WH Plans To Overwhelm NRA With Rapid Victory

WH Plans To Overwhelm NRA With Rapid Victory

Like the way they passed the PATRIOT Act? (here's the bill, no time to read it we vote in 2 hours!)

I pray they aren't so stupid as to try something that slimy again.
Gun confiscation didn't work out in Lexington either.
Anyone who thinks someone is going to toss their AR or AK in to a bucket for $100 needs their head examined.

reply to post by woogleuk


Proud, eh? Such glowing paternalism is reminiscent of that barren landscape of rock you've planted your flag on (i.e. the landscape your member photo depicts).

Pfft.

reply to post by Asktheanimals

I think that Senators and Representatives have a good excuse to Abstain (as in "Present" for former Senator Obama) and Not follow the Party Line (to vote Yes) if they are not given a realistic time to read and study the Bill or Resolution.

Some people will sell their cheaper assault rifles for $2000 tho (Feinstein isnt opposed to spending taxpayer $).

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

Mat 10:21 And brother shall deliver up brother to death, and the father his child: and children shall rise up against parents, and cause them to be put to death.


This comes to mind every time I hear/read someone say that our friends and family will be our worst enemies.

reply to post by SeenMyShare

I sure never thought I'd see a time come in my life where the thought would be more than far out paranoid rambling, did you? I suppose we aren't there yet. I believe I can clearly see the spot from where we're standing though.

Let me say to those who think the police or feds will have one tiny problem confiscating any guns they wish. Drones my brothers. They used them in Idaho to dete3rmine with their sensors if the rusttlers they were tracking for the local police were armed. They waited until those rustlers put up their guns in the safe and were away from them and then they sent signal to the locals to move in on the unarmed suspects. How exactly to you folks see the DHS loan a drone going for all of us US citizens / prisoners when they want to start confiscating the biggest gun hoarders? It will be a scripted event unfolding one big scale confiscation at a time.

They will probably start with Ted Nugent just to be @holz.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


I agree. I have done many hours of "soul searching" recently. I have decided to disarm myself.

I am not a coward (at least I don't think so). I have enough blood on my hands and I refuse to add more, especially American (regardless of what side they are on).

Some here will say I am paranoid, or that I am not a patriot. I gave 20 years to the nation and got nothing in return. Unless you say being added to a watchlist or being branded a potential "domestic terrorist" is a reward. I cannot in good concious continue to fight for a nation and a population I no longer believe in.

Originally posted by woogleuk
reply to post by AwakeinNM

 

Very rare you see gun crime here matey, yes violent crime is quite high, but at least the fatality rate is low. (and for the record, firearms aren't banned in the UK, just harder to get licensed for, I could easily get a license if I wanted one)

Besides, all I am saying is that banning AR is a good step, not they are taking away your rights to use firearms, they aren't, just the nastier types of weapons that can kill a lot of innocent people really quickly.

I have come to understand you lot like your guns, so I say banning all of them is probably a bad thing for you guys.

You just don't need assault rifles to go hunting or home defense.

edit on 6/1/13 by woogleuk because: (no reason given)

The 2nd amendment is NOT about hunting or home defense, it is about defense from an overreaching govt.PERIOD!!!

Hunting and home defense are secondary. It is about defending the nation from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

If the president over reaches the authority granted to him by the people, it is the duty of the people to stand up and go against him. If he has the armed forces at his disposal, it is the duty of those armed forces and of the people to stand up AGAINST him if he is in violation of the constitution.

That is the SOLE purpose of the 2nd amendment to the constitution, to ensure the people are armed in case of tyranny by govt.

Jaden

reply to post by Masterjaden


Thanks, I understand now, 300 million+ people need weapons to go up against a couple of hundred guys in suits and the whitehouse cat, should they overstep the mark.


For the record, another poster here and a few others actually explained reasonably well the ins and outs of all this, and whilst I am still opposed to guns in civilian hands in Britain, I do understand better the American need to have them.....took a long time to sway me on that too.

reply to post by woogleuk


IS the whitehouse cat pure white and love sitting on its masters lap? if so just grab your guns guys as its bound to be an evil genius probably with a liking to tell everyone their evil plans to Mr Bond

reply to post by woogleuk


Please bear in mind it's ugly we know it's ugly,But we would actually need a real leader,not a party member to iron out these issues.Not self serving liars with who want control ,which we have had to deal with.

Originally posted by rock427

Originally posted by woogleuk
reply to post by rock427

 

Any rifle that has changeable magazine (or belt fed in some cases) and can fire semi or fully auto in constant or burst, any idiot could probably Google that info anyway

That is the basic definition of an assault weapon. A weapon that can fire automatically. Those are already banned in the United States. Only people with a Class III License can own and operate an automatic weapon. It is true that semi-autos "can" be fitted to fire auto. However, that is already illegal without the proper license. so assault rifles are already banned to 99% of the public here.

Semi-Autos however are not assault rifles, as they do not fire burst rounds or automatically. Now that we can differentiate between between assault grade rifles and non-assault grade rifles, there is no need to ban any guns at all. Unless you're srsly entertaining the idea of banning semi-autos. (Semi-autos equate to 99.9% of all guns out there.)

edit on 6-1-2013 by rock427 because: (no reason given)

With all due respect, the statement about the class 3 license is technically incorrect. The process to obtain a transferable machine gun is not that difficult. The steps are...you find a class 3 dealer. Find the firearm you intend to purchase. Then, you complete an B.A.T.F.E form 1. along with the form 1 you send a check or money order in the amount of $200 usd. They will send you a confirmation, you then go and schedule an interview with your primary local law enforcement official, typically the county sheriff. You in form them of what you are purchasing, they fingerprint you and give you a form that you send back to the ATF. In about 4-6 weeks ( in the real world, more like 6-8 months) they will send you a tax stamp for that particular firearm (or suppressor, etc) Note, this process is done for each class 3 item.

The other restrictions are that it has to be a transferable machine gun. One of the main qualifying markers is it has to have been manufactured prior to 1968. Anything made after that is not available to the public, except for class 3 dealers, as dealer samples.

So, they are accessible to anyone who can legally own a firearm, if they want to go through the intensive background check and interview process, be on an atf list and pay 200 bucks per item. These particular weapons are registered with the feds. They are heavily regulated and I do not think a single one of them has ever been used in any type of crime.

In all fairness to this guy (ref Holder vid), and I am a slobering 2nd amendment freek, he was addressing the fact that inner city kids were already brainwashed from a young age by the gang/gun/driveby world they lived in and needed to be rewashed. Young black men kill each other in staggering numbers.

We have about 100 murders a year around here and its about 10 to 1 a black male behind the gun.

do what you will. You will just make enemies of law abiding Americans who you will now label as criminals, AND WILL NOT GIVE UP THEIR GUNS.

Make all the enemies you want, your loss. When there is a radical reform in the US fueled by Pissed off people you just labeled criminals, you people better have a plan B on where you can live.

The same way you are persecuting gun owners, we will persecute you....only worse: you will probably want to leave the country voluntarily after we are done.

Keep pushing tough guys......pat your selves on the back and all.....

reply to post by beezzer


Healthcare is anything but a government controlled monolith.

They'll have little brown shirted thugs lining up for minimum wage to carry guns and storm peoples houses to take away their guns. Heck, they'd do it for three meals and a tiny apartment and a TV.
Maybe this is a feint, create a scare about the government doing something completely fascist and then they back down. But in the mean time they do something else that screws us just as much. They're already getting ready to increase all of our taxes dramatically. If the complaints get too loud, watch a " Solar Flare" fry our grid and the internet gets shut down leaving us without a means to communicate.
Millions of people with weapons would make it hard for an invading force or a police state to function without significant casualties.

reply to post by Asktheanimals


I could not agree more. They can move by making a rule change like they did with the so called "street sweeper" They can reclassify high capacity magazines or semi automatic weapons as infernal machines and do that at the administrative level. That is probably what they are working on in my opinion.

reply to post by Dutchowl


Hope we can keep the causalities to a minimum. I would like to see my rights upheld instead of depleted. They have been reduced far too much already. This just seems like the bridge too far to me.

I will not be okay with any new gun control laws in United States, I won't even take a single one seriously into consideration until our government accepts responsibility for selling guns to drug cartels in Mexico for starters. Then they need to stop arming other governments and groups on foreign soil.

Sorry, but the White House is full of hypocritics who thinks it's okay to disarm their own civilians all the while they arm foreign intrests. If the government want to know where the real gun problem exists, they need only look at themselves.

reply to post by lynn112


Any means to achieve their ends seems to be acceptable to this lot.