Obama can confiscate US privately owned guns.

Australia banned 'guns', in the first full year after the ban, criminal misuse of firearms went up 44% on the previous full year of legal ownership.
Criminal misuse of firearms in the UK leaped in the first year after their ban as well.
Just why is it governments always take whatever they want from law abiding citizens?

I would fight till the end to keep the 2nd ammendment. Come n try to take my gun. What the hell is everyone supposed to do once the # finally hits the fan?? When martial law comes into play, and WWIII starts, I'll want my gun invade my rights? nah not today.
It's time people started doin' something to fix all the wrongs in this world, there's to much going on at once, bringing forth tonnes of confusion when trying to follow everything at once. Gun law's, rogue polititians, wars starting all over the globe, a huge oil spill crisis, whats next??
Codex's mission has begun and nobody seems to remember, dec 31st 2009?? Depopulization??? Fema Camps & Coffin's? like C'mon guys who's really all that supprised anymore. It's time for our own army and I say screw whoever wants them to maintain the control they have?
The "terrorists" are a bunch of Arabs hiding in caves with RPG's and AK's please explain how there a threat to us??? We know who started 9/11..They fight there government we help there government??? We're trying to fight ours but we gotta learn something. Words don't work.

Al Qaeda(Middle East), the IRA(Ireland), the FLQ(Quebec,CA), the Shan army(Cambodia) etc... All groups who fought back against the government and succeeded at it. So why bitch about Obama pulling this # when we could do as the "terrorists" have done. They fought back against oppressive governments and soon it will be our turn to do the same.

-Death2TheNWO

There is no doubt about barry soetoro's position on gun ownership. He has supported EVERY SINGLE anti-gun legislation ever in front of him, since he was a nobody in Chicago.
Since it is unlikely that he will be able to LEGALLY, CONSTITUTIONALLY confiscate private firearms, it looks almost certain that he will attempt to do it by International Treaty. Seems, he WANTS a new CIVIL WAR. What a GREAT excuse, for Martial Law, and suspending elections.
BTW- if you want MY guns- bring body bags.

While I can appreciate the OP's concern for the bill of rights, I have to say, that this informtion is incorrect.

No international treaty, stipulation, or law is superior to the United States Constitution, or the Bill of Rights. Period.

The UN can not take anyones guns away, neither can Obama, or any other president for that matter, simply because not one single portion of the Bill of Rights is negotiable.

reply to post by boondock-saint


Thank God for Charleton Heston and the NRA!!!! R.I.P.

[edit on 1-6-2010 by bkfd54]

I have to wonder why so many states are loosening gun restrictions. Doesn't that run counter to what a liberal administration would like to see? Perhaps it's an assertion of states' rights in a way. Hopefully a little foreshadowing.

Uh huh1
Another BS fear mongering chain e mail that mutated into a blog!
Hasn't this been proved already to be BS?
I suggest you paranoids check Snopes.
Honestly, it seems that gun owners have to be the most panicky, fearful people in the country. Over the last 40 years I've seen a never ending cascade of "they are gunna take our guns" idiocy. Seems like it never happens, or even comes close. In case you are wondering, the 2nd Amendment is very clear, citizens have the right to own guns!
But, WHY are you guys so knee jerk? So quick to panic? So freakin FULL of fear?

reply to post by AwakeinNM


Many of the cases that are forcing states to give up their anti-gun have been in the process for a while. It's largely just coincidence they are crumbling with an anti-gun administration in power.

There's also a larger timeline to consider. Ever since the first anti-gun laws the battle has been on to kill them and conversely the battle also on to keep them or instate more of them.

If the first handgun ban in the nation was shot down in 1837 why would states or cities keep trying to push their own today?

Next time somebody pulls out the old "the 2nd is antiquated" nonsense be sure to remind them the notion of bane in the US are just as "antiquated" the first being from 1837 and almost immediately struck down as unconstitutional.

It's a pointless battle going on by people who just want to be left alone and another group of people who just have to control everything you do.

"Greetings, i am the President of the US. Bow down, kiss my ass and hand over your weapons please."

You should change the thread title, cause thats the image i got from it

reply to post by AwakeinNM


States are starting to reimplement state's rights as guarnateed by the Constitution. The people are waking up and realizing that EACH STATE is it's OWN REPUBLIC! The United States exists only out of mutual cooperation of the Republics United and derive their power from those they govern. The Constitution SPECIFICALLY outlines those powers enumerated the Federal Government - all others remain with the States. In the end, the people will prevail.

We, the U.S citizens are a sovereign nation. The U.N has no authority over us. They have no right to tell us what to do, how to do something, or what not to do. As far as I will concern myself, the U.N does not even exist to me. It is a joke and should be destroyed.

reply to post by barkingdogamato


Yes. They do want your guns. Several steps outlined in the writings of Marx. Control banking, control manufacturing, control health care, control media, confiscate guns. All of this has been most predictable. It is certainly no cooincidence the man appoints avowed marxists to prominant positions. (Sunstein, Jones, Lloyd, Browner, Crawford, Douglas, Bloom, and many more) Did anyone notice the bill in Michigan (trial baloon) to make reporters have a government issued license?. Read the history books. This scenario repeats itself over and over. Think it can't happen here? Think again.

Originally posted by Misoir
reply to post by Judohawk

 

I never said ban all guns, hunting guns are perfectly fine IMO as long as they are used simply for hunting with a permit, background check, etc... I don't care if you hunt as long as it's legal.

So..... What about when they create an ordnance that makes it illegal? You know, Too Long, Too Short, Too big, Too small, this color that color or anything else that they can think up to make all of us felons. The gun is the great equalizer, prior to it we were all subjects. after it is removed, we will again all be subjects. I'll give up all my guns at the exact same time as the politicians give up theirs. Just remember, when seconds count, the police are hours away!

--airspoon

The "from my cold, dead hands" quote was from Charlton Heston.

--airspoon


[edit on 1-6-2010 by airspoon]

With respect I believe you correct crediting Charlton Heston with having said this at an NRA rally - shown in Bowling for Columbine. However it would be incorrect to attribute the statement to him.

Check out Red Dawn - you will see the statement on the rear bumper of a car as the Russian soldier does just that from one of the dead locals.

I know that "Red Dawn" far pre-dates Bowling For Columbine - so I suspect the proclamation probably far pre-dates even Charlton Heston's involvement in the NRA

Oh for heaven's sake - the article is from the Washington Times. They are a shill for Sun Myung Moon and the Unification Church. And let me say that if "Father" as his cult members call him, ever realizes his goal to take over the US government, one of the first things he'll do is take away guns. President Obama has no intention of taking your guns, so just go away and quietly shoot amongst yourselves.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


I do understand what you're saying, but more specifically, states are loosening restrictions even farther on their own. For example, here in New Mexico, they allowed CCW several years ago. Before then it was open carry - still allowed with restrictions as to where. Now they just voted to allow CCW licensees to carry into restaurants that serve alcohol. I don't know that there was necessarily a lot of lobbying to get that done, but incrementally, the second amendment seems to be making a comeback here.

reply to post by Misoir


Criminals do not use legally obtained and registered guns. They never have and never will. Do you think criminals are going to give up guns?

I'll preface this by saying I havent read all responses, so sorry if someone has already said this:

The thing is, it doesnt matter what UN treaty, or any other international document that Obama enters into. The Constitution says, flat out:

'This Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all the Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land...’

And the Supreme Court has fully backed this time and time again.

No UN law or treaty can change, supercede, or or circumvent the Constitution. Obama could sign a UN treaty tomorrow saying everyone must wear purple painter's pants. Wouldnt matter one bit, because the Constitution allows us to wear what we choose.

As long as the people learn, and demand, their rights, these things cannot be enacted.

[edit on 1-6-2010 by captaintyinknots]

reply to post by AwakeinNM


I thought news of states altering those laws was always very strange. Where I am the only places we cant carry concealed or openly are places banned by federal law like national forest service offices. We've never had any prohibitive law here other than federal with the exception of a very recent and very shady "rule" passed in the middle of the night by a "security committee" banning guns in the state house and that should be on it's way to the trash bin pretty soon.

I would be curious to know what sort of political climate was prevalent when your state initially banned ccw or carrying in places that serve alcohol. Who passed it, was there some catalyst for it and did the people like it? Is the repeal of such things genuinely a direct reaction to the administration or the end result of a long train of action?

Even though the repeal of stupid laws like these is a good thing I would have to be suspect of any legislative body which would pass, write or repeal laws simply because of knee-jerk politics.

It's abhorrent when politicians clamor to react with a ban because some kid got shot but it's equally as abhorrent to repeal a law just because you want to "stick it" to your political nemesis.

Another anti Obama gun thread?

We get it, Obama is a socialist/commie/marxist/fascist/nazi who wants to take your guns away and kill old people!