GUN CONTROL: Here is how it will go down

Here is how it should go down...

No bans on any guns!... But...

Anyone who wants to purchase a new gun legally after a full, complete background check, should be required to submit to a full psychiatric evaluation. A card is issued similar to a licence if the person passes the evaluation, and from then on that gun owner must submit to a re-evaluation every 2 years, or lose their right to LEGALLY own guns.

Anyone who owns guns now must also comply with the above or lose their right to LEGALLY own guns.

All costs are the responsibility of the person seeking to own guns or the gun owners. All LEGAL gun owners should be held legally responsible and liable for the security and safety of their firearms and ammunition. No exemptions or exceptions, the owner is fully responsible.

ONE thing that needs to happen now is State Legislators affirming their state sovereignty and stating that Federal Laws Restricting the Second Amendment will not be honored. That might lead to a civil war but states need to stand up for their sovereignty and for the basic rights of their citizens. I can see Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky, Montana and maybe Missouri going forward with something like this.

Reply to post by ausername

This would ensure that only the well off own firearms and it would leave the poor defenseless. Unacceptable.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Guns laws eb and flow. The current trend has been some of the lighest gun laws ever. With all the shootings by people who have no buisness owning guns their is going to be push back. You might see some very light laws imposed on assualt weapons but, honesly even that is not likely. The problem is we gun owners letting nut bags and thieves take our weapons. Most crimes are commited with weapons that started off with a legal owner. So secure your damn weapons people. Honestly we are our own worst enemies. It is our failures as legal owners that has lead to where we are.

Some interesting facts around the death rate due to gun violence...
Link

reply to post by MrSpad

YES, GUN CONTROL starts with where and how they are stored. If Lanza's mother had her guns in a locked safe then he would not have had access to them. That doesnt mean he couldnt get in to the school with a baseball bat and large machete and still kill 20 kids but it is not your fault or my fault that he had access to legally bought firearms even tho he was mentally ill.

Nope. It will start like this:

A new question on your tax return: "Do you own any guns? If so please list the serial numbers".

Be honest now. You sign that tax return to be correct. Jail if you lie on a tax return you know...

That will be step one.

reply to post by CosmicCitizen
I agree with you there will be a new gun grab, and this is why it will be a fail www.washingtonpost.com... from the link

Advocates of stricter gun control argue that it shouldn’t be so easy to have access to weapons that powerful — or to magazines capable of holding so many bullets. And so, on Sunday, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said she would introduce new legislation to ban assault weapons at the start of the next Congress. President Obama has also said that he’d support a federal ban.

so there it is it is coming will it do any good? No but it will just drive up the price of buying and owning this type of weapon, i can see colt doing a loop hole, make one non pistol grip with a 10 round fixed clip but with a few sec's and a clip you would still have a 30 round weapon think of a m1 carbine in 223 with an AR 15 upper. Colt you make this I want 10% of sales for thinking it up

reply to post by ausername

"No bans on guns." Well, I second that but think that their agenda is going to be aggressive. What a coincidence that this is all accelerating after the election. Re your comments on psychiatric evaluations....I agree that truly mentally ill people can not be allowed access to guns (nor would they be allowed in the military). But there is a risk that it would have to be thru "state" psychiatrists and you would be at their mercy for clearance. Most people who opposed the Revolution in Russia in 1917 were labelled as mentally ill and sent to gulags. There has been talk recently that "conspiracy theorists" are both mentally ill and potential terrorists (esp if they are "preppers") so be careful what you ask for.

reply to post by davjan4

Yes I have heard talk of listing guns on tax returns also....but that is not within the realm of their charter. And the same goes for all of the invasive questions on the decennial census forms.

Now...why would they want to go through all that hard work, to reach their goal....when all they have to do, is wipe out the population...incrementally...via "natural disasters"? Or, just sit back and watch us destroy ourselves. TPTB are good at what they do...because they've been doing it...for THOUSANDS of years. They're just fine tuning some things. No need to do another Nazi German, Hitler type of genocide. Avanced technology will do the job...just fine. Keep in mind....80% of the population gotta go...while preserving nature's beauty.

The how is now making a first steep as too how it would work www.theatlantic.com... from the link, and part of the UN small arms treaty

Imagine the following world, which it's within our power to create: It's illegal to sell or possess a firearm--rifle or pistol--that can hold more than six bullets. And it's illegal to sell or possess a firearm with a detachable magazine. In other words, once a shooter exhausted the six rounds, he couldn't just snap in another six-round magazine; he'd have to put six more bullets in the gun one by one.

so the how is in the works. the next question is when... Feb, may or June of 2013 to become law...we shall see

reply to post by bekod

Why would they limit themselves to going after guns that can hold more than 6 rounds when the Gun Disarmament Statue in front of the UN is of a 6 shot Revolver with a twisted (disabled) barrel? They want not only total disarmament but they also want to eradicate the gun culture including the "warrior gene" but that is the subject of another topic/thread.

One thing I've learned from ATS over the last few days is that a lot of Americans really, really like their guns.

There's talk of civil war and everything if they ever try to take them. Is there anything else that you folks would go to 'war' over? Seems it's only taking your guns that really riles you.

If guns are symbols of freedom and the only protection from the unspecified tyranny that threatens American freedom itself, why didn't you organise a militia to put down the Patriot Act? That took more of your freedom away than probably anything in your country's history.

That sounds a bit like tyanny to me, albeit cleverly packaged as Uniting (and) Strengthening America (by) Providing Appropriate Tools Required (to) Intercept (and) Obstruct Terrorism Act.

reply to post by KingIcarus

Americans have been lackadaisical thus far (comfy frogs in the hot tub)....but "taking the guns" or any other private property beyond the purview of taxation is the Col. Travis "line in the sand" or what Carl von Clausewitz called (in his treatise "On War") "the culminating point where the violence of the reverse (gun owner reaction) is greater than that of the forward push (govt gun ban)."

reply to post by CosmicCitizen


Good response. Thanks indeed.

FWIW, I support stronger gun controls in America, but recognise the impossibility of an outright ban. Although it's very different to the UK, I can also appreciate that home protection / hunting / sport etc are fully legitimate firearm requirements - even if I wouldn't indulge myself.

I remain curious about the 'tyranny' that I've read so much about defending against on here. It seems to be very loosely defined. Obviously I understand it in the sense of an American Hitler rising to power or somesuch, but surely the massive civil liberties restrictions of the Patriot Act was little short of tyranny. Hell, we have a similar (although nowhere near as wide ranging) act in the UK, and it scares me to death - even if we did kick out one of the most sinister long term elements of it. Not with guns either, it has to be said. Sense prevailed.

I just don't understand why this American Militia - so committed to protecting freedom - did nothing to oppose such a dramatic curtailing of your rights. Is it simply because it couldn't be shot at and operates in a way that can't be seen with eyes or heard by ears?

Either way, people in the US and Europe have much to worry about with regards to liberties. I just feel that the Patriot act is the most rights denying action in recent American history.

Originally posted by davjan4
Nope. It will start like this:

A new question on your tax return: "Do you own any guns? If so please list the serial numbers".

Be honest now. You sign that tax return to be correct. Jail if you lie on a tax return you know...

That will be step one.

Everyone lies on a tax return already.

It would appear that we are more of a re-active people, instead of pro-active. We permitted our liberties to be curtailed by the Patriot Act without standing our ground because it suited the needs of the moment for most, not because we truly feared for our safety. The same would seem so with a gun ban.

As the OP stated, little by little, chipping away at the types of guns and ammunition, slowly eroding the 2A, until the fruit was ripe enough to pick with a steady influx of U.N troops (peace-keeping) who assist our federally deputized local LEO's. Also the statement on the Hegelian Dialect makes perfect sense as it has been implemented in America many times over to sway the tides of people.

It makes one think of all the ways to conceal their firearms from the inevitable search.

This is a very good thread with well thought out statements.

reply to post by prysmatyk


I think that a lot of Americans were and still are pro-active when it came to the patriot act, but we were under attack at that time and I can understand why much of this country had been in support of it.. The heroic efforts of some gave us the truth in the matter.

I don't see the U.S as the herd of sheep that some do. Certainly we have the pacified side of the population, but overall I think that we are just as fierce as we were 250 years ago. What MSM and Facebook reflect of us is not who we are.

There's not much we can do about corruption. However we can decide to never cooperate with it, something I see happening now.

reply to post by KingIcarus

Not just the Patriot Act (I & II) but also the NDAA, John Warner Defense Act, the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and the Transportation Security Agency. It is slow incremental process...it can be compared to the frog in the increasingly hotter pot or a pot of water with raw rolled oatmeal poured in and the heat turned up high...as the temperature makes that degree jump from 211 to 212 Fahrenheit and the mixture starts to boil something happens - the oatmeal quickens and it is no longer the separate ingredients of water and oats; it has changed into oatmeal and you cant reverse the process. One can not be naive and think that the Gun Control laws and edicts that become law in the months ahead can be reversed in a better socio-politico environment. Once the incremental gun control becomes full blown civilian disarmament it is game over (checkmate) and we cant start over. The primary rationale of the Second Amendment was for the citizens to have the means to say "Stop! Enough is enough!" but without the right to keep and bear arms that becomes impossible (and they know it).