Time to take the gun from the American public!

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious


My opinions are based on the knowledge that the #1 reason to own firearms is to prevent a tyrannical government. In this day and age, we have seen what happens after the nazis took away firearms back in the day.. we all know how that ended up... If you outlaw guns, only outlaws have guns.

Originally posted by sting130u

Originally posted by MrSelfDestruct
I may be wrong but at the moment seems the best way.

Yeah, your wrong. If cops only had guns, wow, I do not know where to start with that one...

Not to mention that if guns were illegal, how can one justify the law carrying them - wouldn't that make the law break the law?

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by sting130u

Originally posted by MrSelfDestruct
I may be wrong but at the moment seems the best way.

Yeah, your wrong. If cops only had guns, wow, I do not know where to start with that one...

Not to mention that if guns were illegal, how can one justify the law carrying them - wouldn't that make the law break the law?

I just got an idea. Anyone who is against guns should give up anything else they would use to defend themselves, and release their address on the internet.

Or better yet, give me your guns.

I promise, I won't get all tyrannical on you, you can trust me.

Why not do what the small town of Kennesaw Ga. did? They made it mandatory, that all heads of homes in Kennesaw own at least one firearm! Guess what happened? Crime was reduced expotentially! Thats right, I mean think about it; is someone really going to invade a home if they know beyond a shadow of doubt the owner is armed? I seriously doubt it!

Take a look at these statistics! In 1982 shortly after the law went into effect, crime dropped 74%!! The following
year 1983, crime dropped another 45% in addition to 1982 stats.

Here is the link:free republic

Thanks,
Pax

Originally posted by sting130u

I just got an idea. Anyone who is against guns should give up anything else they would use to defend themselves, and release their address on the internet.

Or better yet, give me your guns.

I promise, I won't get all tyrannical on you, you can trust me.

First and foremost, they should give up police protection. It provides a false sense of security. When seconds count, the police are minutes away, they have no legal obligation to protect us (SCOTUS ruling), and their main function is to file reports AFTER a crime has been committed, then see if they can find the evil-doer.

A gun in the hand beats a dozen policemen "on the way".

Where I grew up. police response time was around 40 minutes if they weren't already busy elsewhere. I saw police out there maybe twice a year - just passing through, never stopping. We took care of our own troubles, and generally made out OK. There really wasn't that much trouble to handle - no one is going to come into your house if they know a lead porcupine is on the other side of the door they kick in. In all the time I lived there, I only had one individual try to come in the back door. When I heard the storm door open, I got up to see who was coming to visit. They saw me coming down a hall through a window, and by the time I got to the door all I saw was a pair of shoulders in a blue jacket setting sail through the brush... and I wasn't even armed! They were evidently operating on the notion that I "probably" was!

So yeah, if they're going to give up their guns, they ought properly to give up every other means of defense they possess, including the police.

Originally posted by ConspiraCity
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious

 

My opinions are based on the knowledge that the #1 reason to own firearms is to prevent a tyrannical government. In this day and age, we have seen what happens after the nazis took away firearms back in the day.. we all know how that ended up... If you outlaw guns, only outlaws have guns.

If it was not for the gun culture in america the new world disorder would have been completed by now. I don't think enough people understand how volatile the situation is for a civilised future. More guns and less violence seems like an oxymoron at first glance, yet criminals(including in government) always have guns at the expense of the fools who are denied them.

I don't want to sound like a raving lunatic but if the book of revelation and mayan prophesies are anything to go with then great suffering seems inevitable. Hopefully none of this will materialise and we will make a turn towards prosperity.

I think its time to keep, rather than take. I wouldn't feel right if I had to give up, or turn over my hunting rifles, my handguns, etc. if they came knocking. Now that would be a really sad day.

If they come knocking for your guns.. be sure to sent them the bullets first!!

they will never succeed

I have said it before and I will say it once more in this thread, because it is important and I don't see anyone else mentioning it.

*It seems some/many of the school/mall/camp massacres are government sponsored events to scare people into thinking humans are too immature to be able to handle firearms. The cia had project mk-ultra and project artichoke for quite some time and it was all classified till recently.*

Mind control is not science fiction. The ptb are mastering subliminal programming skills with radio transmitters scattered throughout the world. Also HAARP, invented by nikola tesla seems suspicious to say the least. Even hypnosis with the aid of lsd has been tried.

I am not saying every massacre is government sponsored, because I am sure a few crazy people can escape the basic government screening process and damage everyones reputation, BUT some cases like the norway massacre seem highly suspicious.

I suspect the more desperate the ptb get with gun control...the more massacres we will be seeing.....and it will be blamed on out of control gun freaks. Problem, Reaction, Solution.

If the majority of those gun crimes were committed by legal firearms you'd have a point. But unfortunately most gun crime is from people who get their firearms illegally. Since this is the case, it only hurts American law abiding citizens to take away their guns, and gives criminals an advantage against the non criminals. I don't think that's fair at all. Take away humans, and I guarantee there's no more gun crime. You can't blame an inanimate object for something that is 100% a decision made by the person, regardless of the tool they use. That's like blaming your TV set, for the terrible reality shows that dominate the air waves.

Originally posted by queenofsheba
I think its time to keep, rather than take. I wouldn't feel right if I had to give up, or turn over my hunting rifles, my handguns, etc. if they came knocking. Now that would be a really sad day.

Since my son in-law is the police chief in my town I have thought about this. And while I don't see it ever happening it bothered me enough that I asked him what he would do if asked to take the guns from city residents.

He said that he would never follow an order like that, that he took an oath to uphold the constitution, and he said his officers agree as they've had the talk also.

As a vet myself I know that the National Guard or regular Army would never participate in a gun seizure.

So while it is a moot point, it still makes for interesting debate.

reply to post by ConspiraCity


Those who beat their swords in to plows, will plow for those who did not.

J.R.R. Tolkien

The time is now to take the gun from those that can't handle a gun.

reply to post by AGWskeptic


Wasn't it the national guard that went and stole people's guns after katrina hit? I could be remembering wrong, but I coulda sworn it was the national guard.

Some people just don't use common sense with a gun.

reply to post by InTheLight


The problem is identifying those who can't handle a gun. I drive to work every morning amongst a dozen or more people who obviously can't handle a car. Do people who can't handle guns have some distinguishing characteristic that I am missing? The vast overwhelming majority of reponsible people who wish to own guns CAN handle them as is evidenced by the statistical data I mentioned earlier in this thread. Gun laws are written, and passed carte blanche without regard for individual consideration. Taking guns away from anyone would infringe upon the rights of everyone.

That is my contention with the anti-gun crowd. They have a "Kill the baby since we have no bath water." mentality.

reply to post by Binder


Taking guns away from people that can't handle them will serve the public by providing a safer environment.
Let's test their anger management to start.

reply to post by InTheLight


That paradigm is too simple. The issue too complex. Most people can "fake it" when they know it's a test. The bottom line is that you cannot legislate morals. Freedoms come with risks. The risks aren't as high as the media hypes them up to be. Yes guns should be removed from the hands of those who have proven themselves unfit through actions. To pass preemptive laws to address all the possible out comes leads to a totalitarian state. The logical conclusion is either assumption of risk with the benefit of personal freedom, or the attempt at reduction of all risks with the comensurate reductions in freedoms. Eventually they will reduce one that you are rather fond of, and it won't seem like such a good idea anymore.

reply to post by Binder


It's the same with elders and driving, prove you're capable or give it up.

reply to post by InTheLight


Let's start with taking away your 1st Amendment rights before you decide to take away someone's 2nd Amendment rights... not so cool anymore is it? Ya know, while we're at it... you lose your 19th Amendment rights as well, so no voting for you... It doesn't effect me, I'm a dude...why should I care about the 19th Amendment... Of course I'd never be one to deny someone their rights, but it's a slippery slope once you start.

Obvious things like Mental Ilness, Current Drug Addicts/Alcoholics, Felons or DV Convictions should lose their right to bear arms. Basically anything that a reasonable and prudent person wouldn't do.