Jump to content
Unexplained Mysteries uses cookies. By using the site you consent to our use of cookies as per our Cookie Policy.
Close X
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
OverSword

The Gun Grab Begins

371 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

OverSword
Quote

 

As the state promises gun rights activists they’re not coming for their guns, behind the scenes they’re pleading for it to happen. And now the feared gun grab is occurring. Residents in Deerfield, Illinois have 60 days to surrender their “assault weapons” or face fines of $1000 per day per gun.

The gun ban ordinance was passed on April 2nd with residents left with few choices of how to dispose of their valuable “assault weapons.” Upon careful reading of the ordinance, residents will be left with revolvers, .22 caliber “plinking” rifles, and double barrel shotguns

 

Source

Prediction:

80% of the people that own the prohibited weapons will ignore this law.  Let this be a lesson to the rest of us, never register your weapons.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
3 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Let this be a lesson to the rest of us, never register your weapons.

I had no choice. But I "sold" them to a family member after I was arrested. :)

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.ZZ.

Gotta love Texas.

Quote

Q: How long is the waiting period to buy a Handgun / Shotgun / Rifle in Texas?
A: There is no waiting period for purchasing a firearm in the state of Texas.

Q: I just moved to Texas, do I have to register my firearms?
A: No, there is no state registration of firearms.

Texas gun laws

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
3 minutes ago, Piney said:

I had no choice. But I "sold" them to a family member after I was arrested. :)

Yeah, that's different.  I don't own any guns but if I ever do they will be purchased privately that's for sure.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dark_Grey

The Liberal Government here in Canada wants to bring back the long gun registry the previous Conservative Government abolished. Why did they abolish it? Because after several billion dollars spent creating the damn thing, many long gun owners did not register their guns. Besides that, there are the obvious problems such as the extremely low number of long guns used in crimes and the added legislative costs trying to maintain the registry. Not only that, the Police only referenced the registry a handful of times over several years. 

Why do the Libs wants to bring it back? Who knows. Trudeau has his panties in a knot over AMERICAN gun crimes so apparently law abiding Canadians need to suffer? You know, cause of all the Canadian mass shooters out there? Ugh. 

We have historical example after example of corrupt Goverments taking away citizens' guns while citing safety concerns. Time after time, we have seen how this plays out yet the same Lefty's who don't trust the Government want us to turn in our guns to said Government. Makes 0 sense. Criminals don't obey laws, the majority of gun crimes are suicides, etc etc etc ETC. How many times do we have to re-hash these arguments?

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek
Posted (edited)

wow, who knew they would do that, they said they are not going after our guns.

 

p.s. that is exactly what happens in nyc 7 years ago, thou ar's were illegal before that, they went after all s\a rifles and all rifles that hold more than 5 rounds, regardless of action and caliber.,

like i said there will be no outright confiscation, they will restrict little by little until they restrict everything

Edited by aztek
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vlad the Mighty

The whole idea behind this conspiracy theory was that the Government(TM) was going, by means of staging False Flag incidents that would necessitate imposing ever stricter Gun Control, to Take Away America's Guns and so render the populace powerless for them to impose a dictatorship, yes? But it's clearly Democrat-run states that are doing this. So what is their aim? To impose dictatorships in these states (Illinois, the northeast, California etc) and then what? To somehow then turn on Washington and seize power, having disarmed their people? That would surely put them at a big disadvantage in any hypothetical civil war. It doesn't seem to make a great deal of sense. This conspiracy theory never seems to be fully thought through .

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dark_Grey
Quote

“This is our fight…This is our generation’s fight. We’re going to keep fighting and this is part of it. Change happens gradually step by step. The fight does not end at the borders of our village.,” Kharasch said.

The propaganda is starting to take hold over common sense. Why didn't they think of this sooner? Put a student's face out front and start roping in the sympathy and attention of the upcoming generation since the older generation sees what's going on.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dark_Grey
2 minutes ago, Vlad the Mighty said:

The whole idea behind this conspiracy theory was that the Government(TM) was going, by means of staging False Flag incidents that would necessitate imposing ever stricter Gun Control, to Take Away America's Guns and so render the populace powerless for them to impose a dictatorship, yes? But it's clearly Democrat-run states that are doing this. So what is their aim? To impose dictatorships in these states (Illinois, the northeast, California etc) and then what? To somehow then turn on Washington and seize power, having disarmed their people? That would surely put them at a big disadvantage in any hypothetical civil war. It doesn't seem to make a great deal of sense. This conspiracy theory never seems to be fully thought through .

What conspiracy theory? You're acting like this has never happened before. Do I need to cite examples of successful gun grabs and subsequent dictatorships? Do we need to call the play-by-play on every single step of this large and convoluted scheme?

Forget the threat of tyranny, just look at this from a common sense standpoint. Criminals don't care about laws - let's start with that nugget of wisdom.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dark_Grey

While I'm on my soapbox, let me talk about the potential civil war between the Government and the people. I think there is a big misunderstanding about what that would look like.

The main argument against such a scenario is that the Government has all the firepower and there is no chance the people could win. That's very true. That's absolutely accurate, assuming the mililtary was completely on board. 

But it was never about winning, it's about the threat. Think of it like nuclear armaments - it creates a scenario of Mutually Assured Destruction. There would be many casualties on both sides and it would a BLOODY MESS. The Gov would win but the optics would be so horrific on the world stage it acts as a deterrent in and of itself. Imagine if we watched it happen in Australia: footage on CNN of farmers being shot at inside their homes. Or maybe some helicopter footage of small bands of citizens trading shots with Australian soldiers in downtown square. 

Such a civil war would crush their economy, it would kill their trade deals, some major businesses would probably leave and the remaining citizens would likely face extreme poverty and desolation. Again, horrific optics for Australia.

But because we have guns and the Gov has guns, we don't have to worry about that. If the Gov was not concerned about such events playing out, they would simply roll down main street in tanks and take the guns.

They haven't done that or even tried. Why not?

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek
5 minutes ago, Dark_Grey said:

While I'm on my soapbox, let me talk about the potential civil war between the Government and the people.

gvmnt will lose, but they wont be going gvmnt vs citizens, their plan is to split population, make it fight each other, and control\regulate survivors, splitting , disarming we see going on right now

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dark_Grey
23 minutes ago, aztek said:

gvmnt will lose, but they wont be going gvmnt vs citizens, their plan is to split population, make it fight each other, and control\regulate survivors, splitting , disarming we see going on right now

"Divide and conquer". It will be played as "peaceful anti-gun demonstrators viciously attacked by alt-right 2nd Amendment supporters". The world will of course be on the side of peace and that's how history will remember it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek
Posted (edited)
Just now, Dark_Grey said:

"Divide and conquer". It will be played as "peaceful anti-gun demonstrators viciously attacked by alt-right 2nd Amendment supporters". The world will of course be on the side of peace and that's how history will remember it.

yea, unless the right masters the art of lying, manipulation, diversion, misrepresentation... we have little chance. in information warfare those who stick to truth always lose

Edited by aztek
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
1 hour ago, Vlad the Mighty said:

The whole idea behind this conspiracy theory

WHAT?  I'm sorry I don't know what conspiracy theory you're talking about.  The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  Simple.  We like our rights.  We won't put up with losing them.

in·fringe
inˈfrinj/
verb
past tense: infringed; past participle: infringed
  1. actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.).
    "making an unauthorized copy would infringe copyright"
    synonyms: contravene, violate, transgress, break, breach; More
    disobey, defy, flout, fly in the face of;
    disregard, ignore, neglect;
    go beyond, overstep, exceed;
    infract
    "the statute infringed constitutionally guaranteed rights"
    antonyms: obey, comply with
    • act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.
      "his legal rights were being infringed"
      synonyms: restrict, limit, curb, check, encroach on; More
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
1 hour ago, aztek said:

wow, who knew they would do that, they said they are not going after our guns.

 

p.s. that is exactly what happens in nyc 7 years ago, thou ar's were illegal before that, they went after all s\a rifles and all rifles that hold more than 5 rounds, regardless of action and caliber.,

like i said there will be no outright confiscation, they will restrict little by little until they restrict everything

2

And then comes the bloodshed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek
Just now, and then said:

And then comes the bloodshed.

most likely yes, 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
1 hour ago, OverSword said:

Source

Prediction:

80% of the people that own the prohibited weapons will ignore this law.  Let this be a lesson to the rest of us, never register your weapons.

Obviously unconstitutional and will easily be overturned AFTER the municipality spends 1000's of taxpayer $ on legal fees.  Stupid.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

I think it is time for the good people of Deerfield to arm themselves and march on city hall in unity.  If they want to minimize the bloodshed, they need to do it now.  They need to overwhelm law enforcement and practice the 2nd Amendment as designed.  The population of Deerfield is about 19,000.  I would think that the number of AR15s outnumber the police force.  A show of force now would give wannabe Progressives in other small towns pause before pulling this crap again.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek

yep unarmed people cops will detain, force to disperse, mace, arrest, and beat. , armed people they will listen, just like BLM backed off from the farm when many armed people came.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek
56 minutes ago, Vlad the Mighty said:

The whole idea behind this conspiracy theory was that the Government(TM) was going, by means of staging False Flag incidents that would necessitate imposing ever stricter Gun Control, to Take Away America's Guns and so render the populace powerless for them to impose a dictatorship, yes? But it's clearly Democrat-run states that are doing this. So what is their aim? To impose dictatorships in these states (Illinois, the northeast, California etc) and then what? To somehow then turn on Washington and seize power, having disarmed their people? That would surely put them at a big disadvantage in any hypothetical civil war. It doesn't seem to make a great deal of sense. This conspiracy theory never seems to be fully thought through .

yea, so far it's democrat states,  but at this point what difference does it make, people are disarmed, whatever their aim is, is in not to my benefit if they disarming me.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76
20 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

I think it is time for the good people of Deerfield to arm themselves and march on city hall in unity.  If they want to minimize the bloodshed, they need to do it now.  They need to overwhelm law enforcement and practice the 2nd Amendment as designed.  The population of Deerfield is about 19,000.  I would think that the number of AR15s outnumber the police force.  A show of force now would give wannabe Progressives in other small towns pause before pulling this crap again.

They need a bunch of people out of state to join them. March on that place a million strong.

So let it begin

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek

they tried to make people register their ar's in nys only 10% complied, thou i can't see how they know it's only 10% if they have no idea how many have those guns to begin with

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
1 minute ago, preacherman76 said:

They need a bunch of people out of state to join them. March on that place a million strong.

So let it begin

As much as I like that idea, early on it needs to be taken care of in-house.  Outsiders, even from nearby towns would send the wrong message.  If the first round fails, then bring in that million.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek
Posted (edited)

i'm afraid   if first round fails there will be no second chance.  cops will be prepared and have back up, and people will be reactant to do it again knowing it has failed once,. unfortunately it is not the case where we can get up and try again. 

i'd say people of deerfield need to  do peaceful protest, but at the same time shut down the city,  all have to stay home and call in sick,  (not saying we protest, cuz they may be fired), but call in sick., or find another legit reason to stay home. and deny any relation to gun grab. 

Edited by aztek
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DingoLingo
1 hour ago, Dark_Grey said:

What conspiracy theory? You're acting like this has never happened before. Do I need to cite examples of successful gun grabs and subsequent dictatorships? Do we need to call the play-by-play on every single step of this large and convoluted scheme?

Forget the threat of tyranny, just look at this from a common sense standpoint. Criminals don't care about laws - let's start with that nugget of wisdom.

22 years.. and we are still not a dictatorship..

 

just saying.. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.