Nightmare scenario for Presidentially imposed gun control

Status
Not open for further replies.
Commenter #2 gets it.

JUDGES MATTER.

While between Clinton and Guiliani, I couldn't decide which is the lesser evil very easily, I can decide whose judges I'd prefer.

While I think the Bush administration's foreign policy has had some serious problems, I do have to credit Bush with appointing John Bolton.
 
You mean John Roberts?

Also, the Bush administration is arguing for the expansive Presidential power which is hypothetically at issue here.
 
Interesting,but I'll worry about it when it happens. Bill Clinton didn't even try to ban all the guns,and the Democrats got slammed for it in the next election. And the whole article assumes that a hard-core Democrat will be in office come '08.

It's just what you called it,a nightmare scenario. Not too plausible in the near future though,imo.
 
This would seem to be the defining reason why the wise Founding Father's wrote the 2nd Amendment.

One month's worth of auto fatalities in five years' of war in Iraq has the Dems screaming "lost cause, we can't win". Do you think they really have the will to forcably disarm 70+ million otherwise law abiding gun owners? Do we have the will to act as the Founders intended should they try?

The governments total inabality to come up with anything other than amnesty for about 12+ million illegal aliens should give a clue as to how things might turn out if push really comes to shove.

--wally.
 
Sigh.

These sorts of things come up every so often, and they all have a similiar pattern:

What if {insert convoluted, apparently valid process} resulted in {a perverse outcome tantamount to the imposition of something blatantly inconsistent with American values}?

The simple answer is that it would mean either acceptance by the American public, which would no be worthy of the liberty it once had, or war.

Whatever, ya know?

I mean, we're certainly not there yet, and highly conjectural scenarios like this are not going to keep me up at night, but at the end of the day, when all else has failed, we someday might have to face that choice.

Until then, I'll sleep soundly.
 
One month's worth of auto fatalities in five years' of war in Iraq has the Dems screaming "lost cause, we can't win". Do you think they really have the will to forcably disarm 70+ million otherwise law abiding gun owners? Do we have the will to act as the Founders intended should they try?

The governments total inabality to come up with anything other than amnesty for about 12+ million illegal aliens should give a clue as to how things might turn out if push really comes to shove.

--wally.
Click to expand...

wow, I found that comforting.
 
I get nothing but a blank page when I click the link. Life would be simpler if people would just copy/paste the text along with the link. <sigh>
 
Wally is right. Wally ain't alone.

Here is part of something I posted a while back:

Those in power now could accelerate it(World domination, loss of our sovereignty, etc) by trying to disarm us, or stifle our speech, or tax us into poverty and force dependence upon the government for our every essential need for survival. This would necessitate a purging insurgence and seal their fate in a blood bath. I prefer the election process. But, they've got to know that blood brought freedom to this land, and the Constitution and the rights protected by it are meant to preserve that freedom. We the People retain the arms to draw that blood if necessary. We the People retain the right to those arms, and the power to use them.

If ethics and good moral standards are not present in our elected officials, then they should at least fear for their lives if they design to take our government and freedom out of our hands. One clue they intend harm is the taking or attempted taking of the arms - any arms - that we hold. Another clue they intend harm is the stifling or attempted stifling of our right to speak out against them. Some incursions into our rights have been made by those in government over time. Our RKBA is currently under much infringement. Some of our speech has been hobbled and even prohibited at certain times - the times when it is the most effective, of course, right before an election.

If confiscation should come to pass, it'll most likely be minimized into tiny increments so as not to appear as though those in government wish to totally disarm us. But, that'll be the clue that resistance is in order. It's one of those things that needs to be nipped in the bud.

Have you ever noticed that no machine guns or sawed off shotguns were confiscated by the NFA of '39, or the GCA of '68, or the '86 halt of sales of new machine guns to the public? Why no confiscations? Because those in government know that would incur resistance. Probably organized, armed, and righteous resistance. So, these unconstitutional acts turned the table on everyone.

Rather than those in government taking your arms, if you attempt to obtain one of these arms without jumping through the hoops, paying the "tax", or in defiance of the limitation on the manufacture date of the arm, you are prosecuted according to the unconstitutional law. You are - in the eyes of the law at that point - initiating the "illegal" act. In a confiscation, the government must take the first step. Those in government don't want to appear to be the bad guys, they want you to look bad instead. What we end up with is confiscation by the proxy of prohibition of purchase. Instead of taking your arms away, they make it impossible or "illegal" for you to get them in the first place. By either process, you - or your progeny - eventually end up disarmed and at the mercy of those in government.

Carrying the foregoing to its logical conclusion, We the People will no longer be in charge of our governance. By the time the sheeple figure out something is wrong, they are hobbled, surrounded by barbed wire - to keep them in - and sheared of all the wool they need to keep themselves warm. Now the wolf is well fed, warmly clothed, and all he need do is keep the barbed wire well maintained. At that point, there isn't a whole lot you can bleat about your situation, either... Without becoming the wolf's next meal.

All I can tell you is to be damn careful how you vote. But in the mean time, be aware that confiscation is not unforeseeable, be it indirect, by proxy, or direct.
Click to expand...

Woody
 
Sorta legal, but mostly political.

In the future, either post some pertinent points from the linked article, or go to the trouble to type out the gist of the meaning of the article.

A "link only" thread might well have an ultra-short life.

Art
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top