DOJ Memo: Outlaw and Confiscate All Guns

reply to post by hawkiye
Not if the FED's say you cant, just like full autos, you can not own one unless you fill out the umpteen pieces of paper work, pay the tax and then you can own one. This: more or less, says the rich can have them not the poor, and it is not an infringement, it is a tax.Just as if there was to be a tax on owning a AR or AK or a 10 or more round mag.

Originally posted by bekod
reply to post by Darkphoenix77

 

well if you know you US history the did make booze of any kind illegal, for a time 1920 -- 1933, any one that made or sold it was in for trouble, all it did was make any one who consumed it an out law, any one making it a felon.

It did not stop it and this will not stop gun selling, making, or buying only make it more expensive to do so. with some tools, and know how,you too can make an AK in your basement or garage, get a reloaded kit and powder and you too can make ammo.
where there is a demand, there will be a way of getting it.

edit on 24-2-2013 by bekod because: line edit

yep you`re right, illegals could bring guns into the country to sell when they sneak across the border, they could put the guns in their backpacks right next to all the drugs they smuggle in.
The government can`t keep the illegals out, can`t keep the drugs out so there`s no reason to think they would be able to keep guns out.

Originally posted by Tardacus
It sounds like a waste of time and money brainstorming hypotheticals such as, if we could get 2/3 of the senate to approve a change to the constitution by removing the 2nd amendment then we could outlaw guns and confiscate them and then the gun related crimes would...

Not to quibble TOO much - but that's 2/3 of EACH house of congress to approve an amendment - followed by ratification by 3/4 of all the States... I agree it's a waste of time and money to ponder hypotheticals in this instance. Generally, such ponderances wouldn't make it to a published document available to the public - maybe in a confidential working paper or internal memo, but not a published document. Unless of course the research was DIRECTED to include these scenarios without regard to law, precedence or probability/liklihood.

ganjoa

Originally posted by bekod
reply to post by hawkiye

 

Not if the FED's say you cant, just like full autos, you can not own one unless you fill out the umpteen pieces of paper work, pay the tax and then you can own one. This: more or less, says the rich can have them not the poor, and it is not an infringement, it is a tax.Just as if there was to be a tax on owning a AR or AK or a 10 or more round mag.

The feds have no authority to say anything it says "shall not be infringed" there are no exception clauses a b or c like except for autonomic weapons or except if it enters interstate commerce, except for 30 round magazines or even except congress or the federal government shall deem restricted etc. Such statutes are blatant violations of the constitution. They only exist because the people tolerate them not because they have any lawful authority.

As the saying goes what part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

reply to post by hawkiye


Sure you heard this before, but they'll never take my guns. Unless of course they are prying them from my fingers I understand the pro-gun and anti-gun worries and problems. The one this anti-gun people don't understand is this. This is NUMBER 2. So year it was though of early on in constitution. I don't care if it null anymore or out of date. So is your freedom of speech which is your NUMBER 1. Look at the things certain groups saying and get away with and other can't. All I'm saying is if they can pick and choose on number 1, undermine on number 2, they will take 3 and up.

Honestly, I wouldn't believe anything that the NRA has to say about Obama, nor any "proof" that they release. It's an extremely biased source.

Originally posted by Ghost375
Honestly, I wouldn't believe anything that the NRA has to say about Obama, nor any "proof" that they release. It's an extremely biased source.

Gee, that is keeping an open mind I must say.

Originally posted by Darkphoenix77

Originally posted by Ghost375
Honestly, I wouldn't believe anything that the NRA has to say about Obama, nor any "proof" that they release. It's an extremely biased source.

Gee, that is keeping an open mind I must say.

edit on 25-2-2013 by Darkphoenix77 because: punctuation

You know, guess the same could be said of Obama and what he says............
Just saying...... [in regard to Ghost375 reply]

This administration doesn't have a very good track record for 'transparency' much less telling the truth without putting a spin to it.
[F&F and Benghazi]

But any one can see how they instantly jumped on the band wagon about guns, to damn quick IMO, exploiting the school tragedy to push their agenda.
Nothing may not happen in the next few months or even a year or so, but something is a brewing.

Just like a game of chess, you have to make slow strategic moves to win the end game and this has been in play long before Obama........but he might be the one that takes the Queen.
Hopefully not..........

Thanks for posting this, it is something to keep an eye on......regardless where it came from.

Much respect~
snarky

-------------------

ETA: Kinda off topic but who would have thought they would attack cigarettes like they have? And slowly smokers are being banned from smoking just about every where and the prices I hear are through the roof. And no, I don't smoke but I thought they would never try to stop cigs.....just a thought.

I'm on the fence with this. On the one hand, it is not a "smoking gun" for confiscation orders. On the other hand, it's not hard to see that confiscation is a logical short leap from this memo. "Shootings are a problem, and buybacks don't work." Well, what else could the Administration conclude from this?

I mean, if you were the President and you got this information, what would you think should be done? Bullet tax? C'mon.

The Obama Administration may not have specific, sinister plans to grab guns, but after they get a few memos like this, they might decide it's the only smart thing to do. Think tanks influence our policies a lot more than people are probably knowledgable about or comfortable with, and we don't even know who these people are, at times.

Originally posted by Snsoc
I'm on the fence with this. On the one hand, it is not a "smoking gun" for confiscation orders. On the other hand, it's not hard to see that confiscation is a logical short leap from this memo. "Shootings are a problem, and buybacks don't work." Well, what else could the Administration conclude from this?

I mean, if you were the President and you got this information, what would you think should be done? Bullet tax? C'mon.

The Obama Administration may not have specific, sinister plans to grab guns, but after they get a few memos like this, they might decide it's the only smart thing to do. Think tanks influence our policies a lot more than people are probably knowledgable about or comfortable with, and we don't even know who these people are, at times.

By itself you are right it isn't.....pretty innoculous actually, but when you take into account everything else it looks less so methinks.

Originally posted by snarky412

Originally posted by Darkphoenix77

Originally posted by Ghost375
Honestly, I wouldn't believe anything that the NRA has to say about Obama, nor any "proof" that they release. It's an extremely biased source.

Gee, that is keeping an open mind I must say.

edit on 25-2-2013 by Darkphoenix77 because: punctuation

You know, guess the same could be said of Obama and what he says............
Just saying......

[in regard to Ghost375 reply]

This administration doesn't have a very good track record for 'transparency' much less telling the truth without putting a spin to it.
[F&F and Benghazi]

But any one can see how they instantly jumped on the band wagon about guns, to damn quick IMO, exploiting the school tragedy to push their agenda.
Nothing may not happen in the next few months or even a year or so, but something is a brewing.

Just like a game of chess, you have to make slow strategic moves to win the end game and this has been in play long before Obama........but he might be the one that ends up with the Queen.
Hopefully not..........

Thanks for posting this, it is something to keep an eye on......regardless where it came from.

Much respect~
snarky




ETA: Kinda off topic but who would have thought they would attack cigarettes like they have? And slowly smokers are being banned from smoking just about every where and the prices I hear are through the roof. And no, I don't smoke but I thought they would never try to stop cigs.....just a thought.

edit on 25-2-2013 by snarky412 because: dang spelling......

I do smoke, and I tell ya I am not only annoyed with the fact that our homes are the last bastion but also the fact that I now need to order the brand I smoke from Indonesia because they made it against the law to sell them at retail on the basis that "cloves market to a underage smoking audience". Yeah, I am sure that is true considering the fact that when they were sold at retail they were twice as expensive being imported.

I'm sure Big Tobacco had nothing at all to do with that one, considering it eliminated a competitor from the market.

Originally posted by Hopechest
Its important to note that the National Institute of Justice is only a research and evaluation arm of the Department of Justice and have no responsibility to recommend actions on policy.

Their job is to be given a task and provide data on a specific area or multiple areas of interest. Nothing more.

It similar to the office of statistics, they just provide raw data when asked to. I assume that these questions they are providing data for are simply part of a larger request on multiple scenarios concerning gun control and simply taken out of context.

Basically if you are trying to decide on what programs would best reduce gun violence you would want to put everything on the table, collect all the known data for each option, and make the decision you think is best based on factual evidence.

I have no doubt they asked the NIJ to evaluate how much gun violence would continue to occur if nothing was done about it also.

Its just them collecting data.

You are so full of it. With such a fresh account and your white knighting of Obama's commie policies my guess is that you're part of an HBGary / Obama Cyber Warrior campaign. Also, not a very subtle one either.

Just remember, Obamabot - the signal for Civil War II is the gun grab. It's not going to be pretty and you will only have Obama Marshall Davis to blame. Ordo ab chao, though, right?

reply to post by hawkiye


this sort of stuff has been on the books in the US for decades and is always renewed in new legal publications. It was just a matter of time until they had enough man power they could trust and that the older WW2 generation died off before they could try it.



www.sweetliberty.org...

Tell the librarian to show you where the 'United States Code books' are shelved. There are 25 books in the set. They are reddish-brown in color. They are printed by the Government Printing Office in Washington, DC. These hard-covered books are printed every 8-10 years. They are updated with annual soft-back supplements each year until a new hard cover issue comes out. At the present time, the 1988 hardbacks are on library shelves.

OPEN VOLUME 9. The page numbers are in the center near the middle binding. The section numbers are along the edges.

TURN TO PAGE 651. Here you will find Public Law 87-297 which calls for the United States to eliminate its armed forces. This law was signed for the United States in 1961. John F. Kennedy signed it and every president since has worked to enact its provisions. The government knows you will not approve which is why they want to take away your firearms. (This is Title 22 USC section 2551)

TURN TO PAGE 652. Here you will find the definition of what the government means by "disarmament." The disarmament calls for the elimination of our armed forces. It also calls for the elimination of weapons of all kinds.

(This is Title 22 USC 2552 (a).

TURN TO PAGE 654. Here you will find it stated as item (a) "control, reduction and elimination of armed forces..." and as Item (d)" ...Elimination of armed forces...." What you need to know is that your armed forces are being eliminated and relinquished from national control which, in turn, wipes out our sovereignty as a nation. In two stages, we will have no more army, no more navy, no more air force. In the third stage, we shall have a "zero" military. Before Stage I closes, all citizen owned guns are to be banned.

(This is Title 22 USC Section 2571 (a).

Public Law 87-297 is further explained in the State Department Document called Publication 7277. Your librarian can also furnish you a copy. Also ask the librarian to get you a copy of "The Blue Print for the Peace Race." It is a 35-page booklet printed by the United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency as Publication No. 4 - General Series 3 - Released May of 1962. Publication No. 4 is the unabridged version of State Department Document 7277.

Both of these booklets explain how our military is to be reduced to 2.1 million men. China and the Soviets are to be reduced to that level also. At this point, we are at Stage I at which time we are to transfer (on a permanent basis) one-half of our armed forces to be merged with the Russian and Chinese armies. In Stage II, the remaining one-half of our armed forces is then turned over to this same Security Council of the United Nations. The person in charge of the merged armies must, by agreement, always be a Russian. The world's smaller nations turn 100% of their armies over to the same under-secretary of the Security, Council in Stage II. President George Bush and Admiral Wm. J. Crowe [have referred] to this process as being "in transition."

TURN TO PAGE 655. On this page in Volume 9 of the United States Code, read "Policy Formation." The directives there (written in 1963 to pacify objectors) are supposedly to restrain anyone from disarmament, reducing or limiting our armaments, or taking guns away from the people unless it is pursuant to the treaty-making power of the president, or if it is authorized by further legislation by the Congress. (This is title 22, Section 2573.)

Every couple of years the House of Representatives votes to appropriate funds for this on-going program. Since P.L. 87-297 was first passed into law in 961, there have been 18 updates to it - all bad - with no deletions of these issues I lay before you now. The Congress knows that the plan includes the policing of the United States by foreign troops. (The world army they are forming in Europe.) The Congress is allowing our military bases to be closed down, except for those that will be used by the world army. You will find that plan in Publication 7277 and in "The Blueprint for the Peace Race."

If the president and Congress can promote a "Constitutional Convention" you will find yourself with two new constitutions (communist in structure) which in one states in Article VIII, Section 12: "No person shall bear arms or possess lethal weapons except the police and members of the armed forces...."

The Congress has praised these documents and is on record in Senate hearings seeking ways to install these constitutions. Ask your librarian for "Revision of the United Nations Charter - Hearings Before a Subcommittee (Foreign Relations) Feb. 2-20, 1950 U.S.Government Printing Office." Nothing has changed since. They are still viable. The ultimate goal to be reached in Stage III of the disarmament process is to "proceed to a point where no state [nation] would have the military power to challenge the progressively strengthened U.N. Peace Force...."

Anyone who doubts the truthfulness of what has been presented here is free to go to the library and go through the steps which have been outlined above. While you are at it, look up Public Law 101-216.

www.sweetliberty.org...

and
www.sweetliberty.org...

www.libertygunrights.com...

reply to post by tadaman


While your post rings true, these plans by the elite are in no way guaranteed. The gun control agenda has set off a buying frenzy unmatched in history. Despite the desperate pleas from the communists and globalists in charge begging people to ignore the evidence of their confiscation plans, the arming of America is accelerating at breakneck speed.

It must be quite shocking for those traitors, to see how many people are buying their first guns just to be ready to fight back when the illegal and unconstitutional confiscation orders come down.

Molon Labe.

this is just a sign that our members of a rogue government are trying to start war to get something else. They know they will incite riots, shootings, local city battles and they intend to put the police and military in the middle. Serve your masters mind slaves. Really though, dont do that, they suck.

This seems like a marketing ploy [by the NRA] to increase gun sales.

what the hell is their problem.

guns don't kill people.

people will guns kill people.

reply to post by miniatus
But, but, but, but, but, but,

This time it's different. Now we have an American hating Mooslim in the Wh. This time they mean it.

reply to post by hawkiye


WE have been stating this was coming for a while now. And we were told by all the Tyrant 0bama supporters as crazy and such.

0bama does in fact want to remove firearms from the civilian population.

Originally posted by hawkiye

Originally posted by bekod
The first gun grab, that the FED's imposed took place in the 30's, the next one is just around the corner, AR are just the next step in disarming the populace, next it will, be any hand gun or rifle that holds more than 2 shots, all hand guns and most rifles do this what would be left derringers, Dbl shot guns, single shot rifles, this does not infringe on your right to own a firearm, nor does it impede on the second. you just can not own sell buy certain types of firearms , unless you pay a tax and fill out a mountain of forms , just as today with owning a full auto. ie BARS, Tommy 45, Mg42.

The 2nd says "shall not be infringed". That is infringement big time. We have the natural right to bear the arms of our choice!

I assume I'll be able to amble down to my nearest gun shop and find the grenade launcher I've been longing for then, right? How about an M1A1 tank? If I take flying lessons, can I obtain an F15 Eagle, better yet, an F22 Raptor?