Honestly, would you hand in your firearms?

I live in Pa.Here,hunting is VERY popular.As a matter of fact I know an older guy that lives near me and owns well over 300 guns.There is NO way the government would get all the guns from owners.Someone mentioned outlawing ammo,now thats interesting.I can definitely see black markets selling a box of ammo for 75-100 dollars if that were to happen.

I cannot believe that in Montreal they have the language police, really?

I knew I was right on this. He was adjudicated by a judge with a mental illness in 2005.

Someone is going to pay big. Federal Laws where broken and he should have never had a gun period.

Rules Should Have Barred Weapon Purchase of VA Shooter

news.yahoo.com

McLEAN, Va. - A judge's ruling on Cho Seung-Hui's mental health should have barred him from purchasing the handguns he used in the Virginia Tech massacre, according to federal regulations. But it was unclear Thursday whether anybody had an obligation to inform federal authorities about Cho's mental status because of loopholes in the law that governs background checks.

Cho purchased two handguns in February and March, and was subject to federal and state background checks both times. The checks turned up no problems, despite a judge's ruling in December 2005 that Cho "presents an imminent danger to himself as a result of mental illness."

And I was right too.

From the same article you quote!

Virginia State Police send information on prohibited buyers to the federal government. They maintain that the sale was legal under state law and would have been barred only if the justice had committed Cho to a psychiatric hospital. Barnett ordered outpatient treatment instead.

Initially states were required to provide all relevant information to federal authorities when the instant background checks were enacted, but a U.S. Supreme Court ruling relieved them of that obligation.

You know why they are saying this? CYA that is what they are doing. LOL!

Because no one wants to be wrong, get sued, be in the media for screwing up and have political blood on their hands.

They screwed up and they know it.

This is going to be a political nightmare, since he was deem "mentally ill"

To answer the question.

If, at the time such a thing were instiuted, ans saying that I owned a
firearm, which I most likely will at some point, I would not give them
my guins, I'd give them the red-hot lead from it though.

Since I'm sorta buddies with the town marshal, I guess shooting him wouldn't be to friendly.

Pa always told me the gov would try to take our guns away one day.
He said give 'em to the registered ones.

Smart man he was.

I have been a gun owner and shooter since a very early age.The only way they will EVER get mine is out of my dead cold hands!I guess I'm a bit of a redneck.

Before they try try put an outright ban in place it will be a special psychological evaluation test before you get a license, this means a lot of war vets wont be eligible to own a firearm due to psychological damage from war in Iraq/Afghanistan/Iran (soon), also anyone showing any sort of aggression could be deemed unsuitable to carry a firearm, so this means an argument with your missus that attracts the polices attention will see you as having a temper and thus 'uncontrollable anger' will be your label.
Soon enough when this is slowly seeping through and more and more appeals are put in place to ban guns outright (by this time numerous copycat school shootings will ensure you are limited to certain firearms) some big event will take place which will see many small children dead (much like a dunblaine) and that will cap the vote and the government will force a ban outright.
I hope i am wrong, I really do.

[edit on 20/4/07 by eagle32]

I'd sell it and get a bunch of money for it as I wouldn't want to boom headshot them, and I aren't giving up something that I payed for without any compensation.

They can have my gun when they pry it from my dead cold hands. Actually, I like the guy who posted the response...."there are creative ways in dealing with situations like this." He was absolutely right.

[edit on 20-4-2007 by carnival_of_souls2047]

I wouldn't give up my guns without a fight simply because I would rather die than live in what our country would surely become with an unarmed populace.


The only thing that stops our government from being in absolute control is the fact so many of us are armed.You take that out of the equation and there'll be nothing to stop them from completely controlling our lives with no fear of us retaliating.

Or at least that's my thoughts on it.

Simon

Question.

Australia has been unarmed for some years now....... Hmmmm? What do you guys think?

An outright ban shortly followed by enforcement would in my opinion be the fastest way to start an all out civil war. As a previous poster mentioned, modification and chipping away at existing firearms rights is their avenue of choice. I know for a fact that many communities and areas in the US are capable of and most certainly would mount an organized, well armed & well provisioned stand against any government group that tried widespread outright firearm confiscation. I am not speaking of just the "Redneck" south & southwest, but the entire "rural" population. To sum it up, many would perceive it as a dramatic shift in the doctrine of "Government for the people, By the people" to "Government versus the People".

keep the guns,but keep control of the media

lose both and we're gone

www.youtube.com...

Maybe we will find out what all those strange, deserted internement camps, all over the USA are for soon...

[edit on 20-4-2007 by Xeros]

Anyone ever read the book "Unintended Consequences"? Great read, couldn't put the book (all 863 pages) down until I finished it. Needles to say, Old Henry didn't turn his cheek. But I wount ruin the end for ya all.

Henry Bowman is just one of millions of people who comprise America's "Gun Culture". Born into a well-to-do family he becomes immersed in shooting sports, and firearms become a life-long passion. While visiting a friend he thwarts off an attack that turns out to be a federal raid gone bad. He learns the horror behind the operation and is forced to use his skills and background to fight becoming yet another martyr in the fight that may change the face of a nation. ~ This is a work of Fiction that borders too close to the truth. Some are saying this could be the next "Turner Diaries" in popularity. John Ross, A Broker and Financial adviser with degrees in English & Economics from Amherst College spins the tale well. Hardcover, 863 pages

www.campingsurvival.com...

Americans over 40 will never give up their weapoms, but the youth of America have and will further lose sight of their necessity and readily give them up down the road. Btw-the person at your door to confiscate your weapon will be a UN Troop.

Originally posted by PisTonZOR
Question.

Australia has been unarmed for some years now....... Hmmmm? What do you guys think?

I found this reading an article today in regards to the NRA and gun control.

The comment was posted on a blog directly under the article.

Why the NRA gets it's way.

"Hi Yanks, I thought you all would like to see the real figures from Down Under. It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by our own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.
The first year results are now in:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 6.2%
Australia-wide, assaults are up 9.6%
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44%(yes, 44 %)!
In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300%
Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not and criminals still possess their guns!
While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed. There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly, while the resident is at home.
Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in "successfully ridding Australian society of guns." You won't see this on the American evening news or hear your governor or members of the State Assembly disseminating this information.
The Australian experience speaks for itself. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens."
Posted by One_American at 12:32 PM : Apr 18, 2007

Originally posted by antar
I cannot believe that in Montreal they have the language police, really?

Yes, this is true - Trudeau, was in fact a megalomaniac who made all the problems worse. Now all of Canada is bilingual, except Quebec, which is French.

The language police troll the streets of Quebec cities, handing out citations for infractions against posting all signs in French.

I don't think guns are the problem, lot's of places where people are able to carry firearms - In Switzerland, everyone's trained with automatic machine guns - and guns don't create mass murderers.

Availability increases chances for accidents and impulsive misuse - but when they are outlawed - the only people who still get them are the criminals.

What's more - is how do you expect a few measly firearms to stand up against the weaponry now developed for crowd control etc.

Like the sound weapons and the microwave weapons, and the propaganda weapons, the armies of mercs and the tactical nukes and the biological warfare?

I remember the days when curfew was imposed and martial law saw tanks roll through Quebec city - A few measly guns are paltry opposition.


[edit on 20-4-2007 by clearwater]