Gun Confiscation in America

[Resist Evil]

Level Head, I appreciate your effort in the blog. Thank you.

 

[303tom]

I live here in missouri I only wish I was old enough to vote. These idiots will not stop until they have blood on their hands will they? I'm not saying its to that point but it is getting there. Cowards who set behind a desk with their families protected by body guards will not tell me what i need or dont need to protect myself or my loved ones. You want my guns? Then hold a constitutional convention other wise they can cram that piece of paper up their @$$. I'm already tired of this crap.

Like Button.................

 

[Blackhawk30]

I don't see it (confiscation) happening.If they can't stop drugs from being sold or 11 million illegqals out,they are not competent to confiscate 200 t0 500 million gunz.

 

[we are not amused]

I don't see it (confiscation) happening.If they can't stop drugs from being sold or 11 million illegqals out,they are not competent to confiscate 200 t0 500 million gunz.

Just because they are incompetent, doesn't mean they won't try!

Look at the idiots in New York, California, Colorado, New Jersey and Maryland! Just because the laws won't reduce crime, doesn't mean they won't pass them.

It is really less about gun control than it is about people control! And people with guns are kind of difficult to control.

 

[X-Rap]

The drug argument frankly supports our side. Drugs are illegal and still imported by the ton, if guns were outlawed we would still have a thriving criminal market just like prohibitive countries do. Same with illegal aliens.
Down side is this, if you happen to be one who they wish to make an example of you will regret ever getting on their radar screen. The fact that confiscation may not work isn't the point, it's the chilling effect it would have on the citizens here when they saw the examples that would be made public.

 

[22-rimfire]

Certain politicians have for a long time wanted to eliminate civilian gun ownership in the USA. They have consistantly thrown a bone to "hunters" saying that their access to firearms will not be eliminated. The leanings are to allow civilians access to the more "primitive" firearm designs. For example, VP Joe Biden kept using his double barrel shotgun example or in essence limiting a gun to two shots without a reload.

I suspect their model is pretty much the England model as we are a similar people in general. Gun ownership would be strictly controlled much like "may issue" is a control on individual rights based on someone else's determination of need.

 

[mljdeckard]

I also do not agree that the majority of police officers would go along with an order to confiscate. We have seen with the threat and passage of new gun laws a lot of police and sheriff departments making a public point of stating that they will not enforce the laws. This is an issue which is being forced to the light, and with other incidents like what happened in New Orleans being brought to light, it is more difficult to be ignorant or indifferent to the idea.

I have discussed with my commanding officer, and he concurs, that orders to confiscate arms from law-abiding citizens are illegal, immoral, and unethical, and should not be obeyed. We would rather face the short-term consequences of disobeying the order, than the long-term consequences of following them.

 

[Lonestar49]

On-going events "unchecked"

I also do not agree that the majority of police officers would go along with an order to confiscate. We have seen with the threat and passage of new gun laws a lot of police and sheriff departments making a public point of stating that they will not enforce the laws. This is an issue which is being forced to the light, and with other incidents like what happened in New Orleans being brought to light, it is more difficult to be ignorant or indifferent to the idea.

I have discussed with my commanding officer, and he concurs, that orders to confiscate arms from law-abiding citizens are illegal, immoral, and unethical, and should not be obeyed. We would rather face the short-term consequences of disobeying the order, than the long-term consequences of following them.
__________________

...

This is comforting but I see a possible hole in this, just imaging, in the next 11yrs, Congress and the next 2 term President continue the power-grab and assult on the 2nd and from much of what I've been reading for the last, nearly, year that ammo shortages are occuring with many PD's as well as for the_people.

Most of use know or feel something is going on here as Homeland Security, etc., are buying "a lot of ammo" even though money is tight, except the on-going printed type. Just image CA. and a few others, to start, do pass some kind of confiscation of type weapons via local PD's and they refuse and the Governor declares a State emergency and calls in the National Guard.

They'll have ammo, on-going ammo and, if needed, armed man power growth.

I can't predict the out come but the way our country has been changing, namely, violation after violation of our Constitutional Rights over the last decade, namely one that really bothers me, "The Patriot Act" and its un-checked power by an Attorney State General, etc., abuse of on-going powers, I wouldn't rule it out that such a gun grab will occur in the years or decade/s to come - will test a lot of ammo and who runs out, who disobeys a law or order vs those who will obey laws or orders, is the possibly and will test the_odds.

Good thread, and I will still cling to hope, like Brother's In Arms, is out there.


Ls

 

[JohnBT]

Some folks have been predicting the confiscation of guns since before JFK was murdered in 1963 and the GCA of '68 was passed. I remember it all clearly. And this isn't the first administration that infringed on rights. What adminstration didn't?

Confiscation hasn't happened yet, has it? The long battle continues.

 

[danez71]

Just because the laws won't reduce crime, doesn't mean they won't pass them.

Nope. Just the opposite. They'll try to pass even MORE laws in order to fix the loop holes.

 

[Cee Zee]

Some folks have been predicting the confiscation of guns since before JFK was murdered in 1963

Little brother Bobby was a big time gun grabber. He nearly lost the support of the key state of Oregon in the primary process in 1968 because of his gun grabbing ideas. Oregon was a a big time liberal state but they still had a lot of hunters there too. So when brother Bobby went campaigning there speaking to a group of union members he was booed off the stage. It wasn't until he vowed not to go after guns that he got their support. And we all know politicians keep their promises, right?

JFK was hardly the left leaning liberal most thought he was. He was also a gun grabber getting his ideas from, and this one is BIG big, from Hitler himself. A book just came out with the reflections and letters written by Kennedy during his days of traveling Germany in the 1930's. And guess what? He thought Hitler was wonderful saying he would end up being one of the greatest personalities in the history of the world. He said the hatred toward Hitler was based in jealousy of how well the Germans operated. He thought fascism was perfect for Germany. He pretty much admired everything about how Hitler operated. Great guy there.

I've been saying it for years. The liberals operate much more like fascists than communists. The new collection of JFK's writings prove that the hero of the late 20th century liberalism was truly a fascist. Remember that the Irish supported Hitler in a big way because of his opposition to the English government. Lots of Irish fought on the side of the Nazis just to get back at the hated English. It all goes back to the Church Of England, Henry the eighth, and Catholicism being dropped as the chief religion of the monarchy of England. The IRA and the fighting in Northern Ireland are all symptoms of the same split.

All modern liberalism is traced back to Kennedy and Kennedy was a secret fascist. His dad even tried to hold talks with Hitler himself despite being told to stay out of it by the state department. And the cult of personality that surrounded Kennedy is certainly reminiscent of the cult of personality surrounding Hitler. And Obama is the new cult personality hero in every way.

It has become very clear that liberalism is driven by fascism at it's core. It was the national socialist party in Germany after all (the Nazis). They wanted private property but they wanted a government agent sitting on the board of every corporation. This is clearly the path Obama has followed putting his people in the banks, the car industry, the health industry, the energy industry, and more.

This new book is a big time revelation into the workings of modern, gun grabbing liberalism. lt comes straight down from Hitler himself and of course a major part of Hitler's plan was disarming his fellow Germans. The lid has been blown off the liberal mindset IMO.

Here's the report on the new book if anyone is interested.

 

[JohnBT]

"All modern liberalism is traced back to Kennedy"

I disagree. How can you possibly ignore the contributions of Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson and FDR? Heck, toss in Truman's Fair Deal, too.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Famously, NYC required registration of "assault weapons" then gave owners a deadline to move them out of the city, sell them out of the city, or turn them in.

A national version of the New York Sullivan law is an unfulfilled dream of New York Democrats with national political ambitions.

http://www.newrepublic.com/blog/plank/111266/franklin-roosevelt-the-father-gun-control#Adam Winkler, "Franklin Roosevelt: The Father of Gun Control", The New Republic, 19 Dec 2012.
Gun control is one of the great pieces of unfinished business for the Democratic Party. ... Like health care, social security, and so many other issues central to the Democratic agenda, the party's support for gun control stems from Franklin D. Roosevelt. ... Roosevelt's original proposal for what would become the National Firearms Act of 1934, the first federal gun control law, sought to tax all firearms and establish a national registry of guns.

If the NYC implementation of the Sullivan Act is not de facto prohibition and confiscatory taxation, it is close.

 

[Tcruse]

The one thing that I do not understand is that when a person takes on the cause of "removing guns from citizens", that they do not learn enough to even talk to the gun owners. Currently, all of the "anti-gun" crowd make so many mistakes in what they say that a discussion is not even possible. Is it that they are just that stupid? Is it that they say things that they know are not even close to being true to mislead the non-gun person? Is there position merely supporting the current leader and that they do not really care what is good or bad?
I would respect someone that was truthful and honest, even if I disagree. The current crop of anti-gun persons just does not give me any reason to respect them.
So, yes there is a group of politicians that would take your guns if they ever get the chance and not even have any remose about the 2A. We all need to provide the maximum resistance that we can.

 

[swalton1943]

Police will not take guns away from law abiding citizens, but after the possession of the gun is outlawed, they are not law abiding any more, but outlaws. See how easy it is? I think that the leftists are wanting armed resistance, to justify a total power grab.

 

[Levi]

I also do not agree that the majority of police officers would go along with an order to confiscate. We have seen with the threat and passage of new gun laws a lot of police and sheriff departments making a public point of stating that they will not enforce the laws. This is an issue which is being forced to the light, and with other incidents like what happened in New Orleans being brought to light, it is more difficult to be ignorant or indifferent to the idea.

I have discussed with my commanding officer, and he concurs, that orders to confiscate arms from law-abiding citizens are illegal, immoral, and unethical, and should not be obeyed. We would rather face the short-term consequences of disobeying the order, than the long-term consequences of following them.

Just going on what I know of the Austin PD and their chief, who all but held obama's hand through this last push against the 2nd amendment, I wouldn't count on a majority of police officers to side with "civilians".

 

[mljdeckard]

At the same time, it cannot be said that anyone who is in uniform will just follow every order they are given to violate civil rights.

 

[Cee Zee]

I disagree. How can you possibly ignore the contributions of Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson and FDR? Heck, toss in Truman's Fair Deal, too.

I'm not ignoring them. I said "modern" liberalism. The current crop of liberals in control were almost all disciples of JFK. He was a huge influence in this country and the youth of the early 60's practically worshiped him. He was the hip president. The young president. The new style president. Camelot was what they called his administration. That's fairy tale stuff but they all believed it was true about the man. And that kind of blind devotion is very, very dangerous. When he was killed the counterculture was born and the kids hated this country and the bogeymen behind the scenes they saw as running the show. Those bogeymen were probably mafia goons in fact which is likely why JFK and Bobby were killed. They crossed the mafia biting the hand that gave them the election. And of course it was, you guessed it, Chicago (using Al Capone's political machine) that put him over the top in what is widely seen as a corrupt victory even among liberals. Nixon had the integrity not to split the country when he lost on a foul ball. Too bad Al Gore didn't.

All those young JFK drones have been in politics since the late 60's including counter culture politics. They eventually co-opted the counter culture and all the extreme views that went along with it. And that included gun grabbing too. All that pie in the sky thinking (the JFK acolytes and the counter culture gurus) formed a coalition with the black voters (who also felt like their power was killed by a gunman) and you have modern liberalism with all the gun grabbing that goes with it.

 

[Stevie-Ray]

I'm not ignoring them. I said "modern" liberalism. The current crop of liberals in control were almost all disciples of JFK.

Then, why don't they act like him? JFK had more in common with Reagan, if you ask me. Both had the same idea of raising revenue and that was to cut taxes rather than today's liberals' idea of "never enough taxes." The idea was to let the working man keep more of his paycheck and clean up when he proudly poured his hard-earned bucks into the economy. It worked both times.

As far as JFK being anti-gun? Certainly nowhere near as bad as his two idiot brothers.

 

[Cee Zee]

True stuff Stevie-Ray. But the successor to JFK and his immediate heir apparent was LBJ. He was the guy who really got the tax and spend / redistribution stuff going. His Great Society was the master plan for liberalism for many decades. But without the sacrifice of JFK ahead of him Johnson would never have gotten his master plan off the ground. It is certainly true that Kennedy didn't see taxes as the be all and end all of politics the way liberals do today. But he did see the government having a big role in the nation. He was the poster child for the "military - industrial complex" which showed up in the space program and the cold war arms race. He wanted a big and powerful central government controlling much of our lives. It should be pointed out too that JFK originally didn't buy into the idea that lowering taxes would increase revenues. And in fact he did accept that until 1963. His tax cuts were passed after his death. Kennedy wanted the extra revenue so he could increase the size and power of the government too. He wasn't trying to pay off the debt. There was little debt to pay off. He was creating debt and the mechanisms for creating huge debt. Whatever was taken in certainly wasn't spent on the legitimate roles of government. It was eventually spent on the Great Society, the arms race, and the space race. He was certainly a big government type. He just disagreed with most current liberals in that he though the way to get more revenue was to stimulate the economy by cutting corporate taxes and taxes on the wealthy. Remember that during the next few years after the death of Kennedy the tax rate ranged between 70% and 77% for the highest wage earners. That's hardly supply side economics. Let's not forget they were paying for a costly war in SE Asia at the time too. It was the highest rates after WWII by a huge margin (double the rate for many of the years since WWII in fact).

Conservatives have long used the Kennedy tax cut to justify supply side economics but the reality is that Kennedy was a tax and spend liberal who did come to recognize late in his life that cutting taxes would increase revenues. His tax cut was passed largely as a sympathy vote for a dead president.

 

[mljdeckard]

I doubt any of that would have been as easy to approach if FDR hadn't gotten Social Security passed.

 

[JohnBT]

"I'm not ignoring them. I said "modern" liberalism."

You need to look up the definition of the term modern liberalism. It has a specific definition and JFK isn't even close to being the originator.

 

[Cee Zee]

I don't disagree with that either mljdeckard. And the work of Teddy Roosevelt was part of the origin of the movement. So was the Fabian Society and George Bernard Shaw. Heck the origin of the thinking goes back to Thomas Paine who essentially stole it from John Locke. Very few things are truly new. But I do know that the people I grew up with followed Kennedy into the realm of liberalism. Lots of people had influence over JFK. It turns out Hitler was one of those people and that is truly shocking. But there it is. The documents are there to prove it.

You need to look up the definition of the term modern liberalism.

Good grief. There is no specific definition for a term like that. For example I doubt very many people would say that gay rights were not a part of modern liberalism but that was never a blip on the radar screen of someone like Teddy Roosevelt. No one talked about such things at the time. You're talking about a term that can mean whatever a person chooses to believe it means within certain parameters. For my comment it meant current liberalism. But just for the sake of argument I'll point out that the actual "modern" era started at the end of the Renaissance and ended around the start of the 20th century before the people you're assigning origin to ever opened their mouths on the subject. Philosophy always precedes politics and nihilism had already taken root long before FDR or TR either one (nihilism goes back at least as far as the work of Søren Kierkegaard in the early 19th century at least 75 years before TR and that is thought of as the origin of the post-modern era). What you're really talking about is post-modern liberalism. You might notice that I've spent a great deal of time "looking up the definition of the term modern liberalism" and I dare say far more than you. I just wanted to set the record straight here on who needs to check the facts on their definitions.

And I never said Kennedy was the originator. I said people in the modern (as in current) era followed him down that path. I don't know why we have to be splitting hairs about such a small detail anyway. And maybe you should learn that terms are assigned meanings as opposed to words which have specific meanings attached to them that are documented in a thing called a dictionary. Split the term in two and we have "modern - adjective 2. a political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties." Both of those terms have a wide range of uses and they certainly aren't restricted to the kind of specific definitions that you seem to claim they are when used together. I could make the case for us living in the "post-modern" era too BTW as I have already shown. But my use of the term (and it was my parameters that designated the definition of the term here because after all I was the one that first used the term and thereby setup the parameters for the discussion) specifically means the two definitions I listed here.

One thing I have learned is that when a discussion disintegrates into a peeing contest over semantics it's time to move on. This argument has as much relevance as debating what the definition of the term "is" is. I tried to provide a little insight and I got flamed over my use of a word instead and it wasn't even a good flame. So I'm moving on. Nothing more to see here. Have a nice day.

 

[Resist Evil]

The past is what it is and the blame for anti-Constitutional rapacity can be laid at the feet of a large number of progressive politicians, regardless of their official party designation, their financial enablers, and the indoctrinated, low-moral voters.

What is more important to me than assessing historical blame for the movement to confiscate firearms is, how best to repel the Mob from overrunning the Constitutional parapet, so that we gunowners can retain possession of the tools of Liberty.

While we're at it, and for what it is worth, I do not mean to inordinately prick the sensibilities of the progressives who are members and moderators on THR , but are you not aware of the (what is apparent to me) logical disconnect between wanting the liberty to own guns, yet supporting the type of progressive politician whose fanatical agenda includes confiscating them? I confess to a certain level of bafflement over what seems to me to be an insurmountable conundrum for you all.

(If this last thing is too inappropriate for the discussion at hand, I am hoping my post will be deleted forthwith.)

 

[Bruno2]

I don't see it (confiscation) happening.If they can't stop drugs from being sold or 11 million illegqals out,they are not competent to confiscate 200 t0 500 million gunz.

They don't want to stop drugs from coming into the country or being sold on the streets of the US. Not anymore than Sharpton or Jackson wants racism to end. Drugs bring in billions of dollars to the "legal" system on every level of gov. If racism ended tomorrow what would Jackson and Sharpton do for a living?