What if it passes?

[hermannr]

So with all this talk of a looming all out gun ban and/or AWB, the Feinsteinator, and all this other crap...most people are holding the optimistic view that the house will reject anything and nothing will pass. I can't help but ask myself, what's the course of action for us as gun owners if it does? I personally know people who consider themselves pro-gun, hold CCW permits, and after Sandy Hook are questioning the "need for assault weapons and large capacity magazines", and don't agree with teachers being armed or the removal of gun free zones.

I personally have wrote my congressman. A lot of people have. We can petition all we want on these worthless whitehouse.gov petitions. We can try to vote out our legislators after this happens. We can send money to the NRA (who personally I feel sold us out a little bit on the 21st, but that's neither here nor there), the GOA, Florida Carry or your state's equivalent, but none of these things are going guarantee any legislation from passing, nor will it help us if it does.

So what is the next step? What do we do if this passes? What are the alternatives? Of course no one is going to want to open-carry protest or protest unarmed in small numbers, as they will most certainly be arrested or at least field interviewed and added to some DHS watch-list more than likely.

Do we get a thousand people to drop everything they're doing, risk their livelihoods, leave their families for a few days to march on D.C. in an organized open carry protest, hoping that they can't arrest all of us? Is this 1775 America? Or do we put our faith in the government and hope that these laws get reversed next go-around, or that our friendly neighborhood local law enforcement and state attorney will look the other way when someone stands their ground with their now-illegal concealed carry weapon and defends themself?

Thoughts, OCDO?

It can only pass if YOU allow it to pass...Get politically active

 

[motoxmann]

Would any soldier who took an oath to the constitution follow such an order?? I truely hope they would turn their weapons on their tyrant commanders the give that order.

soldiers, LEO's, and other forms of security/military/militia employees alike. Word from insiders is that Local Police Departments, Homeland Security, TSA, and possibly even the National Guard will be the ones used to carry out the unconstitutional efforts currently being planned/strategized

edit: ok, I just had another lightbulb thought. anyone familiar with the fast and furious scandall? and how it was publicised to supposedly be an effort to track things/people/guns/criminal activity? has it occurred to anyone that the reality of it could have been our government intentionalyl arming our southern countries so when the crap hits the fan they can invade in masses and help our government dominate US citizens? possibly some form of deal with the southern countries to give them back large portions of land or something?

 

[RetiredOC]

 

[sharkey]

Strong talk is all well and good for bachelors with no concern about how short their future may be. But since the "average" gun owner is middle-aged he (yes, guys outnumber girls by a whole lot but the same applies to them) probably has a family. Unless he knows when SWAT is going to come no-knocking at his door and sends his family off before-hand, he will be conflicted between "rights" and their safety. And if he knows before-hand he needs to make sure SWAT does not know where the family went to, because SWAT is not going to be above using them as hostages.

The battle needs to begin now - both in politics and propoganda. Legislators need to know their continuation in theie current job is dependant on how they vote on regulation/registration/confiscation. The public needs to hear the cold hard facts of what the gun control people are willing to do in order to register/confiscate guns only from law-abiding citizens (do you really think criminals are going to turn their guns in just because of some law?) The public needs to hear that the gun control folks are intentionally putting the lives of children, the elderly, the sick and the weak on the chopping block as a trade-off for some new measure of control.

We know GFZs do not work. We have seen the same events as the gun control people. They say "Prove that allowing anyone to carry a firearm there would have prevented the tragedy." We need to show that 1) it is not possible to completely prevent these events, 2) that reducing the number of people killed/wounded is better than nothing, and 3) that waiting for the police to arrive with their guns mere increases the number of dead/wounded. Don't do it with "facts" or statistics. Use the same emotional appeals they use.

They want to deamonize the gun, and by extension the gun owner. We need to start deamonizing them for being willing to let school children, church congregations, nursing home residents die because the deranged killer is not stopped until the police arrive, assemble, strategize, and then search for that deranged killer. Ask people to hold their breath for five (5) minutes while you beat on them with a baseball bat - even a Nerf bat. Tell them that is what it is like to wait for the police to arrive, and that most times the police cannot get there in just five minutes.

Shout from the rooftops, and in the Letters to the Editor, and to your legislators, that you are sick and tired of people dying because they had to wait for the cops. Gun control folks always scream about blood running in the streets - show everybody that the blood that is in fact running in the streets is the blood of helpless victims who were prevented from being able to defend themself. The gun control folks love to call us names - we need to start doing the same thing. "Murderer," "Child Killer." and the like are a few I suggest we start with. Maybe if we get emotionally worked up we might think of a few more to add to the list.

Go check out Rules for Radicals at the library (do NOT buy it - Alinsky still gets royalties) and start studying. It will be difficult at first because it does everything we were taught not to do, and violates almost every principle we think we hold dear. But this is war, and in war the only rule is to win. (Well, that's not really true, but I think we would be better off if we did not actually kill every one of those stinking sons of b!tches, as Gen. Patton said of the goal of war.)

stay safe.

Yes, propaganda is in full swing.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2012/12/23/weiss/2kSrR8nkWgwI1TJQVGkPEM/story.html

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/20/1172532/-Gun-violence-public-health-and-the-missing-piece#

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/breaking-the-american-gun_b_2348282.html

http://washingtonexaminer.com/in-95...ly-different-way/article/2516161#.UN-1x9Ge7FA

http://www.aspentimes.com/article/20121228/COLUMN/121229911/1021&parentprofile=1061 (the ol' penis argument here -- I think playgirl needs to do a spread with horse penis men with super large guns)

http://www.thestar.com/news/insight...lot-about-gun-control-from-the-war-on-smoking

 

[motoxmann]

I see what you did there lol. you even properly named the pic "thisthread" rofl! his monitor in the background is on the first post of THIS THREAD! (to those less visually enabled; it's photoshopped)
is there a youtube clip or some form of vid online anywhere of that? I want to see what he's saying

 

[cloudcroft]

Jeff. State,

Don't waste your keyboard time with people who ride Obama-unicorns with rainbows: They're not worth it. And "debating" the Walking Dead is futile.

With only 67 posts, you probably haven't been there that long...but I do hope that by now you can see that not everyone here is going to be on the same side if some "major altercation" along social/cultural and philosphpical (and other) lines ever develops in the future. Disagreement over the guns issue/2nd Amendment rights (although certainly of great importance) will be only one of the causes.

So just because someone owns a gun (a so-called "gun-owner"), it doesn't mean AT ALL they're with you. BOTH sides will have them...even the liberal anti-gun hypocrites.

 

[matt2636]

I have been shadowing this forum for awhile, but felt compelled enough on this issue to register and speak out...

Being in the military myself (Navy) the smallest thought of actually taking peoples guns away would cause it to go upside down on itself, you are talking about people possibly have to kill there own family members and friends, and how are you going to explain to all those same military members they have to give up there personally owned guns too...How is it OK for me to carry one outside my country for defense, but when I get back stateside I have to depend on the police to take care of me.....Maybe they should think about what they are doing before they upset the people with access to the real "assault rifles"...

-chris

true but what if they are deployed to different areas of the US? like they would take troops who live in cali and send them to the east coast and visa versa or send people who live in the south up north where no one really knows anyone?

 

[raidert05]

Shouldn't matter none us joined to kill our own country men and we certainly didn't join to spill American blood on American soil at some point orders don't matter when morality takes over.

 

[motoxmann]

Shouldn't matter none us joined to kill our own country men and we certainly didn't join to spill American blood on American soil at some point orders don't matter when morality takes over.

agreed. and another way to put it:
-within our country, I classify everyone into 3 categories: family, friends, strangers
-if the seperation in question is countries (plural) where each individual country must be classified as a whole, then I would deem my country my family, and other countries individually would either be friends or enemies or irrelevant.
under certain circumstances I believe it's safe to relate "fellow countrymen" with "family"

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

If there is anything substantive to derive from the past, this is one thing: Look at most State's that use their military against their own people, most in the military will carry out their Duty to the State, and the ones who don't will die.


One of the biggest draws to keeping individuals dedicated to the State's work: Paycheck.



Military expenditures is more a socialized exercise, than a deterrence.



The military, just this past week, received some 600,000,000,000 +, some of which it did not want or need. Military persons are no different than any other State worker who depends on the Government for their economic life.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

Shouldn't matter none us joined to kill our own country men and we certainly didn't join to spill American blood on American soil at some point orders don't matter when morality takes over.

But many of you will. Wee see this already playing out in America where innocent individuals are murderred by police, Amricans are targeted by the CIA, without trial, to be murderred--it is Americans that are employed by the State, and carrying out these things.


If the Government turned on Amreicans, I see at least the percentage of military persons who have family's standing lock step for orders. How will it be justified in their minds?...They have to feed their family....basically, survival. Because they know that if they don't play ball, their family will possibly starve and be left to the wolves. I wouldn't fault them for making that decision...most individuals would.




I read all this talk about abstract situations where individuals state they would pull the trigger, or they would fight to the death to keep their firearm....BS! You don't know what you'd do until you right there faced with the unfortunate reality of choosing between preserving your life, or being dead.

 

[WalkingWolf]

What if it passed?



Firearm owners are inpart to blame. Coming out with the same ol solution: more firearms.




Not very savvy IMO. Firearm owners ought to have made it a mental health issue, and proposed beefing up mental health access in America...wait, nobody wants to pay higher taxes for that. Enjoy your cozy new trench.

Provide a cite for this absolutely ridicules claim?

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

Provide a cite for this absolutely ridicules claim?

I don't have to. Refer to: IMO.



I can assert the sun is ice cold "IMO" and nkt be required to offer any citation to back it up.

 

[WalkingWolf]

I don't have to. Refer to: IMO.



I can assert the sun is ice cold "IMO" and nkt be required to offer any citation to back it up.

So you are admitting you made it up?

Typical progressive!

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

So you are admitting you made it up?

Typical progressive!

Nope. I didn't make it up....it's real.

 

[WalkingWolf]

Nope. I didn't make it up....it's real.

Then you by the rules of this site must provide a citation!

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

Then you by the rules of this site must provide a citation!

No, I don't. My opinion is real.....it is even real to you, you just agree with it.

 

[WalkingWolf]

No, I don't. My opinion is real.....it is even real to you, you just agree with it.

That is not what you posted BL. You posted it was real, not that it was a real opinion. So we are back to the fact that it is in your mind and not fact. If you believe it is a fact then back it up with citations!

 

[OC for ME]

true but what if they are deployed to different areas of the US? like they would take troops who live in cali and send them to the east coast and visa versa or send people who live in the south up north where no one really knows anyone?

....hmmm.....It is the yankees and left coasters that create all these ridiculously unconstitutional gun laws.....hmmm.....

Then you by the rules of this site must provide a citation!

Those calling for B92FSL to "cite to authority."

(5) CITE TO AUTHORITY: If you state a rule of law, it is incumbent upon you to try to cite, as best you can, to authority.....blah blah blah

B92FSL stated a opinion whether or not she clearly indicated it was a opinion is not her problem. B92FSL is liberal first and foremost, to the exclusion of all other concerns. Her opinion only has value if you give it value.

 

[WalkingWolf]

Those calling for B92FSL to "cite to authority." B92FSL stated a opinion whether or not she clearly indicated it was a opinion is not her problem. B92FSL is liberal first and foremost, to the exclusion of all other concerns. Her opinion only has value if you give it value.

This has been cleared up before by a moderator, hopefully Grapeshot will be along to clear it up for you. If I can find a mod's post on this subject I will post it for you. You have been around long enough to know the protocol on this.