Obama to US Military?: Must shoot US Citizens

[questionmark]

Remember this story?

Homeland security buys 1.4 billion rounds of ammunition:

http://www.americant...ammunition.html

Couple this with Obama's push for gun control and his scaling down of the military, why? Because he wants to turn it the US into a police state. Why do you think he idolizes dictators like Cesar Chavez, Fidel Castro? Why do think he circumvented the constitution with recess appointments, executive orders? Why does he vow to introduce his own immigration bill in spite of the one that is already in Congress? Because he is spiteful of the challenge to his authority. He doesn't believe in a balance of power, he thinks the Constitution is fundamentally flawed and nto as progressive as he is. He has the aspirations of a petty dictator, it's that simple.

Let me guess, you want the Border Patrols and Coast guards to go unarmed? In the smuggling racket or somethin?

[questionmark]

No, they arrest people on a daily basis that are breaking the law with illegal guns. The problem is with the court system and they get tired of arresting the same people day after day. I thought we were talking about the police or military trying to take away law abiding citizen's guns. I don't think you would find many that would do it.

Once you have an outlawed gun, and don't turn it in you have ceased, by definition, to be a law abiding citizen. And it is the job of the police to go and get that gun.

[questionmark]

310 million..... what are they going to do, Q? Door to door? And after a couple get shot down at said doors? If you believe it won't happen you are kidding yourself. No, they will chip away and set legal precedent and chip away some more before they ever try an outright confiscation. An armed insurgency would blow up on them within weeks if they tried that stuff! Living in Greece for awhile you may have forgotten just how much of a pain in the butt Americans can be when they want something. And it's MUCH WORSE if they think you want to take something from them against their will.

Most of the 300 million guns will be turned in once illegal, just as happened to most private Tommy guns when they were outlawed in the 30s. Not everybody likes looking over his shoulder to see if the law is catching up on him.

[questionmark]

Not unless an incident was brought to the public's attention. What are they going to do...get a search warrant for everyone's homes looking for unregistered guns?

No, but keeping it will always have you one foot in jail with the emotional stress and paranoia that it includes. Do you really want that?

[questionmark]

I live in Australia, I am definitely not in favour of guns here. I've visited the US once and I can definitely say that if I were to live there I'd have a gun as a means of self defence. But should people who use their guns responsibly and practise intruder invasion scenarios and the like lose their right to own a firearm simply because someone else doesn't? Should the child who just simply did their work and was kind and courteous to everyone around them be kept inside as well?

Automatic guns are already outlawed and were so since the 30s of the last century. Whatever is left in private hands either belongs to a reliable dealer, somebody who has a special license (i.e. reliable citizens who are recognized as arms collectors) or guns that were grandfathered under the 1980s amnesty. The only thing you can buy is a semi-automatic unless in the group mentioned above.

[Orcseeker]

Automatic guns are already outlawed and were so since the 30s of the last century. Whatever is left in private hands either belongs to a reliable dealer, somebody who has a special license (i.e. reliable citizens who are recognized as arms collectors) or guns that were grandfathered under the 1980s amnesty. The only thing you can buy is a semi-automatic unless in the group mentioned above.

Whoops I had semi automatic in before but mind sliautomatic replaced with automatic weapons...

[Orcseeker]

If the US will do something like this they would bring in foreigners to take over the authorities and armies. Where those in these are disconnected from the country and are there because they most likely have no other choice. So they will do what they are told or be shot.

[Michelle]

Once you have an outlawed gun, and don't turn it in you have ceased, by definition, to be a law abiding citizen. And it is the job of the police to go and get that gun.

No, but keeping it will always have you one foot in jail with the emotional stress and paranoia that it includes. Do you really want that?

There aren't enough jails for people that would keep their guns. As long as you weren't commiting a crime I would be willing to bet the authorities would look the other way.

As for the second question, it wouldn't bother me a bit. Before I got the carry permit I had one in my car for years after I was stalked by my ex husband.

[questionmark]

There aren't enough jails for people that would keep their guns. As long as you weren't commiting a crime I would be willing to bet the authorities would look the other way.

As for the second question, it wouldn't bother me a bit. Before I got the carry permit I had one in my car for years after I was stalked by my ex husband.

Both the outlawing of automatic weapons in the 1930s and the total ban on ARs in California show the contrary, most law abiding citizens turned them in and in a very few cases the cops had to go and get them.

[Michelle]

Both the outlawing of automatic weapons in the 1930s and the total ban on ARs in California show the contrary, most law abiding citizens turned them in and in a very few cases the cops had to go and get them.

There is still no way to know how many kept them.

[questionmark]

There is still no way to know how many kept them.

No, but in view that of the about 20,000 Tommy guns, most sold to private citizens in the 30s, around 1200 survive (700 of which belonged to law enforcement agencies) I would say it was durn successful. And having one that is not registered after the amnesty will get you to Leavenworth, whereby you are always at the risk that some disgruntled friend, lover, spouse will report you to get you send away. Sorry, ain't worth the risk.

[Michelle]

No, but in view that of the about 20,000 Tommy guns, most sold to private citizens in the 30s, around 1200 survive (700 of which belonged to law enforcement agencies) I would say it was durn successful. And having one that is not registered after the amnesty will get you to Leavenworth, whereby you are always at the risk that some disgruntled friend, lover, spouse will report you to get you send away. Sorry, ain't worth the risk.

Ha, I doubt that. There isn't enough space in prison for violent, dangerous criminals who have a record as long as your arm. The don't call jail a revolving door for nothing. There would definitely be an uprising if people were being prosecuted for simply owning a gun. At the most it would be confinscated and a fine issued.

[questionmark]

Ha, I doubt that. There isn't enough space in prison for violent, dangerous criminals who have a record as long as your arm. The don't call jail a revolving door for nothing. There would definitely be an uprising if people were being prosecuted for simply owning a gun. At the most it would be confinscated and a fine issued.

The Burgess case shows the contrary. I fail to see any uprising.

[Michelle]

The Burgess case shows the contrary. I fail to see any uprising.

You're resorting to Infowars now? Come on...

[questionmark]

You're resorting to Infowars now? Come on...

Like the Newsminer better? No? How about the Seattle PI?

Besides that, the minimum I have found for illegal firearm possession is probation, not a fine, which means no more legal posession.

[Michelle]

Like the Newsminer better? No? How about the Seattle PI?

Besides that, the minimum I have found for illegal firearm possessionis probation, not a fine, which means no more legal posession.

They were convicted felons on parole and committing a crime...of course they are going to get the book thrown at them.

It doesn't really matter anyway, they aren't going to take away our guns.

[questionmark]

They were convicted felons on parole and committing a crime...of course they are going to get the book thrown at them.

It doesn't really matter anyway, they aren't going to take away our guns.

That is what I have been saying the whole time. This "they are coming to get me" is but a marketing ploy of the manufacturers to sell people guns they really don't need. And mostly are just about as useful.

And the guy on probation did not have a prior conviction, he just had illegal guns.

[Orcseeker]

That is what I have been saying the whole time. This "they are coming to get me" is but a marketing ploy of the manufacturers to sell people guns they really don't need. And mostly are just about as useful.

And the guy on probation did not have a prior conviction, he just had illegal guns.

Really? So what's all this fuss in the media and politics about then? Are they all on a gun manufacturers payroll?

[Michelle]

That is what I have been saying the whole time. This "they are coming to get me" is but a marketing ploy of the manufacturers to sell people guns they really don't need. And mostly are just about as useful.

And the guy on probation did not have a prior conviction, he just had illegal guns.

You can't be on probation without being convicted of a crime.

[questionmark]

Really? So what's all this fuss in the media and politics about then? Are they all on a gun manufacturers payroll?

It would not surprise me. Besides nobody is discussing taking away anybodies guns, they are talking to restrict the sale and transport of certain types of firearms and accessories. Those who have them can keep them... they just can't move them out of their house under the proposed legislation...that most probably will go nowhere. Background checks for private sales have a better chance of getting through.

You can't be on probation without being convicted of a crime.

Scuse me, who got probation (and is on probation since)

[Orcseeker]

It would not surprise me. Besides nobody is discussing taking away anybodies guns, they are talking to restrict the sale and transport of certain types of firearms and accessories. Those who have them can keep them... they just can't move them out of their house under the proposed legislation...that most probably will go nowhere. Background checks for private sales have a better chance of getting through.

Scuse me, who got probation (and is on probation since)

I thought the stupidity behind the election gun rush would have been enough. Nevertheless there are big anti-gun and pro-gun movements. Both with their fair share of misinformation and ignorance.

But in the turn that the freedoms of the is citizens are being taken away more by more each year. I'd want to be armed to defend my home in that case. How many more times can the government poke the bull with a stick?

[Michelle]

And the guy on probation did not have a prior conviction, he just had illegal guns.

In every one of those cases the men were convicted felons.

[questionmark]

I thought the stupidity behind the election gun rush would have been enough. Nevertheless there are big anti-gun and pro-gun movements. Both with their fair share of misinformation and ignorance.

But in the turn that the freedoms of the is citizens are being taken away more by more each year. I'd want to be armed to defend my home in that case. How many more times can the government poke the bull with a stick?

Laws are enacted when certain types of items are dangerous for the public at large. See the prohibition of automatic weapons. Auto Ordnance was selling the Tommy gun freely to anybody in the US during the 20s and 30s (and if you look at old papers of the time they praised the Thompson sub machine gun as the "perfect vermin control"). When the Mafia started using them to shoot up their competitors injuring bystanders they were outlawed. Nothing happened to the gun culture except that there was no more "perfect vermin control"

And the tighter a place gets populated, the tighter a place is packed with people, the more of your "freedoms" you have to give up to not injure others. That some things are questionable, yes, but certainly on average all those restrictions become necessary.I f you don't like restrictions you have to move somewhere where there is nobody you can bother.

Last but not least, the reelection gun hype is the 08 gun hype reloaded, when Obama was elected the first time there was a rush on guns because he "came to take them away" and in '12 it was a super rush. And all started by the mouthpieces of the manufacturers.

In every one of those cases the men were convicted felons.

True, but as you see, when there is a mandatory felony sentence you won't get away with a fine.

[Michelle]

True, but as you see, when there is a mandatory felony sentence you won't get away with a fine.

It's a good thing I'm not a felon. I don't know how to make this more clear...you don't get a felony sentence unless you are a felon on probation. They are not, under any circumstances, supposed to have any access to guns...period. Once their probation is over they can.

I don't see any point in discussing what could be the penalties if they oulawed all guns and an upstanding citizen was caught with one, do you?

[Order66]

It's a good thing I'm not a felon. I don't know how to make this more clear...you don't get a felony sentence unless you are a felon on probation. They are not, under any circumstances, supposed to have any access to guns...period. Once their probation is over they can.

I don't see any point in discussing what could be the penalties if they oulawed all guns and an upstanding citizen was caught with one, do you?

I think it's important to discuss because if you ban some, then you are the slippery slope to banning more and more. We should follow that to its logical conclusion and ask if that's the direction we want to go.