Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Upcoming elections

  1. #1
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator longwatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Fauquier Co, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,297

    Post imported post

    With the upcoming elections and the possibility of change in party control of one or both houses I think there is a possiblity of renewed threats to our RKBA. I'm passing the following message along that has a very worst case scenario as I see it but if the democrats do win I will begin to stock up on certain things.
    Code:
    THE LEFT WING'S PLAN FOR GUNS (Elections)
    
    "Why would an honest person even want a gun?"
    
    by Alan Korwin, Author
    Gun Laws of America
    
    
    It's time to remember what the Democrat party generally seeks regarding 
    guns and gun rights. The list below was widely circulated while Clinton 
    was in power. (This list and more is available at my website, 
    http://www.gunlaws.com.
    
    The democrat-backed Brady group and similar outfits have been quiet 
    about guns because they want to win the election, and impose their goals 
    on your rights --
    
    
    
    THE FIVE YEAR PLAN:
    
    1. National Licensing of all handgun purchases.
    
    2. Licenses for Rifle and Shotgun owners.
    
    3. State Licenses for ownership of firearms.
    
    4. Arsenal Licenses (5 guns and 250 rounds of ammunition).
    
    5. Arsenal License Fees (at least $300.00, with a cap of $1,000.00).
    
    6. Limits on Arsenal Licensing (None in counties with populations of 
    more than 200,000).
    
    7. Requirement of Federally Approved Storage Safes for all guns.
    
    8. Inspection License. (Gun safe licenses, yearly fee for spot 
    inspections).
    
    9. Ban on Manufacturing in counties with a population of more than 
    200,000.
    
    10. Banning all military style firearms.
    
    11. Banning Machine Gun Parts or parts which can be used in a Machine 
    gun.
    
    12. Banning the carrying a firearm anywhere but home or target range or 
    in transit from one to the other.
    
    13. Banning replacement parts (manufacturing, sale, possession, 
    transfer, installation) except barrel, trigger group.
    
    14. Elimination of the Curio Relic list.
    
    15. Control of Ammunition belonging to Certain Surplus Firearms. 
    (7.62x54R and .303).
    
    16. Eventual Ban of Handgun Possession..
    
    17. Banning of Any ammo that fits military guns (post 1945).
    
    18. Banning of any quantity of smokeless powder or black powder which 
    would constitute more than the equivalent of 100 rounds of ammunition.
    
    19. Ban the possession of explosive powders of more than 1 kg. at any 
    one time.
    
    20. Banning of High Powered Ammo or Wounding ammo.
    
    21. A National License for Ammunition.
    
    22. Banning or strict licensing of all re-loading components.
    
    23. National Registration of ammunition or ammo buyers.
    
    24. Requirements of special storage safe for ammunition and licensing.
    
    25. Restricting Gun Ranges to counties with populations less than 
    200,000.
    
    26. Special Licensing of ranges.
    
    27. Special Range Tax to visitors. ($85.00 per visit per person).
    
    28. Waiting period for rentals on pistol ranges.
    
    29. Banning Gun Shows.
    
    30. Banning of military reenactments.
    
    PLUS:
    
    Ban of all clips holding over 6 bullets.
    
    Elimination of the Dept. of Civilian Marksmanship.
    
    Ban on all realistic replica and toy guns (including "air soft" and 
    paintball).
    
    The right of gun-violence victims to sue, with financial assistance 
    from government programs, the gun manufacturers.
    
    Taxes on ammo, dealers, guns, licenses to offset medical costs to 
    society.
    
    The eventual ban on all semi-automatics regardless of when made or 
    caliber.
    
    
    
    While it's true Republicans haven't done very much to defend your gun 
    rights (OK, they have done a little) in six years of control, they offer 
    no support for the anti-rights disarm-the-public plans the left wing 
    will impose on you if they gain power in the next election. It's your 
    choice. Do you stay home and evaporate your rights, or go out and defend 
    them at the ballot box? Tell your friends.
    
    If you took the bait and voted early, instead of rising up as a whole 
    and voting on election day like you're supposed to, this message is too 
    late and you got screwed.
    
    
    Thanks for reading.
    Alan Korwin, Author
    Gun Laws of America
    
    Permission to circulate this message gladly granted.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    , Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    416

    Post imported post

    That list is very chilling to think about.:what:Nevermind the fact that most of those ideas are unconstitutional. :XIf we go all out Dem,I suppose that is a call to arms.

    ProguninTN

  3. #3
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bedford, Texas, USA
    Posts
    834

    Post imported post

    one sure way to start the revolution I guess.

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator longwatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Fauquier Co, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,297

    Post imported post

    http://www.spankthatdonkey.com/spank...t-of-2010.html

    Interesting blog take on the possible consequences of the upcoming election. Read the comments and the spirited debate put up by our friend The Donkey.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    , Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    416

    Post imported post

    The Donkey makes interesting points. One that caught my attention was about "conservatives". Donkey points out how today's "conservatives" are big government, and want to monitor citizens. (which makes them just as big a threat as theliberal gun-grabbers)As anexample, he cites Stollenwerk v. Miller. (Note illegal data collection). We're becoming too much of a "big brother" state. I would like to see true conservatives, (that is small government, constitutionalist types).

    "He who sacrifices liberty for security, deserves neither." -Benjamin Franklin

    ProguninTN

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    , New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    192

    Post imported post

    longwatch, you are a valued and MOST respected member on this board and i always appreciate your knowledge and insight. But please be careful to think that the DemoCratasses are our enemies. There exists a "group" that controls BOTH houses through the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 that is slowly deteriotaing our constitution bit by bit. Expect more bizarre school shootings(False Flags) designed to "scare" people into thinking that gun control is mandatory! Dude, it's Bullsh*t! PLEASE see my posts about these shootings in Britain, Australia, Canada, etc.In each AND every single case it was the same "group" that pushed for gun control. Great Britain and Australia are practically "gun free" and Canada is right behind. Why? It's SO simple!! When "They" crash the stock marketAGAIN and TRANSFER the wealth by simply buying(foreclosing) houses, businesses, gold and oil for pennies on the dollar who will be armed to stand up!!! It's so simple!!!!

    I challanged postsers to STUDY the overwhelming evidence that I provided BUT not one person responded with ANYTHING!! All we talk about is how blacks are our problems and who was on this weeks episode of dancing with the stars!!! How many MILLENIA are we going to stand by and let this same "group" destroy us year by year, decade by decade, century bycentury, country by country. WAKE UP!!!!!!!



    Pissed Off Jersey Ron!

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Mechanicsville, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    548

    Post imported post

    Jersey Ron wrote:
    I challanged postsers to STUDY the overwhelming evidence that I provided BUT not one person responded with ANYTHING!! All we talk about is how blacks are our problems and who was on this weeks episode of dancing with the stars!!! How many MILLENIA are we going to stand by and let this same "group" destroy us year by year, decade by decade, century bycentury, country by country. WAKE UP!!!!!!!



    Pissed Off Jersey Ron!
    OK you had me at least reading what you were saying until you went off the deep end with the last statement. What the hell does anyones race have to do with anything here! Man, there is watching your 6 and making sure the government is in check, and then there is complete paranoia. Geez.

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator longwatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Fauquier Co, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,297

    Post imported post

    For the record I am not overwhelmingly fond of either of the parties. There are people who make the grade on gun rights in both parties and too many who I consider anti liberty in both parties. I happen to think the Democratic party is a bit worse. I consider myself conservative/libertarian but unfortunately neither party is a good fit for my views.

    Is there some secret inside 'group' running the show? I think not because no one could keep a BJ secret much less something that big. However Lord Acton did point out the dangers of absolute power, and people in power like to stay in power.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Mechanicsville, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    548

    Post imported post

    Very well said Longwatch. I wish I were as eloquent. I agree with you analysis that it would be imposable for a behind the scene group to remain secret like he is suggesting. Just like thinking that some agency can watch all phone and Internet messages of the American people is insane. The manpower requirements would be ridiculous. Not to say that the government should not be watched, God knows that they should be. 2A rights are in flux and need the support of everyone, but ranting about race and national conspiracies wont help. IMO.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Staunton, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    34

    Post imported post

    Hey Longwatch:

    Thanks for posts from my blog, I hadn't heard of Opencarry.org and signed up (found this traffic from my sitemeter).

    The Donkey does make some good points, and his analysis of the attitudes of the members of the Supreme Court is very interesting, especially the observation about Robert Bork.

    My contention back to him is that although Webb says he's pro gun, Hillary, Kerry and yet to be seen ultra libs coming to town for him only shows how badly that the Dems want to get rid of Senator Allen, who has outstanding 2A voting record. Namely bringing "shall issue" ccw permits to VA, abolishing parole, reforming welfare in VA, which of course all put together lower crime, and gun crime in particular.

    my 2 cents :-)

  11. #11
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator longwatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Fauquier Co, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,297

    Post imported post

    I actually have a great deal of respect for Webb. He is a genuine war hero and I actually own and like his books. If the race was between him and Sen. Warner, I would be very likely voting for him. However voting for him could very easily be empowering these folks.



    Senators Feinstein, Kerry, Kennedy, and Schumer celebrate a vote putting the Senate on
    record in support of renewing the assault weapons ban.

    http://feinstein.senate.gov/Photos_p...-senators1.htm


  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Staunton, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    34

    Post imported post

    On the issue of 2A Webb is definitely the better candidate than Sen. Jawn Warner. I have argued quitea bit that Webb should have just worked a name recognition campaign, much like Gov. Warner did against John Warner (Mark not John Campaign).

    Gov. Warner got good name recognition ran a clean campaign and was rewarded witha successfull 01' Gov race (pretty sure that date is right since Kaine elected 05)

    Anyhow, Webb's handlers have taken this campaign negative in a big way, even turning macaca, which no one has ever heard of, into a racial slur, and practically saying that his French Tunisian Born Mother taught him the slur.

    Meanwhile the Wash Post runs a story on Jim Webb and a Marine buddy riding through Watts with "fake" guns and yelling racial epithets out the window before leaving for Vietnam, and even worse, Webb gets asked "well have you used the "N" word? The reply "yeah". I.E. if your candidate is vulnerable on racial issues, why broach the subject?

    Nice clean campaign, name recognition, and then onto John Warner, who as you aptly point out, is a vulnerable GOP candidate.... (I'm still steamed over his treatment of Ollie North in 94')

    My point being that Jim Webb and John McCain are big buddies, and always have glowing things to say about one another. My pet theory is that Jim Webb was sent into "bloody" Allen as much as he could to pave the way for McCain 08' Presidential run...

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    , New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    192

    Post imported post

    cs9c1, i accidentally posted to the wrong topic. The topic in which I meant to respond to was COMPLETELY talking about race. I apologize not fro my comments, but rather posting to the wrong topic. I stand by what I say 100%









    Jersey




  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Richmond, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    534

    Post imported post

    Ron,

    Have I missed something here, and do you have a post elsewhere that pertains to the NWO, Tri Lateral Commission, Soros etc? Please advise!

    TrueBrit(reaching for his tinfoil hat!)

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Mechanicsville, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    548

    Post imported post

    Jersey Ron wrote:
    cs9c1, i accidentally posted to the wrong topic. The topic in which I meant to respond to was COMPLETELY talking about race. I apologize not fro my comments, but rather posting to the wrong topic. I stand by what I say 100%

    Jersey

    What are you talking about? You specifically addressed Longwatch and his post, and now you are trying to say it was the wrong thread. Give me a break.

    Elections this year, I believe, are very serious. The stakes for this country, not only the second amendment rights, are extreme. Sound and serious debate is needed not racial and paranoid comments.


  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    , New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    192

    Post imported post

    Listen whoever you are, I was venting in regards to a post that was mentioned on another thread that insinuated that blacks=democrats and democrats=blacks. The MODERATOR of this website can VERIFY what I'm saying right now!! Ask him!! Instead of throwing insults at me I challenge you to the facts!! I'm not paranoid about anything!! I was responding to another thread while addressing Longwatch, respectfully, at the same time. Don't tell me there isn't an 800 pound gorilla sitting in my living room when there is. Let's stick to facts not insults!!! Let's stick to the facts not insults!!



    Jersey





  17. #17
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator longwatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Fauquier Co, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,297

    Post imported post

    Everybody calm down, take it easy. Armed folks should make extra effort to be polite to each other even over the internet. Jersey Ron, I'm as you were addressing me regarding another thread, I think that is causing some confusion. As to the issue of agent provocatuer operations against our liberties in the form of terrorism, or school shootings, my opinion is that no such organized effort could exist or be kept secret for long. Moreover we live in a society that unfortunately produces sick individuals who from time to time perpetrate those heineous acts.
    The Antigun movement and its confederates in office however do make an effort to exploit these tragedies to their political ends. Philip Van Cleave has used a very good phrase to describe this 'dancing in the blood of the victims'. It is not a conspiracy anymore than what we are doing right here and now for the progun/liberty movement.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    , New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    192

    Post imported post

    longwatch, as usual, you handle the situation in a professional manner and i do apologize for any confusion caused on MY part. however, i still, respectfully, disagree withany stance on my so-called "conspiracy" theories. just ask anyone from Great Britain, Australia and Canada. i'm not making these massacres up. these are facts! after the Dublane massacre in Great Britain, SEVERE gun restrictions were imposed. the same scenarios happened in Australia and Canada. these citizens are practically "defanged"! no conspiracy theory. no paranoia! just facts! if this makes me a conspiracy nut then so be it but it doesn't make itNOT true. i believe that the continuation of these totally bizarre shootings will cause such a public outcry in the US that we will be in the same sitaution as our international counterparts. IMHO



    Jersey



  19. #19

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128

    Post imported post

    Going back to your original Post, Longwatch, I think it important to echo a few points made in my longer posts on Jim Webb and the Supreme Court.

    First, there is no Democratic Five Year Plan on guns: the democrats and Handgun Control are not the same thing. And George Allen has not been terribly consistent on guns – such as his support – then opposition – to the assault weapons ban. I do not, frankly, view his loyalty to President Bush as a good excuse for this.

    But this is not a crucial election on such “direct” gun issues The Second Amendment does not hang in the balance in Congress, and is not – thankfully – likely to be taken up by the Supreme Court any time soon. Gun control has no traction in Congress. For reasons alluded to in this recent Wall Street Journal Article:
    http://online.wsj.com/public/article...f_main_tff_top

    Gun Control is recognized as political poison for democrats ever since the backlash over the 1994 assault weapons ban.

    Consider Harry Reid, the Democratic minority Leader: Reid is generally pro-gun – although not as strident as Jim Webb. But he joined six other dems in voting against the 10 year extension of the Assault Weapons Ban in 04.’ If that legislation had passed, Spanky would have had Republicans to blame, including our Senator Warner, and Mike Dewine of Ohio, (who may be thinking long and hard about that vote right now). Had the Senate tied, as many people expected, Dick Cheney would have come in and cast the tie breaking vote IN FAVOR of the assault style ban, fulfilling President Bush’s campaign promises.

    Think about that: President Bush SUPPORTED renewal of the assault weapons ban: that would certainly provide enough cover for Reid and the others to vote in favor of that ban if he actually was was being effectively “arm-twisted” by these all powerful shadowy pro gun control democrats.

    The leadership of the democratic party does not view gun control legislation as a test of loyalty: they will not “whip” Jim Webb into supporting it: they view gun control as a threat that could prevent them from gaining or maintaining their majorities, will strive quietly to prevent any significant gun control legislation from being voted on, and will not punish Harry Reid or Jim Webb from voting against gun control.

    The Donkey


  20. #20
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator longwatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Fauquier Co, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,297

    Post imported post

    I am not happy with Bush's stand on the AWB, but look who he was running against, Al Gore and John Kerry. Do you think they were against it? To Bush's opponents the AWB was just the beginning. Bush could make a promise to sign it and probably never have to worry about congress sending one for him to sign. As for Cheney casting a tiebreaker in favor of the AWB, thats some pretty fantastic speculation. Being that the Kerry campaign accused Bush and Cheney of breaking a promise to renew the AWB I don't think you can paint people a pro and anti gun control at the same time. However with democratic control looming, maybe we will find out if Bush was lying or not.

    While the Democratic party might see gun control as electoral poison, I'm not going to take their word that they are going to not try and enact any when in power. I think you are dreaming that they would not try to suppress gun control bills. I sure haven't heard of any promises to do so this campaign cycle.


Posting Permissions

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