Gun confiscation

[LSUTiger]

This is the same type of feedback I have received from my ex-military and LEO buddies. I hope what they say is true, that for the most part the LE and Military won't enforce gun confiscation. If it happens it will likely be the UN. At least when you see the blue berets, you'll know who the enemy is. That makes it easier if you know what I mean.

http://www.naturalnews.com/038391_gun_c ... _cops.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[OldCannon]

Won't happen.

Unless, of course, American's display the same loss of courage Australians did.

[Wes]

yea, i dont see that happening. maybe more of these ridiculous buy backs but that is as far as I could see it going

[Heartland Patriot]

That is why old Chucky Schumer is trying his little conciliatory, "come-to-the-middle" ploy...because they know an outright ban is biting off WAY more than ALL of them can chew...and they REALLY, REALLY want some new restrictions and laws passed to build up their cred on the subject (and set us all up for more, future actions).

[ghostrider]

Won't happen.

I agree - it'll be accomplished bit by bit, category by category, perhaps with more taxes and surcharges.
Some 'haters' are patient. Gun control in Kanada has been in the works for decades and has makes use
of attrition and different phases:

# registration of handguns
# federal license to buy
# prohibition of ownership of machine guns (with grandfathering, but owners can only sell to other
grandfathered owners, so eventually they will all die off)
# restriction of short-barrel semi-auto rifles/shotguns
# banning of high-cap mags (max 10rns for handgun, 5rnd for semi-auto rifles - no grandfathering)
# federal license to POSSESS or buy
# prohibition of short-barrel pistols, scary looking long guns(with grandfathering, but owners can only sell to other
grandfathered owners, so eventually they will all die off)
# registration of all long guns (10yrs and $2 billion, later they findally figure out it does no good and give up)

# not sure what might come next


think boiling frog:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Heartland Patriot]

Won't happen.

I agree - it'll be accomplished bit by bit, category by category, perhaps with more taxes and surcharges.
Some 'haters' are patient. Gun control in Kanada has been in the works for decades and has makes use
of attrition and different phases:

# registration of handguns
# federal license to buy
# prohibition of ownership of machine guns (with grandfathering, but owners can only sell to other
grandfathered owners, so eventually they will all die off)
# restriction of short-barrel semi-auto rifles/shotguns
# banning of high-cap mags (max 10rns for handgun, 5rnd for semi-auto rifles - no grandfathering)
# federal license to POSSESS or buy
# prohibition of short-barrel pistols, scary looking long guns(with grandfathering, but owners can only sell to other
grandfathered owners, so eventually they will all die off)
# registration of all long guns (10yrs and $2 billion, later they findally figure out it does no good and give up)

# not sure what might come next


think boiling frog:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The big difference is that this is NOT the Dominion of Canada with a tradition of obedience to The Crown. This is the United States, land of troublemakers and complaining about the government, even when receiving money from it...have you ever met American who really thought the government, no matter which party is in control, was actually doing a good job? I'm not saying I trust any of those gun-grabbers one little bit, and I'm not saying they aren't going to do anything and everything they can get away with...I'm saying, as AMERICANS, its up to US to make enough stink so them bums get away with very little, or more preferably, nothing.

[A-R]

Most of the article was common sense on the main subject, but I found this section intriguing. I've known about this but wondering if it would be possible to get some high level experts on the record saying this - sure makes a compelling case for arming school personnel.

The retired Sheriff's deputy told me that the solution was to, "Arm the teachers. Tear down the 'gun free zone' signs and put weapons in the hands of school personnel."

This opinion was seconded by one of the active-duty police detectives, who said he had actually worked several shootings, but never a mass shooting. "A mass shooting takes time, often several minutes," he explained. "That's too fast for the police to arrive on scene, but it's plenty of time for someone already on location to pursue and engage the active shooter."

He went on to explain that in the training they have been receiving over the last five years, they have been taught that ANY engagement of an active shooter -- even shots that don't hit the shooter -- are now believed among law enforcement to disrupt the shooter and force him to seek cover, during which his massacre is interrupted and delayed. Where police have traditionally been trained to "confirm your sight picture" of weapon sights on the target before pulling the trigger, that training is being modified in some cities where, in the context of a mass shooter firing off a large number of rounds, even returning so-called "suppressing fire" is now considered tactically acceptable until additional backup arrives. The idea now is to go in and engage the shooter, even if you're just one officer on the scene.

This is contradictory to previous training, and it goes against most cops' safety rules which include, "always know what is BEYOND your target." But tacticians in law enforcement are apparently now figuring out that the opportunity cost of NOT shooting back is much greater than the relatively small risk of hitting an innocent victim when laying down suppressing fire.

It is therefore believed, I was told, that even concealed carry principals or other school staff can effectively lay down that "suppressing fire" even if they are not nailing the active shooter. Obviously, this does not mean firing blindly into a crowd, for example. Each tactical situation is unique and requires rapid assessment before pulling the trigger in any direction.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/038391_gun_c ... z2FfEF3TFu" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[ghostrider]

The big difference is that this is NOT the Dominion of Canada with a tradition of obedience to The Crown

correct.
And I am thankful for that.

[anygunanywhere]

As the article points out, the only territory that the socialist progressives would own is the inner cities.

Assuming that some of the scenarios in the article came to fruition, it is simply a matter of surrounding the hot beds of progressive decay and allow them to consume themselves. Sort of reminds me of the Pliskin movies.

Anygunanywhere

[Heartland Patriot]

The rural areas, small towns, and smaller cities in this nation can get along just fine without the big cities. The reverse simply isn't true...

[Redneck_Buddha]

The big difference is that this is NOT the Dominion of Canada with a tradition of obedience to The Crown. This is the United States, land of troublemakers and complaining about the government, even when receiving money from it...have you ever met American who really thought the government, no matter which party is in control, was actually doing a good job? I'm not saying I trust any of those gun-grabbers one little bit, and I'm not saying they aren't going to do anything and everything they can get away with...I'm saying, as AMERICANS, its up to US to make enough stink so them bums get away with very little, or more preferably, nothing.

Well...the average Obama voter thinks the government is auto-magically just dandy now that their messianic, do-no-wrong figurehead is at the helm. Funny how that just seemed to happen overnight (from 01/19/2009 t0 1/20/2009).

[RockingRook]

Won't happen.

I agree - it'll be accomplished bit by bit, category by category, perhaps with more taxes and surcharges.
Some 'haters' are patient. Gun control in Kanada has been in the works for decades and has makes use
of attrition and different phases:

# registration of handguns
# federal license to buy
# prohibition of ownership of machine guns (with grandfathering, but owners can only sell to other
grandfathered owners, so eventually they will all die off)
# restriction of short-barrel semi-auto rifles/shotguns
# banning of high-cap mags (max 10rns for handgun, 5rnd for semi-auto rifles - no grandfathering)
# federal license to POSSESS or buy
# prohibition of short-barrel pistols, scary looking long guns(with grandfathering, but owners can only sell to other
grandfathered owners, so eventually they will all die off)
# registration of all long guns (10yrs and $2 billion, later they findally figure out it does no good and give up)

# not sure what might come next


think boiling frog:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What is the problem withs short barreled pistols? Or is this supposed to be to show how ridiculous it all is?

Chuck

[RockingRook]

I do not think it will come to gun confiscation but I do see some legislation coming down the pike.

My son has two so called assault rifles. I told him that they will probably be banned. Just too much
going on and too much support to do something. Even though the ban on assault weapons in 1994 did
little to stop Columbine they will probably do it again. Then there will be a ban on the size of magazines/clips.
Back then I believe it was not more than 10 I see that again with maybe 1 or 2 less.

I am not condoning this because it has shown not to do any good in the past but they will try it again and
I believe they have the support for it.

I used to have 8 long guns, and 7 handguns. I gave all my long guns to my son and am left with 4 handguns.
Of those I believe 3 will be in compliance with the 1994 ban if it should come to that.

I do not go to the range too often any more so yesterday I gave my son 1000 rds of 9MM and .40 cal leaving me with around 1000.

I spoke with him yesterday about his so called assault rifles. One .223 and one .30. He is a bit worried about them banning them
even though they will probably be grandfathered but suppose they put a huge tax on the ammon that they use. It will simply be
too expensive to shoot at the range.

None of this will deter some nut from doing it again. They do not care about bans, high price of ammo or any other law
that will be passed but to satisfy much of the public and the anti gun legislators.

I also see the matter of gun control again going to the Supreme Court this time to rule on being armed in public.

I do not foresee good times ahead for anyone like myself that is pro gun.



Chuck

[74novaman]

What is the problem withs short barreled pistols? Or is this supposed to be to show how ridiculous it all is?

Chuck

Historical precedent.

Canada bans: Handgun barrels that are 105 millimetres (4.1 in) and under (excluding barrels of pistols used in international sporting competitions governed by the rules of the International Shooting Union)

[DEB]

The rural areas, small towns, and smaller cities in this nation can get along just fine without the big cities. The reverse simply isn't true...

This The so-called progressives believe that food and their brand of wine just magically appears in a store. They appear to not believe or not want to believe that those they hate and revile as Rednecks, Hillbillies, OFWGs, Christian Conservatives, and now the worst of the worst, Texian... are the Farmers, Ranchers, Truck Drivers, Butchers, Combat Soldiers, even the Police Officers. We grow the produce, deliver the produce, make the produce into something edible, protect the produce and those that eat the produce.