TexasCHLforum.com

MeMelYup wrote:

AndyC wrote:

Vol Texan wrote:I hear so many liberals tell me, "Nobody wants to take your guns away," and I simply don't believe it.

Oh, it's far more than mere guns. Want to see what they have planned? Read this: http://www.varmintal.com/hci.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

They cannot succeed in that plan without registration.

And then they were hit squarely between the eyes with a big chunk of reality.

I wouldn’t worry about registration too much. They can pass all the laws they want and if the majority do not obey the laws then all it does is make the lawmakers look like idiots. Case in point “The great Connecticut gun & magazine registration.

My question is, would the U.S. government actually fire on its own citizens?

VoiceofReason wrote:

MeMelYup wrote:

AndyC wrote:

Vol Texan wrote:I hear so many liberals tell me, "Nobody wants to take your guns away," and I simply don't believe it.

Oh, it's far more than mere guns. Want to see what they have planned? Read this: http://www.varmintal.com/hci.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

They cannot succeed in that plan without registration.

And then they were hit squarely between the eyes with a big chunk of reality.

I wouldn’t worry about registration too much. They can pass all the laws they want and if the majority do not obey the laws then all it does is make the lawmakers look like idiots. Case in point “The great Connecticut gun & magazine registration.

My question is, would the U.S. government actually fire on its own citizens?

When Malloy and Connecticut act against the gun owners turned felons by the swipe of his pen we will know he answer to your question.

anygunanywhere wrote:

VoiceofReason wrote:

MeMelYup wrote:

AndyC wrote:

Vol Texan wrote:I hear so many liberals tell me, "Nobody wants to take your guns away," and I simply don't believe it.

Oh, it's far more than mere guns. Want to see what they have planned? Read this: http://www.varmintal.com/hci.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

They cannot succeed in that plan without registration.

And then they were hit squarely between the eyes with a big chunk of reality.

I wouldn’t worry about registration too much. They can pass all the laws they want and if the majority do not obey the laws then all it does is make the lawmakers look like idiots. Case in point “The great Connecticut gun & magazine registration.

My question is, would the U.S. government actually fire on its own citizens?

When Malloy and Connecticut act against the gun owners turned felons by the swipe of his pen we will know he answer to your question.

What ever happened to the law? Did they repeal it? Is it still on the books but just not being enforced?

Does anyone know the actual status?

AndyC wrote:

Vol Texan wrote:I hear so many liberals tell me, "Nobody wants to take your guns away," and I simply don't believe it.

Oh, it's far more than mere guns. Want to see what they have planned? Read this: http://www.varmintal.com/hci.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Wow, they don't just want gun control, they want a full scale totalitarian police state. They want to ban paint ball guns, civil war re-enactments, and have random weapons searches. Pretty funny though, since they were going to get most of their desires in 1994, according to the memo. Hasn't worked out so well for them.

VoiceofReason wrote:

MeMelYup wrote:

AndyC wrote:

Vol Texan wrote:I hear so many liberals tell me, "Nobody wants to take your guns away," and I simply don't believe it.

Oh, it's far more than mere guns. Want to see what they have planned? Read this: http://www.varmintal.com/hci.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

They cannot succeed in that plan without registration.

And then they were hit squarely between the eyes with a big chunk of reality.

I wouldn’t worry about registration too much. They can pass all the laws they want and if the majority do not obey the laws then all it does is make the lawmakers look like idiots. Case in point “The great Connecticut gun & magazine registration.

My question is, would the U.S. government actually fire on its own citizens?

As a general rule no military member would willingly fire on citizens of the US as to do so if they are NON Combatants would be NO, also as a general rule to do so is an unlawful order and required by law to be refused and the issuer is to be taken into custody by any soldier, marine, sailor, airman that has received and acknowledged as unlawful that order. the issue isn't cut and dried but as far as most people in the military the order would be refused and the person who issued it would be taken into custody to be processed by a CID investigator under article 32 of the UCMJ

JP171 wrote:

VoiceofReason wrote:

MeMelYup wrote:

AndyC wrote:

Vol Texan wrote:I hear so many liberals tell me, "Nobody wants to take your guns away," and I simply don't believe it.

Oh, it's far more than mere guns. Want to see what they have planned? Read this: http://www.varmintal.com/hci.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

They cannot succeed in that plan without registration.

And then they were hit squarely between the eyes with a big chunk of reality.

I wouldn’t worry about registration too much. They can pass all the laws they want and if the majority do not obey the laws then all it does is make the lawmakers look like idiots. Case in point “The great Connecticut gun & magazine registration.

My question is, would the U.S. government actually fire on its own citizens?

As a general rule no military member would willingly fire on citizens of the US as to do so if they are NON Combatants would be NO, also as a general rule to do so is an unlawful order and required by law to be refused and the issuer is to be taken into custody by any soldier, marine, sailor, airman that has received and acknowledged as unlawful that order. the issue isn't cut and dried but as far as most people in the military the order would be refused and the person who issued it would be taken into custody to be processed by a CID investigator under article 32 of the UCMJ

That is the way it is supposed to work. Why do you think the progressives are opening up the military to allow citizenship in the broadest of terms? Many come from socialist countries where the military is used precisely for that purpose.

VoiceofReason wrote:I wouldn’t worry about registration too much. They can pass all the laws they want and if the majority do not obey the laws then all it does is make the lawmakers look like idiots. Case in point “The great Connecticut gun & magazine registration.

My question is, would the U.S. government actually fire on its own citizens?

When ordered by the President, Douglas MacArther went after the Bonus Army (ex-military) with the help of George S. Patton and six battle tanks. Dwight Einsenhower protested but later wrote the report that justified the actions. July of 1928.

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

Under some circumstances, yes they will fire on civilians. Could also reference the Kent State shootings.

Vol Texan wrote:

gljjt wrote:

Beiruty wrote:Colorado comes to my mind. Anti-gun governor booted out.

Pretty sure the anti gun CO incumbent Governor won. The US Senator lost however.

"We" lost In Oregon with background checks. The result and the method (billionaire funding) is not encouraging.

Mallory won in CT. This may play out badly (confiscations) in the weeks and months ahead.

Yes it was a great night. But there were a few really bad losses.

I say "Bring It On!". I hear so many liberals tell me, "Nobody wants to take your guns away," and I simply don't believe it. If one small microcosm of our country (Colorado) chooses to demonstrate what many of us believe to be true (i.e. registration leads to confiscation), then at least it is isolated in one place - and - it proves our point. It will boost our side of the argument across the rest of the country. All those 'fence sitters' who own guns but don't want to take sides may finally wake up.

Connecticut is far more likely to see confiscations. Leaked memos have allegedly indicated the governor and the head of the state police are prepared to start confiscating unregistered "assault" weapons (and "high capacity magazines") after the election, which has now passed. Apparently noncompliance to required registration is supposedly about 90% in CT.


Edited for clarity

Vol Texan wrote:

gljjt wrote:

Beiruty wrote:Colorado comes to my mind. Anti-gun governor booted out.

Pretty sure the anti gun CO incumbent Governor won. The US Senator lost however.

"We" lost In Oregon with background checks. The result and the method (billionaire funding) is not encouraging.

Mallory won in CT. This may play out badly (confiscations) in the weeks and months ahead.

Yes it was a great night. But there were a few really bad losses.

I say "Bring It On!". I hear so many liberals tell me, "Nobody wants to take your guns away," and I simply don't believe it. If one small microcosm of our country (Colorado) chooses to demonstrate what many of us believe to be true (i.e. registration leads to confiscation), then at least it is isolated in one place - and - it proves our point. It will boost our side of the argument across the rest of the country. All those 'fence sitters' who own guns but don't want to take sides may finally wake up.

Excellent points.

VoiceofReason wrote:

MeMelYup wrote:

AndyC wrote:

Vol Texan wrote:I hear so many liberals tell me, "Nobody wants to take your guns away," and I simply don't believe it.

Oh, it's far more than mere guns. Want to see what they have planned? Read this: http://www.varmintal.com/hci.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

They cannot succeed in that plan without registration.

And then they were hit squarely between the eyes with a big chunk of reality.

I wouldn’t worry about registration too much. They can pass all the laws they want and if the majority do not obey the laws then all it does is make the lawmakers look like idiots. Case in point “The great Connecticut gun & magazine registration.

My question is, would the U.S. government actually fire on its own citizens?

Ask 14 year old Samuel Weaver and his mother.

gljjt wrote:

Vol Texan wrote:

gljjt wrote:

Beiruty wrote:Colorado comes to my mind. Anti-gun governor booted out.

Pretty sure the anti gun CO incumbent Governor won. The US Senator lost however.

"We" lost In Oregon with background checks. The result and the method (billionaire funding) is not encouraging.

Mallory won in CT. This may play out badly (confiscations) in the weeks and months ahead.

Yes it was a great night. But there were a few really bad losses.

I say "Bring It On!". I hear so many liberals tell me, "Nobody wants to take your guns away," and I simply don't believe it. If one small microcosm of our country (Colorado) chooses to demonstrate what many of us believe to be true (i.e. registration leads to confiscation), then at least it is isolated in one place - and - it proves our point. It will boost our side of the argument across the rest of the country. All those 'fence sitters' who own guns but don't want to take sides may finally wake up.

Connecticut is far more likely to see confiscations. Leaked memos have allegedly indicated the governor and the head of the state police are prepared to start confiscating unregistered "assault" weapons (and "high capacity magazines") after the election, which has now passed. Apparently noncompliance to required registration is supposedly about 90% in CT.


Edited for clarity

Now, how are they going to “start confiscating unregistered "assault" weapons (and "high capacity magazines")” when they are unregistered and they do not have a list of who has them?

Are they going to demand from all gun dealers in the state a list of all "assault" weapons (and "high capacity magazines")” sold in the state since (let’s say) 1963? Are they going to search your house for the AR you told them you sold ten years ago? Are they going to start mass warrantless searches?

I am not even going to address the fallout the state would have to deal with from the bloodshed that would surely happen if they tried this.

No, the state completely misjudged the reaction of the people to their “law” and now the best thing they can do is try to pretend it never happened and move on with another tactic.

VoiceofReason wrote:

gljjt wrote:

Vol Texan wrote:

gljjt wrote:

Beiruty wrote:Colorado comes to my mind. Anti-gun governor booted out.

Pretty sure the anti gun CO incumbent Governor won. The US Senator lost however.

"We" lost In Oregon with background checks. The result and the method (billionaire funding) is not encouraging.

Mallory won in CT. This may play out badly (confiscations) in the weeks and months ahead.

Yes it was a great night. But there were a few really bad losses.

I say "Bring It On!". I hear so many liberals tell me, "Nobody wants to take your guns away," and I simply don't believe it. If one small microcosm of our country (Colorado) chooses to demonstrate what many of us believe to be true (i.e. registration leads to confiscation), then at least it is isolated in one place - and - it proves our point. It will boost our side of the argument across the rest of the country. All those 'fence sitters' who own guns but don't want to take sides may finally wake up.

Connecticut is far more likely to see confiscations. Leaked memos have allegedly indicated the governor and the head of the state police are prepared to start confiscating unregistered "assault" weapons (and "high capacity magazines") after the election, which has now passed. Apparently noncompliance to required registration is supposedly about 90% in CT.


Edited for clarity

Now, how are they going to “start confiscating unregistered "assault" weapons (and "high capacity magazines")” when they are unregistered and they do not have a list of who has them?

Are they going to demand from all gun dealers in the state a list of all "assault" weapons (and "high capacity magazines")” sold in the state since (let’s say) 1963? Are they going to search your house for the AR you told them you sold ten years ago? Are they going to start mass warrantless searches?

I am not even going to address the fallout the state would have to deal with from the bloodshed that would surely happen if they tried this.

No, the state completely misjudged the reaction of the people to their “law” and now the best thing they can do is try to pretend it never happened and move on with another tactic.

All they have to do is first confiscate all the 4473s from the dealers.

Game on.

Feds might have something to say about that...

sjfcontrol wrote:Feds might have something to say about that...

The Obama justice dept? Seriously? HaHaHaHaHaHa! Priceless. No offense intended but I would take that bet any day.

anygunanywhere wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:Feds might have something to say about that...

The Obama justice dept? Seriously? HaHaHaHaHaHa! Priceless. No offense intended but I would take that bet any day.

You think they are going to give up THEIR lists to a bunch of local rubes? I would expect a micturition contest at the least.