• 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.

Domestic gun grab. Real threat or BS?

self preservation

self preservation

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2012
Messages
1,036
Location
Owingsville,KY
rushcreek2

rushcreek2

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2010
Messages
909
Location
Colorado Springs. CO
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.
 
davidmcbeth

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
self preservation said:
http://www.redflagnews.com/headline...fice-being-taken-down-in-military-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?
Click to expand...

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
 
stealthyeliminator

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
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:
Gil223

Gil223

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2012
Messages
1,392
Location
Weber County Utah
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. :mad: Si vis pacem, para bellum...
 
Grapeshot

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
stealthyeliminator said:
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.
Click to expand...

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. :)
 
Gil223

Gil223

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2012
Messages
1,392
Location
Weber County Utah
Grapeshot said:
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. :)
Click to expand...
So, essentially, you see them as simply different kinds of theft of personal property. :lol: Pax...
 
C

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Gil223 said:
So, essentially, you see them as simply different kinds of theft of personal property. :lol: Pax...
Click to expand...

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:
self preservation

self preservation

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2012
Messages
1,036
Location
Owingsville,KY
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.
 
Primus

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
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
 
Primus

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
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).
 
C

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Primus said:
SNIP I'm anti violence and anti-antis. (sounds funny I know).
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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:
Primus

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
Citizen said:
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.
Click to expand...

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".
 
Grapeshot

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
Primus said:
--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.
Click to expand...
Have never seen a "violent video game" - only violent people. IMO this is no different than blaming guns for violence.

http://psychcentral.com/news/2013/0...ied-to-violence-in-high-risk-youth/58934.html

http://www.tomsguide.com/us/video-game-violence-studies,news-17476.html

Excellent Pro & Con comparison here:
http://videogames.procon.org/
 
self preservation

self preservation

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2012
Messages
1,036
Location
Owingsville,KY
Primus said:
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).
Click to expand...

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.
 
OC for ME

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Primus said:
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).
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top