Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Posted: 7/20/2008 5:35:33 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/20/2008 6:29:54 AM EDT by FREEFALLE7]
From: www.theakforum.net

This is what could happen if the democrats are allowed to get control again..


I realize these are a LOOOONG read, but for those of you who weren’t there, it gives you some perspective on just how ‘scary’ the 1990’s became with regard to gun control laws.

Some are of the opinion that an armed insurrection by the population was on the horizon. I make no moral or other judgment concerning this; I’m simply repeating what others were saying.

I ALSO MAKE NO JUDGMENT AS TO HOW ACCURATE OR COMMENDABLE ANY OF THE OPINIONS PRESENTED IN THESE DOCUMENTS MAY BE; I SIMPLY PRESENT THEM AS HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS WHICH CONVEY THE PARANOIA THAT SOME (READ: A LOT) OF GUN OWNERS FELT DURING THE PUSH FOR MORE GUN CONTROL IN THE 1990’S.

I should also point out, that when I mention political parties in my comments, I am only mentioning them for the historical perspective. I am not judging the merits of any political party.

Now that DC v. Heller has ruled that the Second Amendment is unequivocally an individual right, I hope we will never come to the brink of national chaos again.

The first one concerns what happened after the Brady Bill passed and went into effect:


mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=218

“November 1995
Volume 13, Number 11

Backfire on Gun Control
Dale Steinreich


Since October 1993, we have lived through the biggest buying spree of firearms in the history of the U.S. It began just before the passage of the Brady Bill and has yet to die down. And the boom in sales will continue so long as members of the governing elites are infatuated with the prospect of gun bans.

Last summer, demand for guns and ammunition soared to such astronomic levels that even militant gun advocate Jim Shults, executive editor of Modern Gun magazine, became alarmed. Gun companies were up to their ears in back orders. They ranged from a small specialty producer filling orders for 16,000 guns to a large maker for 178,000. Two mid-size companies were back ordered for 45,000 and 56,000 weapons each.

Ammunition and components were back ordered for an astounding nine months. At last summer's annual S.H.O.T. show in Dallas, a foreign maker's inventory of five million bullets was quickly cleaned out and replaced by back orders for 97 million more.

This spree, which was just the beginning, was prompted by government intervention. Regulations on the market and impending bans of certain guns caused a deluge of weapons buying. Many citizens felt that these laws were harbingers of a complete ban and confiscation of all private firearms, and they were reacting defensively to the legislation.

Shults called some Members of Congress to explain this, and was hopeful that, once they understood it, politicians would stop considering more gun bans. Surely no reasonable person could believe that such legislation had anything to do with slowing the amount of gun buying. They were causing the opposite to happen.

But the governing elites, who are anything but reasonable, then passed the "assault weapons" ban anyway. The rationale was to stop the rash of homicides, but the affected weapons were involved in only 0.5% of all homicides. Thus the ban made us no safer than before.

In the real world of gun markets, the response was explosive. As demand surged, Colt AR-15s jumped from $995 to $1,600 in price, while AK-47s jumped from $200 to $600. The prices of TEC-9s, M1-As, Uzis, Mac 10s, and FALs reacted similarly in the midst of panic buying by the public.
I went to Birmingham, Alabama, one of the largest wholesale and retail centers of the U.S. gun industry. "Bill Clinton has to be the best thing that has ever happened to the gun industry," a salesman at one store told me. Standing in front of a wall full of AK-47s he said, "Our sales jumped 50% after the Brady Bill and about 80% after the Crime Bill."

After a summer of brawling with Congress to remove these "weapons of terror from our streets," Bill Clinton vacationed for a week before signing the "urgent" bill on Sep. 13, 1994. But every day he was in Martha's Vineyard, USA Magazines, Inc., worked overtime manufacturing one million of the soon-to-be-banned, high-capacity magazines per day. Other manufacturers behaved similarly, making sure that supply met demand.
Since last December, prices have steadily fallen. Prompted by the initial surge in prices, people who had owned weapons before the "ban" suddenly found it worthwhile to sell their weapons for sometimes more than triple what was originally paid for them. The prospect of large profits was enough to overcome the strong sentimental value of a weapon to many gun owners.

In addition, the guns that were banned began to appear in new, unbanned forms. The government defines an assault rifle as a weapon with two of these characteristics: flash suppressor, folding stock, protruding pistol grip, bayonet lug, or grenade launcher. Gun companies removed one or two of these features and their "assault weapons" were magically legal again. The banned Colt AR-15, with its flash suppressor and bayonet lug removed, was reintroduced (and is now legally sold) as the Colt Sporter Match Competition HBAR.

Colt had lots of work to do compared with Springfield Armory.

Springfield's M1-A doesn't have a pistol grip, so all the company had to do was remove the bayonet lug. No need to worry about a more politically correct name: the M1-A is once again available, but without the bayonet attachment. The streets are now safe from drive-by bayonettings.

At what point will liberals realize that their anti-gun campaign is having the opposite effect of what they intend? Let's consider other examples.

The Treasury Department raised the fee for becoming a gun dealer. The hope was to make guns less accessible, while the effect was the opposite. Many small dealers selling small weapons have not renewed. Consumers now go to larger retailers, where they discover and buy a greater variety of more interesting and powerful guns. Alarmed by the disappearance of dealers and the variety of available weaponry, self protectors become full-fledged collectors.

If politics is about rewarding friends, the militia movement must be pulling the strings in Washington. The movement went from nothing in 1993 to a burgeoning industry of organized groups that actively train in military maneuvers and produce and sell newsletters and videotapes. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), a gun controller, has seen the California militia movement go from zero to 34 chapters in the last year and a half.

The government's campaign has caused gun shows to come alive. Most people go to get guns, but others find they offer enormous opportunities for political organizing. Average Joes, who were only involved on the political periphery, join movements that drive liberals bananas.

Never has the principle of the unintended effect been more operative. So what are the liberals doing about it? During the Ruby Ridge hearings, Feinstein, with all the contempt she could muster, denounced America as "a gun-happy society." Indignant that anyone would even think of questioning the actions of her sniper friends in the FBI, she said "I will continue to fight until my dying breath to control weapons in this country."
Jim Shults reports that gun sales are not as high as they were last year, but they remain very brisk. Although they could slow down even more at the beginning of next year, they could easily rocket back to or exceed 1994 levels if Washington politicians insist on raising the specter of another nationwide disarmament.

A free people are "gun happy" to the same degree that government and its employees are "power hungry." If this were a perfect world of no crime, public or private, there would be no reason to buy the guns that upset liberals so much. But so long as power tends to corrupt, and the government threatens to abolish the right of self protection, Americans will continue to see stockpiling as a necessary corrective.”

What is not repeated in the article is that Jim Shults asked Congressmen: “Do you think that people are out buying guns and ammo in these quantities just so they can turn them in?”

The militia movement became the “loophole” that many citizens thought might allow them to keep their firearms: if firearms were only legal in the context of the militia, then gun owners would form their own militias. The shortwave radio bands became “public access” venues for the militia movement. Radio personalities like Mark Koernke, Officer Jack McLamb, and Radio Free America’s Tom Valentine suggested almost openly that “the balloon was about to go up” as far as another revolution or Civil War.

In 1995, when it was reported in the media that Tim McVeigh had been associated with the militia movement, public opinion turned against the militias. The FBI and other agencies virtually harassed the shortwave radio programs out of existence, and the fact that no new gun laws were pending in Congress contributed to the militia movement going back underground, and a more politically and socially palatable pro-gun movement took hold in its place. That movement, in my opinion, still exists today.

THE FOLLOWING IS A LAW THAT DIDN’T PASS, THANK GOD! This law had no hope of passing after the Republicans took Congress away from the Democrats in 1994. It shows what might have happened.

HERE IT IS:

http://wiretap.area.com/Gopher/Gov/Bills/hr3932.ex

That would be H. R. 3932, "Gun Violence Prevention Act of 1994":

SEC. 204. FEDERAL ARSENAL LICENSE.
(a) Offense.--Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, as amended by
section 203(a), is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
"(x) It shall be unlawful for a person to possess more than 20 firearms
or more than 1,000 rounds of ammunition..."

combined with:

SEC. 312. DEFINITION OF FIREARM EXPANDED TO INCLUDE COMPONENT PARTS.
Section 921(a)(3)(B) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
striking "or receiver" and inserting ", receiver, barrel, stock, ammunition
magazine, or any part of the action".

Force all states to license handguns:

SEC. 101. STATE LICENSE REQUIRED TO RECEIVE TRANSFER OF A HANDGUN.

Limit the number of firearms sold:

SEC. 301. PROHIBITION ON MULTIPLE HANDGUN TRANSFERS.
(a) In General.--Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, as amended
by section 204(a), is amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
"(y)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any
person to--
"(A) receive transfer of more than 1 handgun during any 30-day
period;
"(B) transfer to another person more than 1 handgun during any 30-day
period;

OK, make it harder for businesses to maintain their FFL status:

SEC. 303. LICENSE APPLICATION FEES.
Section 923(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)(A) by striking "$1,000" and inserting "$10,000";
(2) in paragraph (1)(B) by striking "$50" and inserting "$1,000";
(3) in paragraph (1)(C) by striking "$10" and inserting "$1,000";
(4) in paragraph (2)(A) by striking "$1,000" and inserting "$10,000";
(5) in paragraph (2)(B) by striking "$50" and inserting "$1,000";
(6) in paragraph (3)(A) by striking "$1,000" and inserting "$10,000";
and
(7) in paragraph (3)(B) by striking "$200 for 3 years, except that
the fee for renewal of a valid license shall be $90 for 3 years" and
inserting "$1,000 per year".

And let's keep you wondering about your FFL a little longer, enough time
for your business to go under:


SEC. 304. ACTION ON FIREARMS LICENSE APPLICATION.
Section 923(d)(2) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking
"forty-five-day" and inserting "180-day".


Not to mention the fact no one will sell firearms if:

SEC. 314. CIVIL LIABILITY FOR VIOLATION OF FIREARM LAW.
Section 924 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the
end the following new subsection:
"(i)(1) Any person who sells, delivers, or otherwise transfers any
firearm or ammunition in violation of Federal law shall be liable for all
damages proximately caused by such sale, delivery, or other transfer.
"(2) An action to recover damages under paragraph (1) may be brought in a
United States district court by, or on behalf of, any person, or the estate
of any person, who suffers bodily injury or death as a result of the
discharge of a firearm or ammunition sold, delivered, or transferred in
violation of Federal law. Prevailing plaintiffs in such actions shall be
awarded costs and reasonable attorneys' fees. Punitive damages shall be
recoverable by the plaintiff if the defendant is found to have intentionally
or recklessly violated the law.
"(3) No action under paragraph (2) may be brought by or on behalf of a
person who was engaged in a criminal act against the person or property of
another person at the time of the injury.
"(4) Nothing in this section shall be construed to preempt or otherwise
limit any other cause of action available to any person.".

Taking away piece by piece:

SEC. 401. PROHIBITED WEAPONS.
(a) Prohibition.--Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, as amended
by section 301(a), is amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
"(z)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any
person to manufacture, transfer, or possess a prohibited weapon.

"(31) The term 'prohibited weapon' means--
"(A) a firearm muffler or firearm silencer;
"(B) a short-barreled shotgun;
"(C) a short-barreled rifle;
"(D) a destructive device;
"(E) a semiautomatic assault weapon;
"(F) a Saturday-night-special handgun;
"(G) a nonsporting ammunition; and
"(H) a large-capacity ammunition feeding device.

Here is the beginning of the Federal Handgun ban:

"(33) The term 'Saturday-night-special handgun' means--
"(A) any handgun that has a barrel, slide, frame or receiver which is
a die casting of zinc alloy or any other nonhomogeneous metal which will
melt or deform at a temperature of less than 800 degrees Fahrenheit;
"(B) any pistol which does not have a positive manually operated
safety device, a double action revolver which does not have a safety
feature which automatically causes the hammer to retract to a point where
the firing pin does not rest upon the primer of the cartridge, or any
single action revolver which does not have a safety feature which by
manual operation causes the hammer to retract to a point where the firing
pin does not rest upon the primer of the cartridge;
"(C) any revolver with a safety device which cannot withstand the
impact of a weight equal to the weight of the revolver dropping from a
distance of 36 inches in a line parallel to the barrel upon the rear of
the hammer spur, a total of 5 times;
"(D) any pistol that has a combined length and height less than 10
inches with the height (right angle measurement to barrel without
magazine or extension) being at least 4 inches and the length being at
least 6 inches, or any revolver that has a barrel length of less than 3
inches or has an overall frame (with conventional grips) length (not
diagonal) of less than 4 1/2 inches; or
"(E)(i) uses ammunition of the following calibers--
"(I) .22 short;
"(II) .25; or
"(III) .32; and
"(ii) has an overall weight, while unloaded, of less than 18 ounces.

Plus let's also give the BATF more room to outlaw firearms:

SEC. 402. FIREARMS AND CHILD SAFETY.
(a) Unlawful Act.--Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
"(aa)(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to manufacture or import a
firearm that does not have as an integral part a device or devices that--
"(A) prevent a child of less than 7 years of age from discharging the
firearm by reason of the amount of strength, dexterity, cognitive skill,
or other ability required to cause a discharge;
"(B) prevent a firearm that has a removable magazine from discharging
when the magazine has been removed; and
"(C) in the case of a handgun other than a revolver, clearly indicate
whether the magazine or chamber contains a round of ammunition.


Make it more expensive for people to practice shooting:


SEC. 403. INCREASED TAX ON HANDGUNS AND HANDGUN AMMUNITION.
(a) Increased Tax.--Section 4181 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
(relating to imposition of tax on firearms) is amended--
(1) by striking "10 percent" and inserting "30 percent";
(2) by striking "Shells, and cartridges" and inserting "ammunition
other than handgun ammunition (as defined in section 921 of title 18,
United States Code)"; and
(3) by inserting at the end the following:
"ARTICLES TAXABLE AT 50 PERCENT
"Any handgun ammunition (as defined in section 921 of title 18, United
States Code).".



THINGS GOT SO SCARY AT ONE POINT, THAT THERE WERE RUMORS OF A SURVEY GIVEN TO MILITARY PERSONNEL, ASKING THEM IF THEY WOULD FIRE ON US CITIZENS:

http://www.mikenew.com/29palms.html



Question # 46
"I Would Fire Upon U.S. Citizens..."
The RESISTER has confirmed that US Navy SEAL platoons, including SEAL Team Six, Marine combat veterans stationed at Twenty-Nine Palms, CA, and Marine basic trainees at Camp Pendelton, CA, have been administered a questionnaire asking, among other things, if they would "...fire upon US citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the US government."
The questionnaire was first administered to operators by the commanders of SEAL Team Six on 15 September 1993, then subsequently to the remaining SEAL platoons throughout September and October. Rumors began circulating in November that US Army DELTA operators were given the same or similar questionnaire. The SF Underground had been aware of the questionnaire since late September but our observers had been unable to secure a copy or confirm other than its substance consisted of questions pertaining to the subordination of the US Military to the UN and confiscation of the firearms of US citizens. In early January, 1994, we obtained a copy of the questionnaire from one of our DOD sympathizers but lacking corroboration we ran the story in Vol.I, No.1 of The RESISTER as a rumor.
On January 22, 1994, one of our observers copied a chilling message off the Internet from Petty Officer 2nd Class W. Kelly, US Navy Special Warfare Team Six, to D. Hawkins, Re: Gun Confiscation. Kelly began by stating that the questionnaire was "...to find out if we would follow the orders of commanding officers without question." (Kelly omitted the fact that the questionnaire assumes "commanding officers" gives equal authority to UN officers commanding US forces.) Kelly continued; "If you wish to find out how I answered I said yes I would fire and kill all persons attempting to resist...we aren't around to be the good guys." Remember, Kelly is referring to American civilians.
In February, 1994, MODERN GUN magazine ran a story on the elusive questionnaire which was subsequently circulated by various patriotic citizens groups. Then, on 10 May, 1994, the questionnaire was administered to Marine Desert Storm veterans at Twenty-Nine Palms, CA. A Marine smuggled a copy of the questionnaire out of the testing center and mailed it on 15 May, 1994, with a cover letter, to the editor of THE NEW AMERICAN, which ran the story in their July 11, 1994, issue. THE NEW AMERICAN quotes the Marine's impression that the questionnaire "was just research for this (Navy) commander's(sp) degree." The RESISTER obtained a copy of the Marine's letter, which actually states: "A Navy Commander came before us and said he was working on his masters degree and he was writing a paper about giving up our military's soverenty(sp) to the United Nations Secretary General."
The official DOD lie surrounding the questionnaire entitled "Combat Arms Survey," supports that of the Navy Commander. Significantly, the Combat Arms Survey was first given at the time Presidential Decision Directive (PDD) 25 was being prepared. The RESISTER's correspondent in the Pentagon staff of the Joint Chiefs of Staff confirms that PDD 25 surrenders control of the U.S. military to the United Nations. (A cursory survey of articles written by MACOM commanders and staff members in official military journals for the past year reveals a universal acceptance of U.N. control of the American military.)
The RESISTER has been eliciting responses to the questionnaire for the past year. Frighteningly, among service members with less than 10 years of service, 63% agree or strongly agree with question # 46: "I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the U.S. government." Among new recruits almost 90% give the response: "If it's the law and they order me to do it I guess it's okay." Our federally controlled public schools have done their job.
Of those with more than 15 years of service, 87% replied "disagree" or "strongly disagree." Responses by members of the Special Forces Underground were unprintable; basically, there will not be many officers who give that order more than once.
The RESISTER has enclosed a copy of the Combat Arms Survey with this issue. As you read it pay particular attention to the qualifiers and their relation to recent articles in the official publications of the Department of Defense, the civilian media, and the policies of the federal government. *

Editorial Note The enclosed Combat Arms Survey is a true and accurate reproduction of the contents of the questionnaire. We altered the format to accommodate the The RESISTER's layout. THE EDITOR

COMBAT ARMS SURVEY
This questionnaire is to gather data concerning the attitudes of combat trained personnel with regards to nontraditional missions. All of your responses are confidential. Write your answers directly on the questionnaire form. In Part II, place an "X" in the space provided for your response.
Part I. Demographics
1. What service are you in?
2. What is your pay grade? (e.g. E-7, O-7)
3. What is your MOS code and description?
4. What is your highest level of education in years?
5. How many months did you serve in Operation Desert Storm/Desert Shield?
6. How many months did you serve in Somalia?
7. What state or country did you primarily reside in during childhood?
Part II. Attitudes

Do you feel that U.S. Combat troops should be used within the United States for any of the following missions?

8. Drug enforcement
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree No opinion
9. Disaster relief (e.g. hurricanes, floods, fires, earthquakes)
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree No opinion
10. Security at national events (e.g. Olympic Games, Super Bowl)
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree No opinion
11. Environmental disaster clean-up
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree No opinion
12. Substitute teachers in public schools
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree No opinion
13. Community assistance programs (e.g. landscaping, environmental clean-up, road repair, animal control)
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree No opinion
14. Federal and state prison guards
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree No opinion
15. National emergency police force
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree No opinion
16. Advisors to S.W.A.T. units, the FBI or the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (B.A.T.F.)
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree No opinion
17. Border patrol (e.g. prevention of illegal aliens into U.S. territory)
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree No opinion
Do you feel that U.S. combat troops under U.S. command should be used in other countries for and of the following United Nations missions?
18. Drug enforcement
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree No opinion
19. Disaster relief (e.g. hurricanes, floods, fires, earthquakes)
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree No opinion
20. Environmental disaster clean-up
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree No opinion
21. Peace keeping
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree No opinion
22. Nation building (Reconstruct civil government, develop public school system, develop or improve public transportation system, etc.)
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree No opinion
23. Humanitarian relief (e.g. food and medical supplies, temporary housing, and clothing)
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree No opinion
Do you feel that U.S. combat troops should be used in other countries,under command of non-U.S. officers appointed by the United Nations for any ofthe following missions?
24. Drug enforcement
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree No opinion
25. Disaster relief (e.g. hurricanes, floods, fires, earthquakes)
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree No opinion
26. Environmental disaster clean-up
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree No opinion
27. Peace keeping
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree No opinion
28. Nation building (Reconstruct civil government, develop public school system, develop or improve public transportation system, etc.)
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree No opinion
29. Humanitarian relief (e.g. food and medical supplies, temporary housing, and clothing)
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree No opinion
30. Police action (e.g. Korea, Vietnam, but serving under non-U.S. officers)
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree No opinion
Consider the following statements:
31. The U.S. runs a field training exercise. U.N. combat troops should be allowed to serve in U.S. combat units during these exercises under U.S. command and control.
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree No opinion
32. The United Nations runs a field training exercise. U.S. combat troops under U.S. command and control should serve in U.N. combat units during these exercises.
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree No opinion
33. The United Nations runs a field training exercise. U.S. combat troops should serve under U.N. command and control in U.N. during these exercises.
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree No opinion
34. U.S. combat troops should participate in U.N. missions as long as the U.S. has full command and control.
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree No opinion
35. U.S. combat troops should participate in U.N. missions under United Nations command and control.
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree No opinion
36. U.S. combat troops should be commanded by U.N. officers and non-commissioned (NCOs) at battalion and company levels while performing U.N. missions.
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree No opinion
37. It would make no difference to me to have U.N. soldiers as members of my team. (e.g. fire team, squad, platoon)
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree No opinion
38. It would make no difference to me to take orders from a U.N. company commander.
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree No opinion
39. I feel the President of the United States has the authority to pass his responsibilities as Commander-in-Chief to the U.N. Secretary General.
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree No opinion
40. I feel there is no conflict between my oath of office and serving as a U.N. soldier.
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree No opinion
41. I feel my unit's combat effectiveness would not be affected by performing humanitarian missions for the United Nations.
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree No opinion
42. I feel a designated unit of U.S. combat soldiers should be permanently assigned to the command and control of the United Nations.
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree No opinion
43. I would be willing to volunteer for assignment to a U.S. combat unit under a U.N. commander.
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree No opinion
44. I would like U.N. member countries, including the U.S., to the U.N. all the soldiers necessary to maintain world peace.
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree No opinion
45. I would swear to the following code:
"I am a United Nations fighting person. I serve in the forces which maintain world peace and every nation's way of life. I am prepared to give my life in their defense."
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree No opinion
46. The U.S. government declares a ban on the possession, sale, transportation, and transfer of all non-sporting firearms. A thirty (30) day amnesty period is permitted for these firearms to be turned over the local authorities. At the end of this period, a number of citizen groups refuse to turn over their firearms.
Consider the following statement:
I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the U.S. government.
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree No opinion
*

End Note
Our civilian readers maybe wondering why the Combat Arms Survey was circulated so heavily within the Department of the Navy. The reason is simple; the Navy is not subject to USC Title 10 Posse Comitatus prohibitions against using federal military forces for domestic law enforcement. This includes the US Marine Corps.
Just thought you would like to know.
THE STAFF[Resistor, Ed.]

In 1994, the Republican party took control of Congress from the Democrat party after FORTY PLUS years. Most Democrat party wonks cited gun control as a main reason why the change occurred.
Since then, the US Congress has had trouble passing ANY other gun control measures, and now with the recent Heller decision, it appears that pro-gun forces are poised to actually have a shot at repealing some of the Draconian gun control laws in effect.
Whether laws like the NFA, or GCA 1968, or the Brady Law will ever be repealed is somewhat doubtful, but the tide in favor of even more restrictive laws has definitely turned.
Link Posted: 7/20/2008 5:47:36 AM EDT
how is that different from what is going on now?

one key point that the articles failed to mention:

impulse buying and fear mongering DID NOT prevent these bans from going into place...

manufacturers were laughing their way straight to the bank knowing that after the ban they'd have ban-compliant rifles... wannabe militiamen were re-mortgaging their homes to buy up as many guns as possible... congressman were none the wiser that anyone opposed these bans...

the same thing is happening today... people on here are impulse buying magazines, ammunition, firearms, etc but when someone posts a thread on contacting their reps/senators... it's the same handful of people actually doing it...

however if there is an online petition or poll, the fear mongers and horders will hit that up "FOR THE WIN", and it means absolutely nothing...
Link Posted: 7/20/2008 5:54:41 AM EDT
"A free people are "gun happy" to the same degree that government and its employees are "power hungry." If this were a perfect world of no crime, public or private, there would be no reason to buy the guns that upset liberals so much."

Wrong. I don't need a reason to buy an AK or AR-15.
Link Posted: 7/20/2008 5:59:57 AM EDT

Originally Posted By hellbound:
..............the same thing is happening today... people on here are impulse buying magazines, ammunition, firearms, etc but when someone posts a thread on contacting their reps/senators... it's the same handful of people actually doing it...
......................


I agree with you, but you must also point out the people who have been steadily accumulating the above (and reloading equipment, etc.) over the past decade- the "Never Again"ers.
Link Posted: 7/20/2008 6:29:24 AM EDT
bump
Link Posted: 7/20/2008 6:39:00 AM EDT

Originally Posted By callgood:

Originally Posted By hellbound:
..............the same thing is happening today... people on here are impulse buying magazines, ammunition, firearms, etc but when someone posts a thread on contacting their reps/senators... it's the same handful of people actually doing it...
......................


I agree with you, but you must also point out the people who have been steadily accumulating the above (and reloading equipment, etc.) over the past decade- the "Never Again"ers.


I disagree. I know there are plenty more like me as well. I was not involved until the purchase of my first post-ban AR-15. Today I am quite politically active and pretty aggressive about it too. In 1995 it was not even practical to get a widespread discussion going on the issue and the media controlled the entire debate. That's not the case today. In that day, so long as I could buy a pistol I liked I saw no issues. Today that is not the case for me anymore.

Stop trying to judge everyone on the response to every 'a new ban is in congress!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!' thread, most have not seen the light of day from committee and there is little point writing letters and getting worked up when the thing is proposed and dies in committee each and every term.
Top Top