Hillary just suggested the Australian buy-back model as worth looking at for the US

[JohnKSa]

Well then I wish them all the best in trying to round them up!

They won't have to round them up. A decent percentage of gun owners will turn them in voluntarily rather than risk breaking the law.

The remaining guns will instantly be rendered useless and contraband. As I said in my previous post: What good is a gun if you can't do anything but look at it and fondle it in secret?

They'll get them all over time when disgruntled exes inform, when kids talk to their friends, when houses burn and guns are found in the ashes, when people die and their guns are found, when people are stupid and talk or share pictures and someone finds out about their guns.

The idea that there's going to be a door-to-door confiscation is not realistic. As far as I can see that almost never happens except in truly exceptional circumstances. The risk is too great and there's just no need. There's no hurry from their perspective.

nope, trump is, she'll be in prison.

In my opinion, there is very, VERY, little chance of Hillary going to prison, or of even being charged criminally. Realistically, the worst that will happen is that her campaign will be derailed and perhaps, her political career will suffer for awhile.

 

[P5 Guy]

Honey & Venom are you reading this thread?

 

[TwoEyedJack]

Even if Hillary were to be elected, and issue some sort of executive order, how would she enforce it? LEOs in my state would laugh at her. Our governor would declare the order null and void. There aren't enough federal agents to enforce anything, and there is a good chance that the county sheriffs would disarm the feds anyway. Now, those of you in states like CA, NY, NJ, CT, etc. you are screwed. Maybe it is time to move to a free state.

There is some precedent for these predictions. Years ago, the feds introduced the Canadian Gray Wolf in Idaho. After years of uncontrolled breeding, they were decimating our deer and elk herds, so a hunting season was introduced. The bunny huggers eventually filed suit, and a federal judge shut down the hunting season. After months of fruitless negotiation, the governor got on the radio, declared the wolf a clear and present danger to the wildlife of the state of Idaho, and enjoined all state employees from enforcing any federal laws pertaining to the wolf. For several months it was open season, and lots of wolves were "harvested". US Fish and Wildlife Service has like 3 agents in Idaho, and they are desk jockeys. After several months, the feds retracted their position, and the hunting season was re-instated.

 

[JSH1]

They won't have to round them up. A decent percentage of gun owners will turn them in voluntarily rather than risk breaking the law.

The remaining guns will instantly be rendered useless and contraband. As I said in my previous post: What good is a gun if you can't do anything but look at it and fondle it in secret?

A gun I can't use is of no use to me.

I'm not sure why some people are so focused on some sort of door to door confiscation based on a registry. There simply isn't a need to go through all that trouble when you can simply ban and item with the stoke of a pen.

 

[HammsBeer]

They won't have to round them up. A decent percentage of gun owners will turn them in voluntarily rather than risk breaking the law.

You seem to forget there is a majority percentage in CT and NY that are already breaking the law. When a true gun ban/confiscation buy back comes around and people realize this is it, compliance will be zilch. If the government cannot effectively enforce the law, they make a mockery of the law. A paper weight huh? Tell that to the Russians under Stalin, Jews in Germany, the Armenians in Turkey, the Cambodians under Pol Pot. Shall I continue?

 

[TruthTellers]

Even if Hillary were to be elected, and issue some sort of executive order, how would she enforce it? LEOs in my state would laugh at her. Our governor would declare the order null and void. There aren't enough federal agents to enforce anything, and there is a good chance that the county sheriffs would disarm the feds anyway. Now, those of you in states like CA, NY, NJ, CT, etc. you are screwed. Maybe it is time to move to a free state.

There is some precedent for these predictions. Years ago, the feds introduced the Canadian Gray Wolf in Idaho. After years of uncontrolled breeding, they were decimating our deer and elk herds, so a hunting season was introduced. The bunny huggers eventually filed suit, and a federal judge shut down the hunting season. After months of fruitless negotiation, the governor got on the radio, declared the wolf a clear and present danger to the wildlife of the state of Idaho, and enjoined all state employees from enforcing any federal laws pertaining to the wolf. For several months it was open season, and lots of wolves were "harvested". US Fish and Wildlife Service has like 3 agents in Idaho, and they are desk jockeys. After several months, the feds retracted their position, and the hunting season was re-instated.

There's a difference between a couple desk jockeys in Idaho being overwhelmed by a wolf hunt and gun confiscation. The US has signed the UN Small Arms Treaty, just not ratified by the senate yet. In order to find a legal way to confiscate, the treaty would have to be ratified.

That can be done and it's already been laid out: Obama brings in millions of illegals and "refugees", sends them to primarily Republican/conservative districts to vote out the R's and replace them with radical socialist D's. They ratify the UN treaty, Hilary's issues the executive order, and requests a UN occupation force to assist in the confiscations.

The US alone can't confiscate 300 million guns, but the nations of the world and millions of soldiers can.

And if you don't think that can happen, you haven't read the Saul Alinsky playbook yet. To make an omelet, gotta break a few eggs. The radical socialist Dem's hate the country, they would like nothing more than to see a war because they have a lot of fellow socialist nations to help them.

 

[old lady new shooter]

An automatic handgun is called a machine pistol. The HK VP-70, for example, started out as one. Don't even think about buying one. They're junk.
Hillary is just using scary terms to promulgate her agenda.

How many machine pistols are privately owned in the US?

How many semi-automatic pistols?

How many revolvers?

 

[old lady new shooter]

In my opinion, there is very, VERY, little chance of Hillary going to prison, or of even being charged criminally. Realistically, the worst that will happen is that her campaign will be derailed and perhaps, her political career will suffer for awhile.

FoxNews is reporting that the FBI investigation is focused on "gross negligence" which carries a prison term of up to 10 years. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...used-on-gross-negligence-provision/?a=FoxNews

Which is not to say she wouldn't find a way to get out of it.

 

[TruthTellers]

FoxNews is reporting that the FBI investigation is focused on "gross negligence" which carries a prison term of up to 10 years. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...used-on-gross-negligence-provision/?a=FoxNews

Which is not to say she wouldn't find a way to get out of it.

I doubt Obama cares to give the ok to the Justice Department to prosecute. Even with all the skeletons, Hilary and Bill are very powerful people and have many powerful allies they can call in favors from.

Nope, unless the voters of the Democratic Socialist party can get it through their clearly drug addled minds that Hilary is a corrupt, spiteful criminal, then there's only one person to stop her: Donald Trump. However, with how close he has gotten with the Clinton's, it's tough to tell if he is a fall guy or the real deal.

He's the perfect double agent.

So, I'm starting to form the opinion that it may be a smart move to start stocking up on guns, ammo, reloading supplies, etc. before the panic buying that occurs late next year.

 

[HOOfan_1]

They ratify the UN treaty, Hilary's issues the executive order, and requests a UN occupation force to assist in the confiscations.

I don't even think the gun grabbers would be willing to have foreign soldiers policing Americans. It wouldn't pass muster in the courts, it would pass muster with Congress, it wouldn't pass muster with State governments, our military our police forces.

Political suicide wouldn't begin to describe such a move.

Besides that, I don't think the rest of the world cares enough about our gun freedoms to risk their own troops.

 

[tactikel]

Hillary cares about pulling as many of Sanders supporters as possible to her camp. When the target group hears about "gun confiscation" they dance for joy and write checks.
The weak minded are easily swayed.

 

[USAF_Vet]

You started off as a raging, assuming keyboard warrior and then you have this gutless response. Subtlety does not exist where you took this conversation.

Originally Posted by Bang!
Get used to it. She's the next president.

You know she's not even top rated in the polls, right? You know she may not even get the nomination, right? You know it's this exact defeatist attitude from people who claim to support the 2A that will be it's undoing, right?


Oh my God, such RAAAAAAGE!
Subtlety does not exist, and apparently neither does detection of sarcasm.

Pretend for a moment that you have a pair.

No need to pretend.

At this stage in the game-Who do you think will be the next president?

At this point, I don't have a clue. Too many variables still exist to make an EDUCATED prediction. I could just say a name and stick by it, but I'm nmot going to because I don't have a crystal ball, or even a magic 8 ball.

Don't use that crystal ball that told you I've given up or have a defeatist attitude. That thing is broken.

But yours apparently isn't, since it's telling you that Hillary is the next president, and that we should get used to it.

Rome is burning but I don't think all is lost.

Really, I thought Hillary is the next president. I'm trying to accet that FACT and get over it, I just can't.

It does appear the Dems are rallying behind HRC.

Really, her base has all but abandoned her in favor of Bernie. Most Hillary supporters I know have jumped ship with no desire to climb back.

I was just a little shocked during the Dem debate when they rallied behind her to 'cleanse her of the email scandal'. She could be on stage strangling baby ducks and the 47% Romney spoke of will vote for her anyway.

Because? They don't think. They'd elect Charles Manson if he promised them enough freebies and they believed he had the power to deliver it.

And the Repub's show no signs of coagulating their feces. That is the part that bothers me in this election.

What election? Hillary is the next president. See no matter how many times I type it, I still can't get over it. I'm trying, really I am.

@USAF_VET
Being the constant grind activist is just one the many things I do to do my part. Hah! My congress critters know me on a first name basis, too. Winning one election doesn't mean all is won. Conversely, losing one election doesn't mean all is lost. I'm passionately in the fight trying to win this election while still working to win the next and the next... So don't be so ignorant to assume my early prediction is 'defeatism' or that I don't 'have a pair'.

Then perhaps it's your communication skills that are lacking. Now that you've gone back and clarified your position, your first "prediction" post is glaringly stupid. You're not the first I've told to sack up and quit being a (less than High Road comment) for saying virtually identical things. You probably won't be the last. But your posts are highly contradictory. If you're convinced Hillary is going to be the next president, as you so CLEARLY stated before, why bother being the constant grind activist?

Would you say that to someone's face? Don't answer that. I already know. You're a rude keyboard hero and you get no more troll time from me.

Throttle back tough guy, no one is impressed. You want to have the last shot and then run away claiming victory. I'd have ZERO issue saying everything I've type directly to your face. So deflate your interweb ego a tad, check your dosage, and relax. And honestly, I don't need your troll time any more than your tough guy bravado. Kudos to you. I don't believe half of it.

 

[JohnKSa]

FoxNews is reporting that the FBI investigation is focused on "gross negligence" which carries a prison term of up to 10 years.

It's not impossible that she would be convicted, just very unlikely. I don't really even think it's likely she will be charged. We shall see.

You seem to forget there is a majority percentage in CT and NY that are already breaking the law.

I didn't forget that at all. You apparently completely ignored the rest of my post which specifically addressed non-compliance.

Ok, so they're passively noncompliant. What good is it doing them? They have guns that they can't use for anything--is that supposed to be some kind of a win?

I'm not asking that rhetorically--you tell me what good it has done them to fail to comply. Name all the positive things that their non-compliance has done for them.

When a true gun ban/confiscation buy back comes around and people realize this is it, compliance will be zilch.

First of all, the idea that a ban/buyback will automatically be followed by systematic confiscation isn't supported by what's happened under any regime that doesn't obviously fit into an extreme example of oppression--like all the ones you mentioned. If you have counterexamples, please provide them.

Second, so what? As has been mentioned multiple times on this thread: What does non-compliance buy those who take that approach?

Their guns aren't good for anything other than to get their owners locked up. I guess if one want's to be very thorough and accurate it would be worth pointing out that guns are still useful for armed resistance against the government. I'm not advocating that, just noting that is one use they could still be put to.

 

[USAF_Vet]

Their guns aren't good for anything other than to get their owners locked up. I guess if one want's to be very thorough and accurate it would be worth pointing out that guns are still useful for armed resistance against the government. I'm not advocating that, just noting that is one use they could still be put to.

John, you may have answered your question with this one thought. Free thinking, liberty loving Americans all over are getting fed up with the creeping incremental power grabbing tactics of the federal government. I never thought I'd see an armed standoff between citizens and a government force, but I saw it at Bundy Ranch in Nevada. Last thing I want to have happen in this country is full blown civil war or revolution. But if it comes to that, freedom loving, liberty minded folks who would stand and fight will absolutely need something to fight with. There's a quote floating around, I don't know if it's actually attributed to anyone in particular, but it goes something like "when the government tries to repeal the second amendment, that's when it's most needed." I butchered the quote, but I got the gist of it. No one, well, not too many, are advocating full blown armed insurrection against the US federal government. But it's a topic that's come up more than once, and is garnering support.

 

[DSAPT9]

Ok so say they do make guns illegal or maybe just some of them and background checks, pee test and blood samples or whatever else they want to do then what? I say “they” because I see several candidates are pushing a number of measures including the sitting president that wants to just do something as well.

It leaves us with two basic choices:

First, we bend over and take it by turning in all our guns and say sorry Massa please forgives us we will be good slaves even though we all know it will not stop one crime if a bad person wants to commit one.

Or:

Second, we stand up and fight for our rights and the Constitution.

Remember they work for us we do not work for them and I feel most folks have forgotten that. We the people have the final say, not we the elected.

When people and states stand together even just a few states the feds can’t do much unless they want a civil war. Look at Washington, Colorado and Oregon who passed Marijuana laws even though it is against Federal law.

What are the feds going to do arrest the whole state or take away their federal road funds or change the federal law?

Prohibition worked out real well didn’t it? The war on drugs, thank god for that one!

I do not believe in breaking the law anymore than anyone else but when you have a presidential candidate flat saying I will by pass congress (who makes the laws) and use executive order to ban guns (dictator) by superseding the 2 amendment (ignoring the amendment process completely and the Constitution) then what part of tyrannical government do you not understand.

For those who like numbers there are currently a combined total of 3.5 million military and law enforcement in the service of the US (I rounded that number up a lot). Over a third of the military is currently assigned overseas in various countries.

They say about 1/3 of the population are gun owners or around 100 million people. Now we all know that many will be good slaves and do what they are told and turn in their guns and ammo so we will cut that 100 million in half leaving about 50 million gun owners who will disobey any new laws.

So let us see 50 million gun owners vs. 3.5 million military and law enforcement and that is if all the military was brought home and all 3.5 million agreed with enforcing the new law. I was taught that only about 3 percent of colonial British subjects took up arms against the King during the revolutionary war. That would still be about 9.3 million gun folk to 3.5 million military and law enforcement.

The US is 3.806 million square miles and with 3.5 million military and law enforcement that puts 1 person to cover 1 square mile each. If they bring in NATO troops I will bet that we would be fighting a full blown civil war as most Americans are not big fans of NATO especially when they are trying to enforce bad laws on American soil.

For starters if you do not want to see any of this happen then start e-mailing, calling and writing your representatives now and let them know you will not stand for any new law that will do nothing to stop the carnage but will take away your rights and if they do pass anything you will not comply and do everything in your power to get them out of office.

Only time will tell as to what will happen and who gets into office and that decision is still a year away so a lot can change from now until then.

Hillary is not the only person we have to deal with, we also have a lame duck president that wants major change in gun laws and gun bans if he can swing it so do not focus on just the right hand (Hillary) because if you do the left hand (Obama) will be picking your pocket and taking away your gun rights.

 

[Pilot]

I wouldn't throw in the towel just yet. We all saw how many new gun owners, and women bought guns over the past seven years in fear of Obama, and fear of fallout from mass shootings . There was a groundswell of firearm and ammo purchases. If we have Australian style gun confiscation here, it will NOT go well. That being said we need to mobilize politically and make sure politicians know they will get fired if they push more gun control laws.

 

[SilentStalker]

Ok so say they do make guns illegal or maybe just some of them and background checks, pee test and blood samples or whatever else they want to do then what? I say “they” because I see several candidates are pushing a number of measures including the sitting president that wants to just do something as well.

It leaves us with two basic choices:

First, we bend over and take it by turning in all our guns and say sorry Massa please forgives us we will be good slaves even though we all know it will not stop one crime if a bad person wants to commit one.

Or:

Second, we stand up and fight for our rights and the Constitution.

Remember they work for us we do not work for them and I feel most folks have forgotten that. We the people have the final say, not we the elected.

When people and states stand together even just a few states the feds can’t do much unless they want a civil war. Look at Washington, Colorado and Oregon who passed Marijuana laws even though it is against Federal law.

What are the feds going to do arrest the whole state or take away their federal road funds or change the federal law?

Prohibition worked out real well didn’t it? The war on drugs, thank god for that one!

I do not believe in breaking the law anymore than anyone else but when you have a presidential candidate flat saying I will by pass congress (who makes the laws) and use executive order to ban guns (dictator) by superseding the 2 amendment (ignoring the amendment process completely and the Constitution) then what part of tyrannical government do you not understand.

For those who like numbers there are currently a combined total of 3.5 million military and law enforcement in the service of the US (I rounded that number up a lot). Over a third of the military is currently assigned overseas in various countries.

They say about 1/3 of the population are gun owners or around 100 million people. Now we all know that many will be good slaves and do what they are told and turn in their guns and ammo so we will cut that 100 million in half leaving about 50 million gun owners who will disobey any new laws.

So let us see 50 million gun owners vs. 3.5 million military and law enforcement and that is if all the military was brought home and all 3.5 million agreed with enforcing the new law. I was taught that only about 3 percent of colonial British subjects took up arms against the King during the revolutionary war. That would still be about 9.3 million gun folk to 3.5 million military and law enforcement.

The US is 3.806 million square miles and with 3.5 million military and law enforcement that puts 1 person to cover 1 square mile each. If they bring in NATO troops I will bet that we would be fighting a full blown civil war as most Americans are not big fans of NATO especially when they are trying to enforce bad laws on American soil.

For starters if you do not want to see any of this happen then start e-mailing, calling and writing your representatives now and let them know you will not stand for any new law that will do nothing to stop the carnage but will take away your rights and if they do pass anything you will not comply and do everything in your power to get them out of office.

Only time will tell as to what will happen and who gets into office and that decision is still a year away so a lot can change from now until then.

Hillary is not the only person we have to deal with, we also have a lame duck president that wants major change in gun laws and gun bans if he can swing it so do not focus on just the right hand (Hillary) because if you do the left hand (Obama) will be picking your pocket and taking away your gun rights.

While I applaud your efforts here you are forgetting some very important facts in your example. You 9.5 million would be up against 3.5 who has heavy weaponry, an airforce, satellite communication, drone support, need I go on? Not to mention these 9.5 mil would be spread across the entire country. How are you goig to mobilize? If you just look at the numbers then sure but in reality it's not very easy to pull all of that off. Your only hope would be the 3.5 mil you speak of would dissolve. However, I can tell you without a doubt that people blindly take orders each and everyday without ever questioning their superiors.

 

[627PCFan]

I would not expect 3.5 million to start rolling into small town iowa with Abrams and canister rounds or our enlisted neighbors to start zapping militia members with reaper strikes. Cut that 3.5 in to a third

 

[bdrift10]

I wouldn't mind seeing a buy-back for smart phones. I know you see these idiots driving down the road "facebooking" and such. I imagine more people die per year driving while "playing" with their phones than firearms.

 

[Al Thompson]

This one is off the tracks...