Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 27

Thread: America; Government Wants Gun Ban

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Yorktown, VA, ,
    Posts
    270

    Post imported post

    America; Government Wants Gun Ban

    BYLINE: The American

    LENGTH: 363 words

    Governmentintends to impose a temporary moratorium on issuing firearm licenses and to amend several sections of the law regulating the possession of arms.

    In a ministerial statement, Paul Helmke, former President of Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, who is the Minister of Safety and Security, told the National Assembly on Tuesday that one of the proposed amendments would be to prohibit the sale of small firearms and light weapons "to individual, natural persons."

    Once he tabled the amendments to the Arms and Ammunition Act of 2013, Congress should also consider whether the Ministry could "buy back all the legal firearms and light weapons from their rightful owners and compensate them."

    The Minister did not say how this mammoth task would be undertaken and what the costs would be. "From 2008 to 2010, when the re-registration of firearms was carried out, some 276 490 038 firearms were licensed by the United Nations Police and 254 786 571 of them were for private owners," Helmke said.

    "During 2007 to 2008, some 727 166 arms were licensed. We have a society that is arming itself more than the International Police force, which is expected to police them," he added.

    "In view of the ease with which firearms are acquired, our society is more exposed to the perils of violent crimes."

    According to the Minister, most of the firearms in the country are used to commit serious crimes, thus amendments to the existing Act are urgently needed.

    He did not say where he got this statistic from. He said a shortcoming in the existing law was that no competency tests or mental health screenings were performed at gun shops when people bought firearms. "No provision exists for the renewal of existing licenses," he added.

    Helmke did not reveal when he would table the amendments or when the moratorium would be put in place. He then quoted some District of Columbia statistics, such as 948 cases of attempted murder with firearms in 2012, compared to 856 cases in 2011. Murders with a firearm came to 432 cases in 2012, up from 309 the year before.

    Firearm thefts amounted to 781 last year and 668 in 2012.

    -----------------------------------------------------------

    OK...I changed the name of the country along with a few dates and details in the story posted above. Fact is, this is happening right now in another country. Is this what we want our future to look like?

    What are you willing to do to prevent this from happening here?
    [line]

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    Oh please....

    The ownership of firearms is in the constitution. Even if the 2nd amendment can be read two different ways.....

    We have so many guns that the government could never get them all and then... only criminals would have them. Australia has done this and burglaries and robberies skyrocketed!!!

    Look at DC and the mayor's fight to keep the ban going.... Those ingovernment that make the ultimate decision arenot so willing to ban guns so quickly.

    So unless you can find something active that is being decided upon in the USA!!! ... please do not post made up propaganda. :X


  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran roscoe13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Catlett, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,134

    Post imported post

    Renegade wrote:
    What are you willing to do to prevent this from happening here?
    [line]
    If you have to ask that question on this forum, then you're not paying attention...
    "The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." - George Washington

  4. #4
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961

    Post imported post

    Gun registration could ....never.... happen here!





    [humor-no flame please]
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    No longer in Alexandria, Egypt
    Posts
    2,798

    Post imported post

    I read somewhere that even if only 1% of all adult gun owners were radical enough to fight back with force...itwould STILL be overwhelming.

    In 1994 numbers, that's 591,000!!

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    BobCav wrote:
    I read somewhere that even if only 1% of all adult gun owners were radical enough to fight back with force...itwould STILL be overwhelming.

    In 1994 numbers, that's 591,000!!
    Rebellions only succeed if the rebels have both leadership and a belief that they have a chance at actually winning, or at least have nothing left to lose.

    Most gun owners live fairly comfortable lives in this day and age, with hot water, cable TV, cellphones, etc. Tough to risk all that.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, ,
    Posts
    31

    Post imported post

    Tomahawk wrote:
    BobCav wrote:
    I read somewhere that even if only 1% of all adult gun owners were radical enough to fight back with force...itwould STILL be overwhelming.

    In 1994 numbers, that's 591,000!!
    Rebellions only succeed if the rebels have both leadership and a belief that they have a chance at actually winning, or at least have nothing left to lose.

    Most gun owners live fairly comfortable lives in this day and age, with hot water, cable TV, cellphones, etc. Tough to risk all that.
    George Washington owned over 6500 acres of land at Mount Vernon alone, a hundred or so slaves, and was a member of the House of Burgesses at the time the Revolution broke out.

    Just saying.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA, ,
    Posts
    1,244

    Post imported post

    armedinrichmond wrote:
    Tomahawk wrote:
    BobCav wrote:
    I read somewhere that even if only 1% of all adult gun owners were radical enough to fight back with force...itwould STILL be overwhelming.

    In 1994 numbers, that's 591,000!!
    Rebellions only succeed if the rebels have both leadership and a belief that they have a chance at actually winning, or at least have nothing left to lose.

    Most gun owners live fairly comfortable lives in this day and age, with hot water, cable TV, cellphones, etc. Tough to risk all that.
    George Washington owned over 6500 acres of land at Mount Vernon alone, a hundred or so slaves, and was a member of the House of Burgesses at the time the Revolution broke out.

    Just saying.
    Yeah, but would YOU or *I* be willing to risk what we have? I mean, we saw how people rolled over during Katrina.Most people will do what they're told these days. When the LEOs went about enforcing the law, most people would fall in line.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    And I recall a survey of army recruits some years ago in which they were asked something to the effect of 'would they take action against fellow citizens.' The controversy arose from the largely affirmative responses.

    Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA *******

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post


  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran kimbercarrier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    hampton, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    721

    Post imported post

    They could ban them and then when you use it to defend yourself and you spend more time in jail than the criminal. Just ask Tony Martin in England.

    And as far as crime skyrocketing because guns are banned doesn't mean they won't do it.The banners have prohibited or restricted the rkba in cities in the US, and even with crime increasing they want more restrictions.

    The gunbanners are counting on the citizens to keep telling themselves this can't happen in America.

    The've managed to ban or restrict in NY, DC, Maryland, Chicago,and California or is this a figment of my imagination or maybe I'm in one of my extreme rightwing paranoid delusions, nah it happened.:shock:

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    44

    Post imported post

    Give it some time and we will not be allowed to use guns for self defense here either...

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Gloucester Point, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    899

    Post imported post

    roscoe13 wrote:
    Renegade wrote:
    What are you willing to do to prevent this from happening here?
    [line]
    If you have to ask that question on this forum, then you're not paying attention...
    Based on that quote roscoe13, I'm not sure you're paying attention.....

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    48

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:
    Oh please....

    The ownership of firearms is in the constitution. Even if the 2nd amendment can be read two different ways.....
    yeah right. you mean just like we have the"right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" (4th ammendment) yet for some reason we have the patriot bill which allows the government to get around this civil liberty by searching suspected terrorists (which terrorist is not defined) and phone taps and them reading our EMAIL. Heck they out to just open our mail for us too.

    Give it time and they will find some way to make the 2nd ammendment meaningless just like the 4th.

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran roscoe13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Catlett, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,134

    Post imported post

    freedom1776 wrote:
    Give it time and they will find some way to make the 2nd ammendment meaningless just like the 4th.
    You mean like DC, NYC, Chicago....
    "The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." - George Washington

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Yorktown, VA, ,
    Posts
    270

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:

    So unless you can find something active that is being decided upon in the USA!!! ... please do not post made up propaganda. :X
    With all due respect, let us allow history to speak...
    Throughout the last century, dozens of countries such as Turkey, the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, China, Guatemala, Uganda, and Cambodia have required that personal firearms be registered. Within a few short years all of these countries began to collect firearms and murder citizens.

    We are talking tens-of-millions of people disarmed and murdered by their own government.

    Are you not to believe that there are many people in out country today that would love to force us to register our firearms? The process has already begun right here, in our homeland!

    In 1934 machine guns, rifles and shotguns with short barrels, suppressed firearms, etc. were required to be registered. Throughout the 1960s and 1970s background checks became a necessary part of purchasing a firearm. In the 1980s the machine gun market for civilians was locked-up by the Feds and the number of legally registered machine guns in civilian hands began to dwindle. How about that wonderful assault weapons ban that accomplished nothing?

    And now "they" speak of another assault weapons ban, or restricting .50 caliber rifles. And there are states and cities right here, right now, that restrict all sorts of rifles, pistols, etc. New York, Chicago, D.C., etc.

    Anyone remember New Orleans? Our trustworthy "boys in blue" from all around the country descending on storm ravaged New Orleans like buzzards to pick away and steal lawfully owned firearms from law abiding citizens!!! All the while knowing that the streets were lawless and these same "boys in blue" could offer ZERO PROTECTION. This happened overnight in our country!

    What do you think will happen when the next major terrorist attack takes place here in America? Worst case scenario - militant police in every city of every state mobilize to "provide safety" and confiscate every firearm they can. What about next years election...could things change for the worse overnight?

    Stop lying to yourself and keep on thing in mind - you are sworn to defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies foreign and DOMESTIC. You should have no particular allegiance to this or any government, any agency, police force, political power, etc. Your duty is to protect our Constitution - no more, no less.



  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    , Virginia, USA
    Posts
    59

    Post imported post

    Well written Renegade.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    48

    Post imported post

    Renegade wrote:
    What do you think will happen when the next major terrorist attack takes place here in America? Worst case scenario - militant police in every city of every state mobilize to "provide safety" and confiscate every firearm they can. What about next years election...could things change for the worse overnight?

    True, its already been proven that if you want to take something away from the people, what better way to do it than to make them think they have something to be afraid of, that way they WILLINGLY give up their rights.


    They that can Give Up Essential Liberty to Obtain a Little Temporary Safety Deserve Neither Liberty Nor Safety- Ben Franklin

    The Strongest Reason for the People to Retain Their Right to Keep and Bear Arms is as a Last Resort to Protect Themselves Against Tyranny in Government- Thomas Jefferson




  19. #19
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    No longer in Alexandria, Egypt
    Posts
    2,798

    Post imported post

    So much for Lives, Fortunes and Sacred Honour!

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    freedom1776 wrote:
    LEO 229 wrote:
    Oh please....

    The ownership of firearms is in the constitution. Even if the 2nd amendment can be read two different ways.....
    yeah right. you mean just like we have the"right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" (4th ammendment) yet for some reason we have the patriot bill which allows the government to get around this civil liberty by searching suspected terrorists (which terrorist is not defined) and phone taps and them reading our EMAIL. Heck they out to just open our mail for us too.

    Give it time and they will find some way to make the 2nd ammendment meaningless just like the 4th.
    Sorry that phones and email were not around at the time so they could have quilled that in too.

    They can listen in on my phone conversations and read my emails... they can even open my mail. It will be very boring and I am not communicating with any terrorist organization so I could care less. But then... out of all the people they are watching.. I am sure they have no time to check me out.

    The 2nd amendment is already viewed this way...

    ACLU POLICY “The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court’s long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual’s right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Yep. Like Tyler Peterson of Crandon, WI.

    Either we are equal or we are not (I'll warrant that I am at least 3 s.d. unequal to LEO666). Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA *******

  22. #22
    State Researcher .40 Cal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    COTEP FOREVER!, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    1,379

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:
    freedom1776 wrote:
    LEO 229 wrote:
    Oh please....

    The ownership of firearms is in the constitution. Even if the 2nd amendment can be read two different ways.....
    yeah right. you mean just like we have the"right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" (4th ammendment) yet for some reason we have the patriot bill which allows the government to get around this civil liberty by searching suspected terrorists (which terrorist is not defined) and phone taps and them reading our EMAIL. Heck they out to just open our mail for us too.

    Give it time and they will find some way to make the 2nd ammendment meaningless just like the 4th.
    Sorry that phones and email were not around at the time so they could have quilled that in too.

    They can listen in on my phone conversations and read my emails... they can even open my mail. It will be very boring and I am not communicating with any terrorist organization so I could care less. But then... out of all the people they are watching.. I am sure they have no time to check me out.

    The 2nd amendment is already viewed this way...

    ACLU POLICY “The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court’s long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual’s right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller
    What's your point, big boy? Are you saying that you will be first in line to bend over and let the unavoidable rogering begin? I think it's sad that in our attempt to be good Americans, some of us believe that means to do everything the government says... some of us. "Simon says: give up your weapons! Simon says: follow his rules! Protect your family... Simon didn't say!

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    .40 Cal wrote:
    What's your point, big boy? Are you saying that you will be first in line to bend over and let the unavoidable rogering begin? I think it's sad that in our attempt to be good Americans, some of us believe that means to do everything the government says... some of us. "Simon says: give up your weapons! Simon says: follow his rules! Protect your family... Simon didn't say!
    Just saying that some people view things differently.

    So step down off your soap box and chill out. You probably need some rest since your all worked up now... Big boy!

  24. #24
    State Researcher .40 Cal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    COTEP FOREVER!, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    1,379

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:
    .40 Cal wrote:
    What's your point, big boy? Are you saying that you will be first in line to bend over and let the unavoidable rogering begin? I think it's sad that in our attempt to be good Americans, some of us believe that means to do everything the government says... some of us. "Simon says: give up your weapons! Simon says: follow his rules! Protect your family... Simon didn't say!
    Just saying that some people view things differently.

    So step down off your soap box and chill out. You probably need some rest since your all worked up now... Big boy!
    Just asking you a question.No need to get heated, officer. The rest of the comment was not directed at you, but I guess the truth hurts.



  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    .40 Cal wrote:
    LEO 229 wrote:
    .40 Cal wrote:
    What's your point, big boy? Are you saying that you will be first in line to bend over and let the unavoidable rogering begin? I think it's sad that in our attempt to be good Americans, some of us believe that means to do everything the government says... some of us. "Simon says: give up your weapons! Simon says: follow his rules! Protect your family... Simon didn't say!
    Just saying that some people view things differently.

    So step down off your soap box and chill out. You probably need some rest since your all worked up now... Big boy!
    Just asking you a question.No need to get heated, officer. The rest of the comment was not directed at you, but I guess the truth hurts.
    Ya.. it hurts.... You referred to me as "big boy" and I have been battlingthe problem for a long time. I am not fat.. just big boned.

    The only thing fat is my thick head. :P

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •