History of Un-armed Citizens

reply to post by W3RLIED2


You are trying to muddle historical fact with current conspiracy theory. It won't work. Any of it...

The truth of the matter is that if they try to pass legislation that bans gun ownership, the Government will be kicked to the curb.
If they try to bring in foreign mercs to do it, THEY will be kicked to the curb.

I'm not even that much of a hunter anylonger and I own 4 rifles and 2 pistols.
You should see the arsenals of some of the folks I know. And there isn't a ONE of them that would just give their stuff up...

Good luck getting ANY group of foreigners to come in and tackle the US on a domestic front... It would take millions of soldiers... MILLIONS

Blackwater can't provide that many.

reply to post by Jay-in-AR


I think you've missed the point of my starting this thread.

I started this thread to make people aware of what has happened historically and comparing it to what is happening now. This is not a conspiracy, I just thought this was the best board to post it on. And you can not deny that there are some striking similarities to what is happening now and what has happened in the written history that we have come to accept as fact.

Anything other than that is purely specualtive, and becomes opinion.

What I personally have learned from history, is that no one, especially kids my age and my generation in general, learns jack squat from history.
Which as we know is a huge folley.

‘(36) The term ‘qualifying firearm’--CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

‘(A) means--CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

‘(i) any handgun; orCommentsClose CommentsPermalink

‘(ii) any semiautomatic firearm that can accept any detachable ammunition feeding device; andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink

‘(B) does not include any antique.’.

so all qualifying firearms will be banned? then the only guns left are antiques like muskets

Originally posted by kettlebellysmith
reply to post by liesnomore

 

"Thou shalt not kill" actually translates as "Thou shalt not murder." If it were the former, then soldiers in war time, people killing in self defense, or officers shooting a bad guy during the commission of a crime would be guilty of murder.
Need to to get your facts straight.

Actually "thou shall not murder" was translated recently and approved by Vatican, but the original verse stated "Thou shall no kill" and yes - according to God Law - any form of killing it is wrong, but can not be judge by a man and therefore can not be brought in a court of a law.
Consider this: If the law enforcement will enforce current gun law then no one with a criminal history will have a gun and no gang member will have a gun.
If the person who own a firearm will act responsible - then no child or teenager will have access to a firearm and no school shutting.
If law enforcement will put more effort on stopping illegal firearm sale - no one with criminal attend will have a firearm, but law enforcement are busy busting a pot smokers because it is more safe. Most of you grew-up on a western movies and OK corral shutting, but there is a life without a firearm.
Smart men without a sword can easy beat a man with a sword. God give to you a brain -use it.

reply to post by liesnomore


Yes but a .45 would beat a sword every time. Havn't you seen Indiana Jones?

reply to post by W3RLIED2


Ummm... No, I don't think so. You combined known history and what you SPECULATE is fact about Obama.

Like I said. History and conspiracy theory.
In fact, Obama is ON THE RECORD stating that he WILL NOT take a hunter's weapons away.
Therefore, your entire premise is jacked up. Unless you are now willing to grant me that you are postulating a theory of conspiracy.

Yeehahh!!! I live in Missouri, and about 2 years ago they lifted like every restriction on firearms purchase and possesion.(except full auto of course)(I believe this was done because our state gov could see whats coming down the pipe) We dont need a permit for handguns any longer, which if you read between the lines means purchases between individuals cant be traced.(no background check) So even if the gov. decided to confiscate, how would they know what we have? They wouldnt and they would have to go house to house to actually enforce it. If they ban em everybody will just hide what they have unless they were bought from dealers.(and even if they were bought from dealers and the gun grabbers came for them, all you have to say is I sold it to some guy a while back) law doesnt require a bill of sale or any paperwork between individuals. If they ban guns, theyll just create a bunch of criminals. It would be a logistical impossibility to get em all. I love Missouri. If I want a handgun, I just go get one. Its like someone said earlier...give everyone a gun and make it common knowledge and youll see alot less criminals using guns to do thier work.

On a different note: remember the LA riots? 90s. The US had howitzers set up in Beverly Hills manned by troops that had answered yes to "Would you have a problem shooting Americans?" Guess what? Out of everyone wh was asked that question, none of us said no. You riot, cause civil unrest by violent protest using deadly force, prepare to be rained on.
The guns we as american citezens have would do nothing to prevent martial law.(yeah, snipers and guerilla stuff could cause problems, but thats not what martial law is about, martial law is not where the buck stops, we have defcons, goes way beyond martial law) Hell weve already experienced qualified martial law. Absolute is not much different.
Anyway...sorry to ramble.

[edit on 18-2-2009 by psyko45]

[edit on 18-2-2009 by psyko45]

Originally posted by W3RLIED2
reply to post by liesnomore

 

Yes but a .45 would beat a sword every time. Havn't you seen Indiana Jones?

I saw the movie with Nicolas Cage in Next where he dodge the bullets and beat the crap out of the guy shutting at him. It was cool. I know that it was a sci-fi, but in a sense it shows you a "mind over matter" in action. Indiana Jones with a gun and little chines girl kick the # out of him.

reply to post by Jay-in-AR


I grant you nothing.

And until you provide some sort of proof about obama and his claims i don't believe a word of it. I believe on page 2 or 3 there are links that i posted to the views of both Obama and Biden about guns. And how they have voted on gun laws in the past.

So, I have convaluded nothing. And your opinion still remains just that, an opinion.

reply to post by psyko45


Thank you for the post psyko. I've long wondered why people choose to believe that our own military would not "bring the rain" on the citizens. I've grown up in a military family, and all of my room mates except for 1 have been either USMC or USN. I know what we train for and I know what has been asked/requested of the boys in green.

Thank you also for bringing up the LA riots. There were two types of people involved in the riots, criminals with guns, and armed citizens trying to keep order the only way they knew how, by a show of force. Of course it was in the form of shop owners standing in front of their shops with shotguns, and homeowners with AR 15's.

Of all the people present and participating in the LA riots you can bet the ones that didn't get effed with were the ones carrying openly. Who were the victims?? Citizens with out guns, and shop owners with out guns.

reply to post by W3RLIED2

Thank you for stating that, I was the poster that said that, I guess I should have used some examples for buttafuqa, that's a good one.


edited to add link on Mexican soldiers on Us soil during Katrina aftermath.
Mexican soldiers on American soil - Katrina


Also, NATO soldiers (foreign soldiers) run exercises with American soldiers and NATO troops are housed at American military bases on American soil.

[edit on 18-2-2009 by sezsue]

reply to post by sezsue


Ohy yeah! I get it now!!! About the Blackwater thing. You had me confused for a minute.

Yes the Feds have contracts with mercs. I thought this was a known and accepted fact for most people.

What is bothersome to me is that these are federally contracted merc groups that dont care who they shoot at. Number one rule of merc'n is go where the money is. So with the right price tag they will kill any one. That also applies to Americans.

reply to post by W3RLIED2


Hmm. Only three posts in and I have to say, I really like what I'm hearing. Thanks for doing so.


Do you (or anyone else) know where I can find and read this new bill?

Also, "Grandfather cluse" is something I've been wondering about.

If I owned the firearms before they were banned, would they still be legal to own? Any need to register them? Pre-ban is a term I've heard before, but didn't own any firearms at the time.

Sorry, I used to keep up on this, but life and family seem to have a way of occupying my time.

Like I said though, I'm only on your third post and will keep reading. If my questions have already been answered, there's no need to reply, and my thanks to those that did so. If not, my thanks to those that do.

reply to post by Americantrucker


Your welcome.

Here is the link to the Open Congress page. the bill is titled H.R. 45, under the 111th congress.

HR 45

As for the grandfathering (of weapons i'm assuming?) is something i don't know about. As far as i know in California a gift is a gift, and anything that was willed to an heir is considered an heirloom..... I am not for sure on that though and will look it up.

I was amused the other day when I overheard an anti-gun liberal on our public access channel spewing this inane gibberish: "Owning a gun means you're insecure. Owning a gun makes you itch to go out and shoot it. Guns have no useful purpose in society."

Such are the sputterings of a future victim, marinaded in Leftist propaganda.

I can assure you, a crack shot who knows his weapon is the most secure bastard on the street. The rest of the spineless, shame-filled peasants who bolt their doors and huddle like rats in the basement deserve whatever unkindness Fate bestows upon them, IMHO.

If anti-gunners had their way, all privately-owned guns would be turned over to the state. Nobody would be armed (with firearms, anyway). Um, except for the police, right? Yeah, the police must be armed, but nobody else. Eh, except for federal employees such as the Secret Service and, oh, I almost forgot, the military! Oh, hell yeah, the military must be armed. But nobody else!

In short, the anti-gunners want to turn over ALL lethal firepower to the Executive Branch of government, the branch headed by whomever happens to be the President of the United States at any given time. So, would it make anti-gunners more comfortable knowing that a spineless liberal with no prior executive nor military experience, such as Barak Obama, was in charge of all the guns? Or, so much worse for everyone, a Hillary Clinton?

America's privately owned 210 million guns are a threat to any administration with notions of rendering the public powerless. That's the purpose of the Second Amendment. It's about empowering the American People to overthrow a tyrannical central government by force of arms. That's all the Second Amendment has ever meant, and that's the only real reason that private gun ownership is under attack in this country.

In the event of an outright ban on private gun ownership, only the Executive Branch (which includes all police jurisdictions, federal law enforcement agencies and the military) would be allowed to possess lethal firepower. Of course, about 150,000 other federal employees would also be licensed to pack heat, and this includes government attorneys, appointed judges, some postal workers, et cetera.

That is what's most chilling. The central government would be fully armed, while the civilian population would be fully disarmed. Basically, we'd be no better off than grazing livestock surrounded by armed guards, subject to the political whims of whatever administration happens to be enforcing the Rule of Law.

It's difficult, if not impossible, for grazing livestock to stage a revolt of any kind.

Those who are striving to undermine and bring down the Second Amendment know very well that this part of the Constitution is our license to overthrow a corrupt and oppressive central government. No argument. That's exactly what The Founders intended.

That's also exactly why successive generations of American youth have been taught less and less about the Constitution and our right to take back our liberties by force, if necessary. Most kids today — and adults, too, for that matter — have no idea of what our Constitution really is, and they don't give a damn that it is being eroded.

— Doc Velocity

reply to post by W3RLIED2


Thanks for the link and the quick answer.

"As for the grandfathering (of weapons i'm assuming?)"

A Grandfather clause goes with any law as I understand it.

If it was legal when you did it, then was made illegal, they can't go after you for it because it was legal when you did it.

That's what I was wondering about in this case if anyone reading this can answer it.

reply to post by Doc Velocity


Word......

Word, my friend. You have just joined the ranks of American patriots to grace our presence. Take notes all you other folks. There is another "informed" American among our ranks.

Despite all of our best efforts I have the feeling that there are still so many out there who have no idea what we're trying to tell them.... despite the pages of information laid out before them.

America, this gun ban is quite possiby the worst piece of legislation that has hit congress to date. If the proposed bill HR 45 passes, it would instantly tag millions of legal gun owners in our country as felons. I know for a fact that many other citizens such as myself would rather fall over dead than see this bill pass.

As federal detaineees you can only expect the classiest of treatment. Water boarding, current torture techniques, and the right to no fair trial whatsoever. Apperently, the patriot act covers Americas own citizens as well as any imported threats. Looking forward to it!!! You??

Originally posted by die_another_day
If a robber points a gun at you and you were unarmed, which of the following options would you want?

Wish that you had a gun.

Wish that guns should never have been allowed in the hands of the average civilian.

So let me get this straight. In this scenario a robber is an average civilian. But you must somehow not be because you do not have a gun? This clearly does not make sense. One of your examples did make some sense. The one where no one has guns and everything is great and we wish guns were never created. However, this is just a dream, we live in reality, and as such we have to deal with it in a responsible and logical manner.

On the point of wishing the army did not have guns. What then would be the point of the army? I would not want the American army to completely disarm. But if they did I would argue that they would no longer have any purpose whatsoever and should disband.

Everyone keeps going back to Brittan and how great it is because there are no guns in the country at all and therefore police do not need guns and everything in hunky dory. I have news for you…this is simply not the case. Crimes are committed in Brittan with guns all the time. Criminals are still able to get guns in Brittan just the same as people still get drugs and other contraband.

Part of the bigger picture in all of this is freedom and liberty VS regulation and control. I tend to believe that when in doubt people should be free to do as they wish, that includes owning guns. If you believe in a more regulated collectivist approach then we just have a fundamental difference in our values. But let’s call it what it really is. Freedom and liberty VS centralized regulated state control of our lives. My only question is what makes you trust the powers to be so much?


[edit on 18-2-2009 by Boston Tea Party]

im from Canada somebody mentioned earlier that we dont have guns
in fact we do we have quite alot of them and we can have handguns too

you have to take a course and pay like 200 dollars to get rifles and shotguns
for handguns its an extra couple hours and about 100 dollars more

we can not carry them around thats true
we cant have full auto thats true
some people have that grandfather clause for antique firearms and some ak47 and such but that requires yet another certificate and not everyone can get those

why is it that governments need to keep making more and more laws
i mean honestly dont we have enough laws already as we get more and more advanced you would think we would need less and less laws not more

reply to post by dean007


Well, here in the states there is over 20,000 gun laws on the book. You would think that those would about cover it as far as gun laws are concerned , but no. Despite the literally thousands of gun laws already being enforced on the Federal level, they still feel the need to further strip away our second ammendment right.

Not only does this infringe on our 2nd ammendment rights, but also our 14th ammendment rights.... As in most states, they are recognized to go (almost) hand in hand.