Obama can confiscate US privately owned guns.

It will eventually happen and I'm more akin to believe that it will be sooner rather than later. If you haven't learned by now, our Constitution no longer matters and is essentially worthless. America is the last hold-out on civilians being able to protect themselves from tyranny, though that has been severely hampered. The weapons that some of us are allowed to arm us ourselves with, don't compare to the weapons that the government is armed with. Still, in order to completely clamp down on us, they are going to need to take our weapons. New Orleans during Katrina was just a dry run or a test, if you will. Low and behold, it was extremely successful. They will eventually come for your weapons, mark my words. Hypothetically speaking, one could report his favorite assault rifle stolen, so when they come for it, you won't have to give it up. Of course, I'm not telling anyone to do that.

--airspoon


Edited to add:

reply to post by boondock-saint



The "from my cold, dead hands" quote was from Charlton Heston.

--airspoon



[edit on 1-6-2010 by airspoon]

Originally posted by Misoir
Who cares? What's up with this sick obsession with guns here in America? It's just a sign of a violent society, and a pretty scared one too. You don't think you can contain our government without the use of weapons? That's pretty sad.

I support an all out hand gun ban. We are the reason all of the countries that have banned hand guns keep having gun violence. We are the leader in arms shipment, including guns on the black market.

I cannot begin to explain how much I disagree with your thoughts there, Misoir.

Guns are a valuable tool. They can put food on the table, protect farm animals, provide recreational fun for responsible people.

Handguns are also a big part of that. Not only can you do things recreational with them, they also provide the end point of self-defense.

Handgun bans would only hurt those who are responsible, not the criminal element. Criminals don't bother with following laws, so why limit the legal, law-abiding people?

On the fascination part of guns, they are fascinating part of human history. Just like Asian swords, and European knives.

Just my thoughts..

reply to post by Misoir


first off let me say that ur the person on my block that hates anything that has to do wit guns and I'm he guy on the block that's got a buck tied to his roof. I can see that, but ur also the person on my block that's going to to come running down the block screaming for my help and to lend u a gun.... I think the old saying is guns don't kill people, people kill people.... it's the teenagers in Detroit that ride a bike up to u while if pumping gas and shoot u in the face. this acttually occured about 2 weeks ago... we Just need better law enforcement to stop this from happening but instead because there too lazy to do their job.. they decide to just take away everyones guns as a easier way of enforcing the law... tryin to cut corners huh gov well like homeboy up there said From my cold dead hands...

I do agree getting rid of Handguns would help alot, but I dont think anything will come of this anyway. Getting rid of, as in completely eliminating them But that wouldn't ever happen, nor could it happen

I don't own a Handgun, but I do like them. I've only fired a semi a few times, but I've had more time with revolvers. Imo, they'd probably go for getting rid of semi auto handguns, I can't see them banning revolvers.

Then again, like I said. Nothing will probably come of this anyway.

[edit on 1-6-2010 by Judohawk]

Originally posted by Misoir
BUT. We are the reason there are illegal guns, we have never banned hand guns in the USA so that theory is impossible to prove wrong.

Guns don't kill people

PEOPLE kill people

I have never seen a gun jump up
off a table and shoot somebody
all by itself.

lock up the criminals and you would never
know we had guns.

gun owners are a deterrent to other crimes.

Originally posted by boondock-saint

Originally posted by Misoir

I agree, eliminating guns will not eliminate the problem. The problem is that people are evil and will still hurt people regardless.

Originally posted by Misoir
Who cares? What's up with this sick obsession with guns here in America? It's just a sign of a violent society, and a pretty scared one too. You don't think you can contain our government without the use of weapons? That's pretty sad.

I support an all out hand gun ban. We are the reason all of the countries that have banned hand guns keep having gun violence. We are the leader in arms shipment, including guns on the black market.

Yeah guns aren't good for anything... er ah except winning and preserving our freedom. Stopping Naziism and Fascism, and citizens with guns (mostly handguns) stopping more crime in America then all law enforcement agencies combined.

Yeah banning handguns will keep guns out of criminals hands just like banning certain drugs has made them unavailable Why it has certainly worked for Chicago, NY, and DC oh wait... NOT!

I'm not trying to insult anyone with this post. Sorry if someone takes offense.

But an old High school teacher said this once.

Why would anyone hunt? You can buy all the meat you need in a grocery store.

I **** you not, my jaw almost dropped and hit the floor .

[edit on 1-6-2010 by Judohawk]

A lot of people seem to not realize that our 2nd Amendment is the only thing to ensure we keep all of the other Amendments in the Bill of Rights. Almost every brutal dictator in recent history has taken the first step of outlawing guns. Hitler, Mao, Stalin, etc... Once they take our weapons away, we have nothing to stop tyranny from steam rolling us.

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." --Thomas Jefferson

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -- Thomas Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

--airspoon

Sure they can have my guns... Here come and take these...


Right after they take some of these where the sun don't shine...


And who says the govt is better armed than its citizens are?

[edit on 1-6-2010 by azrael36]

Originally posted by airspoon
A lot of people seem to not realize that our 2nd Amendment is the only thing to ensure we keep all of the other Amendments in the Bill of Rights. Almost every brutal dictator in recent history has taken the first step of outlawing guns. Hitler, Mao, Stalin, etc... Once they take our weapons away, we have nothing to stop tyranny from steam rolling us.

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." --Thomas Jefferson

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -- Thomas Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

--airspoon

I like those two quotes.

Thank you.

Originally posted by Misoir

I support an all out hand gun ban. We are the reason all of the countries that have banned hand guns keep having gun violence. We are the leader in arms shipment, including guns on the black market.

Actually the UN study on black market guns included knock offs of american made guns under the category of American made guns. In Alberta Canada everytime the police sieze hand guns or automatic weapons they are mostly chinese made knock offs.

So technically China followed by pakistan and North Korea are the three largest producers of black market weapons.

A few things to note:
1) The president has the authority to enter into treaties with foreign states.

2) The senate is supposed to ratify the treaty.

3) In court, a lack of congressional ratification of a treaty has not caused a treaty to be declared unconstitutional, however with each case brought, that appears to be because a sufficient quantity of dissenters were not found.

4) In Foster v. Neilson (1829) paragraph 236-

"Our constitution declares a treaty to be the law of the land. It is, consequently, to be regarded in courts of justice as equivalent to an act of the legislature, whenever it operates of itself without the aid of any legislative provision. But when the terms of the stipulation import a contract, when either of the parties engages to perform a particular act, the treaty addresses itself to the political, not the judicial department; and the legislature must execute the contract before it can become a rule for the Court.”

5) In Reid v. Covert (1957),

a plurality stated that no treaty or executive agreement “...can confer power on the Congress, or on any other branch of Government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution....” and "... United States citizens ... were entitled to the protections of the Bill of Rights, notwithstanding that they committed crimes in foreign soil...."
...
Justice Black declared: “neither the cases nor their reasoning should be given any further expansion. The concept that the Bill of Rights and other constitutional protections against arbitrary government are inoperant when they become inconvenient or when expediency dictates otherwise is a very dangerous doctrine and if allowed to flourish would destroy the benefit of a written Constitution and undermine the basis of our government”.

So if something like this did happen, hopefully Congress would not sit idly by and allow it to go unchallenged. However, if that does happen, there is precedence in (4) suggesting Congress would have to first write laws into the Constitution supporting this before it could be enacted and that would appear to require modification of the 2nd Amendment. (5) likewise suggests US citizens, on US soil, are protected against treaties by the Bill of Rights.

An interesting legal battle would ensue.

[edit on 6/1/2010 by abecedarian]

[edit on 6/1/2010 by abecedarian]

reply to post by Misoir


It is not entirely clear what you mean by "the Western world" as North America is certainly in the Western Hemisphere, and most of Europe, but of course all of Europe is in the Northern Hemisphere. Much of Europe is considered to be a part of the Western world. There are seven countries listed by this site here as having more per capita murders by gun fire than the U.S. Those seven nations are:

1.) South Africa
2,) Columbia
3.) Thailand
4.) Zimbabwe
5.) Mexico
6.) Belarus
7.) Costa Rica

Certainly Mexico, Columbia, and Costa Rica would count as the Western world, wouldn't they? Unless your qualification of what constitutes the Western world would be those nations influenced by a Greco/Roman influence. My point is that your own willing generalization offers no real data. Great Britain has some pretty stringent gun control laws and yet since they've established those gun control laws crime in that country has risen rather dramatically. Consider this report by Reason Magazine:

On a June evening two years ago, Dan Rather made many stiff British upper lips quiver by reporting that England had a crime problem and that, apart from murder, "theirs is worse than ours." The response was swift and sharp. "Have a Nice Daydream," The Mirror, a London daily, shot back, reporting: "Britain reacted with fury and disbelief last night to claims by American newsmen that crime and violence are worse here than in the US." But sandwiched between the article's battery of official denials -- "totally misleading," "a huge over-simplification," "astounding and outrageous" -- and a compilation of lurid crimes from "the wild west culture on the other side of the Atlantic where every other car is carrying a gun," The Mirror conceded that the CBS anchorman was correct. Except for murder and rape, it admitted, "Britain has overtaken the US for all major crimes."

That article continues with:

In the two years since Dan Rather was so roundly rebuked, violence in England has gotten markedly worse. Over the course of a few days in the summer of 2001, gun-toting men burst into an English court and freed two defendants; a shooting outside a London nightclub left five women and three men wounded; and two men were machine-gunned to death in a residential neighborhood of north London. And on New Year's Day this year a 19-year-old girl walking on a main street in east London was shot in the head by a thief who wanted her mobile phone. London police are now looking to New York City police for advice.

None of this was supposed to happen in the country whose stringent gun laws and 1997 ban on handguns have been hailed as the "gold standard" of gun control. For the better part of a century, British governments have pursued a strategy for domestic safety that a 1992 Economist article characterized as requiring "a restraint on personal liberty that seems, in most civilised countries, essential to the happiness of others," a policy the magazine found at odds with "America's Vigilante Values." The safety of English people has been staked on the thesis that fewer private guns means less crime. The government believes that any weapons in the hands of men and women, however law-abiding, pose a danger, and that disarming them lessens the chance that criminals will get or use weapons.

The reality is that laws banning guns don't prevent those guns from getting made, and all those laws accomplish is keeping the banned guns out of law abiding citizens leaving them more vulnerable to criminals who clearly have no regard for the law. Further, the 2nd Amendment was written to ensure a strong nation capable of defense from enemies from without, and within. Several of our Founders made clear that an armed populace was the best check on usurpation of The U.S. government.

reply to post by abecedarian


Thank you for your analysis, however if a legal battle would ensue, I think we all know the outcome with the "bought and paid for" Supreme Court. Even with that being said, I find it difficult to believe that enough dissenters would be found in Congress. Our government is inherently corrupt. At least, Obama or our government wouldn't try unless they knew that they have a large enough portion of Congress in their pocket.

--airspoon

reply to post by airspoon


This might be the thing that forces the Supreme Court to take a stand on the 2nd; them deciding just what "bear arms" means.

We can only hope it doesn't go that far.

reply to post by airspoon


I believe the primary reason the 2nd Amendment has been under so much attack and speculation, with false memes put out about its meaning and intent, is that the 2nd Amendment makes no distinction as to what arms means. It is arguable that if the people are to effectively protect themselves from tyranny, including the tyranny of their own, indeed especially the tyranny of the U.S., then the right to park a harrier jet in their back yard, and even keep a cache of nuclear weapons is a fundamental right. One would think that understanding this a government prohibited by Amendment to infringe on the peoples right to keep and bear arms, would have never been so imprudent to develop nuclear weapons to begin with, but the U.S. not only did, they were the first nation to do so. Because of this, I believe you can find a direct link to the development of weapons of mass destruction, and an effort by government to redefine the meaning of the 2nd Amendment.

reply to post by barkingdogamato


I will willingly surrender my water pistol and the water ballon grenades.
He can sign on his wife's underwear.

Don't let him disarm us; the government feels by right intimidated and there will be more to come; they will have to duck for cover as well.

Storm the Bastille and chase the evil out of our realm. If someone tries to 'pee' into my garden I have the right to shoot off his balls and I don't care if it is Obama Hussein, Saddam Hussein or any other asshole.

Peace to all.

Well removing handguns from law abiding citizens works.

Since banning handguns in 1974, Jamaica’s murder rate has become one of the highest in the world.

Source: www.foxnews.com...

reply to post by barkingdogamato


i dont think it will ever go down here the U.S. obama knows better he would have a full scale revolution on hand you know how many crazy rednecks live here