1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Ban (Civil War) Assault Weapons!!!

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Matthew Temkin, Jan 6, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Matthew Temkin

    Matthew Temkin Well-Known Member

    The N.Y. Daily News is upset that a gun show in Conn. went on as planned. The fact that it was an ANTIQUE gun show apparently means nothing to their agenda.
    The photo shows a large number of black powder antique firearms that are either original or replica guns used from the 1600-late 1800's
    Yes, I must admit, these weapons have killed more people in the past 1,000 years than all other modern guns have in the last 100 years.
    (No, I can't prove that, but it sure sounds good. I mean, if the liberals can say total horse manure statistics why can't I?)
    Heck, many of them can even accept a bayonet and can be (gasp!!) shot from the hip!!!
    Now the cat is out of the bag--many in the press want all guns banned.
    Even a 15th century matchlock musket.
    Which is why I see no reason to be "reasonable" with them and support banning guns that function no differently than the sporting rifles that they pretend to "approve of"
    Yes. Virginia, an AR 15 is no more deadly or faster shooting than a Ruger Mini 14.
    Or a Remington Model 750.
    In fact, the bullet from a Ar-15 has about 1/3 the power of the WW1 era Springfield '03 or WW2 era M 1 rifle.
    But, hey. I am preaching to the choir here.
    As with Heller Vs. D.C. ( which a lot of pro gun people were afraid to take to SCOTUS) the fight is on--let's stand firm and go for broke!!
  2. 1911 guy

    1911 guy Well-Known Member

    Preaching to the choir? Maybe not. There is a tone being set by some in the gun community that are willing to concede further legislation just to be seen as compassionate or merely doing something.

    FWIW, I'm with you. You cannot reason with an unreasonable person. Time to go in for the long war, not the quick answers.
  3. husbandofaromanian

    husbandofaromanian Well-Known Member

    SCOTUS could have helped this problem in Heller by defining what a "covered arm" is. That is the crutch of where we are now. What arms does the Supreme Court believe are covered by the 2nd amendment.

    22lr rifles, AAA, Grenades, Artillery, Tanks(fully functional), Mortar.

    We know handguns are covered.
    We know that machine guns are not.
    That is as much as they have let us know to this point.
  4. mr.scott

    mr.scott Well-Known Member

    A new ban will cause a civil war. Do you think people are going to sit by and let the government take their guns away?
    I suspect half will comply. The other half are going to hide what they have and some of that group is going to actively resist.
    Gun turn in points are going to be rife targets for freedom fighters.
  5. Jim K

    Jim K Well-Known Member

    I hope it doesn't come to that, but with a couple of governors talking about banning guns then calling up the National Guard and giving them blanket "search and kill" orders, I think we might be getting close to the "liberal" ideal of a police state - concentration camps, mass executions, and all. I can easily see Diane Feinstein in a black uniform, slapping her leg with a riding crop and laughing as conservatives are led off to the gas chambers.

  6. Logan5579

    Logan5579 Active Member

    As for a civil war, the government almost acts like that is whay they want...I suppose it would separate the sheep from those who love their freedom...and the current POTUS seems to really hate anyone who loves freedom. Would people sit by and let the government take their guns? Some would...others won't. Some say compromise so the government won't take "my" guns, but giving any ground is a mistake here. The progressives want all firearms, antique or not, under government control or destroyed because an armed populace is difficult to control. The founding fathers knew that the government they created could turn into the same thing as the oppresive govenment they fought in the revolutionary war, so they gave us the second amendment. If we give it up, we're done as a free people. But this fight will be in the political realm against people who shout loud and don't listen, and it ain't gonna be easy.
  7. JDBoardman

    JDBoardman Well-Known Member

    On April 19, 1775, on Lexinton Green, Captain John Parker delivered the exhotation to his militia that should be our rallying cry: "Stand your ground. Do not fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, then let it begin here". Not many of our elite remember that the match that ignited the Revolutionary War was the Crown's (now the Federal Government) attempt to seize the citizens' arms. Once an elected or appointed official (say the police chief, the mayor or the governor) gives an order to take my guns, he has violated the United States Constitution, and has issued an illegal (and, to my way of thinking) immoral order. I am under no obligation to obey such orders. In fact, we hanged Germans whose defense was "I was just following orders" at Nuremberg.

    If a uniformed individual shows up at my door to seize any property without just and legal cause, he will be informed of the above. Should he persist, he will be resisted with all necessary force that can be brought to bear. My stomach turns at the idea of shooting at my brothers in arms, but as a veteran, I swore an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic... I have not been released from this oath, and I hold those issuing such orders to be common criminals.
  8. Jim K

    Jim K Well-Known Member

    In the 1960s, Life Magazine published an article advocating even flintlock muskets in a total gun ban, saying that "they are just as deadly today as the day they were made." Undeniably true; a .75 ball is nothing anyone wants to get hit by.

    Another magazine article railed against allowing rapid fire war weapons to be sold to civilians, and demanded surplus weapons be destroyed. It was dated 1866 and mentioned the Spencer as an awful example.

  9. Trent

    Trent Resident Wiseguy

    The government can't even tell us HOW it is spending our money.


    From the government's own accounting office:

    What is homeland security spending money on that they can't put together an audit for?

    ESTIMATED Federal deficit for 2011 was 1.61 Trillion dollars.

    Taxes received: $2,364 billion
    Funds spent: $3,998 billion
    Net deficit: $1,634 billion

    (Source GAO)

    In order to cover the social programs and defense spending in place RIGHT NOW (not including the new Socialized health care coming in to play), taxes have to go up to *169%* of current levels.

    That's right.. to cover what the government spends, we have to tax people 70% higher than now. Or we have to cut spending by 60%. (Not going to happen).

    In order to pay off the Federal deficit of 16.4 trillion dollars in the next 20 years, we'd have to cut spending by 2.45 trillion dollars a year (not counting interest, which would push it well over 2.5 trillion a year).

    That's a 72% cut in ALL spending, if taxes remain where they are at, just to recover inside 20 years.


    Their only choice to remain solvent and avoid massive inflation is to raise Federal taxes - and not just a little, but a WHOLE LOT.

    In order to raise taxes 70%... they need the guns. Because THAT crap WILL start a war.

    You think we're angry about them wanting a few rifles now? Imagine what'll happen when they are taking 50+% of everyone's income to pay for all these social programs!
  10. rookorami

    rookorami Well-Known Member

    The crazy part is if you start taking 50% of peoples pay then you are going to have a lot more people in need of social programs which would still make it difficult to over come the debt. I know many do not want to do this but we need to cut social programs IMHO.
  11. Trent

    Trent Resident Wiseguy



    The need is very clear.

    We have to IMMEDIATELY cut entitlement spending by massive amounts, all pay almost double the taxes we are currently paying, or ... well, fail.

    It's very simple, really.

    Every American should read this, every year. In fact, it should be REQUIRED that every taxpayer sees what happens to their money. (Warning, it's a large report)


    The ONLY time in American history we've seen debt as a % of GDP this high was World War 2. And that debt built tanks, planes, ships, and outfitted troops not just for us, but for our allies.


    This time, the proceeds of the debt went to bankers.

    If you combine the massive Federal debt, with the outright loss of wealth due to trade deficit (over 2.5 billion per year combined)... we're in very deep trouble.

    Anyway to bring this back full circle, to the Right to Keep and Bear Arms....

    There are two choices (or combination thereof)

    #1 cut social entitlement, defense, and other spending
    #2 increase taxes

    As mentioned before we need to lower social spending or raise taxes by 70% (or some combination thereof), to recover from this in the next 20 years.

    EITHER of those choices will result in the classical "Social Unrest" - peaceful protests like the Occupy movement will turn .. well, remarkably more violent in nature.

    The powers that be know this, they have KNOWN this for quite a long time.

    The root of the problem is our wealth and jobs leaving the country. This reduces tax income, and increases social entitlement spending. Which widens the gap. The federal budget is just a byproduct.

    The solution is to cut the trade deficit first.

    But that would... irritate our largest foreign trade partner (China), who's using our own money to modernize their military to a level so they're not just a pesky regional power, but a superpower.

    So, we're sort of screwed there too. :)

    Foreign invader or domestic failure.. either way we go we have a clear and present need to own "military style" firearms.

    In fact, it'd be a damn good idea to stock up on just a little more than guns and ammo. If this economic failure happens over the next 20 years gradually, there's a lot of common consumer goods that will get hard to come by.
  12. swathdiver

    swathdiver Well-Known Member

    Why else would non-military agencies buy hundreds of millions of rounds of ammunition? The President pledged to have a civilian army as large and powerful as the US Military. Half the members of this forum it seems would be on his side, if only to protect their material lifestyle.
  13. dragonfirex

    dragonfirex New Member

    I think if the goverment was to ban cell/smart phones it would cause more of an uproar then banning guns .It's sad that most americans place a higher value on these things then their freedom .
  14. Pilot

    Pilot Well-Known Member

    Didn't Heller with reference to Miller define "Convered Arms" as thoughs in "Common Use". With the proliferation of rifles like the AR-15 which is the most popular in the U.S., and semi-auto pistols, I would think they'd be considered "Common Use".
  15. Jaxondog

    Jaxondog Well-Known Member

    You hit that one on the head
  16. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page