When do you think they'll come for your guns?

[Meplat]

IF! they take our guns and america gets invaded whos gonna fight back? the gun owners of course its america real defense against terrorism!

View attachment 34594

“YOU CANNOT INVADE THE MAINLAND
UNITED STATES. THERE WOULD BE A
RIFLE BEHIND EACH BLADE OF GRASS.”
JAPAN’S ADMIRAL YAMAMOTO
1942

 

[Gun_nut]

“YOU CANNOT INVADE THE MAINLAND
UNITED STATES. THERE WOULD BE A
RIFLE BEHIND EACH BLADE OF GRASS.”
JAPAN’S ADMIRAL YAMAMOTO
1942

they could try but i never said anything about them getting too far

 

[MudPuppy]

Seems they like the soft targets a bit better.

Sorry, but I'm not buying that. If they want 'em, they don't scare easily. I don't think Waco was all that soft. A riot gun at port arms is nothing compared to that.

I know when I was in the US Army, Infantry, that if I was ordered to take civilians guns, I'd have taken the guns. And if the civilian refused and my CO said "shoot 'em", I'd have replied "Head or chest?"

I don't think I was the exception.

(of course, I'm not of that mind set any longer--but our gun rights are safe because our 18 and 19 year old soldiers are free thinkers.)

 

[SomeKid]

(of course, I'm not of that mind set any longer--but our gun rights are safe because our 18 and 19 year old soldiers are free thinkers.)

I think you have a typo there. Being 21, I can attest to the fact that many people in my age bracket are by far NOT free-thinkers and do not give a damn about right, wrong, and your rights. Odds are, finding that young guy who does care about such things is rare.

 

[spartacus2002]

It may come one day, and many gun owners won't lift a finger to stop it.

Why won't they? Because the benchrest shooters fear the military rifle owners, who despise the duckhunters, who can't understand the deerhunters, etc., etc., etc.

It will come thru incrementalism, thru brainwashing of kids that guns=violence=evil, and thru the differences of opinion amongst gunowners. We must all hang together, lest we all hang separately.

 

[Wllm. Legrand]

Some of you are right on...others are behind the times.

As I've written before, the average gun owner is a wimp and wussy who will cave at the first SIGN of any intimidation. Hell, most people actually are scared that the IRS will come after you if you don't pay your income taxes on April 15th...(They won't.)

Like Germans from the time of Hitler, being basically law abiding (read: They Thought They Were Free), they will confuse obeying the law with doing their DUTY. They still conflate government and country and have blind loyalty to political parties that **** them in the ***.

Only those whose kids are grown, or are not worried about what people think, and have some measure of independence will probably do anything. And that, you can bet, will be of a silent and especially secretive nature. Another group might be those who have nothing left to lose, or who have suffered some loss or indignity (or some close family member has) at the hands of the ubiquitous FedGOD.

Time will tell. As for me, I don't own any guns. I just like to read about them and dream. I'm a good American. I follow all the laws and respect the government and the police. Their actions are the self-evident proof of their sense of honor and decency, as well as their own respect of the highest law of the land, the Constitution.

I'm just a big pansy. God Bless George Bush and the United States Congress.....

 

[KriegHund]

“YOU CANNOT INVADE THE MAINLAND
UNITED STATES. THERE WOULD BE A
RIFLE BEHIND EACH BLADE OF GRASS.”
JAPAN’S ADMIRAL YAMAMOTO
1942

Thats a highly mis-interepted qoute.

They will do it gradually. Lastly it will be "dangerous sniper rifles".

I dunno what i'll be doing by then. Hopefully it can wait. Things seldom do.
I'm not gonna lie. Im afraid to die, even more so for my guns.
But at least it would be dying for something.

I plan on living to 88. Plans are often dashed on the jagged rocks of reality.

Ide prefer to run off into the wildernes and live the rest of my days in the peace of the forest. Ide probably die 2 days into winter. Who knows. We'll see. Some day you might see old bucky boy on the television, a fanatic trying to snipe the emporer of the USA.

 

[cgjunk2]

They won't need to, people will turn them in voluntarily in incremental form.

BINGO! That's what will happen. The rest of the folks who are still gun owners will increasingly considered a little crazy. That will increase the social pressure against any form of gun ownership. A little peer pressure goes a long way for many.

The situation will be similar to the idea of tracking of individuals 24/7. Ten years ago you would have been considered a nut to think that the government could be able to track everyone. But now, we are all lining up to buy the fanciest cell phones with embedded GPS. And what do you know...now law enforcement is clamoring for the ability to access that info whenever they want, to get a nice history of where you've been and where you are. Neat isn't it?

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

It will be very hard to stop unless we stop the public school system, the reins of control of which are being steadily handed over to the Federal Government. Even today, kids are subtly being taught by their Federally regulated civics books that the Second Amendment is irrelevant and should be changed to allow for reasonable regulations so dangerous guns can be taken off the streets. This has to be stopped and education needs to be returned to 100% local and parental control. Otherwise kids will all be graduating High School persuaded that the right to keep and bear arms does not exist, and is in fact dangerous.

 

[Meplat]

Sorry, but I'm not buying that. If they want 'em, they don't scare easily. I don't think Waco was all that soft. A riot gun at port arms is nothing compared to that.

Buy it, don't buy it. Makes me no nevermind. There's filmed footage of it, just like there was of the old lady being unceromoniously dumped for her antque revolver, SAFELY shown in the palm of her hand. Like Elmer Keith said, "Hell, I was there." They WERE not gonna disarm this neighborhood without a fight. Period. As to Waco, once they were repelled by a first assault that took them off guard, they backed off and used psi-ops proceedures for better than fifty days, then proceeded only under heavy armor. Then they had their targets all in one nice central location. Softer than you might think. Bit of difference than a house to house thing. Sheesh, they used over three hundred agents and para-military troops just to dig two armed adults, one dead woman, one dead boy, and three girls (one a baby) out of a tar paper shack in Idaho. If they couldn't hide what they did from the world in the remote mountains of Idaho, they certainly weren't going to hide it in the flooded streets of New Orleans. They didn't have the friggin' right to do what they were trying to do in New Orleans, and they knew it. Randy Weaver got three million for two dead family members, and had the DOJ not stepped and stomped on the state of Idaho, it would have had one Lon Horiuche's butt on murder charges. They were pending.

I know when I was in the US Army, Infantry, that if I was ordered to take civilians guns, I'd have taken the guns. And if the civilian refused and my CO said "shoot 'em", I'd have replied "Head or chest?"

Could be. Then again, by the time you got the first part of your question out, there's a lot of folks in the part of the world who wouldn't let you get the second part finished. And if even if you did, once the dust settled, Lt. Calley's excuse would have worked even more poorly on our own soil.

I don't think I was the exception.

Sad commentary on where this country is headed, but I think you're probably right there.

And they DID indeed run up on pockets that refused to disarm, and DID back down. 'Course they did run up on little old ladies and such who backed down from them. Got their overreaching pride handed back to them on a platter by the Supreme Court, had to redistribute the illegally confiscated weapons. Wonder how much fuller their plates would have been had they tried to decide on "head or chest" on the ones who did refuse?

 

[amprecon]

When they're ready to die.

 

[beerslurpy]

Sorry, but I'm not buying that. If they want 'em, they don't scare easily. I don't think Waco was all that soft. A riot gun at port arms is nothing compared to that.

I know when I was in the US Army, Infantry, that if I was ordered to take civilians guns, I'd have taken the guns. And if the civilian refused and my CO said "shoot 'em", I'd have replied "Head or chest?"

I don't think I was the exception.

(of course, I'm not of that mind set any longer--but our gun rights are safe because our 18 and 19 year old soldiers are free thinkers.)

When the resistance is 600 yards downrange and hiding, it doesnt matter how well you follow orders.

I think that a legitimate resistance movement would quickly diminish the obedience of the troops. Look what happened in relatively jack-booted ukraine during the orange revolution. They brought in the army to crush the protesters and the army basically just switched sides.

Forced door-to-door confiscation didnt work too great in NOLA, and it would be even less effective now that everyone knows what to expect. Remember how frustrated we were not being able to tell anyone that the government wasnt there to rescue them?

 

[Psssniper]

and then........

 

[Sir Aardvark]

This will never happen in my lifetime.

 

[Ryder]

Never. It is a practical impossibility. Confiscating >90 million of anything going door to door would take tens of thousands of years.

How many people are going to volunteer for this duty? All the antigunners? Hahaha.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Never. It is a practical impossibility. Confiscating >90 million of anything going door to door would take tens of thousands of years.

How many people are going to volunteer for this duty? All the antigunners? Hahaha.

I hope you're right, Ryder. Many argue that 90% of the people with arms will cooperatively hand them in for destruction once the order is given, but I don't think so. So called "assault weapons" were outlawed in California and New Jersey, and only a trickle came in by the deadline. This wasn't followed by house to house searches, and probably for good reason. The predictable result of that approach is either a bunch of dead civilians protecting their right to keep and bear arms, or a bunch of dead cops attempting to infringe on that right. Neither makes very good publicity. Hard to spin that story after a few repeats in a short period of time.

No, in order to avoid the bad press, they'd have to come at it differently. Only a gradual approach to accomplishing their goal is practical, i.e., they'd have to progressively make a growing list of people who are disqualified to own guns, thereby transforming them into "felons." This will reduce the sympathy news consumers might have for the victims of tyranny. That is to say, they'd have to be identifiable as "felons" first, before the SWAT teams were sent in for the guns. The average person is not sympathetic to the cause of a "felon." So, first they'd make various and sundry laws disqualifying one from owning firearms if, for example, anyone has ever reported to the authorities (courts or police) that these people have violent dispositions, or have expressed "antigovernment" views, or illiberal views on race or gender. From that point onward, so long as they are in possession of firearms, they will be classified as felons, and it will be for said felony that the SWAT team will be coming in. Now he is, the news will report, an "armed felon," not some hapless civilian merely defending his right to keep and bear arms against a tyrannical government, since most people believe that felons have "lost" this right, and have no just claim to it.

 

[Gun_nut]

and then........

noooo posers

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

You probably should have taken "The Turner Diaries" with a grain of salt, Hawkeye, but in general I think you are on the right track. The easiest way to turn a targeted segment of the population, say gun owners, into felons would be to plant child pornography on their computers. They wouldn't even need to enter your home to do that--it could be accomplished remotely by a clever hacker.

That's why I'm suspicious of this campaign against child pornography. It has too many hallmarks of the campaign against gun ownership. The press crows about it like every third person is trafficking child pornography, just like they crow about accidental gun deaths killing all our children. An uncritical observer would assume that if the youth of our nation aren't accidentally blowing each others heads off on a daily basis, they're engaging in porn photo shoots. I suspect that the incidence of one is as statistically insignificant as the other.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

You probably should have taken "The Turner Diaries" with a grain of salt, Hawkeye, but in general I think you are on the right track. The easiest way to turn a targeted segment of the population, say gun owners, into felons would be to plant child pornography on their computers. They wouldn't even need to enter your home to do that--it could be accomplished remotely by a clever hacker.

That's why I'm suspicious of this campaign against child pornography. It has too many hallmarks of the campaign against gun ownership. The press crows about it like every third person is trafficking child pornography, just like they crow about accidental gun deaths killing all our children. An uncritical observer would assume that if the youth of our nation aren't accidentally blowing each others heads off on a daily basis, they're engaging in porn photo shoots. I suspect that the incidence of one is as statistically insignificant as the other.

Actually, I have never read The Turner Diaries. I have heard the title, and I know that it has something to do with the government going totally tyrannical, but that's about it. If I came up with the same idea as the author, it is completely a coincidence.

As for the child porn thing, you may be on to something. I hope that I don't even have to say that I am opposed not only to molesting kids, but also to taking porno pictures of them. No punishment is too harsh for anyone who would molest a kid. That said, I think you are right in that there should not be laws against possessing such pictures. That makes it way too easy to plant some in someone's home or on his computer. In fact, I have heard of cases of people planting such photos on people's computers as a practical joke. That kind of joke, with laws such as that, could be ruinous to someone, and if you had a reason to ruin someone that would be a good way to do it.

Agents of the government have done such things many times before. For example, Randy Weaver insists to this day, and I believe him, that he never sawed those barrels shorter than legal length. Therefore, it was the Federal agents who did that in order to frame him into working for them to infiltrate a white supremacist organization. When he refused to be their patsy, that's when they charged him with the illegal barrel shortening. Using kiddy porn would be just as easy. Government should do what it can to stop abuse of children, but possession of pictures should not be something the government involves itself with for reasons quite apart from the wrongness of the behavior of the people who keep such pictures. Punish the wrong behavior, not the possession of a thing, regardless of how despicable we consider the thing to be.

 

[Northslope Nimrod]

When? Haven't they already come for them?

 

[superhornet]

When Hillary takes the Whitehouse, the Dems take the House and Senate....will pass a no gun bill in her second term.

 

[Gun_nut]

When Hillary takes the Whitehouse, the Dems take the House and Senate....will pass a no gun bill in her second term.

they still do not know if she will run this year *thankgod*