The FAL Files  

Go Back   The FAL Files > News & Political Discussion > Politics

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old January 10, 2013, 10:51   #1
V guy
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 10282
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: miami
Posts: 8,925
Reality

They can try to pass all the anti firearms laws they want, at both the Federal and State level, but even if ALL firearms mfg was cut off today, there would still be over 310 million firearms, within the boundaries of this country, in private hands.

The figures are from the CBO.

Add in the billions of rounds of ammo, also owned by the public, and it is a significant problem........... only for those who are bent on destroying them.

Obama knows this.
It should not be a problem for anyone, even him, but it is.


Cuomo wants a total ban of the 1 to 5 million EBR's in NYS, and likely mag limits on all handguns too.

Cuomo says one thing--no confiscation and no ban, but also uses the other, "C" word too. Odd.

The contradiction can be seen in the fact that he does not consider an EBR a firearm or a gun--it is because he, Obama and Biden and likely Jerry Brown of Ca, consider the EBR a class 2 weapon NOW............ and totally illegal...........conspiracy at the very top.

How do libs define a problem of that magnitude or deal with it?
Their proposed laws will not pass, or pass muster at the highest level of the Supreme Court. They cannot stand a loss, or be told "NO" by SCOTUS.

They mean war, I am afraid.
There is no other possible answer, other than a total surrender on the 2nd amendment by them, or us.

They do not have the blessing of the Constitution, or SCOTUS, and mean to destroy the Constitution by Executive order; NOW.

Obama hates Congress, SCOTUS and virtually ignores them. Lenin II incarnate.

I rest my observation on the lack of a budget, the coming debt ceiling crisis, and all his other highly unconstitutional executive orders.

Orders taking over total control of the govenment. They are all listed on websites--orders that consolidate his power but most people ignore them as just fluff and paranoia. The orders are designed just for a coming crisis like the firearms debate.

Why not just announce that the Constitution has been suspended.......... and just not use the word "coup d etat?"
Typical Obama. It is what he is doing by fact, if not concise announcement.

If all non military firearm manfacturing is not cut off now.......... then
by 2014, there will be 320 million firearms in the hands of the public--half of the new guns will be AR platforms, the most widely purchased firearm for several years now.
More billions of rounds of ammo will be purchased too.

Will Obama allow that to happen? That is the question...........another years production?
No one has yet talked him about freezing EBR production..........by executive order.
Yet he cannot allow even one more EBR to be produced.

It does not take a sage to see what they intend.

Obama wants a CRISIS to declare martial law, and it does not take a sage to see that it will probably be firearms related and over the EBR and ammo.
They have had Biden announce it, for christs sake.

The gun owning and conservative public is pretty riled up at this point, but the commies seem bent on confrontation and the "C" word.

I wish it was not true, but they are being led by a madman, who possibly wants UN/mercenaries, to step in and help him with any insurrection that he precipitates.

He cannot depend upon DHS or cops to do the dirty work and he needs extra territorial mercenaries to work for him.
1.6 billion rounds of ammo purchases for the DHS........ or really for the shock troops? Where is that ammo?

That might explain all the rumors of foreign troops on our soil beyond the normal training cycles; shock troops.

Obama is not that smart a man and issues are always rather simple for him, like his father and grandfather, who simply believed that all power comes from the power of the gun. He also lies a lot, in fact, lies about everything.

Opinions?
It is kind of like 1860 in reverse, when people sat around wondering if the CSA states would actually seceed. In this case, people sit around wondering if their own government is going act in the dead of the night to take the guns away from them. Blitzkrieg.

As a historian, I can tell you that we are in the midst a major Constitutional Crisis, of incredible gravity.
It is all up to the commies, as to what happens.

Post your opinions...........

Last edited by V guy; January 10, 2013 at 13:22.
V guy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 10, 2013, 11:01   #2
rowjimmy
Person of Interest
Gold Contributor
 
FALaholic #: 21662
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Central PA
Posts: 4,753
I just can't understand why you didn't get all riled up when Bush initiated it with the Patriot Act. It is been a long usurpation of the Constitution by both parties. Obama is just continuing the course charted years ago and continues to push the agenda as those before him.
rowjimmy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 10, 2013, 11:19   #3
V guy
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 10282
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: miami
Posts: 8,925
A constituional crisis happens whenever a major test of it comes up. Bush's election in 2000 was a constitutional crisis.

Any Impeachment is also a constitutional crisis.
War, without formal declaration or authorization, creates a constitutional crisis.

Cancelling the 2nd amendment IS a constitutional crisis of major importance, as is usurping the Constitutional right of Congress to control all spending authorizations.

Please take this the right way. Get a friggin education..................

You sound like a plumber in a bar room, when you expose your total ignorance about law, history, and your inablilty to connect the dots...........

Like I said, the only solution is get an education and know what you are talking about before opening your mouth and sounding like a soverign citizen.
I guess you leaned nothing so far, but it is not too late...........

Last edited by V guy; January 10, 2013 at 11:38.
V guy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 10, 2013, 12:03   #4
homelandprotector
Registered
 
homelandprotector's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 16592
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Reno, Nevada
Posts: 6,765
Pretty good analysis of the coming shit storm.

Here's another good review from James Yeagers site.......

https://www.facebook.com/JamesYeagerofTacticalResponse

Let me explain, gun grabbers, how your confiscatory fantasy plays out. Let us imagine for a moment that a sweeping gun control bill similar to the one currently suggested is passed by the House and Senate, and signed into law by a contemptuous President.

Perhaps 50-100 million firearms currently owned by law-abiding citizens will become contraband with the stroke of a pen. Citizens will either register their firearms, or turn them in to agents of the federal government, or risk becoming criminals themselves. Faced with this choice, millions will indeed register their arms. Perhaps as many will claim they’ve sold their arms, or had them stolen. Suppose that as many as 200-250 million weapons of other types will go unregistered.

Tens of millions of Americans will refuse to comply with an order that is clearly a violation of the explicit intent of the Second Amendment. Among the most ardent opposing these measures will be military veterans, active duty servicemen, and local law enforcement officers. Many of these individuals will refuse to carry out what they view as Constitutionally illegal orders. Perhaps 40-50 million citizens will view such a law as treason. Perhaps ten percent of those, 4-5 million, would support a rebellion in some way, and maybe 40,000-100,000 Americans will form small independently-functioning active resistance cells, or become lone-wolves.

They will be leaderless, stateless, difficult to track, and considering the number of military veterans that would likely be among their number, extremely skilled at sabotage, assassination, and ambush.

After a number of carefully-planned, highly-publicized, and successful raids by the government, one or more will invariably end “badly.” Whether innocents are gunned down, a city block is burned to ash, or especially fierce resistance leads to a disastrously failed raid doesn’t particularly matter. What matters is that when illusion of the government’s invincibility and infallibility is broken, the hunters will become the hunted.

Unnamed citizens and federal agents will be the first to die, and they will die by the dozens and maybe hundreds, but famous politicians will soon join them in a spate of revenge killings, many of which will go unsolved.

Ironically, while the gun grab was intended to keep citizens from preserving their liberties with medium-powered weapons, it completely ignored the longer-ranged rifles perfect for shooting at ranges far beyond what a security detail can protect, and suppressed .22LR weapons proven deadly in urban sniping in Europe and Asia.

While the Secret Service will be able to protect the President in the White House, he will not dare leave his gilded cage except in carefully controlled circumstances. Even then he will be forced to move like a criminal. He will never be seen outdoors in public again. Not in this country.

The 535 members of the House and Senate in both parties that allowed such a law to pass would largely be on their own; the Secret Service is too small to protect all of them and their families, the Capitol Police too unskilled, and competent private security not particularly interested in working against their own best interests at any price. The elites will be steadily whittled down, and if they can not be reached directly, the targets will become their staffers, spouses, children, and grandchildren. Grandstanding media figures loyal to the regime would die in droves, executed as enemies of the Republic.

You can expect congressional staffs to disintegrate with just a few shootings, and expect elected officials themselves to resign well before a quarter of their number are eliminated, leaving us with a boxed-in executive, his cabinet loyalists trapped in the same win, die, or flee the country circumstance, military regime loyalists, and whatever State Governors who desire to risk their necks as well.

Here, the President will doubtlessly order the activation of National Guard units and the regular military to impose martial law, setting the largest and most powerful military in the world against its own people. Unfortunately, the tighter the President clinches his tyrannical fist, the more rebels he makes.

Military commands and federal agencies will be whittled down as servicemen and agents will desert or defect. Some may leave as individuals, others may join the Rebellion in squad and larger-sized units with all their weapons, tactics, skills, and insider intelligence. The regime will be unable to trust its own people, and because they cannot trust them, they will lose more in a vicious cycle of collapse.

Some of these defectors will be true “operators,” with the skills and background to turn ragtag militia cells into the kind of forces that decimate loyalist troops, allowing them no rest and no respite, striking them when they are away from their most potent weapons. Military vehicles are formidable, but they are thirsty beasts, in terms of fuel, ammo, time, and maintenance. Tanks and bombers are formidable only when they have gas, guns, and can be maintained. In a war without a front, logistics are incredibly easy to destroy, and mechanics and supply clerks are not particularly adept at defending themselves.

Eventually, the government will turn upon itself. The President will be captured or perhaps killed by his own protectors. A dictatorship will form in the vacuum.

If we’re lucky, the United States of America, or whatever amalgam results, will again try to rebuild. If we’re very lucky, the victors will reinstate the Constitution as the law of the land. Just as likely though, we’ll face fractious civil wars fought over issues we’ve not begun to fathom, and a much diminished state or states will result, perhaps guided by foreign interests.

It will not be pretty. There will be no “winners,” and perhaps hundreds of thousands to millions of dead.

Yet, this is the future we face if the power-mad among us are not soundly defeated at the ballot box before they affect more “change” than we, the People, are willing to surrender to would-be tyrants."
__________________
We need about 3000 Ron Paul's in Washington.....HLP
homelandprotector is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 10, 2013, 12:08   #5
V guy
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 10282
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: miami
Posts: 8,925
I only want you to think about what Obama is going to do, not Romney or Bush.............it is Obama who is the issue..........and he does not like you or me, or anyone of suspect "Colonialist-Imperialist," Euro background.

He does not like the Constitution either, and is ignoring it just about totally. That IS, a Constitutional crisis.
V guy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 10, 2013, 12:22   #6
alant
Curio & Relic
Contributor
 
FALaholic #: 46689
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Maine
Posts: 4,175
Quote:
Originally Posted by V guy View Post
They can try to pass all the anti firearms laws they want, at both the Federal and State level, but even if ALL firearms mfg was cut off today, there would still be over 310 million firearms, within the boundaries of this country, in private hands.
. . .
How do libs define a problem of that magnitude or deal with it?
Their proposed laws will not pass, or pass muster at the highest level of the Supreme Court. They cannot stand a loss, or be told "NO" by SCOTUS.

They mean war, I am afraid.
There is other possible answer other than a total surrender on the 2nd amendment by them, or us.

. . .
Post your opinions...........
Glad you asked.

#1 They cannot "pass all the anti firearms laws they want"

#2 "even if ALL firearms mfg was cut off today" - ridiculous, not what they intend to do, not even Feinstein calls for that.

#3 "They mean war" - No, "they" don't, they mean, in their minds, to institute "reasonable" laws limiting magazine capacity, semi-automatic military style rifles, streetsweeper shotguns and semi-auto pistols. They will have the backing of a majority of US citizens in this. If they were to go much further they would (and they realize this) not have the backing of the public. They are approaching this in a realistic/pragmatic way. You on the other hand, are not.

#4 Surrender on the 2A? That may mean something completely different to you and I. Confiscation of firearms would fall into the "surrender" category in my mind. Legal limits being placed thru legal means is not surrender, it's society making rules. (By that I mean thru Congress enacting laws and SCOTUS upholding those laws, but you probably have a different take on that as well, your personal interpretation of the US Constitution which you see as trumping SCOTUS.)

#5 "Obama hates Congress, SCOTUS and virtually ignores them. Lenin II incarnate." No, he does not. You have been listening to too much hate/rant radio. He doesn't hold Republicans in high regard, including some of their SCOTUS appointees, but he respects, even reveres the system and institutions.


The rest of your post is not worth commenting on.
__________________
May those that love us, love us.
And those that don't love us, May God turn their hearts.
And if He can't turn their hearts
May He turn their ankles, so we'll know them by their limp.
- Old Gaelic Blessing
alant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 10, 2013, 12:44   #7
Thorack
Acquisition Corp Dude
Bronze Contributor
 
FALaholic #: 748
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Fort Sill, Oklahoma, USA
Posts: 7,002
alant,

I dont think the majority will back a semi-auto ban, since were are both just spouting opinion.

Thorack
__________________
1. Whenever you are talking to a woman realize this person was born insane and you will never be surprised.

2. Never let Doctors cut on you unless its life or death and ALWAYS get a second opinion.
Thorack is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 10, 2013, 13:42   #8
V guy
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 10282
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: miami
Posts: 8,925
They (Congress) will not pass anti gun legislation any time soon, that is the point.............it will all be Obama and his Executive Orders.

When Obama institutes mag limits, it is uncontitutional for it allows the military to keep such items.

When Obama bans EBR's and all their features, it is uncontitutional, for the military will not give them up.

When Obama institutes NICS checks on ammo and bans internet sales, it is uncontitutional, for it infringes.

My point is that a Constitutional threshold has been reached, and the crisis is being made by Obama.

SCOTUS stated that you cannot ban a whole class of weapons and that
the 2nd amendment was about civilians being equipped, as well as the military of the nation, is equipped.

Biden, not me, said Obama is going to be drastic on gun control, and issue Executive orders on assault weapons.
Their legality and of course, future production of them will be addressed...........production will end if Obama and the ATF says no more civilian sales; overnight.
Unconstutional and a crisis has been created.

There will be States that say "no," AND plenty of citizens.
V guy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 10, 2013, 14:04   #9
Thorack
Acquisition Corp Dude
Bronze Contributor
 
FALaholic #: 748
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Fort Sill, Oklahoma, USA
Posts: 7,002
Well,

EOs affect government agencies and are not legislative. And EO cannot order civilians to turn in weapons he can only order a government agency to sieze them.

It makes a HUGE difference if its passed legislatively. Congress can simply defund and agency performing unconstitutional actions.

Thorack
__________________
1. Whenever you are talking to a woman realize this person was born insane and you will never be surprised.

2. Never let Doctors cut on you unless its life or death and ALWAYS get a second opinion.
Thorack is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 10, 2013, 15:01   #10
jeffrey
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 2073
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Illinois
Posts: 1,697
Quote:
Originally Posted by alant View Post
Glad you asked.

#3 "They mean war" - No, "they" don't, they mean, in their minds, to institute "reasonable" laws limiting magazine capacity, semi-automatic military style rifles, streetsweeper shotguns and semi-auto pistols. They will have the backing of a majority of US citizens in this. If they were to go much further they would (and they realize this) not have the backing of the public. They are approaching this in a realistic/pragmatic way. You on the other hand, are not.
Alant, just curious. In this sentence ~"They will have the backing of a majority of US citizens in this." ~ do you fall in that majority?

This is a sincere question.
jeffrey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 10, 2013, 15:03   #11
STG_58_guy
Curio & Relic
Silver Contributor
 
STG_58_guy's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 65886
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 2,756
Quote:
Originally Posted by rowjimmy View Post
I just can't understand why you didn't get all riled up when Bush initiated it with the Patriot Act. It is been a long usurpation of the Constitution by both parties. Obama is just continuing the course charted years ago and continues to push the agenda as those before him.
I did.
__________________
It's not insurance if they are forced to sell it to you and it's not healthcare if you can't find a doctor...
STG_58_guy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 10, 2013, 17:21   #12
Thorack
Acquisition Corp Dude
Bronze Contributor
 
FALaholic #: 748
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Fort Sill, Oklahoma, USA
Posts: 7,002
308bolt,

Congress has defunded many efforts by government agencies and defunding any effort to confiscate firearms would be the first thing I discussed with my Congressmen when I went to their offices and later their homes.

An EO is not funding and an agency could find itself defunded by Congress, it may take awhile but yes, you were missing something.

I remember the government shutdown under Pres Clinton if it had gone on more than a month you would have seen massive numbers of Armed Service folks looking for employment elsewhere. Without funding the armies don't march.

Thorack
__________________
1. Whenever you are talking to a woman realize this person was born insane and you will never be surprised.

2. Never let Doctors cut on you unless its life or death and ALWAYS get a second opinion.
Thorack is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 10, 2013, 17:54   #13
shortround
Registered
Bronze Contributor
 
shortround's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 1503
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Southeast, MI, USA
Posts: 2,903
Quote:
Originally Posted by alant View Post
Glad you asked.

#1 They cannot "pass all the anti firearms laws they want"

#2 BLAH BLAH BLAH....
__________________
Nostalgia: It's just not what it used to be.

I used to be indecisive, but now I'm not so sure.

To be sure of hitting the target, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target.

Someone asked if I was a procrastinator and I told them I wasn't sure but I'd get back with them tomorrow.
shortround is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 10, 2013, 18:13   #14
JohnnyMac
Veteran Member
Bronze Contributor
 
FALaholic #: 365
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Commonwealth of Virginia, CSA
Posts: 1,892
The danger area are the parts of existing laws that are subject to interpretation. Phrases like "readily convertible" and "sporting purposes". I can damn near guarantee the Obamination will use EO's to strangle imports of firearms, parts, and ammunition.

JMc
__________________
"Buy all the beans, bullets, and band-aids you can afford boys. It's no longer a question of "IF", it's now only a question of "WHEN"."
JohnnyMac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 10, 2013, 18:31   #15
JasonB
TROLL
 
FALaholic #: 7430
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: 90° N 0° W
Posts: 11,163
Quote:
Originally Posted by V guy View Post
They (Congress) will not pass anti gun legislation any time soon, that is the point.............it will all be Obama and his Executive Orders.

When Obama institutes mag limits, it is uncontitutional for it allows the military to keep such items.

When Obama bans EBR's and all their features, it is uncontitutional, for the military will not give them up.

When Obama institutes NICS checks on ammo and bans internet sales, it is uncontitutional, for it infringes.

My point is that a Constitutional threshold has been reached, and the crisis is being made by Obama.

SCOTUS stated that you cannot ban a whole class of weapons and that
the 2nd amendment was about civilians being equipped, as well as the military of the nation, is equipped.

Biden, not me, said Obama is going to be drastic on gun control, and issue Executive orders on assault weapons.
Their legality and of course, future production of them will be addressed...........production will end if Obama and the ATF says no more civilian sales; overnight.
Unconstutional and a crisis has been created.

There will be States that say "no," AND plenty of citizens.
So why didn't your republicans repeal all that you are now calling infringements when they had control of all 3 branches of government?
__________________
http://www.falfiles.com/forums/showp...4&postcount=66 How about that!
JasonB is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 10, 2013, 20:21   #16
riffraff2
Curio & Relic
Platinum Contributor
 
FALaholic #: 54720
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 2,230
Quote:
Originally Posted by alant View Post
Glad you asked.

#1 They cannot "pass all the anti firearms laws they want"

#2 "even if ALL firearms mfg was cut off today" - ridiculous, not what they intend to do, not even Feinstein calls for that.

#3 "They mean war" - No, "they" don't, they mean, in their minds, to institute "reasonable" laws limiting magazine capacity, semi-automatic military style rifles, streetsweeper shotguns and semi-auto pistols. They will have the backing of a majority of US citizens in this. If they were to go much further they would (and they realize this) not have the backing of the public. They are approaching this in a realistic/pragmatic way. You on the other hand, are not.

#4 Surrender on the 2A? That may mean something completely different to you and I. Confiscation of firearms would fall into the "surrender" category in my mind. Legal limits being placed thru legal means is not surrender, it's society making rules. (By that I mean thru Congress enacting laws and SCOTUS upholding those laws, but you probably have a different take on that as well, your personal interpretation of the US Constitution which you see as trumping SCOTUS.)

#5 "Obama hates Congress, SCOTUS and virtually ignores them. Lenin II incarnate." No, he does not. You have been listening to too much hate/rant radio. He doesn't hold Republicans in high regard, including some of their SCOTUS appointees, but he respects, even reveres the system and institutions.


The rest of your post is not worth commenting on.

In some areas, not all but some, you are seriously delusional.

SERIOUSLY.
riffraff2 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 10, 2013, 20:33   #17
riffraff2
Curio & Relic
Platinum Contributor
 
FALaholic #: 54720
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 2,230
Quote:
Originally Posted by STG_58_guy View Post
I did.
I did too. I was very seriously "riled up".
riffraff2 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 10, 2013, 21:34   #18
357ross
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 47543
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Utah
Posts: 2,693
V-guy, It's not that I disagree with you, but, SCOTUS recently gave Obummer his victory with Obummercare. Gun control is comming with this gigantic illegal law. I don't pretend to know how the court was coerced into upholding this mess, but it seems to me SCOTUS is prepared to give Obummer whatever he wants at this point. We, the people, lost this fight many years ago to outside interests who control the congress. Ever wonder why newly elected represenatives turn so quickly into a part of the problem? After they get into office they learn who the masters really are, and it ain't the people who elected them. My point to this is, almost everything Obummer has done so far has been outside the constitution. He gets away with it because he can, and no one is willing to call him on it. In fact, he's been re-elected. So, whats to stop him from writing an EO nullifying the 2nd amendmnt? Who will stop him? 545 politicians? A nation with 52% welfare sheep?
357ross is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 10, 2013, 21:55   #19
Brett
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 3389
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Wichita
Posts: 2,429
Too bad most people work for others and pay taxes weekly. If things turned to shit people probably wouldn't be going to work so why not advance the process before everything turns to shit. The problem is many live from week to week and can't afford to take a month off. But if things turned to shit they would be taking a month off without choice. Follow the money. An unfunded government is a kid who doesn't get his allowance for doing wrong. Don't keep paying them to do the wrong things.
__________________
If dogs could talk there would be more dogfights.
Brett is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 10, 2013, 22:09   #20
Cybercop
Registered
 
Cybercop's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 2406
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Columbus, OH USA
Posts: 423
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorack View Post
Well,

EOs affect government agencies and are not legislative. And EO cannot order civilians to turn in weapons he can only order a government agency to sieze them.

It makes a HUGE difference if its passed legislatively. Congress can simply defund and agency performing unconstitutional actions.

Thorack
I can make it more interesting than that, if no legislation was passed including penalty for non compliance your not breaking any law. And any government agent can be dealt with like a common (armed) thief. All survivors can be charged accordingly.

Jim
__________________
Secretary Ohio Oath Keepers
Ohio L.E. Liaison
http://www.ohiooathkeepers.org
------------------
"I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do something. And because I can not do everything, I will not refuse to do the something I can do. What I can do, I should do. And what I should do, by the grace of GOD, I will do."

Edward Everett Hale (decedent of Nathan Hale)
Cybercop is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 10, 2013, 23:39   #21
ALL FAL
Registered
Contributor
 
FALaholic #: 24447
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,683
Quote:
Originally Posted by homelandprotector View Post
Pretty good analysis of the coming shit storm.

Here's another good review from James Yeagers site.......

https://www.facebook.com/JamesYeagerofTacticalResponse

Let me explain, gun grabbers, how your confiscatory fantasy plays out. Let us imagine for a moment that a sweeping gun control bill similar to the one currently suggested is passed by the House and Senate, and signed into law by a contemptuous President.

Perhaps 50-100 million firearms currently owned by law-abiding citizens will become contraband with the stroke of a pen. Citizens will either register their firearms, or turn them in to agents of the federal government, or risk becoming criminals themselves. Faced with this choice, millions will indeed register their arms. Perhaps as many will claim they’ve sold their arms, or had them stolen. Suppose that as many as 200-250 million weapons of other types will go unregistered.

Tens of millions of Americans will refuse to comply with an order that is clearly a violation of the explicit intent of the Second Amendment. Among the most ardent opposing these measures will be military veterans, active duty servicemen, and local law enforcement officers. Many of these individuals will refuse to carry out what they view as Constitutionally illegal orders. Perhaps 40-50 million citizens will view such a law as treason. Perhaps ten percent of those, 4-5 million, would support a rebellion in some way, and maybe 40,000-100,000 Americans will form small independently-functioning active resistance cells, or become lone-wolves.

They will be leaderless, stateless, difficult to track, and considering the number of military veterans that would likely be among their number, extremely skilled at sabotage, assassination, and ambush.

After a number of carefully-planned, highly-publicized, and successful raids by the government, one or more will invariably end “badly.” Whether innocents are gunned down, a city block is burned to ash, or especially fierce resistance leads to a disastrously failed raid doesn’t particularly matter. What matters is that when illusion of the government’s invincibility and infallibility is broken, the hunters will become the hunted.

Unnamed citizens and federal agents will be the first to die, and they will die by the dozens and maybe hundreds, but famous politicians will soon join them in a spate of revenge killings, many of which will go unsolved.

Ironically, while the gun grab was intended to keep citizens from preserving their liberties with medium-powered weapons, it completely ignored the longer-ranged rifles perfect for shooting at ranges far beyond what a security detail can protect, and suppressed .22LR weapons proven deadly in urban sniping in Europe and Asia.

While the Secret Service will be able to protect the President in the White House, he will not dare leave his gilded cage except in carefully controlled circumstances. Even then he will be forced to move like a criminal. He will never be seen outdoors in public again. Not in this country.

The 535 members of the House and Senate in both parties that allowed such a law to pass would largely be on their own; the Secret Service is too small to protect all of them and their families, the Capitol Police too unskilled, and competent private security not particularly interested in working against their own best interests at any price. The elites will be steadily whittled down, and if they can not be reached directly, the targets will become their staffers, spouses, children, and grandchildren. Grandstanding media figures loyal to the regime would die in droves, executed as enemies of the Republic.

You can expect congressional staffs to disintegrate with just a few shootings, and expect elected officials themselves to resign well before a quarter of their number are eliminated, leaving us with a boxed-in executive, his cabinet loyalists trapped in the same win, die, or flee the country circumstance, military regime loyalists, and whatever State Governors who desire to risk their necks as well.

Here, the President will doubtlessly order the activation of National Guard units and the regular military to impose martial law, setting the largest and most powerful military in the world against its own people. Unfortunately, the tighter the President clinches his tyrannical fist, the more rebels he makes.

Military commands and federal agencies will be whittled down as servicemen and agents will desert or defect. Some may leave as individuals, others may join the Rebellion in squad and larger-sized units with all their weapons, tactics, skills, and insider intelligence. The regime will be unable to trust its own people, and because they cannot trust them, they will lose more in a vicious cycle of collapse.

Some of these defectors will be true “operators,” with the skills and background to turn ragtag militia cells into the kind of forces that decimate loyalist troops, allowing them no rest and no respite, striking them when they are away from their most potent weapons. Military vehicles are formidable, but they are thirsty beasts, in terms of fuel, ammo, time, and maintenance. Tanks and bombers are formidable only when they have gas, guns, and can be maintained. In a war without a front, logistics are incredibly easy to destroy, and mechanics and supply clerks are not particularly adept at defending themselves.

Eventually, the government will turn upon itself. The President will be captured or perhaps killed by his own protectors. A dictatorship will form in the vacuum.

If we’re lucky, the United States of America, or whatever amalgam results, will again try to rebuild. If we’re very lucky, the victors will reinstate the Constitution as the law of the land. Just as likely though, we’ll face fractious civil wars fought over issues we’ve not begun to fathom, and a much diminished state or states will result, perhaps guided by foreign interests.

It will not be pretty. There will be no “winners,” and perhaps hundreds of thousands to millions of dead.

Yet, this is the future we face if the power-mad among us are not soundly defeated at the ballot box before they affect more “change” than we, the People, are willing to surrender to would-be tyrants."
I was ticked off with the Patriot act intro, why was Bush not impeached and HUNG? We the people have let the assholes get way over on us, Voting does NOT WORK from what I have seen, what choice do we have?? Huh, You tell me.
__________________
The Future is ALWAYS Open!!

An ARMED society is a POLITE society.
ALL FAL is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 11, 2013, 11:08   #22
V guy
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 10282
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: miami
Posts: 8,925
Obama never expected the huge, pro gun response sweeping the nation after Sandy Hook.

His plan to institute an AWB and ride through the streets of DC on a white horse has failed. There is no national consensus for him to do so.

Cuomo is also failing in Albany to get an agreement so far. The big lie may be failing.

He is, as we speak, on the horns of a dilemma---does Obama do it, and overturn the Constitution, against the will of the people.... or sit back and wait for another opportunity..........while another ten million firearms are mfg'd and sold this year?

I cannot call it.............the month is still early and plenty can happen.
The cops stopped another likely Obama theatre drone in Texas, and we all ought to be on guard for the drones............
V guy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 11, 2013, 11:47   #23
drmetzger
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 64839
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: NY
Posts: 421
The consensus from politicians is that there will be no new AWB coming across. The fact of the matter is that they do not have the political backing to get it through as they thought they would. The horror and shock were quite powerful, but it is not the will of the people to ban weapons.

However, it might be the will of a majority of Americans to have background checks on all firearms purchases in the US. A reduction of magazine capacity as well, but only on newly manufactured ones. A confiscation and ban on presently owned magazines and firearms is unrealistic and the politicians know it. They are backing off ever so slowly from this. The feeling I have been told is that it could actually be the Democrats that fall away from this as there are many, MANY Democrats up for reelection in gun friendly states that will likely lose if they side with a ban.

This is what I have learned this morning by keeping my ears open to people in places of power.

As for Cuomo, I truly do not know. I believe he pulled a Biden. He got all fired up and spoke without really knowing if he would have backing. He has political aspirations beyond New York. If he can make a grand show and example of this state maybe it can be used as a stepping stone. But the greater feeling around the state as in the rest of the country is that there is still a vote for lower politicians coming up at the end of the year. No one wants to jump on board an unpopular bandwagon and lose.
drmetzger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 11, 2013, 11:59   #24
357ross
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 47543
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Utah
Posts: 2,693
Quote:
Originally Posted by V guy View Post
Obama never expected the huge, pro gun response sweeping the nation after Sandy Hook.

His plan to institute an AWB and ride through the streets of DC on a white horse has failed. There is no national consensus for him to do so.

Cuomo is also failing in Albany to get an agreement so far. The big lie may be failing.

He is, as we speak, on the horns of a dilemma---does Obama do it, and overturn the Constitution, against the will of the people.... or sit back and wait for another opportunity..........while another ten million firearms are mfg'd and sold this year?

I cannot call it.............the month is still early and plenty can happen.
The cops stopped another likely Obama theatre drone in Texas, and we all ought to be on guard for the drones............
We can expect a mass school shooting to happen about once a week until Obummer gets his 'concesses' on gun control. I still think it will come down to an executive order though. The year is still very early, and these 'leaders' are so far out of control it's impossible to say what new low they'll stoop to.
357ross is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 11, 2013, 12:07   #25
ronpaulFAL
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 65535
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: somewhere
Posts: 2,425
Quote:
Originally Posted by V guy View Post
Biden, not me, said Obama is going to be drastic on gun control, and issue Executive orders on assault weapons.
You are being a bit dramatic with your posts.

I agree that the tone of discussion suggests that an AWB ban is getting less likely. They will probably try to NFA the guns and restrict mag capacity, along with school security measures and mental health system changes. They will certainly attempt to close the "gun show loophole." If that exists (I don't go to gun shows very often and have never bought a gun at one) then it probably should be closed if for nothing else than to apply the law consistently. I actually don't have a problem with background checks for guns, although I don't think anyone but violent felons and the truly insane should be prohibited from gun ownership.

Previous litigation has declared Federal gun registration to be, if not agreed upon as unconstitutional, at least troublesome. This is based on the NFA laws if you care to look at it. Magazine capacity hasn't been addressed very well yet.

Bottom line: this situation has put a lot of political pressure on the White House and Democrats to take some action. It is fashionable for them, lately, to act within Congress very hurriedly so as to avoid scrutiny. If that fails they will indeed try EO but won't get very far. There ARE limits on what an EO can accomplish. Just remember that although he may favor gun control, his primary motive is still to please his supporters.
ronpaulFAL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 11, 2013, 12:14   #26
357ross
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 47543
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Utah
Posts: 2,693
Quote:
Originally Posted by ronpaulFAL View Post
You are being a bit dramatic with your posts.

I agree that the tone of discussion suggests that an AWB ban is getting less likely. They will probably try to NFA the guns and restrict mag capacity, along with school security measures and mental health system changes. They will certainly attempt to close the "gun show loophole." If that exists (I don't go to gun shows very often and have never bought a gun at one) then it probably should be closed if for nothing else than to apply the law consistently. I actually don't have a problem with background checks for guns, although I don't think anyone but violent felons and the truly insane should be prohibited from gun ownership.

Previous litigation has declared Federal gun registration to be, if not agreed upon as unconstitutional, at least troublesome. This is based on the NFA laws if you care to look at it. Magazine capacity hasn't been addressed very well yet.

Bottom line: this situation has put a lot of political pressure on the White House and Democrats to take some action. It is fashionable for them, lately, to act within Congress very hurriedly so as to avoid scrutiny. If that fails they will indeed try EO but won't get very far. There ARE limits on what an EO can accomplish. Just remember that although he may favor gun control, his primary motive is still to please his supporters.
Bottom line, this situation has served it's purpose in giving the democraps the excuse to do what they have wanted to do for decades. It'll be exploited to the full extent that it possibly can be. No one wants more gun control, just like they didn't want 'Obummercare'.
357ross is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 11, 2013, 12:22   #27
V guy
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 10282
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: miami
Posts: 8,925
In 1986 Congress passed the FOPA--the law specifically prohibits any record keeping scheme by the Federal Government to track firearms ownership.

NICS check data has to be discarded and serial #'s are not divulged to the NICS checker.

That is a thorn in the libs side.
V guy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 11, 2013, 12:30   #28
drmetzger
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 64839
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: NY
Posts: 421
They also don't like that the background check doesn't actually tell them if you purchased anything at all, just that a check was performed.

Honestly I don't know much about the gun show loophole as in New York and most other states, even at a gun show they do the background check on the spot. You don't get anything unless they get the go ahead.
drmetzger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 11, 2013, 12:45   #29
drmetzger
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 64839
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: NY
Posts: 421
Also, just a side note. I am in fairly constant contact with some politicians throughout the local government and they have indicated that there have been few to no calls or emails calling for a ban. The loudest voices are of people trying to keep their firearms and the ability to purchase them legally in the future.

Keep up the great work!
drmetzger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 11, 2013, 13:02   #30
carguym14
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 13162
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Iowa
Posts: 6,539
Quote:
Originally Posted by V guy View Post
In 1986 Congress passed the FOPA--the law specifically prohibits any record keeping scheme by the Federal Government to track firearms ownership.

NICS check data has to be discarded and serial #'s are not divulged to the NICS checker.

That is a thorn in the libs side.



Please.

Like a law,the Constitution,or anything else has ever stopped the gov from doing what they want.

And what are you whining for anyway-you are the one alsways touting "compromise".get ready to be compromised.

Shoulda voted for Ron Paul instead of the same muthaf&ckers screwing us for years pretending to be our friends.

I couldn't resist clicking on a thread called "Reality" by vguy......
__________________
Anything not under government control is,by definition,out of control.


Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining.


When is it time to pick up your rifle?
When your conscience cannot abide to see it unused.
1gewehr 8/3/05
carguym14 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 11, 2013, 15:10   #31
ronpaulFAL
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 65535
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: somewhere
Posts: 2,425
Quote:
Originally Posted by drmetzger View Post
They also don't like that the background check doesn't actually tell them if you purchased anything at all, just that a check was performed.

Honestly I don't know much about the gun show loophole as in New York and most other states, even at a gun show they do the background check on the spot. You don't get anything unless they get the go ahead.
So what, then, is the loophole that they keep talking about? Is it real? Even some conservatives bring it up. I don't mention it without at least acknowledging that I am unsure whether such a loophole actually exists.
ronpaulFAL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 11, 2013, 16:43   #32
drmetzger
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 64839
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: NY
Posts: 421
From what I understand from those apparently in the know, though having not experienced it firsthand I am not certain, several states in this country do have a loophole that allows in some instances, a firearm to be sold at a gun show without any background check being performed.

To me it's silly to allow it, possibly because I am from NY where we must be checked for all but the simplest of coffee purchases. If a simple call that will quiet the liberals will solve this than so be it.
drmetzger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 11, 2013, 16:53   #33
carguym14
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 13162
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Iowa
Posts: 6,539
Quote:
Originally Posted by drmetzger View Post
From what I understand from those apparently in the know, though having not experienced it firsthand I am not certain, several states in this country do have a loophole that allows in some instances, a firearm to be sold at a gun show without any background check being performed.

To me it's silly to allow it, possibly because I am from NY where we must be checked for all but the simplest of coffee purchases. If a simple call that will quiet the liberals will solve this than so be it.



The hell?

It's not a f*cking "loophole".It is buying and selling privately owned items.

When I lived in NY we were still allowed to buy and sell privately-maybe that has changed?

So what "reasonable" restrictions are you for that will (temporarily) quiet the liberals??All firearms sales thru a dealer?All ammunuition sales thru a dealer?All magazines over 10 rd capacity thru a dealer?

Pathetic.
__________________
Anything not under government control is,by definition,out of control.


Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining.


When is it time to pick up your rifle?
When your conscience cannot abide to see it unused.
1gewehr 8/3/05
carguym14 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 11, 2013, 16:58   #34
TheDanimal
Senior Member
Contributor
Bronze Contributor
 
FALaholic #: 25945
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 625
Quote:
Originally Posted by drmetzger View Post
To me it's silly to allow it, possibly because I am from NY where we must be checked for all but the simplest of coffee purchases. If a simple call that will quiet the liberals will solve this than so be it.
Wow.
So you're okay with me having to ask someone else's permission before exchanging property.
Stay in New York. Don't bring your sickness west, or south for that matter.

Add: That's the whole purpose of having states. People such as yourself can be okay with where you live, and people like me can live where we live. Let's keep it that way. Stop trying to force other states to be under the tyranny that you live under. Even our "free" states are already tyrannical enough.

Last edited by TheDanimal; January 11, 2013 at 17:03. Reason: spell
TheDanimal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 11, 2013, 17:00   #35
EPC WN
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 65612
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: District 12
Posts: 3,993
Since you men are in the dark about what the "gunshow loophole" is I'll take some time to explain. It is PolSpeak with an agenda for intrastate private sales. In a good number of states one can purchase a firearm Face to Face with another resident without a background check. The seller would typically go to a gunshow and walk around with his wares and if someone wanted to buy it off his back that was also a resident in the state he resided in a private sale took place. It is the same kind of garbage as "weapon of war", "assault weapon", "high capacity magazine", and "black rifle". Banish it from your vernacular. It is bullshit.

I believe it will be interesting to see how the Feds step into intrastate commerce (State's Rights) when dealing with private sales. They technically have no say about how a State conducts business within its own borders, but we shall see how strong the 10th Amendment truly is when the time comes.
__________________
I love all bikes, most beers, some rifles, few whiskeys, 2 sons, and one woman...
EPC WN is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 11, 2013, 17:02   #36
RG Coburn
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 27406
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 12,980
I noticed Alant put "reasonable" in quotation marks. Smart move..would want people to think you'd possibly hold that position.
"Reasonable"....right in there with "fair share"....
RG Coburn is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 11, 2013, 17:04   #37
EPC WN
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 65612
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: District 12
Posts: 3,993
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDanimal View Post
Wow.
So you're okay with me having to ask someone else's permission before exchanging property.
Stay in New York. Don't bring your sickness west, or south for that matter.

Add: That's the whole purpose of having states. People such as yourself can be okay with where you live, and people like me can live where we live. Let's keep it that way. Stop trying to force other states to be under the tyranny that you live under. Even our "free" states are already tyrannical enough.
WHAT.HE.SAID.
__________________
I love all bikes, most beers, some rifles, few whiskeys, 2 sons, and one woman...
EPC WN is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 11, 2013, 17:07   #38
TheDanimal
Senior Member
Contributor
Bronze Contributor
 
FALaholic #: 25945
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 625
Quote:
Originally Posted by EPC WN View Post

They technically have no say about how a State conducts business within its own borders, but we shall see how strong the 10th Amendment truly is when the time comes.
Yeah, but we already have found that out with MANY issues. That time came and went long ago. The fed rules. In regards to firearms, you still have to ask the fed for permission before purchasing one from a store.
The Supreme Court can overrule anything the supposed "states" don't agree with. Here's a good book for you:
Hologram of Liberty: The Constitution's Shocking Alliance With Big Government
TheDanimal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 11, 2013, 17:08   #39
EPC WN
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 65612
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: District 12
Posts: 3,993
Quote:
Originally Posted by RG Coburn View Post
I noticed Alant put "reasonable" in quotation marks. Smart move..would want people to think you'd possibly hold that position.
"Reasonable"....right in there with "fair share"....
I like when subjective terms are vaguely represented and loosely tossed around. No culpability later on. Rather chameleon like to be so indeterminate where you stand.
__________________
I love all bikes, most beers, some rifles, few whiskeys, 2 sons, and one woman...
EPC WN is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 11, 2013, 17:10   #40
EPC WN
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 65612
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: District 12
Posts: 3,993
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDanimal View Post
Yeah, but we already have found that out with MANY issues. That time came and went long ago. The fed rules. In regards to firearms, you still have to ask the fed for permission before purchasing one from a store.
The Supreme Court can overrule anything the supposed "states" don't agree with. Here's a good book for you:
Hologram of Liberty: The Constitution's Shocking Alliance With Big Government
Already in the organic database. Read that many years ago now.
__________________
I love all bikes, most beers, some rifles, few whiskeys, 2 sons, and one woman...
EPC WN is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 11, 2013, 17:36   #41
JasonB
TROLL
 
FALaholic #: 7430
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: 90° N 0° W
Posts: 11,163
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opi...,6495061.story

"Closing the gun show loophole is only a start. It's also necessary to make the background checks meaningful and accurate, and in this, the current National Instant Criminal Background Check System supervised by the Federal Bureau of Investigation has often been found wanting. The databases will need to be made more thorough, accurate and up to date, a step that will likely require not only greater investment by Uncle Sam but grappling with some difficult privacy and state's rights issues, particularly in identifying chronic drug abusers and the dangerously mentally ill. Currently, at least 19 states don't even attempt to report such people to the system.

Such hurdles may be challenging but they are certainly not insurmountable. And whatever improvements are made, it has to be better than what exists today. Even so, studies have suggested that background checks, as flawed as they may be, already reduce the criminal trade in guns.

Liberals may not get all that excited by the prospect of improved background checks, but such reforms are likely to have a greater impact on the nation's gun violence than a ban on assault weapons, which are not what run-of-the-mill murderers tend to use. That's not to suggest that limiting access to certain types of weapons and high-capacity magazines isn't important, too, but a universal background check is just too sensible for Washington to refuse any longer."
__________________
http://www.falfiles.com/forums/showp...4&postcount=66 How about that!
JasonB is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 11, 2013, 17:40   #42
EPC WN
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 65612
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: District 12
Posts: 3,993
This coming from one of the highest crime ridden cities in America no less.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonB View Post
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opi...,6495061.story

"Closing the gun show loophole is only a start. It's also necessary to make the background checks meaningful and accurate, and in this, the current National Instant Criminal Background Check System supervised by the Federal Bureau of Investigation has often been found wanting. The databases will need to be made more thorough, accurate and up to date, a step that will likely require not only greater investment by Uncle Sam but grappling with some difficult privacy and state's rights issues, particularly in identifying chronic drug abusers and the dangerously mentally ill. Currently, at least 19 states don't even attempt to report such people to the system.

Such hurdles may be challenging but they are certainly not insurmountable. And whatever improvements are made, it has to be better than what exists today. Even so, studies have suggested that background checks, as flawed as they may be, already reduce the criminal trade in guns.

Liberals may not get all that excited by the prospect of improved background checks, but such reforms are likely to have a greater impact on the nation's gun violence than a ban on assault weapons, which are not what run-of-the-mill murderers tend to use. That's not to suggest that limiting access to certain types of weapons and high-capacity magazines isn't important, too, but a universal background check is just too sensible for Washington to refuse any longer."
__________________
I love all bikes, most beers, some rifles, few whiskeys, 2 sons, and one woman...
EPC WN is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 11, 2013, 17:42   #43
JasonB
TROLL
 
FALaholic #: 7430
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: 90° N 0° W
Posts: 11,163
Quote:
Originally Posted by EPC WN View Post
This coming from one of the highest crime ridden cities in America no less.
Yep, everyone always wants to do what has been proven not to work the way it was claimed in the past. Be that open anti-gunners or the NRA variety.
__________________
http://www.falfiles.com/forums/showp...4&postcount=66 How about that!
JasonB is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 11, 2013, 17:45   #44
EPC WN
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 65612
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: District 12
Posts: 3,993
Might I add that all this conjecture about private sales on behalf of the politicians is a work around to the ultimate goal of registration. All recent shootings have used firearms purchased with a 4473 background check so it's not like these type of sales have had ANY bearing on what has transpired in recent events. Just FYI. The only way to track all the private sales would be through registration. The final step to confiscation historically.
__________________
I love all bikes, most beers, some rifles, few whiskeys, 2 sons, and one woman...
EPC WN is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 11, 2013, 18:40   #45
DK
Cereal Killer
Bronze Contributor
 
FALaholic #: 134
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Piney Woods of Middle GA
Posts: 2,583
There is no such thing as a "gun show loophole". EVERY sale by a federally licensed firearms dealer, whether at his shop or at a gunshow, requires the same background check.

DK
__________________
Historically Freedom is bought with steel, not gold...

"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." Margaret Thatcher
DK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 11, 2013, 18:40   #46
riffraff2
Curio & Relic
Platinum Contributor
 
FALaholic #: 54720
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 2,230
Closing the "the gun show loophole" is simply this:

NO MORE "PRIVATE" transfers of any firearm. This means you can't give your son or daughter or wife or brother or father or mother a gun. ALL transfers of a gun would have to go through either a FFL or a police dept. This is GREAT for FFL's and Police Depts. because they would be able to charge a fee/make money of every singe gun transfer from here to eternity.

There would be no more leaving your guns to your son when you die. It won't be that simple. The inheritor would have to do paperwork on every single gun and the new owner would be on paper somewhere. This would make eventual confiscation much easier as every gun is now traceable to who presently owns it.

If the liberals really want to help ensure that guns do not get into the wrong hands the FIX is SIMPLE. Allow anybody(that means Joe Citizen) to be able to call the NICS phone number to verify that the person wishing to purchase the gun is OK/good to go? The libs would have a hissy fit if that were ever allowed to happen.
riffraff2 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 11, 2013, 18:43   #47
DK
Cereal Killer
Bronze Contributor
 
FALaholic #: 134
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Piney Woods of Middle GA
Posts: 2,583
Bingo. The bottom line is there will be no private transfer of legally owned items to persons who are perfectly legal to own said items. No different than me selling my privately owned hammer to you without .gov's approval.

DK
__________________
Historically Freedom is bought with steel, not gold...

"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." Margaret Thatcher
DK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 11, 2013, 21:06   #48
drmetzger
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 64839
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: NY
Posts: 421
What I was saying was very clearly prefaced by saying that I do not know firsthand since I am not in those states. It was followed by me saying that I am used to basically being checked and double checked for all purchases - firearms or not. Before telling me to stay up in the northeast and getting hostile, read.

And honestly yes, if you are in a public place (which is anywhere that is not inside your house) you are required to do a background check in NY. At gun shows in most states you are required to go to a FFL table at the gun show and have them officiate the transaction.

No, carguy, I believe you are taking a few steps ahead of yourself. I was referring to selling a firearm at a gunshow. If I do a face to face sale to a New Yorker I am not required to go through an FFL or get a background check. But since I am a C&R holder I do photocopy the NY license of everyone I have ever sold a firearm to. Its good practice. Here's why: if I sell a gun to you and you go out and hurt someone with it and there is no record of who I sold it to then I could be on the hook.

I am used to it since that is the law here. It seems silly to me to do otherwise since it is the law here. To you it seems silly to do things the way they do them in NY and that is fine. In CA they are used to non-removable magazines and other things the rest of the country seems unprepared to deal with.

Up here in NY we still have an AWB. It never went away up here.

Last edited by drmetzger; January 11, 2013 at 21:37.
drmetzger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 11, 2013, 21:09   #49
drmetzger
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 64839
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: NY
Posts: 421
I'm not ok with registration and I'm not ok with background checks on ammo sales. I am explaining what goes on in NY.

Also, as I understand it the gunshow loophole is private sales, not from a dealer.
drmetzger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 11, 2013, 21:24   #50
drmetzger
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 64839
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: NY
Posts: 421
Quote:
Originally Posted by riffraff2 View Post
If the liberals really want to help ensure that guns do not get into the wrong hands the FIX is SIMPLE. Allow anybody(that means Joe Citizen) to be able to call the NICS phone number to verify that the person wishing to purchase the gun is OK/good to go? The libs would have a hissy fit if that were ever allowed to happen.
Yes, this!

Also, about the inheritance aspect, do you honestly believe anyone has any f'ing clue what anyone has? The ATF has had no one in charge in years and no funding. The amount of kit guns being sold on GB assembled in garages is astounding. That could not happen if there was anyone in charge. If Uncle Jim leaves his Vietnam bringback whatever to you, who knows it exists to even know it wasn't registered? There aren't enough agents to go door to door to force you to show them everything you own.
drmetzger is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 13:33.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©1998-2012 The FAL Files