They are coming for your guns, now more than ever. Is a catastrophic event imminent?

a reply to: one4all

I'm in the very situation you speak of. We are a long way from that....but you'd be surprised how many would lay down their uniforms...and join their own families.

originally posted by: mysterioustranger
a reply to: gladtobehere

From the L.E.O./Responders/military: So who will be ordered to get them? I know police, fire, military....that would NOT follow the orders....

Some unfortunately would be willing, then others after being threatened finacially or otherwise.

I personally think enough of them will do it and then shtf

The government is gonna confiscate 350 MILLION GUNS!!!!!!??????? PO

🤣😂😅🤣😂😅🤣😂😅

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: gladtobehere

But why the sudden acceleration to confiscate firearms?

Maybe, just maybe U.S. Politicians have finally come to there senses after so many " mass shooting "

You can but hope.

Go ask the Mexcican people in fear of cartels how they feel about the 2A.

Of course a recession is coming. Someday. That's normal. The market expands and contracts. That's what it does.

A deep recession occurs when people are overextended in the market, when it becomes too easy to invest. Investment of unneeded funds is a great idea; investment of funds requiring those funds to be replaced by the same investment income is... stoopid. It's no different than gambling in Vegas. If you have the money to spare and want to feed it to a one-armed bandit, go for it. Maybe you'll get lucky. If you're shelling out cash that you need for the plane ride home so you won't have to spend everything for the plane ride home... you're stoopid.

The Great Depression was caused by the market running wide open and people being able to borrow money, invest it in the market, and pay the loan back off the investment income. Worked great for a while, until something caused a contraction. Then people who had been living high on the hog suddenly couldn't pay the debts because their investment didn't produce that quarter. That flooded the market with repossessions, which dropped the price of that collateral, which caused the banks to lose money. That caused a panic among the general public, who started demanding their money back from the banks. That caused the banks to close their doors, which added to the panic and stopped commerce. That caused people to be laid off because payrolls couldn't be met. That caused more shrinkage in the economy and a greater need to access savings, which put more pressure on the banks to cough up cash they didn't have, resulting in more bank closings... until no one had a job and no one had money to live.

The Great Recession of Bush/Obama was caused by something similar but not as widespread. The Federal government decided housing was a right and poor people should have houses too. So they started incentivizing home loans to those who couldn't afford (or could barely afford) a home loan. People snatched these easy loans up, and the first time the market contracted they went into default. The banks didn't close their doors this time (which is the main reason we didn't go full depression), but they did start 'bundling' loans to sell off to investors. As more of those bundled loans failed due to people not being able to afford the loans, those investors started losing more cash than they could afford. That tightened the loan market and the companies who were operating on credit suddenly couldn't make payroll (or were operating so tight they decided to make deep cuts to the labor force). It didn't help that the government was siphoning off far too much cash from companies in the form of high double taxation and was requiring exorbitant costs to be incurred due to over-regulation. So a simple contraction became a major contraction and recession.

The recession of the 1970s was caused by one thing and one thing only: energy costs spiking. That put business under the same kind of financial pressure as the explanation above, just from a different source. That one wasn't too deep and didn't last too long, though, because the market wasn't overburdened by anything else. Once prices adjusted to reflect the new fuel costs, things got back to normal.

Right now, we have a booming market and we do run the risk of people overextending in it. But we also have reduced regulation and an overall stable economy. The coming recession is not here and not going to happen any time soon barring other factors.

However...

We have a country where people are being lied to daily by the MSM, to the point that they are literally calling for socialist-based policies that would create an unstable economic situation. The plan, I believe, is to get rid of the present policies and implement these new ones. Increasing the minimum wage by a crazy amount is one example; wages are already increasing without the need to raise minimum wage. I haven't seen a minimum wage job in a while being advertised... there are too many jobs above minimum wage for people to do. Companies are starting to have to compete for line workers, not just for higher-level employees. Yet, the government wants to promise more. Why? VOTES! Vote for me and I'll make your boss give you a raise whether he can afford it or not, whether you deserve it or not. Sounds good until your job is one of those which are cut because the company doesn't want to go bankrupt.

What Trump has done is to decrease the financial load on companies by reducing over-regulation and over-taxation and at the same time try to contract the labor market by restricting the flow of illegal labor. It's worked. Now he's renegotiating trade deals to increase our export/import ratio and open up a larger international market for our companies. In that environment there is no need for stringent regulation of the job market; the economy will take care of itself. As is normal, some will lose, some will win big, but most will win a little.

If we re-institute the kinds of stringent regulations we had before, this boom in the market will shatter. Period. When that happens, we have a very long way to fall. Donald Trump will not be President forever... in less than 5 years now, he will be out of office and someone else will be in that Oval Office. If, at that time, the US starts to again suction too much from the private sector the market will collapse. There's your next Great Depression. Only this time, the people know why it was caused; they will be able to see it because we now have the Internet and on-the-scene reporting of events.

When people are hurting, people will do what it takes to survive, and the instinct can be violent. The French Revolution taught us that.

Guns will not be fully confiscated for another 4 years or so at least. There will be some areas where confiscation begins... red flag laws, for instance, can disarm many. "Assault weapon" bans can get rid of a good many of the weapons most worrisome to those in power. Then, when there are less guns to confiscate, small pockets of armed resistance will be easier to handle. Just overwhelm them. If there are 20 people left in an area with guns, it's not that hard to send in paramilitary "police" to remove the guns; if there are 500 people with high-capacity long-range weapons in the same area, that little attempt will get a lot of blood spilled... and probably not restricted to the blood supply that is considered acceptable.

That's the plan. They're not coming for our guns yet... everyone relax! You can have your guns for hunting. These are just "common sense" measures to protect you. Nothing to worry about.

Yet. There will be, once the people are so "secure" and "protected" that they cant save themselves from their "protectors."

TheRedneck

a reply to: Flesh699

Go ask the Mexcican people

What have " Mexican People " got to do with a U.S. issue?

Confused.

a reply to: alldaylong

What have " Mexican People " got to do with a U.S. issue?

What, you think just being in the artificial borders of the USA makes us special?

People are people worldwide. What happens to one group can happen to another. If I see someone lying in the road and they get run over, I don't need to go lay in the road and get run over to know that it can happen to me.

What keep us from being like Mexico are the laws and freedoms we have that Mexico doesn't. Given the same laws and freedoms, both countries would develop essentially identical.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

National Policy is made by the government of the said country.

Foreign nationals don't have any input into it. If they do, then you really do have problems.

The Second Amendment is not a permission slip. It does not allow me to purchase, own or possess a gun. It is the notice of a restriction of power for the government. But before we look at the second let’s look at two others.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

That is to say that the People have rights not even listed. A good example is that people have the right to not be harassed by telemarketers calling all the time about crap they do not want or would be interested in. Do we have the right to slaughter telemarketers unabated since no other incentive has made them quit calling...maybe. If the argument was successfully made that telemarketers and their scofflaw ways interrupt the domestic tranquillity and are actually domestic enemies of the people intent on removing property (money) from the people via repetitive auditory torture methods, then oh yeah.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

If it is not a listed power within the Constitution, the federal government cannot do it. Period, end of discussion. The state might be able to do it if it isn’t expressly prohibited from doing it. But only if it isn’t reserved by the people.

So the telemarketer joking example above. Feds can’t kill without a trial or at least a formal declaration of war on the telemarketers. States might be able to kill them all, but cannot declare war so it would have to be by long complicated trials of each and every one. And there are plenty of laws about murder so the people might not retain that power, but if they do, then it is a power solely in the hands of the people.

Not just because one (or two) of the three entities (Federal, State and the People) doesn’t have a power, doesn’t means that they can’t pretend that they do until finally called out on it. The Federal government made slavery legitimate and several States violated civil rights (that is rights retained by the people) with Jim Crow laws for decades. Abortion is considered a protected unenumerated right under the Ninth, it is still possible that abortion is not a right held by the people in all circumstances. It may only be under cases of rape, incest or danger to the mother...but for now it is a sole power held by the People.

And that last sentence above is important, because as the Tenth points out it is a right of the federal and/or state government OR the People. There is no “and” there. It is not implied. It is a very specific thing. Because the people retain rights that the government, State or Federal, does not have. One of those rights is self preservation and that is where the Second comes into the discussion.

Simply put, the We the People retain the right to exist without undue and overbearing oppression from foreign enemies or domestic enemies that would suppress our freedoms and usurp our rights. We retain the ability to defend that when all other avenues of civility and diplomacy are either exhausted or would be too prohibitive to the common interest. Unilateral ceasefires are not effective.

The Second stands to remind the government of their limitations. That the government can be altered, removed and/or replaced by the People at any time the People feel it is necessary to do so. The government cannot do the same to the people.

Is a catastrophic event imminent?

yes indeed.... the Nanny State will restrict guns/firearms and begin to confiscate the weapons already in Private hands

but the catastrophic event will be the demise of the Dollar (Federal Reserve Note) and replaced by a Crypto Currency, partly backed by the USAs dwindled Gold Hoard of around 4,000 Tonnes of the PM … and the natural resources found in minerals & energy locked up in Federal Lands --> ((the Fed & FRNs will be defunct, as the Fed balance sheet tally will be @
~minus $50 Trillion$~ ))

the re-set, dollar crash, dollar devalued, is all primed & ready to implode (as soon as confidence in the USA finance & military leadership is Lost)


So, to avoid mobs with arms-guns, or even gangs & warlords that annex parts of cities which have valued resources... the new weapons and the privately owned weapons need to be outlawed, so the Police State Tactics may be rolled-out to forceibly reduce the guns & ammo brandished by common citizens who are not in support of the Federal Storm Troopers

originally posted by: mysterioustranger
a reply to: one4all

I'm in the very situation you speak of. We are a long way from that....but you'd be surprised how many would lay down their uniforms...and join their own families.

I would not be surprised....the thread is about a possible incoming catastrophic Event....I live in a City of over 1 Million People in Canada....we have so few Cops and Military that we are basically undefended.

IMHO 200 trained Soldiers subversively planted inside my City and we are SCREWED BLUE.....yes major city ABSOLUTELY VULNERABLE 24/7/365.

5 MAN FIRETEAMS LIGHTING UP A 5 MAJOR POLICE DEPTS DURING SHIFT CHANGE.....IN ONE DAY AT ONE TIME MOST OF OUR CIVIC DEFENSE IS GONE....AND YES THE REST STRIP THEIR UNIFORMS AND GO HOME.

Any Country in the world could put 200 subversives trained ones into any Major NA City and cripple it within hours...no Police no Power no Water no Communications....

You cannot Nuke yourself....once major Airports are commandeered then subversive Commercial Flight that were prepared can begin landing literally thousands of disguised Troops in syncronicity…..Cities literally held hostage.....

This is what can happen when Law Enforcement campaigns with Politicians to disarm the Public so they cannot fight back against corrupt Law Enforcement and Federal Agencies....

Rest assured...I know where you are coming from....as a young buck I considered a LEO career but after extensive research and interaction I learned exactly this....LEOs DO NOT STOP CRIMES AND DO NOT GENERALLY EVER SAVE PEOPLE.....they usually arrive after the fact......I couldn't have handled constantly and consistently witnessing the carnage crime causes to innocent people....I ignored a Law career for the same reasons...its not what people think it is...not at all....but....were I to have become a LEO I would have stayed away from the overt graft and not gone near the Thin Blue Line....and push come to shove I would have no problem remediating a dirty collegue in a millisecond....and with a 100% certainty my family comes FAR BEFORE MY JOB......lol...it is just a job......I know a lot of good people ended up in careers they did not have the information to prepare for properly....they are now stuck...within a System so big strong and old and powerful and well connected to the highest legal levels....I commend and thank the men an women who stick it out who refuse to give up their dreams...and have to suffer themselves to do this....and I condemn those in positions of power who are willing to break the law to make the law.

You say that, but these washington lawyers/politicians are always looking at how to do end runs around the constitution.

Take this forexample, its called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, and is designed to bypass the electoral college.

thehill.com...

If I wanted to control guns(and I dont BTW) it would be dead easy....control the ammo sales. One box per person per year unless you can show a need...like a cop. Or put a 500% tax on a box.


a reply to: Ahabstar

a reply to: alldaylong

National Policy is made by the government of the said country.

You're missing the point.

If we enact the same policies as, say Venezuela, we will have similar results to Venezuela. If we enact the same policies as Mexico, we will have similar results to Mexico. If we enact the same policies as Iran, we will have similar results to Iran.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

If we enact the same policies as, say Venezuela, we will have similar results to Venezuela. If we enact the same policies as Mexico, we will have similar results to Mexico. If we enact the same policies as Iran, we will have similar results to Iran.

For the purpose of this discussion, no one is asking The U.S. to change it's entire domestic policy. We are talking one particular area only, i.e.gun control.

Ive heard that "they" are coming for your guns forever now..

Talk about gun confiscation only seems to do one thing : sell more guns.

townhall.com...

If anything, I'm more inclined to believe that the NRA enjoys far-left opposition and fear of gun confiscation.

Fear is good for the gun business.

I think we should ban beaches. There are so many dangers there, not including the liberal coastal druggies and their needles.

You can drown, be eaten by a shark, hit by a boat, struck by lightning. You know, a bunch of unfortunate events just as likely as being shot in a mass shooting.

a reply to: St Udio

I've been hearing that conspiracy for 10 years. Only solid results ive seen is an increase in gun sales, gold, prepper food, and doom-"economists" selling their books while claiming every new year is the year for a great depression.

Such as michael synder from the economic collapse. theeconomiccollapseblog.com... Fear sells..

a reply to: Middleoftheroad

Maybe, the best compromise, is to create a temporary ban list for anyone on pharmaceutical drugs that may have possible negative mental side effects. Or anyone that was in a mental facility.

a reply to: alldaylong

For the purpose of this discussion, no one is asking The U.S. to change it's entire domestic policy. We are talking one particular area only, i.e.gun control.

And that one particular area is the biggest glaring difference in social policy between the US and Mexico... or between the US and a host of other countries.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: alldaylong

For the purpose of this discussion, no one is asking The U.S. to change it's entire domestic policy. We are talking one particular area only, i.e.gun control.

And that one particular area is the biggest glaring difference in social policy between the US and Mexico... or between the US and a host of other countries.

TheRedneck

Britain has strict gun control.

There is a huge difference between The U.S. and Britain. We are not the same country.