• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

New AWB Coming...Feinstein has issued her gun control agenda please read.

Snazuolu

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2010
Messages
62
Location
Forest
I dont see how the taxing of all guns would work. its just more crazy feinstein-ness that i think could actually be a decoy to get further confiscation. she knows it wont pass, so she talks to others who will write a bill that has more regulation to it. i wouldnt put it past these ppl to do such round about methods.
 

cloudcroft

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2007
Messages
1,908
Location
El Paso, TX (formerly Colorado Springs, CO)
No, I think millions will obey and submit like good little law-abiding sheep. Few would choose to do otherwise. After all, it would be "the law," right?

The fear of NOT being "law-abiding" (and therefore becoming "outlaws") is too great that they MUST obey. Even the BAD and UNconstitutional laws...even obey/submit to "the authorities" going door-to-door and confiscating guns (if that were ever to happen -- and don't say it NEVER would).

Still, I have to ask WHEN do the "law-abiding" of increasingly infringing laws STOP being so law-abiding? Or will they? Isn't it even "unAmerican" at some point to obey or tolerate a certain level of repression of our freedoms, especially those affirmed by the Constitution?

Even here in this forum, as part of the Offical Rules, being non-law-abiding (or encouraging same -- I'm not, just posing the question) isn't tolerated, so is it then no matter HOW repressive things get, ANY resulting laws will be obeyed regardless, in order to remain "law-abiding?"

No individual or collective Civil Disobediance, no personal or state Nullification, no Secession...just OBEY? Especially when "working within the system" to change laws does NOT work, and/or the SCOTUS won't rule them unconstitutional?

By logical extension then (of being "law-abiding") that DOES seem how it will be, yes?

[EDIT] So in short, how far does one go with being "law-abiding?" Is there a limit or not?
 
Last edited:

Jack House

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
2,611
Location
I80, USA
This bill would tear the country asunder, it ain't gonna pass and if it does, then you better stock up boys and girls because we have a long, violent year ahead of us.

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2
 

MainelyGlock

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
615
Location
Portland, ME
I'm curious to see how many people with "Molon-Labe" inscribed in their guns and on their vests would actually resist a door-to-door arms collection.
 

skeith5

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2012
Messages
356
Location
United States
I'm glad that this link is now in a half a dozen forums. Guess the first one posted in hot topics wasn't good enough. /sarc

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2
 

acmariner99

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2010
Messages
655
Location
Renton, Wa
My response to Feinstein

I am pretty sure my House rep will oppose this legislation, but I am not sure about my Senators -- Cantwell and Murray from Washington, both Democrats. In any case, I think there is plenty of time to nip this in the bud, but if for some reason this does pass and become law -- what will we do? As a couple have already said, will we comply with this legislation? Where will we actually draw a line in the sand - or will we at all? It is easy to make whatever statements we want on the internet, but will anyone saying they will resist actually do so?

Here is a letter I am sending to my state reps - a bit long winded, but I wanted to make every point I could think of.

Representative so and so:

Like all Americans, I was deeply shocked and saddened by the massacre of over 25 people in Newtown, Connecticut earlier this month. Many of those victims were children. I cannot comprehend how any person could conceive of committing such an act. I do believe it is in the interests of American society to try to prevent such incidents from happening again, but it has come to my attention that what Congress and the White House is considering will only hurt law abiding citizens and consequently do nothing to impact the possibility of such massacres from occurring in the future.

Senator Diane Feinstein of California is keeping her word that when Congress convenes early next January, she will immediately put to the floor a ban on the sale, transfer, and manufacturing of many popular rifles in use by American civilians as well as the magazines that accompany them. Her legislation supposedly will also turn those weapons under the ban already in the possession of civilians into NFA Class 3 items, therefore requiring registration, special permissions to use and transport them, and forfeiture to the government upon the death of the owner as well as many other conditions and restrictions. It is easily conceivable that such legislation would enable forfeiture of a person's 4th and 5th Amendment rights under any set of unspecified circumstances, unlawful seizure of lawfully owned property, undignified encroachment of the government into citizen's private affairs, and lay the foundation for eventual forcible seizure of weapons owned by American citizens. When the government says "we will honor your civil rights, trust us," it is very much a cause for concern.

The AR-15 and similar firearms targeted by Senator Feinstein's proposal are perhaps the most versatile ones available to citizens. They can be used for just about any purpose: hunting, competition, target shooting, and defense. I would hardly call them impractical for citizens to own. I also find it unconscionable that the US Government sends such arms to criminal organizations in Mexico to "track" them (Fast and Furious) and repeatedly considers arming rebel groups in Arab countries that say they are hostile to the US yet the same government (ours) wants to disarm its own citizens.

I have in the past 3 years have had a couple of incidents where my possession of a firearm rapidly de-escalated potentially dangerous situations. In both cases, my firearm didn't even have to be presented; the belligerents saw I had the capacity to defend myself and reconsidered their actions without any shots fired or blood shed. Senator Feinstein and others would take that ability away from me if they could. This legislation will empower them to do so.

I should also point out that the mere threat of a weapons ban has put more of these firearms and magazines into circulation than any time previously. I am having a great deal of trouble finding magazines and ammunition and when they are in stock, the prices for them are much higher than they were even a month ago. Doesn't that defeat the purpose of the ban?

The precedent such legislation would enable is to my eye extremely dangerous to the rights we enjoy as Americans. This "idea" does not even touch the real issue behind why the massacre occurred. A brilliant (book smart) yet disturbed and isolated individual needed serious mental help and he never got it. Why isn't Congress addressing mental health? I would think that re-classifying mental conditions that would prohibit a person from possessing a firearm would be called for, but I see no action on that front.

Congress is also not pushing for keeping the media from putting every available piece of information about a mass shooter to the general public. Such action clearly "idolizes" the individual, gives him the attention he is seeking, and empowers others in a similar state to consider such acts to get attention. Yet addressing such concerns would violate the First Amendment. I therefore conclude that the actions Feinstein is proposing is not only not helpful, but hypocritical.

So called "assault" weapons are used in a very small number of crimes and a ban does nothing but put an incredible burden on law abiding citizens, turning them into criminals and creates additional strains on a government that is fiscally reaching its breaking point.

I understand this email is long winded, but I contend this issue is extremely important to me. I wish I could snap my fingers and make all forms of violence stop, but that is simply not possible. Disarming law abiding citizens or turning them into criminals simply because they own a certain weapon goes against the very tenants of what it means to be American. I implore you to oppose this and any legislation directed at punishing responsible law abiding citizens for the acts of one or two mentally unstable individuals. I will also be sending similar messages to my other representatives in Congress. Thank you for your time and consideration and I would appreciate a response.

Signed, Me
 

Jeff. State

Banned
Joined
Aug 29, 2012
Messages
650
Location
usa
Saw this on another forum......


Sorry to have to say this, but

Maybe Dianne should be grabbed in the middle of the night, thrown in a cattle car, taken to a camp, have her head shaved, thrown into a large room with a bunch of shower heads and someone turn on some CS gas inside before she is let out and sent back home.

Maybe then she would realize why you don't ban guns, especially guns essential to fight back against an oppressive tyrannical government.

She is jewish, I think that would refresh her "memory", Never Again!
 

MainelyGlock

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
615
Location
Portland, ME
Feinstein is working towards the same goal as Hitler (disarm the populace), it's really pretty simple. Not really messed up to point it out in a very BLUNT way.

I agree with you on that, but I think there's better ways to make a point that suggesting someone be kidnapped and subjected to bodily harm. You really don't see anything wrong about that suggestion?
 

KYGlockster

Activist Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2010
Messages
1,842
Location
Ashland, KY
People this is simple: if we allow this or anything similiar to happen we are destroying the Second Amendment and this country. This will lead to total bans (which this bill is) and the eventual destruction of our Constitution and liberty.

We MUST stop this from happening! This is SERIOUS people! Please realize the magnitude of the situation we find ourselves in!
 

KYGlockster

Activist Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2010
Messages
1,842
Location
Ashland, KY
I agree with you on that, but I think there's better ways to make a point that suggesting someone be kidnapped and subjected to bodily harm. You really don't see anything wrong about that suggestion?

What do you think George Washington would have done to someone with her extremist ideas when he was around? Freshen up on your history. This woman is committing sedition and treason!
 

Jeff. State

Banned
Joined
Aug 29, 2012
Messages
650
Location
usa
I agree with you on that, but I think there's better ways to make a point that suggesting someone be kidnapped and subjected to bodily harm. You really don't see anything wrong about that suggestion?


Shaved head and a little CS is what many of us endured in Basic Training, not exactly "bodily harm".:lol:


I think it would get her attention and most likely spur a serious reconsideration of her "views". It's purely hypothetical however, as it would never happen. Considering her proposal is considered Treasonous by many, it's really a very "civil" hypothetical.
 

Jeff. State

Banned
Joined
Aug 29, 2012
Messages
650
Location
usa
What do you think George Washington would have done to someone with her extremist ideas when he was around? Freshen up on your history. This woman is committing sedition and treason!

Dang, I think we had a "Vulcan Mind meld". ;)

Treason, straight up!
 

MainelyGlock

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
615
Location
Portland, ME
What do you think George Washington would have done to someone with her extremist ideas when he was around? Freshen up on your history. This woman is committing sedition and treason!

Whatever he would have done, it's irrelevant. Freshen up on modern times, especially if you're going to be discussing events that are occurring right now.

Shaved head and a little CS is what many of us endured in Basic Training, not exactly "bodily harm".:lol:

Ha, that's true, but ya'll got to get on a bus voluntarily. Not thrown into the back of a carpeted utility van with no windows.

I think it would get her attention and most likely spur a serious reconsideration of her "views". It's purely hypothetical however, as it would never happen. Considering her proposal is considered Treasonous by many, it's really a very "civil" hypothetical.

Yeah, it would no doubt get her attention.. :eek: But is that the message you'd want to send?

As disturbing as I find that post, I'm reassured knowing it's just people talking on a forum. You can really only execute a plan like that on 24.
 

KYGlockster

Activist Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2010
Messages
1,842
Location
Ashland, KY
Whatever he would have done, it's irrelevant. Freshen up on modern times, especially if you're going to be discussing events that are occurring right now.



Ha, that's true, but ya'll got to get on a bus voluntarily. Not thrown into the back of a carpeted utility van with no windows.



Yeah, it would no doubt get her attention.. :eek: But is that the message you'd want to send?

As disturbing as I find that post, I'm reassured knowing it's just people talking on a forum. You can really only execute a plan like that on 24.

Trampling on my rights now or 200 years ago is NO different. This lady is blatantly violating the oath she swore to uphold and defend the Constitution. She is a domestic enemy and a trader. You may not care that what she is doing is similiar to what Hitler, Stalin and others have done before they killled millions of "their" people, but I do. She is openly speaking about destroying our Constitution, and she is now acting on those remarks! That is the highest form of treason that can be committed, and whether it was committed by someone in 1776 or today it would deserve the same response.

Our country is in the shape it is because people have allowed the government to oppress them into the corner. Everyone fears the government today, and that is NOT how it should be. In a free and just society it should be the government that fears the people! We can continue to set back and do nothing and just continue to watch them destroy this country, our rights and our freedom, because if we continue to do nothing this is exactly what will happen.

You sound like John Dickinson. Should we just extend an Olive Branch to the government that has betrayed us? That didn't work out too well in 1775 did it, and we are more oppressed today than at ANY other time in American history -- even more so than in 1775.
 
Last edited:
Top