One thing I could never understand.....


PDA






Hokkmike
November 8, 2012, 10:43 PM
Let me start with the disclaimer and statement that I support the unfettered and absolute right of every American to buy, own, and use guns for any and all lawful purposes. I also support the right to carry open and/or concealed. I vote for candidates who agree with these positions. While it serves hunters the Second Amendment is broader in scope and an umbrella of protection for all gun owners. I myself have a LTCF (PA) and a federal Curios & Relic license. I frequent the range where I have been a 20 year plus member and have hunted for over 35 years. I just don't want any of you to misinterpret the point I am going to make. (underlined below)

I know locally in central Pennsylvania that many dealers I frequent have handguns, especially used cheaper ones, flying off their shelves. I can see it in the remaining available inventories and it is also what they tell me. The same is more and more true with military style semi-auto rifles. You literally cannot find any decent AK's locally in the mom & pop or larger chain stores.

So, here is my point. Are most people assuming that prior ownership will prevent the gov't fom passing laws that will not only prevent future purchases of some of these types of guns but at the same time allow lawful owners to keep those they do have. It is my suspicion that the gov't could just as easily require that any future banned guns of these types be turned in, and/or registered or taxed more heavily, or jack up ammo prices. In other words they would make prior possession a crime or a great inconvienence.

Sure, I know that many people's guns will be "stolen", "lost", or that many pledge to defend their rights to the uttermost, but what would really happen? And beyond that, and my point for discsussion in this thread, is to question whether buying quantities (or hoarding) firearms that we fear will be regulated will be of any benefit.

I know a gentleman locally, and they'll never get it out of me, that has acquired a very nice collection of AR's and AK's.

One thing I could never understand is do people really thinks that buying a quantity of semi-auto pistols, for example, is any protection against the enactment of such laws?

Well, it is just a topic for discussion. What do you think?

If you enjoyed reading about "One thing I could never understand....." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
r1derbike
November 8, 2012, 10:51 PM
Hard to qualify why people do what they do. Fear? I will say the "run" on sales certainly has given suppliers a needed lift going into the holiday season!

With all the past, present, and future sales, U.S. citizens are becoming a well-armed lot.

Perhaps they feel that government tyranny is lapping at their thresholds?

EddieNFL
November 8, 2012, 10:52 PM
I think if you don't have one when a ban is put in effect, it won't be any easier to get.

Texan Scott
November 8, 2012, 10:56 PM
From the 5th amendment :

... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The US govmnt would immediately face the objection that they can't simply seize valuable property that was legal when purchased.... and compensation that we would accept is prohibitively expensive. That's the practical basis for legal grandfathering.

Hokkmike
November 8, 2012, 10:58 PM
Texan Scott I hope you are right sir!

Steel Horse Rider
November 8, 2012, 10:58 PM
It is easier to keep something you already have than to get something that is considered contraband.

Warp
November 8, 2012, 11:06 PM
So, here is my point. Are most people assuming that prior ownership will prevent the gov't fom passing laws that will not only prevent future purchases of some of these types of guns but at the same time allow lawful owners to keep those they do have.

Yes, most people are assuming that.

Laws making such common and legal items illegal would be insanely difficult to pass and ridiculously unpopular.

A federal law making, say, an AR15 pattern rifle illegal is so unlikely to happen it is barely even worth my time to respond to somebody worried about that.

Apachedriver
November 8, 2012, 11:11 PM
I hope Texan Scott is right as well. But there have been many governments throughout history that just run right over the people when they get push back on their "rule".

It's easy to explain the buying due to panic. The more powerless you feel, the more apt you are to blindly do anything just as long as it feels like something. A drowning person will still thrash and flail even though, in their right mind, they know it does no good. It's panic.

You suddenly believe, whether true or not, that you are out of options and the thrashing(panic buying) starts. It even affects those that know better once they see the things they want or need start to go up in price or disappear from shelves. That's self-preservation on their part.

The best thing to do is not buy for yourself alone, but convince others, that are not currently owners, to exercise their rights thru purchases. The more responsible citizens that become gun owners, the more people there are to push back against legislators when anti-gun issues come down the pike.

If you stand to lose something, I feel bad for you. If I stand to lose something too, now it's an all out crisis.

r1derbike
November 8, 2012, 11:25 PM
The best thing to do is not buy for yourself alone, but convince others, that are not currently owners, to exercise their rights thru purchases. The more responsible citizens that become gun owners, the more people there are to push back against legislators when anti-gun issues come down the pike.Outstanding!

Hardtarget
November 9, 2012, 12:27 AM
Well, so far, the currant regieme has thummed its nose at the Constitution several times and done a good job of by-passing congress to make "czars" to run "government bureaus" that make rules that run roughshot over many of our rights.

just sayin'...

a couple of "reasonable new gun laws" wouldn't be a stretch.

Mark

msb45
November 9, 2012, 12:41 AM
I bought another AR before the election. In the past the AWB and the GCA of '34 allowed for either keeping or grandfathering the registration of guns. Of course the UK and Australia did confiscations.

I'm thinking of buying a single shot 12Ga and a double barrel so I can have guns that may be ban friendly. Along with revolvers they may have a better chance of banning.

medalguy
November 9, 2012, 12:47 AM
Yes but the UK DOES NOT HAVE A CONSTITUTION. Not sure about Australia. Hopefully that might make a difference here. Plus the UK has been subject to severe firearms regulations since back before WW II. They were used to severe laws, and when the time came to take their guns away, the sheeple went along.

Wanderling
November 9, 2012, 12:57 AM
How many panic-induced buying sprees that caused an increase in sales and pricing of guns and ammo was there in the last decade(s) ?

The very recurring nature of it makes my inner cynic suspicious. Surely if I was selling the product, I wouldn't be below spreading some rumors when there's such an impact on my bottom line. It's smart marketing. Just saying...

FROGO207
November 9, 2012, 08:06 AM
If such a law (restrictions) was forced on us with respect to handguns they would be in the same boat as NFA/destructive devices I would bet. Anything else would not fly with anyone presently.

Davek1977
November 9, 2012, 08:26 AM
The federal govt of the US has never tried to implement an outright ownership ban, because frankly, with the number of guns out there, the lack of central registrations, etc, it would be all but impossible to enforce. There are millions of guns out there, and the govt only has an inkling of whats where, with no real solid information. Enforcing such a ban, realistically, would mean a search of the entire US, which is unfathomable, unless it was done on a "volunteer" basis. How many die-hard gun rights supporters do you suppose would turn in thousands of dollars worth of now contraband merely because someone asked them to do so nicely? The sheer magnitude of the proposition make it all but impossible to enact, let alone enforce, and honestly, while attempts may be made, I don't actually see a ban passing in this political climate. A law has to have some teeth, and enforcement of this one would be a disaster as far as Constitutional arguments go. We have issues involving the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments certainly, and perhaps others. Our Constitution protects us from arbitrary searches and seizures, and from unlawful taking of property. Our rights would have to be eroded significantly before such laws would ever be enacted let alone enforced.

Hokkmike
November 9, 2012, 09:20 AM
There are millions of guns out there, and the govt only has an inkling of whats where, with no real solid information. Enforcing such a ban, realistically, would mean a search of the entire US, which is unfathomable, unless it was done on a "volunteer" basis. How many die-hard gun rights supporters do you suppose would turn in thousands of dollars worth of now contraband merely because someone asked them to do so nicely?...Davek1977

What you say is true. But what good are they of you have to hide them and can't shoot, use, trade, sell, or buy them?

JohnBT
November 9, 2012, 09:41 AM
"do people really thinks that buying a quantity of semi-auto pistols,"

...is a superior investment to buying a one-year CD that pays 1/10th of one percent? Yes.

Heck, SunTrust tried to sell me a 5-year CD that paid 1.24%. (Since my father died last year I'm in charge of mom's money (mostly in CDs) because she's in a nursing home with Alzheimer's. This rollover CD would have been for $175k and they wouldn't budge on the rate. I asked for a check and left.)

I thought about buying more guns. :)

John

JustinJ
November 9, 2012, 09:48 AM
Well, so far, the currant regieme has thummed its nose at the Constitution several times and done a good job of by-passing congress to make "czars" to run "government bureaus" that make rules that run roughshot over many of our rights.

My god, "the current regime...". Were u living under a rock until 2008?

Drail
November 9, 2012, 10:42 AM
Regarding confiscation or requiring owners to "turn in" their guns- years ago when I was an NRA instructor someone came up with a document that we all carried around with us everywhere we went and it essentially asked law enforcement persons if they were ordered to do gun confiscations "would you do it?" You could see them thinking about their answer. Every single one said they would resign before they would participate. It would be suicide to even try. Passing a law is easy. Enforcing it is entirely another matter. America faced this exact problem a couple hundred years ago and the fact that we were well armed was the only thing that put a stop to it.

Tommygunn
November 9, 2012, 11:30 AM
The US govmnt would immediately face the objection that they can't simply seize valuable property that was legal when purchased.... and compensation that we would accept is prohibitively expensive.

Since when has "prohibitively expensive" ever dissuaded our noble government from doing anything to us?:evil:

oneounceload
November 9, 2012, 12:14 PM
A federal law making, say, an AR15 pattern rifle illegal is so unlikely to happen it is barely even worth my time to respond to somebody worried about that.

They won't do that, however, they could make reloading too expensive with exorbitant taxes on components and do the same with ammo or magazines, leaving most with very expensive paper weights. Just look at what Cook County did regarding ammo and guns - the ammo part failed, but the gun tax was passed. All the feds have to do is enact the ammo tax. When .223 ammo costs you $5-$10 per shot, how much are you going to spend or shoot?

Midwest
November 9, 2012, 12:38 PM
In the remote, very remote chance they managed to pass some registration legislation or 'confiscation'. The U.S. doesn't have financial resources to implement such a radical gun control scheme, and no resources to go the proverbial "door to door" for 'enforcement'...

Look what happened in Canada, there are less people in that country, and they have lower gun ownership as well and they could not manage it.


Little Compliance

Canada spent a well over a billion dollars on their gun registration and even then there was very low compliance.


http://www.saf.org/journal/15/abilliondollarslater.pdf

"By mid-December, 2001, only 312,000 gun owners, less than 18% of the 1.76 million owners then licensed, had so far registered 1.9 million guns, including previously registered handguns."



The cost was astronomical

"It is quite possible by now that the grand-total of all-government costs of the Firearms Act may already even approach $2-3 billion."


A person from Manitoba went so far to protest the 'system' by successfully registering his soldering gun. They decided not to prosecute him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=DkyC6qGRGVE



They discontinued the registration in Canada. It was unpopular, unworkable, costly and not many complied.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Firearms_Registry


The Rifles

The so called 'e-vile' "assault weapons" aka 'black rifles' have gone mainstream. Even Walmart sells them with 30 round magazines. The average Joe Six pack can buy them readily off the shelf. They are popular and good sellers. Talk of 'banning' popular rifles that the public now likes will create a lot of opposition...This isn't 1994 anymore...a lot of the public has woken up.


Many TV shows have helped popularize the rifles, "American Guns", "Cajun Pawn Stars" and of course "Sons of Guns" and others. None of these programs were on TV in 1994, in fact I don't recall any time in the past that showed these popular rifles in a good light and on a weekly basis as they are today.

I am not saying lets go to sleep and not be concerned about it, (always keep aware what 'they' are planning) I am saying that the tide turned awhile ago. The rifles have become mainstream and very popular.

An out of touch, clueless politician from California can't and will not change American opinion. Her rants has fallen on deaf ears across America. Her stance is out of step with the rest of America, her 15 minutes of fame faded in the early 90's and she seems to believe this is still the 1990's...it ain't...



What the State Of Georgia said...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession_in_the_United_States

"Georgia: On April 1, 2009, the Georgia State Senate passed a resolution 43-1 that affirmed the right of states to nullify federal laws. The resolution also included the assertion that if Congress took certain steps, including restricting firearms or ammunition, the United States government would cease to exist."


.

X-Rap
November 9, 2012, 12:49 PM
Taxes, environmental fees could make shooting/hunting prohibitive. One doesn't have to go door to door to enforce confiscation or outright ban on possession. Look at some of the penalties assessed now for some violations (environmental comes to mind), they are ruinous to to those charged.
If the simple possession of a contraban weapon or ammo could cause you to lose your home, wealth or freedom how many examples would it take before you gave in.

psyopspec
November 9, 2012, 12:56 PM
Emotion > logic. For the same reason that 2008/2009 flushed investors from the stock market who stayed away out of fear until this most recent round of QE was announced pundits said it was safe to get back in the water (Hint - wrong on both counts).

22-rimfire
November 9, 2012, 01:14 PM
Laws can be changed. Our Constitution can be changed with new ammendments as it has been. I agree that there is no absolute protection of ownership just because you purchased said firearm prior to new legislation. In general, the US tends to grandfather the previous stuff affected and go from there. Attrition will gradually reduce the numbers involved over time.

I don't know what real authority the President has when it comes to Executive Orders, but it is significant. The US EPA was created by a presidential executive order. At the time, it combined departments, authority, and laws under one umbrella like was supposed to happen with Homeland Security.

The government could very easily make it cost prohibitive for normal people of means to own more than one or two firearms simply by implementing fees for purchase and registration. As we all have seen, much new legislation has revenue generation aspects built into it.

One could say that prior Supreme Court decisions would not allow that. But the times are changing.

A new law (if passed) could contain anything. Whether it is constitutional is another matter, but "Obama Care" was found to be constitutional as a tax. The law could outright ban "assault weapons" or move them under the NFA umbrella. How would you like to pay $1000 registration fee/tax per gun? The $200 tax was a significant impediment when the law was first passed for regular people. Inflation has caused the amount to be pretty much unconsequential at this time for full auto firearms or other restricted firearms when you consider people who own full auto weapons to be a small subset of the firearm owning community.

The enforcement issue would be nearly impossible. But everytime you took your "unregistered" firearm to a range, you could be arrested or the gun confiscated. Ranges would be forced to require only legal weapons on their premises or they would be put out of business eventually.

Like the illegal alien issue, guns are a tough enforcement issue.

There is the UN Small Arms Treaty issue, but as I understand it, the treaty if ratified would not over ride the US Constitution. But registration would probably not be considered an infringement on citizen rights unless there was a substantial "tax" involved to register.

What if you had to pay the tax per gun per year versus a one time deal?

People say they wouldn't comply. Do you really want to thumb your nose at the government by not complying? There are substantial risks.

Let's hope that our Congress will truly represent their constituents, but firearm owners are probably a minority. However, vocal minorities get a lot of attention. For the most part, the minorities define new law whether it be something that affects business, women's "rights", public assistance and so forth.

Warp
November 9, 2012, 01:18 PM
They won't do that, however, they could make reloading too expensive with exorbitant taxes on components and do the same with ammo or magazines, leaving most with very expensive paper weights. Just look at what Cook County did regarding ammo and guns - the ammo part failed, but the gun tax was passed. All the feds have to do is enact the ammo tax. When .223 ammo costs you $5-$10 per shot, how much are you going to spend or shoot?

If Crook County can't pass a tax on ammo, there's no way in hell it'll fly at the federal level.

Also, you are over exaggerating (yes, over exaggerating). Their proposed (and failed) tax was, what, 5 cents per round? That would make .223 cost, what, 35-45 cents per round for most ball ammo? $5-$10 per shot...give me a break.

Please stop the hysteria.

Baba Louie
November 9, 2012, 02:05 PM
National Emergency...? All bets are off. Substitute a word or two, factor in a SCOTUS more inclined one way than another and ponder the following please :uhoh:
I, as President do declare that the national emergency still exists: that the continued private hoarding of gold and silver by subjects of the United States poses a grave threat to peace, equal justice, and well-being of the United States; and that appropriate measures must be taken immediately to protect the interest of our people. Therefore, pursuant to the above authority, I hereby proclaim that such gold and silver holdings are prohibited, and that all such coin, bullion or other possessions of gold and silver be tendered within fourteen days to agents of the Government of the United States for compensation at the official price, in the legal tender of the Government. All safe deposit boxes in banks or financial institutions have been sealed pending action in the due course of the law. All sales or purchases or movements of such gold and silver within the borders of the United States and its territories, and all foreign exchange transactions or movements of such metals across the border are hereby prohibited. – FDR April 5, 1933
Never say never. But I'm sure, it'll never come to pass.
You ever wonder why most of the big gold mining companies in the US, like Barrick, were, or are legally Canadian corporations? Probably not if you're like most folks.

barnbwt
November 9, 2012, 08:36 PM
So, here is my point. Are most people assuming that prior ownership will prevent the gov't fom passing laws that will not only prevent future purchases of some of these types of guns but at the same time allow lawful owners to keep those they do have.

It's the Pandora's Box effect, and it's why we're all allowed to use centerfire smokeless powder guns today. Under the exact same logic that banned machine guns and high explosives to civilians, these more powerful chamberings/propellants could have also been denied or subjected to onerous regulation. The Federal Government didn't ban them, and they became commonplace to the point that it was impossible to justify banning them out of fear; but they obviously weren't inclined to make the same mistake again.

If/when energy weapons or caseless ammo becomes possible, they will undoubtedly be unavailable to us. We are basically stuck with 50 year old designs at this point. In another fifty years, we might as well have sticks and clubs compared to the stuff (robot?) soldiers will have :eek:

...within fourteen days to agents of the Government of the United States for compensation at the official price, in the legal tender of the Government.

According to The Wiki, after this seizure period, the official price was raised and the profit made (by the feds) on the seized gold was put toward some "market stabilization fund" (whatever the heck that really meant). So much for gold being the ultimate safe investment; all the government has to do is force you to sell, at whatever loss they feel is commensurate (and the same goes with firearms). Failure to surrender gold was subject to ten years in a PMITA prison, if memory serves; how much gold/guns is that worth to you? It's not worth enough for me to make a machine gun I have every God-given, constitutionally-enumerated right to posses, that's for sure :o.

The Constitution doesn't mean a damn thing if people don't hold the government accountable to it. Remember that next time someone claims it's a "living document" whose meaning should reinterpreted by the very people serving at its pleasure.

TCB

tryshoot
November 9, 2012, 08:38 PM
I know this sounds stupid, but read Animal Farm from George Orwell.

we are not amused
November 11, 2012, 03:50 PM
Regarding confiscation or requiring owners to "turn in" their guns- years ago when I was an NRA instructor someone came up with a document that we all carried around with us everywhere we went and it essentially asked law enforcement persons if they were ordered to do gun confiscations "would you do it?" You could see them thinking about their answer. Every single one said they would resign before they would participate. It would be suicide to even try. Passing a law is easy. Enforcing it is entirely another matter. America faced this exact problem a couple hundred years ago and the fact that we were well armed was the only thing that put a stop to it.
I would like to agree with you, but look at what happened in New Orleans after Katrina. Where was the mass resignation of Law enforcement officers over that?

we are not amused
November 11, 2012, 04:40 PM
According to The Wiki, after this seizure period, the official price was raised and the profit made (by the feds) on the seized gold was put toward some "market stabilization fund" (whatever the heck that really meant). So much for gold being the ultimate safe investment; all the government has to do is force you to sell, at whatever loss they feel is commensurate (and the same goes with firearms). Failure to surrender gold was subject to ten years in a PMITA prison, if memory serves; how much gold/guns is that worth to you? It's not worth enough for me to make a machine gun I have every God-given, constitutionally-enumerated right to posses, that's for sure :o.

The Constitution doesn't mean a damn thing if people don't hold the government accountable to it. Remember that next time someone claims it's a "living document" whose meaning should reinterpreted by the very people serving at its pleasure.

TCB
Don't depend upon the Constitution, or the Supreme Court to up hold your Rights.

The Constitution can be readily ignored if the Public doesn't care. Look at what happened in New Orleans after Katrina, or in Greensburg, Kansas after the tornado, where law abiding citizens were forced out of their undamaged houses, (only about 80% of the town was destroyed or damaged) under threat of arrest, and the houses then searched and guns confiscated.

Where was the media outrage? They favored the action, the same as in New Orleans. Where were the courts? They certainly did bot act robustly to protect their rights, nor in the case of the Obama Government bailout of the car companies, where Federal Bankruptcy law was suspended, in favor of the auto unions. Federal Bankruptcy laws are supposed to be Constitutionally protected. And when a rogue President, such as FDR has had time to pack the courts with his judges, then he effectively gets to rewrite the Constitution.

Obama, now has the time to further pack the Courts with anti-Second Amendment Judges, and others who will bend the Law or ignore it completely.

I, personally, have decided to buy more guns and ammunition. If nothing else, I can provide defense for my friends and family, when the outrageous National debt catches up to us.

(By the way, I had a great uncle who was a small town banker during that time, and they didn't get his. He gave out 20 dollar gold pieces to his nephews and nieces when they got married. I still have my mothers.)

we are not amused
November 11, 2012, 04:42 PM
I know this sounds stupid, but read Animal Farm from George Orwell.
No it doesn't!

Hardtarget
November 12, 2012, 01:29 AM
Well no ,Justin, I've never lived under a rock. You may like Obama...I don't. The assult wepon ban came and went. Now there seem to be new rumors.
He has made very pointed comments regarding his attitudes about guns. Obama and Clinton are talking with the U.N. about a small arms treaty. Maybe you like that idea...I don't . Maybe you voted for Obama...I didn't. Nothing I can do about anything. What comes...comes.

Mark

Warp
November 12, 2012, 01:34 AM
Well no ,Justin, I've never lived under a rock. You may like Obama...I don't. The assult wepon ban came and went. Now there seem to be new rumors.
He has made very pointed comments regarding his attitudes about guns. Obama and Clinton are talking with the U.N. about a small arms treaty. Maybe you like that idea...I don't . Maybe you voted for Obama...I didn't. Nothing I can do about anything. What comes...comes.

Mark

Are you saying that the administration prior to 2008 respected the Constitution?

jerkface11
November 12, 2012, 01:35 AM
From the 5th amendment :

... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The US govmnt would immediately face the objection that they can't simply seize valuable property that was legal when purchased.... and compensation that we would accept is prohibitively expensive. That's the practical basis for legal grandfathering.

Yup no way they would ignore 2 amendments at the same time...

Owen Sparks
November 12, 2012, 01:43 AM
People say they wouldn't comply. Do you really want to thumb your nose at the government by not complying? There are substantial risks.

Enough people did not comply with prohibition and it ended.

Enough people did not comply with segrigation laws in the South and their ring leaders birthday is now a national holiday.

Enough people did not comply with King George and you know the rest.

Warp
November 12, 2012, 02:15 AM
L
People say they wouldn't comply. Do you really want to thumb your nose at the government by not complying? There are substantial risks.

Let's hope that our Congress will truly represent their constituents, but firearm owners are probably a minority. However, vocal minorities get a lot of attention. For the most part, the minorities define new law whether it be something that affects business, women's "rights", public assistance and so forth.

What I would like to say here would not be High Road.

Short answer: Yes.

Fanfare Ends
November 12, 2012, 02:27 AM
I know this sounds stupid, but read Animal Farm from George Orwell.
It's not stupid. But a better and more timely read (imho) would be Enemies Foreign and Domestic, by Matt Bracken (http://www.enemiesforeignanddomestic.com/bookefad.htm).

oneounceload
November 12, 2012, 09:44 AM
Also, you are over exaggerating (yes, over exaggerating). Their proposed (and failed) tax was, what, 5 cents per round? That would make .223 cost, what, 35-45 cents per round for most ball ammo? $5-$10 per shot...give me a break.

Please stop the hysteria.

Wrong - try reading the post - I did not say Cook was making 223 5-10 per round - what I DID say was that the feds could easily do that, making ammo too expensive for most folks to obtain, rendering their guns obsolete
Please stop the snide comments

GAF
November 12, 2012, 11:58 AM
There are 70 to 80 million or so gun owners in this country. These gun owners have maybe 250 to 300 million guns. There were 118091807 total votes cast for Romney and Obama. Romney got 57,644,747 votes. Obama got 60,447,060 votes.

It is very apparent to me that a lot of gun owners voted for Obama.

Part of the 5th amendment says " without just compensation " so I figure that the gov could ban your property by some law and offer just compensation and that would be that. Not sure that this would ever happen.

For those who think you will fight it out with guns and bullets to keep your firearms? The gov will label you as a major nut case , the media will print that , most will believe it and the rest of the country will continue to turn in their guns.

InkEd
November 12, 2012, 12:51 PM
IMHO the most likely scenario.... You won't have a full scale gun seizure. It will be done in phases. The first will be another AWB. It will eliminate new sales of certain items and calibers. The next step will be registration. Then you'll have SCOTUS-like law. The compensation amounts will be laughable for either being very low or very high because it just means the government printed a bunch of monopoly money. (Debt and inflation are going to be the real downfall if things don't change.) Most people will comply out of fear. The mainstream media will do what it is told by the government. It will cause a black market much like any other prohibited items. People will still be allowed to own and buy certain weapons and register them.

The only thing that we can hope is that individual states want uphold their rights and refuse any type of laws from going in effect. Even though, the current administration was re-elected, it was rather close. (The distribution of electoral college votes is the main reason. If every state had an equal number of electoral college votes like they do Senate seats, the election would have been a landslide in the opposite direction.) The displeasure with the government is rather high especially when dealing with issues forcing people to do things. (e.g. Obamacare)

It would not surprise me that people would hesitate to give up their guns or register them with the government. In a recent TV survey (I saw during the election) it is estimated that 47% of US households have at least one firearm. A figure that is probably lower than real life. (Given the "non of your business" attitude upheld many people.)

In bad times, people cling to certain things. Guns are one of them.

GAF
November 12, 2012, 01:09 PM
Any one care to estimate how much 300 million guns x just compensation will cost the American tax payers ? Because if it ever came to confiscation it will be done with borrowed money so all of us will be paying for the just compensation and the confiscation of our property.

Warp
November 12, 2012, 01:52 PM
Wrong - try reading the post - I did not say Cook was making 223 5-10 per round - what I DID say was that the feds could easily do that, making ammo too expensive for most folks to obtain, rendering their guns obsolete


I never said nor implied that you said that. Here is the post/reply:

They won't do that, however, they could make reloading too expensive with exorbitant taxes on components and do the same with ammo or magazines, leaving most with very expensive paper weights. Just look at what Cook County did regarding ammo and guns - the ammo part failed, but the gun tax was passed. All the feds have to do is enact the ammo tax. When .223 ammo costs you $5-$10 per shot, how much are you going to spend or shoot?

If Crook County can't pass a tax on ammo, there's no way in hell it'll fly at the federal level.

Also, you are over exaggerating (yes, over exaggerating). Their proposed (and failed) tax was, what, 5 cents per round? That would make .223 cost, what, 35-45 cents per round for most ball ammo? $5-$10 per shot...give me a break.

Please stop the hysteria.

Wanderling
November 13, 2012, 06:21 PM
Pleeeeease. Obama is not touching the gun control with a 6 ft pole. He has a party to support you know. This hasn't been a high priority for them for a while now and I doubt it would become one any time soon. Clinton came to power in a very different setting.

I am tired from all that paranoia, frankly. He may not be the best president but he's still a US President and Dubya was far worse as far as I am concerned. There are moderates / centrists on both sides and they need to figure out how to work together and find a compromise or this country is not going anywhere.

So, while O wasn't my choice, he gets as much support from me as any other President would. I wish him luck in running the country. God knows we need it.

barnbwt
November 13, 2012, 07:36 PM
It is very apparent to me that a lot of gun owners voted for Obama.


Of course there were, and I'm sure they had legitimate reasons that trumped their opinions on the Second Amendment. Maybe we should work on reaching out to the "Firearms Used for Deer Slaying" folks who think their rights aren't affected by restrictions and regulation of others' firearm use.

Most folks hate raising a fuss and protesting (quiet bickering is much easier), so while they themselves are not targeted, they find it easy to tolerate "mild" creeping infringements on many things (guns, religion, gas bills, etc.). The key is to help people understand the chain of events that today's precedents will set into motion if they are not strongly countered.

TCB

Geneseo1911
November 13, 2012, 07:40 PM
Any one care to estimate how much 300 million guns x just compensation will cost the American tax payers ? Because if it ever came to confiscation it will be done with borrowed money so all of us will be paying for the just compensation and the confiscation of our property.

$420 average (the average value of a gun in my collection) x 300 million=1.26 trillion

Average annual new Federal debt under Obama: 1.5 trillion (to be fair GWB was just as bad about spending, but he had a better economy and more revenue, so the deficit was smaller)
current federal debt: 15.4 trillion

And do you really think they would pay anywhere near the actual value? I don't think it will ever happen...look to machine guns to see what the statists would like to do to all guns...but to say they couldn't....they'd just run the presses a little harder. What's another trillion or so of debt and a little more inflation?

Warp
November 13, 2012, 08:10 PM
The above discussion had gone beyond tin foil hat territory.

Owen Sparks
November 13, 2012, 08:13 PM
It happened in Australia.

Apachedriver
November 13, 2012, 10:27 PM
...and I'm sure they had legitimate reasons that trumped their opinions on the Second Amendment.

Talk about one thing I could never understand...

No I'm not picking on you. I just could never understand how people out there could think that they can or should use their rights as negotiable instruments to get things they want.

Personally, that's the first thing I always look at with any candidate for office. If they are willing to bargain with, trade away, take away, restrict my usage of, make conditional, or sidestep any one of my rights as guaranteed by the US Constitution, then they have lost my vote or will hear from me.

I don't get how others can just ignore that.

But that's just me

Rant off.

jerkface11
November 13, 2012, 10:57 PM
Two anti-gun candidates ran for president we shouldn't act too shocked that one of them won.

Warp
November 13, 2012, 11:01 PM
Two anti-gun candidates ran for president we shouldn't act too shocked that one of them won.

Too true.

Neverwinter
November 14, 2012, 12:00 AM
Personally, that's the first thing I always look at with any candidate for office. If they are willing to bargain with, trade away, take away, restrict my usage of, make conditional, or sidestep any one of my rights as guaranteed by the US Constitution, then they have lost my vote or will hear from me.
There is more to the Constitution than just the 2nd Amendment. Unless there is full overlap in the policies between the two choices, you're going to be making a choice which bargains on parts of the Constitution.

Fanfare Ends
November 14, 2012, 02:36 PM
"Pleeeeease. Obama is not touching the gun control with a 6 ft pole. He has a party to support you know."

A Party whose base and whose leadership all support complete gun bans.

"This hasn't been a high priority for them for a while now and I doubt it would become one any time soon."

Really?

11/11/2012 08:11 PM
... “It’s obvious that our warnings over the past several months have been true,” said Alan Gottlieb, founder and executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation, based in Bellevue, Wash.
Less than 24 hours after winning re-election, the Obama’s administration joined with China, France, Germany and the United Kingdom, and more than 150 other governments, in*supporting renewed debate on the proposed United Nations arms trade treaty, confirming the worst fears of the American gun rights community,” said the founder of SAF, which*was in 1974, and which has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters ...


...“The election was called about 11 p.m. Tuesday and by 11 a.m. this morning, we got word that the United States was supporting this resolution. We have to be more vigilant in*our efforts to stop this proposed treaty,” he said.

The vote came at the U.N. General Assembly’s meeting of the First Committee on Disarmament at the world organization’s headquarters in New York City.
According to a State Department webpage devoted to the Arms Trade Treaty, the Obama administration strongly supports the treaty potential.

“The ATT should include all advanced conventional weapons, including tanks, armored combat vehicles, artillery systems, military aircraft, military helicopters, naval vessels,*missiles, missile launchers, small arms and light weapons, and combat support equipment. It should also include parts, components, and/or technology to manufacture, modify,*or repair the covered items,” the webpage said...

rest of article here: http://www.humanevents.com/2012/11/11/saf-blasts-obama-support-for-un-arms-trade-treaty-day-after-election/

Owen Sparks
November 14, 2012, 02:42 PM
They are waiting for the next high profile mass murder case.

ErikO
November 14, 2012, 02:46 PM
"Pleeeeease. Obama is not touching the gun control with a 6 ft pole. He has a party to support you know."

A Party whose base and whose leadership all support complete gun bans.



Not quite true. Google 'Democratic Gun Owners' Caucus' and you'll find several orgs that are working to change that perception directly. The verbiage of the Firearms platform is repugnant to many folks inside the party and will not be repeated in 2016.

RKBA is not a Conservative issue and stopping another AWB or continuation of the 'gun show loophole' nonsense is up to all of us to undertake.

Warp
November 14, 2012, 03:15 PM
"Pleeeeease. Obama is not touching the gun control with a 6 ft pole. He has a party to support you know."

A Party whose base and whose leadership all support complete gun bans.

"This hasn't been a high priority for them for a while now and I doubt it would become one any time soon."

Really?


Perhaps you can aware me on the most recent anti-gun legislation that has been passed at the federal level...

Fanfare Ends
November 14, 2012, 04:32 PM
"Google 'Democratic Gun Owners' Caucus' and you'll find several orgs that are working to change that perception directly..."

WADR, I would think its more important to actually change your leadership and your base who support total gun bans, than working to simply change the "perception". (And I say that as someone very used to futility, living in NY with Chuck Schumer as a Senator).

"The verbiage of the Firearms platform is repugnant to many folks inside the party and will not be repeated in 2016."

Good luck with that.

I hope you have a less embarrassing time changing your Platform's language than your Chair did at the recent 2012 DNC.

For those who weren't watching, the DNC Chair had to resort to illegally ramming through changes in in the Democrat's Party platform, inserting language that (barely) mentioned God, and an undivided Jerusalem, and he had to do so over the objections of the majority of delegates who both wrote / supported the obnoxious platform, as well as who clearly voted NO to the changes. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8BwqzzqcDs)

"RKBA is not a Conservative issue"

Really, you are now in the business of telling us Conservatives what are and what are not our issues? Hopefully you won't insist on dictating our positions to us at the point of a gun ( : >).

"and stopping another AWB or continuation of the 'gun show loophole' nonsense is up to all of us to undertake."

WADR again, and admitting that I, like many was not enamored of Romney's flip-flopping on the issues over the years, you and your Blue Gun groups had four years to change the direction of this administration with respect to the 2nd Amendment, and yet Barack Hussein Obama called for reinstating the AWB during the 2nd debate (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLM0KQPqRUk&feature=related), and these are (from his campaign's website) the actual anti-2A platform positions that he ran on in the election last week:

Address Gun Violence in Cities (http://change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy_agenda/): Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.

I am sorry but we missed reading of anyone standing up at the DNC trying to change that language in the Party platform.

Fanfare Ends
November 14, 2012, 04:44 PM
Perhaps you can aware me on the most recent anti-gun legislation that has been passed at the federal level...

The comment to which I was replying (and the link / quote that I provided) were in regard to this High Roader (http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=8510438&postcount=44)
summarizing his thoughts on the FUTURE potential of more anti-gun legislation.

Warp
November 14, 2012, 04:50 PM
The comment to which I was replying (and the link / quote that I provided) were in regard to this High Roader (http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=8510438&postcount=44)
summarizing his thoughts on the FUTURE potential of more anti-gun legislation.


So your position is that the Democratic party's base and leadership support a complete ban on guns...yet they haven't done anything about that, even when they had the House, the Senate, and the Presidency?

Sure, there is no denying that the most rabid anti gunners have always and probably always will be Democrats (though you get a RINO once in awhile), but at the national level gun control is political suicide. At the national/big picture level, the entirety of the democrat voting base is NOT in favor of a complete ban on guns. Not even close. Saying so is just baseless hysteria. We have a little too much of that (hysteria) going around right now.

barnbwt
November 14, 2012, 08:10 PM
Address Gun Violence in Cities: Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.


Wow. What a piece of work. How many code words is that? 8? I'm not familiar with the "Tiahrt Amendment", but "gun trace info" is probably one too, though I'm not counting it. Possibly "police...tools" as well? The F&F administration reccommending arms trafficking and gun tracing measures--ridiculous. It may not be wise to take a shot every time it's "for the children," either :uhoh: (this last one goes for both parties while at parties;))

There's a reason the Democratic party is "percieved" as antagonistic to gun owners

That said, I applaud the efforts of any Democrats to steer at least this one portion of their platform back toward the Constitution. Let's not forget there are perhaps more Republicans who would prefer to see additional infringement than Democrats pushing for governmental restraint.

TCB

mgkdrgn
November 14, 2012, 08:32 PM
From the 5th amendment :

... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The US govmnt would immediately face the objection that they can't simply seize valuable property that was legal when purchased.... and compensation that we would accept is prohibitively expensive. That's the practical basis for legal grandfathering.
Ya, that worked real well for all the Japanese in the US during WWII, the bar owners and distillers during prohibition, and the owners of private aircraft and airfields around DC after 9/11 (and TO THIS DAY).

Just because some law says the government can not do something does not mean they won't do it anyway, and worry about the consequences, if any, later.

Tommygunn
November 14, 2012, 08:32 PM
So your position is that the Democratic party's base and leadership support a complete ban on guns...yet they haven't done anything about that, even when they had the House, the Senate, and the Presidency?

Yeah .... they didn't do anything about the economy during that period, either. :neener:

blarby
November 14, 2012, 08:41 PM
A Party whose base and whose leadership all support complete gun bans.

False, and completely misleading- but OK.

Really, you are now in the business of telling us Conservatives what are and what are not our issues?

Odd, considering you seem to have ours all figured out.

This would be the part where moderation steps in, and ends the political bickering, and gets this back on track....................right ?

oneounceload
November 14, 2012, 08:41 PM
Sorry Warp - you are the reason these threads exist - you voting for the very person who would take your rights away-either because you have no idea about government or you truly believe some union diatribe does not lessen the fact that you are wrong.

If you truly believe in the socialist path, then surrender your guns now because they do not belong in the lifestyle of ANY US resident.............

Art Eatman
November 14, 2012, 08:55 PM
Political bickering should be in PMs or emails.

If you enjoyed reading about "One thing I could never understand....." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!