Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 101

Thread: Domestic gun grab. Real threat or BS?

  1. #1
    Regular Member self preservation's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Owingsville,KY
    Posts
    1,039

    Domestic gun grab. Real threat or BS?

    http://www.redflagnews.com/headlines...ry-break-rooms

    I don't want to be one of those tin foil hat wearer's, but just because something seems crazy doesn't mean that it is not true. The above link talks about a gun grab from U.S. military that our president is working on. It is a 16 minute video but IMHO is worth the watch. What do you make or this, credible threat or BS?
    “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Edmund Burke

    self-pres·er·va·tion (slfprzr-vshn)
    n.
    1. Protection of oneself from harm or destruction.
    2. The instinct for individual preservation; the innate desire to stay alive.

  2. #2
    Regular Member rushcreek2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs. CO
    Posts
    924
    The BLOOD of millions of American patriots is symbolically represented by the RED stripes on the U.S. flag.

    Our people's desire to live in PEACE is represented by the BLUE .

    Our people's yearning for spiritual purity is represented by the WHITE stripes.

    Our people's desire for UNITY is represented by the the array of STARS.

    I am more than willing to donate my own BLOOD to help keep those RED stripes brilliant, and ensure the PEACE, PURITY, and UNITY of our Republic.

    No I will not be surrendering to tyrants anytime soon.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by self preservation View Post
    http://www.redflagnews.com/headlines...ry-break-rooms

    I don't want to be one of those tin foil hat wearer's, but just because something seems crazy doesn't mean that it is not true. The above link talks about a gun grab from U.S. military that our president is working on. It is a 16 minute video but IMHO is worth the watch. What do you make or this, credible threat or BS?
    I have a 2006 training manual .. where they detail the tra

    ining of soldiers to do the bidding of local PDs and/or direct them to do their bidding.

    They have already done this ....

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kf8trl69kzo

  4. #4
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Here's a related video in which MPs are discussing the declaration of martial law and gun confiscation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LavSGvONNxc

    As far as whether or not it's a credible threat.... Martial law and gun confiscation has already occurred in the United States in recent years. How could any reasonable person say that it isn't a credible threat?
    Last edited by stealthyeliminator; 10-27-2013 at 02:07 AM. Reason: guess I should include the link. lol

  5. #5
    Regular Member Gil223's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Weber County Utah
    Posts
    1,428
    Nothing the Obama administration does that is in violation of our Constitution, should surprise anybody. I wonder how many of our military personnel will support the Patriots, and how many will support the Communists? Will three percent of the population be enough this time? The tail is wagging the dog when the government controls the people. Si vis pacem, para bellum...
    MOLON LABE
    COUNTRY FIRST
    Glocks ROCK!

  6. #6
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,616
    Gun grab and gun confiscation are not the same thing - just sayin'.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  7. #7
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Gun grab and gun confiscation are not the same thing - just sayin'.
    Can you explain the difference and how it's relevant to this discussion? I don't want to just assume that I know what you mean.

  8. #8
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,616
    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator View Post
    Can you explain the difference and how it's relevant to this discussion? I don't want to just assume that I know what you mean.
    A gun grab (term used in title) is a gun snatch or attempt to disarm a LAC by stealth in which the gun is the primary target.

    Gun confiscation is used to define a government entity setting up a program to relieve the citizenry of their guns OR a court order as the result of a conviction.

    The distinction is relevant because words have meanings - I did point it out softly.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Gil223's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Weber County Utah
    Posts
    1,428
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    A gun grab (term used in title) is a gun snatch or attempt to disarm a LAC by stealth in which the gun is the primary target.

    Gun confiscation is used to define a government entity setting up a program to relieve the citizenry of their guns OR a court order as the result of a conviction.

    The distinction is relevant because words have meanings - I did point it out softly.
    So, essentially, you see them as simply different kinds of theft of personal property. Pax...
    MOLON LABE
    COUNTRY FIRST
    Glocks ROCK!

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Gil223 View Post
    So, essentially, you see them as simply different kinds of theft of personal property. Pax...
    He's getting hung up on the definitions.

    The term gun-grab often means a single person snatching a gun from another single person.

    He's misdefining the term gun-grab in the OP where it obviously means generalized confiscation. Or, more precisely, he's making the assumption that there is a single definition. And, acting as though the OPer has misused the term. Nevermind the fact that the 2A world has for years used the term gun-grabbers to describe anti-second amendment people rather than criminals who would snatch a gun from a holster. (yawn)

    As though there are no words in English that have more than one meaning. (double yawn)

    Check out the word "of" in any college dictionary. Last time I looked there were at least fourteen definitions.

    (yawn, stretch, yawn)
    Last edited by Citizen; 10-27-2013 at 07:16 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Griz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    300
    it depends on what your definition of is is

  12. #12
    Regular Member self preservation's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Owingsville,KY
    Posts
    1,039
    Does it really matter if it's called a gun grab, gun confiscation or "they's gonna take our boom booms away" ? I believe we are getting way off topic with this one.
    “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Edmund Burke

    self-pres·er·va·tion (slfprzr-vshn)
    n.
    1. Protection of oneself from harm or destruction.
    2. The instinct for individual preservation; the innate desire to stay alive.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Gun Grab- Assault weapons Ban , ban on magazines, ban on semi-autos in CA, and other laws that prohibit certain weapons

    Gun Confiscation- any and all guns must be turned in, think England/ Ireland

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator View Post
    Can you explain the difference and how it's relevant to this discussion? I don't want to just assume that I know what you mean.
    I see no difference in respect to the subject matter that the term was used in ... words are not used in a vacuum ...

  15. #15
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216

    Can't Watch...

    I can't even watch videos like this. Everyone harps about the Constitution and what it means as if they were there and they helped write it. Does anyone ever wonder what the founding fathers would think about the way society has turned out? Was there violent video games, gangs, child abuse, rape, murder, and just general degradation of morals like there is now? History says no. Guys realize the Con. was written a very long time ago? And that it was immediately amended (10 times) because it was jacked up. 2a is exactly that. An amendment. Meaning they passed the first draft, then realized they forgot stuff. Never mind the fact that our current Con. is actually the second one that was passed because the first one was a complete failure. I believe in the PRINCIPLES of the Con. not just the words and letters on the piece of paper.

    Guys on that website are quick to call for violence because things they perceive are unconstitutional. Well what if the constitution was changed? Would they still call for violence? The constitution has an amendment process (luckily or else we wouldn't have guns), so what if it was used to take away say the first or second or 4th? What leg would everyone stand on? The fact that it isn't fair to be searched unreasonably? Doesn't sound nearly as good as saying your fighting for a document.

    So again, I just can't wrap my head around the call for violence. Why do guys only read one part of the Con.? Guys say "your infringing upon my 2a, 4a, 1a, rights. So I will arm myself more and fight you to the death!!" Well I don't recall there being that part in the Con. about resorting to violence. I'm pretty sure it outlines an exact NON VIOLENT process of voting new people in, or voting for an amendment etc.

    Disclaimer: Do not read this as being anti-gun. I'm anti violence and anti-antis. (sounds funny I know).

  16. #16
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    SNIP I'm anti violence and anti-antis. (sounds funny I know).
    Whew! I'm glad to hear that!

    Now, are you sufficiently anti-violence to do something about the organized violence and threat of violence called government?


    I don't recall there being that part in the Con. about resorting to violence.
    The whole dang constitution is predicated on the threat of violence. Anybody resorting to violence has already been threatened with violence by government.
    Last edited by Citizen; 10-28-2013 at 01:04 AM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  17. #17
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Whew! I'm glad to hear that!

    Now, are you sufficiently anti-violence to do something about the organized violence and threat of violence called government?




    The whole dang constitution is predicated on the threat of violence. Anybody resorting to violence has already been threatened with violence by government.
    This "threat of violence" has been around since man first made a tribe about a billion years ago (i know a couple million but jsut making a point). When we first made tribes there was a dominant person. You messed up he clubbed you. Then there was "civilizations". They were always based on some form of .gov. And it's always worked that there is a "threat of violence" if you refuse to contribute. Actually, today's .gov has an extremely LOW level "threat" then previous .govs (around the world). Civilization wouldn't work unless there was someone to keep us civilized. We are animals and tend to act like it.

    Look at children. Do they pop out perfect little beings with natural manners? Negative. They are slapped by adults when they get out of line and don't follow rules. Well when you become an adult and get out of line, you get slapped. The issue is where is that "line".

  18. #18
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,616
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    --snapped-- Was (sic) there violent video games, gangs, child abuse, rape, murder, and just general degradation of morals like there is now? History says no.
    Have never seen a "violent video game" - only violent people. IMO this is no different than blaming guns for violence.

    http://psychcentral.com/news/2013/08...uth/58934.html

    http://www.tomsguide.com/us/video-ga...ews-17476.html

    Excellent Pro & Con comparison here:
    http://videogames.procon.org/
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    This "threat of violence" has been around since man first made a tribe ... When we first made tribes there was a dominant person. You messed up he clubbed you. Then there was "civilizations". They were always based on some form of .gov. And it's always worked that there is a "threat of violence" if you refuse to contribute. Actually, today's .gov has an extremely LOW level "threat" then previous .govs (around the world). Civilization wouldn't work unless there was someone to keep us civilized. We are animals and tend to act like it.....
    The 'tribe' continues as the government. It maintains its 'civilization' against the individual and Open Society.

    The Open Society and Its Enemies - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Op...nd_Its_Enemies

    That man is inherently evil is the foundation of conservatism. The contrary statement, that man is inherently god-like is the fundamental principle of progressivism.
    Last edited by Nightmare; 10-28-2013 at 08:00 AM.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  20. #20
    Regular Member self preservation's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Owingsville,KY
    Posts
    1,039
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    I can't even watch videos like this. Everyone harps about the Constitution and what it means as if they were there and they helped write it. Does anyone ever wonder what the founding fathers would think about the way society has turned out? Was there violent video games, gangs, child abuse, rape, murder, and just general degradation of morals like there is now? History says no. Guys realize the Con. was written a very long time ago? And that it was immediately amended (10 times) because it was jacked up. 2a is exactly that. An amendment. Meaning they passed the first draft, then realized they forgot stuff. Never mind the fact that our current Con. is actually the second one that was passed because the first one was a complete failure. I believe in the PRINCIPLES of the Con. not just the words and letters on the piece of paper.

    Guys on that website are quick to call for violence because things they perceive are unconstitutional. Well what if the constitution was changed? Would they still call for violence? The constitution has an amendment process (luckily or else we wouldn't have guns), so what if it was used to take away say the first or second or 4th? What leg would everyone stand on? The fact that it isn't fair to be searched unreasonably? Doesn't sound nearly as good as saying your fighting for a document.

    So again, I just can't wrap my head around the call for violence. Why do guys only read one part of the Con.? Guys say "your infringing upon my 2a, 4a, 1a, rights. So I will arm myself more and fight you to the death!!" Well I don't recall there being that part in the Con. about resorting to violence. I'm pretty sure it outlines an exact NON VIOLENT process of voting new people in, or voting for an amendment etc.

    Disclaimer: Do not read this as being anti-gun. I'm anti violence and anti-antis. (sounds funny I know).
    Still waiting for the punch line to this joke. For some reason my copy and paste feature isn't working so I can't comment on each of your thoughts, but one that stands out to me is when you say that you can't see arming yourself and fighting for our freedoms. Do you even know how we became America in the first place? Hint: It wasn't won in a dice game.
    “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Edmund Burke

    self-pres·er·va·tion (slfprzr-vshn)
    n.
    1. Protection of oneself from harm or destruction.
    2. The instinct for individual preservation; the innate desire to stay alive.

  21. #21
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    I can't even watch videos like this. Everyone harps about the Constitution and what it means as if they were there and they helped write it. Does anyone ever wonder what the founding fathers would think about the way society has turned out? Was there violent video games, gangs, child abuse, rape, murder, and just general degradation of morals like there is now? History says no. Guys realize the Con. was written a very long time ago? And that it was immediately amended (10 times) because it was jacked up. 2a is exactly that. An amendment. Meaning they passed the first draft, then realized they forgot stuff. Never mind the fact that our current Con. is actually the second one that was passed because the first one was a complete failure. I believe in the PRINCIPLES of the Con. not just the words and letters on the piece of paper.

    Guys on that website are quick to call for violence because things they perceive are unconstitutional. Well what if the constitution was changed? Would they still call for violence? The constitution has an amendment process (luckily or else we wouldn't have guns), so what if it was used to take away say the first or second or 4th? What leg would everyone stand on? The fact that it isn't fair to be searched unreasonably? Doesn't sound nearly as good as saying your fighting for a document.

    So again, I just can't wrap my head around the call for violence. Why do guys only read one part of the Con.? Guys say "your infringing upon my 2a, 4a, 1a, rights. So I will arm myself more and fight you to the death!!" Well I don't recall there being that part in the Con. about resorting to violence. I'm pretty sure it outlines an exact NON VIOLENT process of voting new people in, or voting for an amendment etc.

    Disclaimer: Do not read this as being anti-gun. I'm anti violence and anti-antis. (sounds funny I know).
    You are seriously misinformed as to the purpose of the constitution and the intent of the BoR. I recommend that you study the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers. I also recommend you subscribe to Hillsdale Colleges' Constitution 101 and 102 on-line courses.....el freebo by the way.

    As to the bolded above, delete video games and all of those did occur, we just did not get any news reports about them.....no Interwebs back in the day.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154
    We 'became' America for the exploration of Amerigo Vespucci. America is the feminized Latin of Amerigo Vespucci's given name.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  23. #23
    Regular Member self preservation's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Owingsville,KY
    Posts
    1,039
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    This "threat of violence" has been around since man first made a tribe about a billion years ago (i know a couple million but jsut making a point). When we first made tribes there was a dominant person. You messed up he clubbed you. Then there was "civilizations". They were always based on some form of .gov. And it's always worked that there is a "threat of violence" if you refuse to contribute. Actually, today's .gov has an extremely LOW level "threat" then previous .govs (around the world). Civilization wouldn't work unless there was someone to keep us civilized. We are animals and tend to act like it.

    Look at children. Do they pop out perfect little beings with natural manners? Negative. They are slapped by adults when they get out of line and don't follow rules. Well when you become an adult and get out of line, you get slapped. The issue is where is that "line".
    I'm glad that you are for the Government "clubbing" and "slapping" us until we are nice compliant animals. As far as the U.S. Government having a "low threat level" to freedom loving folks like us, exactly how long have you been living under your rock?
    “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Edmund Burke

    self-pres·er·va·tion (slfprzr-vshn)
    n.
    1. Protection of oneself from harm or destruction.
    2. The instinct for individual preservation; the innate desire to stay alive.

  24. #24
    Regular Member Maverick9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Mid-atlantic
    Posts
    1,505
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    Guys say "your infringing upon my 2a, 4a, 1a, rights. So I will arm myself more and fight you to the death!!"
    I'm pretty sure they say 'you're infringing...'. Just sayin'...

  25. #25
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Last time I checked, .govs have progressed from beheading for political opposition (France) to being able to post anything you want on a forum or rallying and saying literally anything you want about the President. Do you know what would have happened in Rome if you posted a picture mocking the Ceaser? Death.

    My point is that's progression as a people, as a planet. The .gov principle has always been the same, we don't just meld together and be happy. There has always been some larger entity that "controls" the population.

    Remember guys, the Articles of Confederation gave us exactly that, no .gov and it failed horribly.

    Again, not saying anything or anyone is perfect. Just saying this "threat of violence" idea is a bit far fetched. Want to see threat of violence? Look up what Stalin did, Hitler, Castro, etc. etc. Those were threats of violence.

    And anyone who's actually been involved in true violence isn't so quick to jump to want to causing it.

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •