Why they are coming for the guns

a reply to: butcherguy

Guns can be dangerous in the incorrect hands so theirs that.

Good luck taking on the government armed butcherguy.

They spend around $732 billion each year on new toys for the boys.

I'm not sure as to your financial situation nor the predicament of your arsenal.

But these is rather well stocked comparatively speaking.

a reply to: andy06shake

Oh no! More guns than people? Are you telling me those guns are suddenly capable of wielding themselves?



Otherwise, it would seem to me that your argument is akin to saying we ought to burn all the grass because there are more blades of grass than people and that pesky grass might get ideas and revolt.

a reply to: sprockets2000

Our illustrious PM Spawn of Castro, just announced another “buy back” program, here in Canada.

We all know how criminals line up to hand in their handguns.

I guess they don't realize it's the 20 rifles and shotguns in the closet you gotta worry about.

This is being coordinated with the States as usual.

We don't have the “right” specified in our Constitution, but they've never been able to take our arms.

We just don't comply, then they give up.

Biden is going to try to pick up where Obama left off.

It's part of his mandate....

originally posted by: sprockets2000
It’s pretty obvious to me we all know there is no white boogey man but if they ban lots of popular guns the kind of guns one might use to fight a revolution it’s going to radical a bunch of people they’ll have their domestic war but what they have not thought of is this

They sent a generation off to war myself included and now they are going to send a new generation to kill that previous generation but I don’t think it’s going to go as smoothly as they think that new generation doesn’t have twenty years of combat experience

It's actually much simpler than you think.

They sincerely believe that having less guns will mean having less mass shootings.

That's it. Nothing more.

Liberals equate gun ownership with gun crime. They think that one enables the other.

a reply to: ketsuko

Im simply stating a fact.

The argument is lost upon you ketsuko.

And yet the majority of the first world nations seem to get by just fine with less guns that people.

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: sprockets2000

I think they want us disarmed to make their next move safer for them.

That next move would be to nationalize our 401k plans.

You know, take what is in your 401k and give you a receipt for that amount, then tell you how big brother federal government will 'invest' it for you and pay you what they think you deserve when you retire.

They literally can't do that. It would violate the constitution.

Besides, they don't want to do that, it's not one of their policies.

a reply to: andy06shake

Good luck taking on the government armed butcherguy.

I would say a person would have much better luck armed... than unarmed. Don't you agree?
Since you are a Brit, I'll have you review your country's experiences in the 13 British Colonies in North America, Africa (remember Isandlwana ? They used spears and massacred the crap out of your team) and Afghanistan.
Then you can review the great luck we had fighting poorly armed insurgents in Vietnam and a number of countries in the Middle East.

a reply to: andy06shake

You are one of those people that are like the poster directly below me. You seem to think that less guns in the law abiding will automatically make less gun crime. Or that more gun control will stick it to those criminals who are already breaking the law and they'll suddenly turn in their illegal guns.

You also seem to think that in a country with an open Southern border that already trafficks copious amounts of drugs and humans, guns won't also and don't also spill to and fro over the that same border ... also illegally.

a reply to: butcherguy

Aye well you will require that in spades, luck that is, so there that.

Devine intervention might not go a miss nether eh?

Im Scottish butcherguy, im a happy bunny rabbit you put that mob in there place.

Just a shame you did not beat the bankers, we have done this dance before you and i, have we not?

Ive not got a team butcherguy, we canny even make the qualification for the world cup on most recent occasions. LoL

a reply to: ketsuko

I think more guns than people is a bad situation for any first world nation to be in.

I also think the war of drugs is a complete and utter sham, so there that.

As to people trafficking as horrendous as it is, well that's hardly just a problem in the USA.

Where crimes concerned, that will always exist as long as there is a market for such aka people.

a reply to: andy06shake

I gave you a star for being a non-team player.

a reply to: sprockets2000
There's only one reason any government wants to disarm the public. They want you defenseless so you can't fight back. In the (very) unlikely event of a revolution, the government may win in the end, but they will have losses too. It's much easier to avoid that if they can get all the guns and/or ammunition ahead of time. Don't kid yourself, the scumbags in DC still fear an armed population no matter how cocky they act. Just look at DC right now.

China says the US needs to be disarmed ,so guess we should expect their puppet party to eagerly obey.Then they can get those reeducation camps going...or the ovens.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

Nobody's coming for anything, not with that 6-3 Supreme Court.

Seems with Roberts turning into a liberal recently it's barely 5-4....

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: ketsuko

I think more guns than people is a bad situation for any first world nation to be in.

I also think the war of drugs is a complete and utter sham, so there that.

As to people trafficking as horrendous as it is, well that's hardly just a problem in the USA.

Where crimes concerned, that will always exist as long as there is a market for such aka people.

Why do you think it is a "bad situation" to be in?

Mass shootings are quite rare despite the media coverage.

Most gun murders are actually criminal related, in particular, highly concentrated within urban/lower income black community. In fact, if you exclude those murders, the gun violence rate is on par with most other European countries.

Further, most of those murders are committed by people who already are barred from owning firearms, so clearly more laws don't work as criminals don't follow gun laws. In addition, most of these murders occur in areas where firearms are already limited. So again, gun laws don't work.

So called "Assault Rifles" don't actually exist. Not only that, they are only used in less than 2 or 3% of gun deaths. Most gun violence is with handguns (pistols). More people are beat to death than killed with assault rifles in most years.

So again, what purpose does this gun control serve?

originally posted by: conspiracytheoristIAM
Seems with Roberts turning into a liberal recently it's barely 5-4....

Roberts isn't a liberal and is very pro-Second Amendment.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

lolz

The Extreme Court.

So you don't think they'll try to pack the court?

Of course they will, isn't that something else the Democrats who ran for Congress said they would "highly consider".

Since they now control the entire Legislature and Presidency, easy peasy for them to pack the court to insure that Democrats have a tight leash and total one party control of the nation.

Getting shot at isn't too bad. Kind of just numb to it.

originally posted by: conspiracytheoristIAM
Seems with Roberts turning into a liberal recently it's barely 5-4....

Further still ... Kavanaugh will lean female (just to prove he's still not filled with The Raper Madness) and make it 4-5.

I can say that I don't really believe that legally they can come and take OUR guns, but there are many ways (I feel) that they can stop you from using them, such as limiting, or completely making it impossible to get ammo.
I saw when a lot of the Right said that it would be a mistake if they would go to the Capitol with their guns, and it was being said all over the internet that they would go.
It turns out, after the Capitol "thing" nobody did anything, I even read more than a few of the preppers on YouTube backed down and said to NOT go.
So, although I believe that I have every right to own and keep a gun, I really don't see that kind of organization to get it all done. Nobody outside of the Armed Forces have what it takes to stop the government.

Another thing too, back when the hurricane in Louisiana hit guns were taken (not many, I don't think) and that was the Police and the National Guard, so, it can happen, and nobody is going to fight against it, probably. (I do know that one story was just a little old lady, but, still)
All I am saying is that it's easier to talk like a soldier than to act like one and do something.
If there was a Civil War, it would not be a straight line war, meaning that it would be ALL OVER the U.S., not the North and the South type situation again.
Where would we fight? It'd be small skirmishes at the very least, I'd think.

I do want to say, I would be one of the first to join up IF there was a plan, but I just can't see any of that happening.
I am not for overthrowing any government, but I am also not for them taking away ANY of my rights, or your rights.

Can ANYONE here give a good reason how a Civil War or a taking of OUR guns can happen?
What kind of a plan could work? I am not suggesting one at all, a Civil War, I am just not seeing how a gun taking can be prevented, or a war happening because of it.

I'd really like to know, I'm not being a smart-ass or nuthin', I just really don't see a thing happening at all. They will slowly but surely take away a piece of our freedoms piece by piece until there's not enough to fight for, if a fight would even happen.