National Who Will Take Our Firearms?

Knobgoblin · May 4, 2021

ar man said:
They are gonna hope to be backed by un troops when the time comes to take your guns. Any one who know any thing about un troops they are a bunch of sissy. Good luck.

arakboss · May 4, 2021

USMC-03 said:
Let's say in a hopefully unrealized future, the mass of the West Coast States become ungovernable by Sacramento, Salem and Olympia. Will the powers that be have a change of mindset and become champions of liberty, acting in the people's best interest? Not according to history. In that event I can see a Chinese "peace stabilization force" being invited in.

This is very likely. I imagine there are plenty of foreign entities that would aid the US government in a time of crisis. Many countries including the US have involved themselves in other countries civil wars. No reason it wouldn't happen here.

I saw a recent youtube video discussing a study they did to see what percentage of a group was needed to have a major change. The magic number was not 3% but 25%. When 25% of the population is ready to enact a change I will have more faith that it will occur. Until then we will have to deal with the current system.

The Resister · May 5, 2021

arakboss said:
Speaking of, why not support defunding, since the agencies we would be defunding are likely the ones that will confiscate our firearms under Red Flag laws, etc?

Have you ever heard of Operation Resist Tyranny and it's basic theme of Defund Tyranny? The primary idea is to defund the BATFE, abolish it and give all tobacco and firearm violations to the DEA and firearm violations to the FBI while requiring that they slash the regulations by 25 percent.

The Resister · May 5, 2021

Alexx1401 said:
This is where most seem to "not get it". They will not need to come take guns as they are made illegal. As they pass law after law restricting what guns we "need" the ones that are now a no go will no longer be sold. The people who have one can keep it, knowing they are violating the law. They may never be caught. A few will be and they will be made an example of. Those who do not own one of the guns they made no go yet will say what they say now. "I don't have one of those, so I don't care". Simple.

Good observation. If weapons are no longer legal and the cops take them incrementally - confiscating those by gangs and street criminals, working their way up to people accused of domestic violence and figuring in all the firearms that will be taken via Red Flag Laws, a substantial number will be taken in a short amount of time.

Weapons wear out, get stolen, confiscated by the LEOs for a variety of reasons - and many people will surrender them. AFTER a substantial number of weapons are taken off the streets, it is possible local LEOs would shut down a neighborhood, do a door to door search and seizure using a local crime as justification for local warrant less search and seizures. The county police once shut down our neighborhood when a high school student stabbed another student and fled the school grounds.

But, really guys, what good is a weapon you can't use, have to hide, and never get to shoot? Some days it becomes a serious question as to when you will actively use all of your nonviolent legal and political avenues of redress to say NO to all gun control?

dogface2000 · May 5, 2021

arakboss said:
When the laws are passed and it's time to gather up the firearms, who is going to come for them. Is it going to be the anti-gun groups or the anti-gun politicians? Or is it going to be the government agencies/law enforcement? It seems obvious to me that it is going to be the latter. I don't expect moms demand action to show up on my doorstep and ask me to hand over my outlawed firearms. I think most will agree this role will be filled by the government.

Since the anti-gun laws continue to be passed shouldn't we be supportive of efforts to hinder those who will be tasked at enforcing them?

Guys with guns

arakboss · May 5, 2021

dogface2000 said:
Guys with guns

That rules out the Angry Moms and Penny Okamoto.

Xaevian · May 5, 2021

You mean the Moms that Demand Action might not like the action they get?

Well, obviously their Dads That Are Poor Spouses Because They Can't Please Their Partner (they are working on a new name, but still need their spouse's permission) aren't giving them near enough.

wired · May 6, 2021

Xaevian said:
You mean the Moms that Demand Action might not like the action they get?

Well, obviously their Dads That Are Poor Spouses Because They Can't Please Their Partner (they are working on a new name, but still need their spouse's permission) aren't giving them near enough.

Theyre single moms for a reason.

GOG · May 6, 2021

The Resister · May 6, 2021

GOG said:
View attachment 878055

I agree with the sentiment. A citing source would be appreciated.

CRBMoA · May 6, 2021

CRBMoA · May 6, 2021

The Resister said:
I agree with the sentiment. A citing source would be appreciated.

Kinda Prima Facia, innit?

GOG · May 6, 2021

I think "...shall not be infringed" is pretty damn clear and as far as source, it's the Second Amendment.

The Resister · May 6, 2021

CRBMoA said:
Kinda Prima Facia, innit?

That would be prima facie, but what you and I accept seems to fly over the liberals heads. If you took all of them together, turned their brains into dynamite, you couldn't get enough charge to blow one's nose.

wired · May 6, 2021

GOG said:
I think "...shall not be infringed" is pretty damn clear and as far as source, it's the Second Amendment.

If everything was just so cut and dry. The whole problem being the first clause of the 2nd amendment that no one talks about . The US had essentially disbanded the federal Army and Navy and was relying on the states militias until that became unworkable during the quasi war of 1798 with France. For what oh, 220 years or so the courts had pretty steadfastly interpreted the 2nd amendment to apply to the states ability to raise a militia. It really wasn't until Miller that any weight was given to the individual right to keep and bear arms and even that was in that was in the militia context.

CRBMoA · May 6, 2021

The Resister said:
That would be prima facie, but what you and I accept seems to fly over the liberals heads. If you took all of them together, turned their brains into dynamite, you couldn't get enough charge to blow one's nose.

Sorry - spellcheck did not pass the bar, and neither did I.

nammac · May 6, 2021

The Resister said:
That would be prima facie, but what you and I accept seems to fly over the liberals heads. If you took all of them together, turned their brains into dynamite, you couldn't get enough charge to blow one's nose.

Or ignite one small sized pistol cartridge... Say .22 Short... :s0092:

RedCardinalSeven · May 6, 2021

The Resister said:
Have you ever heard of Operation Resist Tyranny and it's basic theme of Defund Tyranny? The primary idea is to defund the BATFE, abolish it and give all tobacco and firearm violations to the DEA and firearm violations to the FBI while requiring that they slash the regulations by 25 percent.

You mean this FBI? How is that a good idea?

Since the days of Hoover, the FBI has repeatedly shown itself to be politically corrupted. I'm not going to rehearse the litany of FBI corruption here but people ought to remember, among other things, the FBI's role at Ruby Ridge.

If we're going to "Resist Tyranny" then the "primary idea", at the federal level, should be to abolish all or nearly all gun laws. Focus on the crimes committed with guns and the perpetrators, not guns. For example, the Republic did just fine for most of its history without background checks of any kind. Background checks didn't start in the US until 1994 and they have seldom, if ever, stopped a determined violent criminal from getting a gun.

I would even say get rid of felon in possession laws. If you're a felon who did your time and are no longer under state supervision then why shouldn't you have a right to lawfully possess a firearm? A felon who is predisposed to commit more crimes isn't going to be stopped by felon in possession laws so who does it hurt? It hurts the felon who has chosen the straight and narrow.

RedCardinalSeven · May 6, 2021

wired said:
If everything was just so cut and dry. The whole problem being the first clause of the 2nd amendment that no one talks about . The US had essentially disbanded the federal Army and Navy and was relying on the states militias until that became unworkable during the quasi war of 1798 with France. For what oh, 220 years or so the courts had pretty steadfastly interpreted the 2nd amendment to apply to the states ability to raise a militia. It really wasn't until Miller that any weight was given to the individual right to keep and bear arms and even that was in that was in the militia context.

The prefatory militia clause is only a problem to those who want it to be a problem. What "courts had pretty steadfastly interpreted the 2nd amendment to apply to the states ability to raise a militia" for "220 years or so"?

In the notorious Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856) at 416-417, in obiter dicta, the Supreme Court stated that among "the privileges and immunities of citizens" was the right "to keep and carry arms wherever they went."

In United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) at 178, Miller lost not because of his lack of militia affiliation or because the 2A doesn't protect an individual right but because the Court erroneously concluded that a short-barrel shotgun did not have any "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" and "it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense."

In other words, if Miller had convinced the Court that a short-barrel shotgun was a legitimate military weapon then by their reasoning he would have been acquitted. In fact, US troops had been carrying short-barrel shotguns for decades before Miller was decided.

In any case, it has been persuasively argued by Frye that "... Miller was a Second Amendment test case arranged by the government and designed to support the constitutionality of federal gun control."