GUN CONTROL: Here is how it will go down

Gun Control is the vanguard (dare I say lance?) of the shift in political power from the individual to the collective. There are many (ie, Bolivar's Morales) who believe that Dec 21, 2012 will mark the turning point in that shift. Of course, most of these people are already died red in the wool communists. The Progressives have had an agenda for a century of progressively moving us along the political spectrum to statist collectivism. The reelection of Obama will energize the progressives as well in the new term (coincidental how the recent chaos is happening after the election).

reply to post by CosmicCitizen


I find it intriguing to see that this latest issue of gun control attempts to ride home on the back of a tragedy which was carried out by a person named Adam Lanza. Your use of the word lance provided me a link to connect the name.
From a strictly conspiratorial viewpoint the name Adam meaning 'first man', and Lanza meaning 'lance'. Off topic I suppose, but possibly used to provide the lance as you so suggested.

reply to post by prysmatyk

Unlike Christ who was already dead (in the flesh) when the roman guard pierced his side with a spear, the new attack on Gun Rights by the left is the "first spear" or lance as the meaning of the name, Adam Lanza, suggests.

reply to post by CosmicCitizen


Not to trivialize the tragedy in anyway, or to digress from the topic at hand, but I sure do wish we had an impenetrable shield against these attacks. We have been witnessing the dismantling of the only 'shield' available, our constitution long before my time, and the gut feeling I have is that; sooner than later, that too will be as protective as the paper it is written on.

Not to state I've lost all hope, but during times such as these, the light appears to be distant and dim.

reply to post by prysmatyk

IF the latest series of "mass shootings" were staged (and I am not saying that they necessarily were but the circumstances around the Aurora Theatre and Sandy Hook shootins are certainly suspicious) then the social engineers behind the scenes (shadow government) would have known how the American (even international) public would respond (Hegelian sequential process: problem, reaction & solution). At least the body count in these mass shootings has been relatively small compared to 911.

they will commence the collection process aided by UN Troops

You had a decent post going until that paranoid lunacy.

Those found with illegal weapons and ammunition will be rounded up for detention and reeducation camps.

This is ridiculous, though no doubt many of you gun lunatics could use it.

Bottom line: general population disarmament precedes a police state and potential genocide

Genocide, really? Did you even think before you wrote that?

reply to post by CB328


Who exactly are you refering to as 'gun lunatics'? Does simply owning a gun, in your opinion, equate to lunacy, or does defending your right to own a gun make one a lunatic? What is your criteria for lunacy here, and how can you pretense to make a broad sweeping psychological evaluation of a massive demographic of people you've never met or spoken to based on their ownership of a common household item like a firearm? That's lunacy.

reply to post by CB328

1) The Plan for Total Civilian Disarmament (not simple "gun control" measures) is a UN Plan. First look at the anti gun statue in front of the UN (a revolver with a twisted barrel...not an assault rifle btw if symbolism is important to you). The "plan" can be read about in State Dept Publication 7277 which shows that the UN "plan" actually came from the US State Dept ("Freedom from War"). The ultimate goal is that only the UN Peacekeeping Force will have military arms; the only arms within a (nation)state will be those necessary for local law enforcement; all other arms will be collected and destroyed (their plan so presumably they will carry it out, especially since government surveys of us military troops' willingness to do so over the last 17 years has shown that the us military cannot be convincingly relied on to do so). 2) The us army is already filling positions for guards for "civilian relocation camps"; KBR is building camps for FEMA (and I could go on about the "re-education camps" but it would be hearsay). 3) I said "general population disarmament" not simple gun control measures as a pre-requisite for genocide. I am merely a student of history on that one. Google "Gun Control and Genocide" to watch some relevant videos when you have time. I know that subject is hard to comprehend when we are talking about America...but the Founding Fathers wanted to nip tyranny in the bud. The bottom line is that government tyranny and gun control (civilian disarmament) doesn't end well.

reply to post by CosmicCitizen

What our Founding Fathers thought about GUN CONTROL and TRAITORS in Govt:

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, 1764

What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.
-- Thomas Jefferson

Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who didn't.
-- Ben Franklin

Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property... Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.
-- Thomas Paine

A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.
-- George Washington

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.
-- Patrick Henry.

Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms under our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?
-- Patrick Henry, 3 Elliot, Debates at 386.

The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.
-- Samuel Adams, debates & Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87.

The right of the people to keep and bear... arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country...
-- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 (June 8, 1789).

(The Constitution preserves) the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation... (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
-- James Madison.

The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.
-- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-B.

To disarm the people is the best and most effective way to enslave them.
-- George Mason

The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.
-- Noah Webster, An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (1787) in Pamplets on the Constitution of the United States (P.Ford, 1888)

[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or the state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People.
-- Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

credit to: www.naturalnews.com... /038527_Dianne_Feinstein_Alexander_Hamilton_betrayal.html#ixzz2GunT8PwI

(quotes compiled from Washington's blog > www.washingtonsblog.com...

reply to post by Witness2008

The BIG problem with the Drug laws is the Corruption. And I am not just talking in Mexico and quasi narco-states. It happens at the highest levels (ie CIAs AirAmerica in Vietnam and Iran-Contra) and was even sanctioned by the British Crown in China (Boer Rebellion).

reply to post by ausername

Who would be in charge of the "psychiatric evaluations" in order to receive a license (which makes it a privilege and not a right btw)? Remember after the Russian (Red) Revolution the state had those who did not agree with the Communist Agenda labeled as "mentally ill" and sent off to the gulags.

reply to post by ausername

I agree with greater accountability for gun and ammo owners but you cant charge Adam Lanza's mother - she is dead.

Here is an article on WMD on "Obama's secret plan to reclassify your guns."

President Obama, congressional Democrats and even some Republicans plan to push new gun-control legislation in the 113th Congress, but defenders of the Second Amendment fear Obama is poised to enact the restrictions through the Executive Branch if Congress is not cooperative.

John M. Snyder heads GunRightsPolicies.org and has worked for organizations from the National Rifle Association to the Second Amendment Foundation and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. He said Obama and his allies have already chartered what regulatory course to pursue through the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, or ATF.

“We have some confidential information that he may order the ATF to reclassify certain models of semi-automatic firearms as Title 2 guns under the Gun Control Act of 1968,” Snyder told WND. “What this would mean is that people could not obtain these without going through a terribly difficult process that includes registration of each firearm and paying a severe fee for the ownership of each one.”

Snyder said an even more drastic approach from Obama would be to try to ban semiautomatic weapons altogether.

“Also, there is the possibility that the administration could try to declare that semi-automatic firearms are fully automatic firearms or machine guns under this Title 2, in which case they would be banned because of an amendment that’s on the books, the Gun Control Act of 1968.

Snyder is referring to what’s known as the Hughes Amendment, which forbids the acquisition of any new fully automatic weapons or machine guns.

The possible strategy is not a new idea, according to Snyder. He said liberal groups have advocated the move for years, but Democrats have been reluctant to pursue it because of the massive public backlash that will ensue.

“This is an ongoing project of theirs, and they use a lot of these tragedies to try to advance their cause in a public relations sense. So far they’ve been unable to do that,” said Snyder. “It appears that the public is catching on to them and they know what their game plan is, generally speaking. So a lot depends on their frustration, the political situation at the time and a number of other factors, too.”

Even if the Obama administration were to bypass Congress by imposing new regulations, there is still one card left for pro-Second Amendment forces to play: The House of Representatives could remove funding for the ATF or abolish it completely. But would the House GOP actually do that? Snyder is confident it would.

“I wouldn’t be surprised. I think the House is really furious with the president,” Snyder said. “The Republicans would like to cut budgets of the federal government because they think the federal government is taking too much money and spending too much money, and a good place for them to cut would be in the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. If there is strong enough public support against the activities of the federal government, the House of Representatives will develop a plan to slash the budget of the agency. I think it’s a real possibility.”
Read more at www.wnd.com...

reply to post by YouAreLiedTo
to answer your question "who will be collecting them' is this www.govtrack.us...

H.R. 72: To provide for emergency deployments of United States Border Patrol agents and to increase the number of ...

...number of DEA and ATF agents along the international border of the United States to increase resources to identify and eliminate illicit sources of fir

there are other bills reflecting them same act, to have as many in power to carry out a gun grab TSA and BATFE ATF that at some point when this if this does become law of the land will be knocking on doors, with the words "Our records show..." do you have proof of being sold or reported stolen if not then NDAA could be used against you, nice to know the 2nd is under attack.

reply to post by bekod

This could happen in the SW where the BATFE has asked for Gun Dealers to provide the names of those making multiple gun purchases I understand. It could be a beta test under the guise of fighting the drug cartels who are getting their hands on american weapons (esp now that Fast N Furious has dried up). The rest of the country would not think that it was a nationwide gun grab and say or do enough to stop it. Not saying it will happen that way tho.

For the record: Anti-Gun Control is not Anti-Government. It is Government....."of the people, by the people and for the people." We are still a republic with a representative government. We still have the right to voice our opinions to our legislative representatives and we still have a right to redress grievances directly to the executive branch of government. Standing up for one's rights and the rights of others is the American Way.

Joe Biden, the president's point man on gun control, gave a press conference today and stated that the president will use "executive action....executive orders and is weighing his options with the Attorney General and his cabinet members but it will primarily be an executive approach along with legislative action that is also required (paraphrased)." Any executive orders that go beyond the National Firearms Act (1930s) or the Gun Control Act (1960s) or the Brady Bill (1990s) is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. If he does this then the Congress needs to Amend those Acts to limit the language that the executive branch is s-t-r-e-t-c-h-i-n-g. It is starting to happen as outlined.

Sadly this is basically a One Man Thread so I will keep it alive a little while longer. There is a possibility that the threat of Executive Orders by Obama is a trial balloon or wind dummy to test the reaction and they may realize that they are not ready for the American Revolution Part II and therefore could use this threat as a strategic gambit whereby he will appear to back off and sacrifice what we were expecting (that is an all out ban of SemiAutos) and then just make us give a sigh of relief as he only asks for a longer background check and national registry (or something like that) and then most will say that it sounds like a "reasonable compromise"....while their guard is lowered and the ratchet cranks up another notch.....good til the next mass shooting. Just a thought.

You had me up until your phase two which included "re-eduation camps"... Kinda veered into paranoid fantasy there at the end. I agree with the beginning of your plan, the ban of military level weapons and the registration of exempt and grandfathered weapons. But I also think that SHOULD happen and if it does it doesn't mean the next step is re-education camps and marital law. I think it means there are less military grade weapons on the streets for criminals to get hold of. Good read though! Thanks.