people. But it's what you have to obey, as the cops will explain to you. And they're right.

Sure it is. People elect representatives. Reps make laws. Of course, "people" must mean majority.

At the same time, in 1776 the law of the land said we paid taxes to a king, the people disagreed.

That's a very confused view of history. Remember, lots of people sided with the British on this. And afterwards, people just paid their taxes to a different elected government. (The monarch was fairly irrelevant after 1649).

Now, if you honestly think that you and your trusty rifle - or any number of them - can win an insurgency, you have no idea about insurgencies. In any case, there would be such a tiny minority willing or able to take that sort of action that it would be irrelevant even if you had proper weapons.

Balance that against using the ballot rather than the bullet and you can see why firearms aren't a relevant way of dealing with governmental change. But they're great for killing yourself (their commonest use).