TexasCHLforum.com

A plausible gun ban scenario:

http://gardenserf.wordpress.com/2011/08 ... l-go-down/

That is an interesting article, and all the time while confiscation is going on, crime will go up. Another scenario will be a "cataclysmic" event, which I believe would be necessary for the excuse to begin martial law. A year from this November is the election, so time is working against them. That is, if the vote goes for changing the guard.

The article linked to in the OP eventually links to the typical GOA/NAGR "Whargarble! Government will take your guns, Whargarble! Government bad, Whargarble! NRA bad, Whargarble! Give us your money, Whargarble!" Until I see a real threat I will simply watch the issue and plan according to what I see.

G.A. Heath wrote:The article linked to in the OP eventually links to the typical GOA/NAGR "Whargarble! Government will take your guns, Whargarble! Government bad, Whargarble! NRA bad, Whargarble! Give us your money, Whargarble!" Until I see a real threat I will simply watch the issue and plan according to what I see.

I, too, am often leery of anybody who keeps saying that "they're coming door-to-door tomorrow to take the guns if you don't send us money today". However, after reading that story, I did find a few things that I seemed plausible. One, doing things INCREMENTALLY...it is the way of the gun-grabber and anti-2A types...they don't "pry them from your cold, dead hands", they get them one class or type at a time [NFA of 1934, GCA of 1968, FOPA of 1986, AWB of 1994 (thank goodness the sunset was put in there)]. Secondly, there are quite a few folks, I'll call them the "scrolled-shotgun crowd" though that doesn't quite describe them correctly, that don't give a rat's behind about those that own rifles/carbines like ARs, AK-clones, ect. nor do they care one bit about CHL. As long as they have their exquisite break-open doubles hand-made by the finest craftsmen in Europe for pheasant hunting, they won't make one little whimper about any other gun laws...and finally, law enforcement is more likely to actively comply with enforcing a law if they don't have to go get in the faces of folks who really aren't causing any trouble over some trivial law that even the LEOs might think is a load of bull. Right now, we have a good strong Republican House and I don't think they would let anything remotely like that story get through...but in some other situation, where Democrats control everything and they don't care about antagonizing a certain portion of firearms owners, I could see them at least WANTING to try it. I do, however, believe that the NRA isn't going to let that sort of thing go unchallenged with the leadership currently in place there. Once again, only my 2 cents worth...YMMV.

G.A. Heath wrote:The article linked to in the OP eventually links to the typical GOA/NAGR "Whargarble! Government will take your guns, Whargarble! Government bad, Whargarble! NRA bad, Whargarble! Give us your money, Whargarble!" Until I see a real threat I will simply watch the issue and plan according to what I see.

So, what are you saying? The government is good? The government doesn't want to take your guns? If so, we don't need an NRA, do we.

VMI77 wrote:

G.A. Heath wrote:The article linked to in the OP eventually links to the typical GOA/NAGR "Whargarble! Government will take your guns, Whargarble! Government bad, Whargarble! NRA bad, Whargarble! Give us your money, Whargarble!" Until I see a real threat I will simply watch the issue and plan according to what I see.

So, what are you saying? The government is good? The government doesn't want to take your guns? If so, we don't need an NRA, do we.

That's not what I'm saying. What I am saying is that we have a blog post that references what is essentially a GOA press release, and I really don't put much stock in what they say. The author of the Blog post wrote the "Operation Serf Trilogy", which he references frequently and is conveniently (at least in part) available for sale on Amazon.com....

Heartland Patriot wrote:

G.A. Heath wrote:The article linked to in the OP eventually links to the typical GOA/NAGR "Whargarble! Government will take your guns, Whargarble! Government bad, Whargarble! NRA bad, Whargarble! Give us your money, Whargarble!" Until I see a real threat I will simply watch the issue and plan according to what I see.

I, too, am often leery of anybody who keeps saying that "they're coming door-to-door tomorrow to take the guns if you don't send us money today". However, after reading that story, I did find a few things that I seemed plausible. One, doing things INCREMENTALLY...it is the way of the gun-grabber and anti-2A types...they don't "pry them from your cold, dead hands", they get them one class or type at a time [NFA of 1934, GCA of 1968, FOPA of 1986, AWB of 1994 (thank goodness the sunset was put in there)]. Secondly, there are quite a few folks, I'll call them the "scrolled-shotgun crowd" though that doesn't quite describe them correctly, that don't give a rat's behind about those that own rifles/carbines like ARs, AK-clones, ect. nor do they care one bit about CHL. As long as they have their exquisite break-open doubles hand-made by the finest craftsmen in Europe for pheasant hunting, they won't make one little whimper about any other gun laws...and finally, law enforcement is more likely to actively comply with enforcing a law if they don't have to go get in the faces of folks who really aren't causing any trouble over some trivial law that even the LEOs might think is a load of bull. Right now, we have a good strong Republican House and I don't think they would let anything remotely like that story get through...but in some other situation, where Democrats control everything and they don't care about antagonizing a certain portion of firearms owners, I could see them at least WANTING to try it. I do, however, believe that the NRA isn't going to let that sort of thing go unchallenged with the leadership currently in place there. Once again, only my 2 cents worth...YMMV.

The article is more about marketing, and less about rights than you would think. Is it plausible? Yes, just like rainbows and fairies flying out of my nose. Is it likely? Not really, but we do need to watch for it while remaining vigilant on other fronts so we don't get suckered into a "Hail Mary".

There is already a thread running on this here: viewtopic.php?p=581575#p581575

Once again, GOA gets it all wrong.

I'll repeat my post (linked above) here:

The Annoyed Man wrote:Here is a description of the "super committee" from a reliable source: http://patriotpost.us/edition/2011/08/12/digest/:

News From the Swamp: The Debt 'Super Committee'

Capitol Hill Democrats and Republicans have announced their 12 picks for the so-called Congressional Super Committee that is charged with finding a way to reduce the debt by $1.5 trillion over 10 years. The evenly split bipartisan committee will have until Thanksgiving to agree on a plan, and speculation is rampant about what that plan will look like, or if it will even materialize. Based on the picks, the latter is most likely.

See that? A highly reliable conservative pro-gun commentator is saying that given the nature of the committee's mandate (to reduce the debt) and makeup of the people picked to be on it, it is unlikely that it will even be able to settle on a debt plan on which to move forward.

Once again, GOA gets its panties all in a wad.....and once again, they're wrong.

Seriously, you guys should not give GOA so much credit. They don't even know what they are talking about here. This is a COMMITTEE being put together to come up with a bipartisan list of recommendations on BUDGET REDUCTION. That is its ONLY mandate, and it can't even pass the recommendations into law. Its recommendations would still have to be voted on by both houses of the Congress, in the usual manner.



One of the problems with GOA (and one of the reasons they can be bad for the cause) is that they wind up looking really stupid sometimes, and ignorant about the basic structure of the government. That makes gun owners at large look ridiculous to the non-gun owning population, and the last thing we need is to appear to not even know how our system of government works.

There is no mention of this stuff anywhere on the NRA website. Why? Because they are not dummies. There is no issue here from a 2nd Amendment perspective. Certainly the makeup of the committee is problematic because its recommendations will likely include tax increases without much in the way of reductions in spending. After all, this is Congress we're talking about. They believe that their job is to spend our money, so they must be doing a good job. But this committee has zero, zip, nada, nothing to do with gun rights.

G.A. Heath wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

G.A. Heath wrote:The article linked to in the OP eventually links to the typical GOA/NAGR "Whargarble! Government will take your guns, Whargarble! Government bad, Whargarble! NRA bad, Whargarble! Give us your money, Whargarble!" Until I see a real threat I will simply watch the issue and plan according to what I see.

So, what are you saying? The government is good? The government doesn't want to take your guns? If so, we don't need an NRA, do we.

That's not what I'm saying. What I am saying is that we have a blog post that references what is essentially a GOA press release, and I really don't put much stock in what they say. The author of the Blog post wrote the "Operation Serf Trilogy", which he references frequently and is conveniently (at least in part) available for sale on Amazon.com....

The Super Congress vector into the gun ban scenario may be bogus --I haven't seen anything to convince me they will try it or that it would succeed if they did. So, while I don't think a ban like the one assumed is imminent, I do think the method described for implementing such a ban is plausible.

The Annoyed Man wrote:Once again, GOA gets its panties all in a wad.....and once again, they're wrong.

Seriously, you guys should not give GOA so much credit. They don't even know what they are talking about here. This is a COMMITTEE being put together to come up with a bipartisan list of recommendations on BUDGET REDUCTION. That is its ONLY mandate, and it can't even pass the recommendations into law. Its recommendations would still have to be voted on by both houses of the Congress, in the usual manner.

I don't know if it's exactly the "usual" manner since according to the MSM it's an up or down vote and Congress can't modify any of the recommendations. If it gets voted down automatic pretend spending cuts go into pretend effect. I don't know how often that occurs (I mean the up and down no modification vote --the pretend spending cuts are business as usual), but it must be infrequently enough for it to be specifically setup that way and noted in the media.

VMI77 wrote:So, what are you saying? The government is good? The government doesn't want to take your guns? If so, we don't need an NRA, do we.

Did your parents ever tell you the story about the boy who cried wolf?

tacticool wrote:

VMI77 wrote:So, what are you saying? The government is good? The government doesn't want to take your guns? If so, we don't need an NRA, do we.

Did your parents ever tell you the story about the boy who cried wolf?

No. My parents didn't tell stories. And please, instead of just making a snide remark, point out the actual lie your accusing me of telling:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boy_Who_Cried_Wolf

The tale concerns a shepherd boy who tricks nearby villagers into thinking a wolf is attacking his flock. He repeats this so many times that when the sheep are actually confronted by a wolf, the villagers do not believe his cries for help and the flock is destroyed. The moral at the end of the Greek version is that 'the story shows that this is how liars are rewarded: even if they tell the truth, no one believes them.

I'll repeat the question: do you think the government is good? If the government is "good," then there is no reason to worry, no need to pay attention to anything having to do with gun control, and no need for advocacy groups like the NRA, because a good government will follow the law and the Constitution and do the right thing.

You may believe in the essential goodness of government. I don't. I believe in the Jeffersonian model, and the prevailing attitude of the Founders that without eternal vigilance and healthy skepticism by those governed a government will descend into tyranny. I believe the government needs to know people are paying attention. I believe in asking questions. What the scoundrels want is for everyone to stay asleep and ignore what they're up to. Mistrust and skepticism of the government is more likely to preserve liberty than optimism and trust.

But please, show me where I've lied.

VMI77 wrote:

tacticool wrote:

VMI77 wrote:So, what are you saying? The government is good? The government doesn't want to take your guns? If so, we don't need an NRA, do we.

Did your parents ever tell you the story about the boy who cried wolf?

No. My parents didn't tell stories. And please, instead of just making a snide remark, point out the actual lie your accusing me of telling:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boy_Who_Cried_Wolf

The tale concerns a shepherd boy who tricks nearby villagers into thinking a wolf is attacking his flock. He repeats this so many times that when the sheep are actually confronted by a wolf, the villagers do not believe his cries for help and the flock is destroyed. The moral at the end of the Greek version is that 'the story shows that this is how liars are rewarded: even if they tell the truth, no one believes them.

I'll repeat the question: do you think the government is good? If the government is "good," then there is no reason to worry, no need to pay attention to anything having to do with gun control, and no need for advocacy groups like the NRA, because a good government will follow the law and the Constitution and do the right thing.

You may believe in the essential goodness of government. I don't. I believe in the Jeffersonian model, and the prevailing attitude of the Founders that without eternal vigilance and healthy skepticism by those governed a government will descend into tyranny. I believe the government needs to know people are paying attention. I believe in asking questions. What the scoundrels want is for everyone to stay asleep and ignore what they're up to. Mistrust and skepticism of the government is more likely to preserve liberty than optimism and trust.

But please, show me where I've lied.

First off, we're not talking about government being good or not. I personally believe the government is out of control. Secondly, no one has accused YOU of lying, that accusation goes to the folks with GOA/NAGR. After all the most believable lies have a kernel of truth, and thats what groups like GOA/NAGR depend on.

G.A. Heath wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

G.A. Heath wrote:The article linked to in the OP eventually links to the typical GOA/NAGR "Whargarble! Government will take your guns, Whargarble! Government bad, Whargarble! NRA bad, Whargarble! Give us your money, Whargarble!" Until I see a real threat I will simply watch the issue and plan according to what I see.

So, what are you saying? The government is good? The government doesn't want to take your guns? If so, we don't need an NRA, do we.

That's not what I'm saying. What I am saying is that we have a blog post that references what is essentially a GOA press release, and I really don't put much stock in what they say. The author of the Blog post wrote the "Operation Serf Trilogy", which he references frequently and is conveniently (at least in part) available for sale on Amazon.com....

You lost me with all the faeries and rainbows flying out of your nose. What's some link to the GOA have to do with the scenario outlined for a gun ban? It doesn't really have anything to do with the "Super Congress" either ---though the article is prefaced by a reference to it. The scenario laid out is this:

Let’s consider the federal government enacts a similar ban within the next two years on semi-automatic firearms with detachable magazines. This could either be through an Executive Order or by some rushed piece of legislation on the Hill. Given our currently broken system of checks and balances, anything is possible. It wouldn’t even take a new emergency to initiate it.

The article is then a hypothetical exercise in how such a ban would be implemented. You seem to be really hung up on the fact that the guy has a book for sale on Amazon. I guess you dismiss everything all the political pundits say too because they make money giving their opinions and most of them have books for sale on Amazon: Hannity, Coulter, Limbaugh, Buchanan, O'Reilly, Palin.....do you ignore everyone who may be making some money off their writing and opinions?

G.A. Heath wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

tacticool wrote:

VMI77 wrote:So, what are you saying? The government is good? The government doesn't want to take your guns? If so, we don't need an NRA, do we.

Did your parents ever tell you the story about the boy who cried wolf?

No. My parents didn't tell stories. And please, instead of just making a snide remark, point out the actual lie your accusing me of telling:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boy_Who_Cried_Wolf

The tale concerns a shepherd boy who tricks nearby villagers into thinking a wolf is attacking his flock. He repeats this so many times that when the sheep are actually confronted by a wolf, the villagers do not believe his cries for help and the flock is destroyed. The moral at the end of the Greek version is that 'the story shows that this is how liars are rewarded: even if they tell the truth, no one believes them.

I'll repeat the question: do you think the government is good? If the government is "good," then there is no reason to worry, no need to pay attention to anything having to do with gun control, and no need for advocacy groups like the NRA, because a good government will follow the law and the Constitution and do the right thing.

You may believe in the essential goodness of government. I don't. I believe in the Jeffersonian model, and the prevailing attitude of the Founders that without eternal vigilance and healthy skepticism by those governed a government will descend into tyranny. I believe the government needs to know people are paying attention. I believe in asking questions. What the scoundrels want is for everyone to stay asleep and ignore what they're up to. Mistrust and skepticism of the government is more likely to preserve liberty than optimism and trust.

But please, show me where I've lied.

First off, we're not talking about government being good or not. I personally believe the government is out of control. Secondly, no one has accused YOU of lying, that accusation goes to the folks with GOA/NAGR. After all the most believable lies have a kernel of truth, and thats what groups like GOA/NAGR depend on.

You haven't accused me of anything. Tacticool OTOH ONLY quoted me when he made his reference, and his question about crying wolf was addressed to me. As far as the GOA goes, maybe they're lying, maybe they really believe what they're saying is a possibility....I don't know. I haven't paid enough attention to them to make a judgement.