Am I just now getting this?

Itchy Llama · January 11, 2013, 10:45 AM

What is the worst situation that could arise from this new(est) attack on legally purchased, owned and operated firearms?
Will the government really take away our right to bear arms, any arms, whatever ‘type’ of firearm we choose to own and fire? Do we think they will see that the problem is as simple as “If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.”
To me this is clearly about gun control, CONTROL being the most important word. It is not about making our schools, churches, malls and work places safer, it is about the CONTROL of firearms.
Drunk driving is still and has always been a huge killer in our society yet cars nor alcohol have ever been banned, never even has a ban been discussed.
I am I just now seeing this? Am I naïve in thinking that the powers that be will realize that the current focus is clearly on gun control and not gun safety and bring into focus the real issue?

pnac · January 11, 2013, 02:27 PM

It's the "powers that be" that want to disarm us, Itchy.

Itchy Llama · January 11, 2013, 02:30 PM

So we are sunk?

sigcurious · January 11, 2013, 02:36 PM

Quote:

CONTROL being the most important word. It is not about making our schools, churches, malls and work places safer, it is about the CONTROL of firearms.
Drunk driving is still and has always been a huge killer in our society yet cars nor alcohol have ever been banned, never even has a ban been discussed.

The 18th amendment and history would strongly disagree with you that alcohol has never been banned.

Ben Towe · January 11, 2013, 02:41 PM

Quote:

The 18th amendment and history would strongly disagree with you that alcohol has never been banned.

And that worked so well.

Itchy Llama · January 11, 2013, 02:43 PM

Sorry-You are correct, not what I meant. I meant as a way to ease drunk driving accidents the ban of alcohol and/or cars was never discussed.
Simple point ban firearms or make it harder for them to fall into the wrong hands?

pnac · January 11, 2013, 02:45 PM

Are we sunk?

Not if we fight! Legislators still need votes, if we play the game and hold their feet to the fire, we should be OK. Otherwise ...

Join NRA,GOA,SAF,JPFO, etc. Numbers count!

Consider a contribution to ILA, write and call legislators, read TFL for tips.

**Spats McGee** · January 11, 2013, 02:55 PM

What's the worst case scenario? Well, if you want my assessment of the honest-to-goodness-tinfoil-hat-worst-case scenario, the gov't will ban all firearms that can chamber more than one round, order confiscation, and civil war will break out. That, however, seems very unlikely.

A more likely scenario is that there will be a big push to ban "high capacity" magazines, rifles with scary features, background checks on all transfers, and registriation of firearms that have never required registration in the past. Whether or not the antis can get those things passed is an entirely different question.

Are we sunk? Not yet. Write your Senators and Representatives today. Join or renew membership in a pro-2A organization. Get on Facebook and discuss the real issues and realities of gun control with some of the fence-sitters.

Silent Bob · January 11, 2013, 03:10 PM

To me right now at this particular junction in history the worst case is congress somehow passing Feinstein's AWB 2.0 that will essentially ban most semi-automatic firearms from being sold to civilians with the "registered grandfathering" of virtually all semi-automatic firearms currently in circulation, 10-rd mag limits, and forcing all gun sales to go through NICS checks. While as bad as this is, the door would also be open for even more onerous legislation the next time a mass shooting happens (and it will happen), with highly-probable confiscation after a mandatory turn-in period.

spacecoast · January 11, 2013, 03:18 PM

Quote:

the gov't will ban all firearms that can chamber more than one round

I know a few shotguns that can pull that off, but that's a pretty good trick for most other guns

Quote:

A more likely scenario is that there will be a big push to ban "high capacity" magazines, rifles with scary features, background checks on all transfers, and registriation of firearms that have never required registration in the past. Whether or not the antis can get those things passed is an entirely different question.

I agree on the likely scenario, it will be interesting to see just how much sway the NRA and other groups/voter feedback to Congress has when the antis have some momentum going for them.

**Spats McGee** · January 11, 2013, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spacecoast

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spats McGee

the gov't will ban all firearms that can chamber more than one round

I know a few shotguns that can pull that off, but that's a pretty good trick for most other guns

Clearly, my cranial rectitis struck while I was typing.

HarrySchell · January 11, 2013, 04:20 PM

Sandy Hook is the excuse Fast + Furious was supposed to produce.

Sandy Hook is about the agenda, not a reasoned response to something "new".

I find it darkly hilarious that the mayor of Chicago makes reference to Sandy Hook instead the the 422 kids who were hit with gunfire (much less a record year for murders) in his little satrap in 2012, and that he is selling the same solutions Dianne Feinstein and Carolyn McCarthy have been talking about for a couple of decades or longer.

Rahm is nothing but a hack Democrat, with all the favored nostrums in hand. All is not lost, but I have to say that if governments here can nullify a basic human right, what can't they do?

And why would anyone imagine they would have the restraint not to?

Some savant in IL has also proposed putting markers into precious metals so government can trace it. Bloomberg knows how many pain pills you need, what your salt intake should be.

The CA Legislature and Governor signed a ban on foie gras in the state because it is "cruel" to the geese. How fitting that they understand geese so well.

Pointshoot · January 11, 2013, 04:36 PM

If Americans were taught their history and the nature of the Republic that was created by those that came before them, - it would be impossible for anyone to mislead and manipulate them. It would be impossible for them to be fooled into giving away their God given and Constitutionally recognized rights.

Notice the sentences above didnt mention anything about what 'they' will do, but what we allow.

Think about it.

UtopiaTexasG19 · January 11, 2013, 04:54 PM

"If Americans were taught their history"

American history books have been changed/altered in the last 40 years to reflect what ever the current feel good view is on any particular historical subject.

Pointshoot · January 11, 2013, 10:36 PM

"American history books have been changed/altered in the last 40 years to reflect what ever the current feel good view is on any particular historical subject."

Its even worse than that. The attack on the teaching of our history in the schools goes back to the 1890s and early 1900s. It was not an accident. Websearch the work of John Taylor Gatto on this subject. He was former NY City & NY State Teacher of the Year. Also check out Charlotte Iserbyt, a former high level official in the Dept of Education during the Reagan administration.

January 11, 2013, 10:45 AM	#1
Itchy Llama Junior Member Join Date: December 21, 2012 Location: U.S.A. Posts: 13	Am I just now getting this? What is the worst situation that could arise from this new(est) attack on legally purchased, owned and operated firearms? Will the government really take away our right to bear arms, any arms, whatever ‘type’ of firearm we choose to own and fire? Do we think they will see that the problem is as simple as “If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.” To me this is clearly about gun control, CONTROL being the most important word. It is not about making our schools, churches, malls and work places safer, it is about the CONTROL of firearms. Drunk driving is still and has always been a huge killer in our society yet cars nor alcohol have ever been banned, never even has a ban been discussed. I am I just now seeing this? Am I naïve in thinking that the powers that be will realize that the current focus is clearly on gun control and not gun safety and bring into focus the real issue? __________________ It's not an Assult Rifle! @ItchyLlama

January 11, 2013, 02:27 PM	#2
pnac Senior Member Join Date: September 7, 2008 Posts: 550	It's the "powers that be" that want to disarm us, Itchy. __________________ In my hour of darkness In my time of need Oh Lord grant me vision Oh Lord grant me speed - Gram Parsons

January 11, 2013, 02:30 PM	#3
Itchy Llama Junior Member Join Date: December 21, 2012 Location: U.S.A. Posts: 13	So we are sunk? __________________ It's not an Assult Rifle! @ItchyLlama

January 11, 2013, 02:43 PM	#6
Itchy Llama Junior Member Join Date: December 21, 2012 Location: U.S.A. Posts: 13	Sorry-You are correct, not what I meant. I meant as a way to ease drunk driving accidents the ban of alcohol and/or cars was never discussed. Simple point ban firearms or make it harder for them to fall into the wrong hands? __________________ It's not an Assult Rifle! @ItchyLlama

January 11, 2013, 02:45 PM	#7
pnac Senior Member Join Date: September 7, 2008 Posts: 550	Are we sunk? Not if we fight! Legislators still need votes, if we play the game and hold their feet to the fire, we should be OK. Otherwise ... Join NRA,GOA,SAF,JPFO, etc. Numbers count! Consider a contribution to ILA, write and call legislators, read TFL for tips. __________________ In my hour of darkness In my time of need Oh Lord grant me vision Oh Lord grant me speed - Gram Parsons

January 11, 2013, 02:55 PM	#8
Spats McGee Staff Join Date: July 28, 2010 Location: Arkansas Posts: 8,821	What's the worst case scenario? Well, if you want my assessment of the honest-to-goodness-tinfoil-hat-worst-case scenario, the gov't will ban all firearms that can chamber more than one round, order confiscation, and civil war will break out. That, however, seems very unlikely. A more likely scenario is that there will be a big push to ban "high capacity" magazines, rifles with scary features, background checks on all transfers, and registriation of firearms that have never required registration in the past. Whether or not the antis can get those things passed is an entirely different question. Are we sunk? Not yet. Write your Senators and Representatives today. Join or renew membership in a pro-2A organization. Get on Facebook and discuss the real issues and realities of gun control with some of the fence-sitters. __________________ I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some.

January 11, 2013, 03:10 PM	#9
Silent Bob Senior Member Join Date: May 27, 2005 Posts: 288	To me right now at this particular junction in history the worst case is congress somehow passing Feinstein's AWB 2.0 that will essentially ban most semi-automatic firearms from being sold to civilians with the "registered grandfathering" of virtually all semi-automatic firearms currently in circulation, 10-rd mag limits, and forcing all gun sales to go through NICS checks. While as bad as this is, the door would also be open for even more onerous legislation the next time a mass shooting happens (and it will happen), with highly-probable confiscation after a mandatory turn-in period. __________________ "Remember, the people on the Internet are just like you - ignorant, delusional, and dangerous."

January 11, 2013, 04:20 PM	#12
HarrySchell Senior Member Join Date: March 30, 2007 Location: South CA Posts: 566	Sandy Hook is the excuse Fast + Furious was supposed to produce. Sandy Hook is about the agenda, not a reasoned response to something "new". I find it darkly hilarious that the mayor of Chicago makes reference to Sandy Hook instead the the 422 kids who were hit with gunfire (much less a record year for murders) in his little satrap in 2012, and that he is selling the same solutions Dianne Feinstein and Carolyn McCarthy have been talking about for a couple of decades or longer. Rahm is nothing but a hack Democrat, with all the favored nostrums in hand. All is not lost, but I have to say that if governments here can nullify a basic human right, what can't they do? And why would anyone imagine they would have the restraint not to? Some savant in IL has also proposed putting markers into precious metals so government can trace it. Bloomberg knows how many pain pills you need, what your salt intake should be. The CA Legislature and Governor signed a ban on foie gras in the state because it is "cruel" to the geese. How fitting that they understand geese so well. __________________ Loyalty to petrified opinions never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul in this world — and never will. — Mark Twain

January 11, 2013, 04:36 PM	#13
Pointshoot Senior Member Join Date: May 23, 2004 Posts: 236	If Americans were taught their history and the nature of the Republic that was created by those that came before them, - it would be impossible for anyone to mislead and manipulate them. It would be impossible for them to be fooled into giving away their God given and Constitutionally recognized rights. Notice the sentences above didnt mention anything about what 'they' will do, but what we allow. Think about it.

January 11, 2013, 04:54 PM	#14
UtopiaTexasG19 Senior Member Join Date: July 3, 2011 Location: S.E. Texas Gulf Coast Posts: 743	"If Americans were taught their history" American history books have been changed/altered in the last 40 years to reflect what ever the current feel good view is on any particular historical subject.

January 11, 2013, 10:36 PM	#15
Pointshoot Senior Member Join Date: May 23, 2004 Posts: 236	"American history books have been changed/altered in the last 40 years to reflect what ever the current feel good view is on any particular historical subject." Its even worse than that. The attack on the teaching of our history in the schools goes back to the 1890s and early 1900s. It was not an accident. Websearch the work of John Taylor Gatto on this subject. He was former NY City & NY State Teacher of the Year. Also check out Charlotte Iserbyt, a former high level official in the Dept of Education during the Reagan administration.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search