What are you going to do when they are not allowed to sell any new firearms, or ammo for that fact, that includes loading supplies. They could do that. Laws change, Presidents change, the constitution can also change. It could happen some day, but as was said above, it would probably cause another civil war. That is something I would never want to be around for. I like this place the way it is now.

I think all of you need to read this several times because it couldn't be more correct.

Quoted: It CAN be enforced - to a degree -  suing manufacturers out of business for gun violence -  mandating sweeping regulations on the industry, sale and transfer of weapons -  buy-backs and confiscations (she mentioned both) They aren't going to come to Ohio to collect your guns, they will try to structure things where YOU will turn them in. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quoted: not only how can it be enforced but who is going to pay for it? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- GUN OWNERS - through licensing fees

Quoted: No treaty can violate the Constitution...the UN has no authority over the United States...don't worry about it...

John Kerry can, if Americans elect him into the White House on Nov 2.  

What the Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment stipulates can be manipulated to mean whatever the courts believe to be the interpretation of the law.  The judges that preside over our courts are appointed by the President.

I'm relatively new to the actual legislative side of gun ownership and I didn't watch the PPV debate. However, it is evident to me that disarming and/or making it so hard to own a gun is in direct conflict with our 2nd amendment rights. Now, I know that is no shock to you all, but I don't give a God damn what the rest of the world thinks about my inherent rights as being a U.S. citizen. If you don't believe in owning guns, fine, don't own one. But don't ever infringe on a fundamental liberty that was established by our founding fathers as an instrument to raise the price that an overbearing government would have to pay to subdue the people. Violence is the only fundamental force that humanity understands. Democracy is only valid because of the validity of a social contract between the governed and the government. Violence is the only force that protects us from the ambitions of an aggresive state or the actions of a terrorist group. All other means of negotiation are subject to the will of both parties and the assumption that you can appease or punish the other party into submission. Violence/death is the only fundamental source of power. I have a famous quote about the true source of liberty:

"Freedom is not empowerment. Empowerment is what the Serbs have in Bosnia. Anybody can grab a gun and be empowered. It's not entitlement. An entitlement is what people on welfare get, and how free are they? It's not an endlessly expanding list of rights—the 'right' to education, the 'right' to health care, the 'right' to food and housing. That's not freedom, that's dependency. Those aren't rights, those are the rations of slavery—hay and a barn for human cattle. There's only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." - P.J. O'Rourke

Freedom is not protected by the Bill of Rights or the Constituion... freedom is gauranteed by the ability for a people to inflict a price upon their adversary greater than that which the adversary wishes to pay. If we allow ourselves to be disarmed, we have allowed ourselves to be made consequent to the every whim of a superior force. A man does not win a battle because his force is superior to anothers... he wins a battle by being willing to sacrifice more than his adversary. This is the fundamental principle on which our 2nd amendment rests: Having armed your citizens, you have created a variable "price" that the government must pay for an "unpopular" rule.

Sorry for the lecture...

------
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - George Orwell

Great post!



THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT YOUR RIGHTS.


Get on board the Worldwide Express!

Quoted: Great post! THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT YOUR RIGHTS.

+1

BREAKING NEWS....Blue helmets storm U.S. to rid the world of evil guns..

UPDATE....ALL(blue helmets)reported DEAD!!

Quoted: BREAKING NEWS....Blue helmets storm U.S. to rid the world of evil guns.. UPDATE....ALL(blue helmets)reported DEAD!!

They would have to send the entire Chinese  military because they are the only ones with enough people to do it.

Quoted: I'm relatively new to the actual legislative side of gun ownership and I didn't watch the PPV debate. However, it is evident to me that disarming and/or making it so hard to own a gun is in direct conflict with our 2nd amendment rights. Now, I know that is no shock to you all, but I don't give a God damn what the rest of the world thinks about my inherent rights as being a U.S. citizen. If you don't believe in owning guns, fine, don't own one. But don't ever infringe on a fundamental liberty that was established by our founding fathers as an instrument to raise the price that an overbearing government would have to pay to subdue the people. Violence is the only fundamental force that humanity understands. Democracy is only valid because of the validity of a social contract between the governed and the government. Violence is the only force that protects us from the ambitions of an aggresive state or the actions of a terrorist group. All other means of negotiation are subject to the will of both parties and the assumption that you can appease or punish the other party into submission. Violence/death is the only fundamental source of power. I have a famous quote about the true source of liberty: "Freedom is not empowerment. Empowerment is what the Serbs have in Bosnia. Anybody can grab a gun and be empowered. It's not entitlement. An entitlement is what people on welfare get, and how free are they? It's not an endlessly expanding list of rights—the 'right' to education, the 'right' to health care, the 'right' to food and housing. That's not freedom, that's dependency. Those aren't rights, those are the rations of slavery—hay and a barn for human cattle. There's only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." - P.J. O'Rourke Freedom is not protected by the Bill of Rights or the Constituion... freedom is gauranteed by the ability for a people to inflict a price upon their adversary greater than that which the adversary wishes to pay. If we allow ourselves to be disarmed, we have allowed ourselves to be made consequent to the every whim of a superior force. A man does not win a battle because his force is superior to anothers... he wins a battle by being willing to sacrifice more than his adversary. This is the fundamental principle on which our 2nd amendment rests: Having armed your citizens, you have created a variable "price" that the government must pay for an "unpopular" rule. Sorry for the lecture... ------ "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - George Orwell

are you sure your only 16? or did you really type that?

Quoted: I'm relatively new to the actual legislative side of gun ownership and I didn't watch the PPV debate. However, it is evident to me that disarming and/or making it so hard to own a gun is in direct conflict with our 2nd amendment rights. Now, I know that is no shock to you all, but I don't give a God damn what the rest of the world thinks about my inherent rights as being a U.S. citizen. If you don't believe in owning guns, fine, don't own one. But don't ever infringe on a fundamental liberty that was established by our founding fathers as an instrument to raise the price that an overbearing government would have to pay to subdue the people. Violence is the only fundamental force that humanity understands. Democracy is only valid because of the validity of a social contract between the governed and the government. Violence is the only force that protects us from the ambitions of an aggresive state or the actions of a terrorist group. All other means of negotiation are subject to the will of both parties and the assumption that you can appease or punish the other party into submission. Violence/death is the only fundamental source of power. I have a famous quote about the true source of liberty: "Freedom is not empowerment. Empowerment is what the Serbs have in Bosnia. Anybody can grab a gun and be empowered. It's not entitlement. An entitlement is what people on welfare get, and how free are they? It's not an endlessly expanding list of rights—the 'right' to education, the 'right' to health care, the 'right' to food and housing. That's not freedom, that's dependency. Those aren't rights, those are the rations of slavery—hay and a barn for human cattle. There's only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." - P.J. O'Rourke Freedom is not protected by the Bill of Rights or the Constituion... freedom is gauranteed by the ability for a people to inflict a price upon their adversary greater than that which the adversary wishes to pay. If we allow ourselves to be disarmed, we have allowed ourselves to be made consequent to the every whim of a superior force. A man does not win a battle because his force is superior to anothers... he wins a battle by being willing to sacrifice more than his adversary. This is the fundamental principle on which our 2nd amendment rests: Having armed your citizens, you have created a variable "price" that the government must pay for an "unpopular" rule. Sorry for the lecture... ------ "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - George Orwell

Excellent post!

 
 
 
 
 
 
When You Come For My Guns…
By Larry Simoneaux (04/26/04)

I guess I’m just tired of it all.

Tired of the bogus definitions (see: “assault weapons” or “assault rifles”) and the slanted or just plain false statistics constantly being quoted.

Tired of the skewed reporting and glaring omissions in “news” stories.

Bet you didn’t know that, in the Appalachian Law School shooting of several years ago, the incident ended when two students got their guns and subdued the killer without firing a shot.

If you missed it, it’s not your fault. You see, in more than 200 reports, that little factoid was “conveniently” left out.

I’m tired of gun owners being portrayed as ignorant, gap-toothed simpletons whose only source of amusement is shooting anything that moves.

I’d be willing to stand a cross-section of gun owners up against any of the anti-gun crowd and bet hard money on where the IQ pool would be deepest. You see, I’ve sat around too many campfires listening to doctors, judges, airline pilots, ship captains, teachers, and just plain hard working people talk. Most of those times, I decided to keep my mouth shut in order not to lower the level of discussion.

I’m tired of being told that the Constitution guarantees such things as abortions (although such is nowhere mentioned) but does not recognize an individual’s right to “keep and bear” arms - even though those words can be read by any and all who care to do so.

I’m tired of hearing that we need just one more “reasonable gun law” when there are already thousands on the books that seem to be studiously ignored.

I’m tired of finding that most - if not all - of such proposed laws are nothing more than dishonest attempts aimed at the eventual confiscation of all firearms.

I’m tired of bringing reasoned and well-researched arguments to discussions of this topic only to be ignored or treated with polite contempt.

I’m tired of being told that I should take moral guidance on this issue from the likes of - let’s say - Ted Kennedy and others of his ilk. Sorry, I’ll have to check with Mary Jo Kopechne and get back to you on that one.

I’m tired of seeing concrete and obvious examples ignored.

Washington, D.C. and New York City have some of the toughest gun laws on the books. Their crime rates have been repeatedly shown to be (guess which) higher/lower than cities wherein gun ownership is less restricted.

I’m tired of being told that guns are the problem when, on any given day, I can turn on the news and hear about the latest atrocity we – as a society – have suffered. Therein, I inevitably find that: (1) it’s been perpetrated by some useless accretion of carbon with a “rap” sheet thicker than a telephone directory; and (2) said individual was still on the street because of a justice system that’s become more “system” than justice.

I’m a father, a former little league coach, an honorably discharged veteran, and a past president of the local PTA. I’ve been married to the same woman for 33 years. I’ve never been arrested and my last run-in with the law was a speeding ticket back in the mid-70’s.

I vote in every election. I give blood regularly. I have a degree in English Literature and another in Marine Biology. I spent a year in a Benedictine monastery studying to be a priest. However - because I choose to own firearms - to the major networks, liberal politicians everywhere, and the likes of Sarah Brady, I’m nothing more than a “gun nut.”

I hear there’s going to be another “Million(?)Mom March” in Washington, D.C. in May.

I’ve already prepared myself for the fawning coverage it will receive.

I’ve already accepted that there’s not going to be a balanced presentation of the other side of the argument.

I’m tired of that too.

And so, I’ve finally reached the point where I’ve decided I will no longer be “reasonable” while the other side has never, does not now, nor will ever accord me the same courtesy.

Even though this piece will never see the light of day in any major publication, I have a message for the anti-gun zealots out there. It’s from someone who’s perfectly normal and is basically your next door neighbor.

[There used to be a bumper sticker that said: “You’ll get my gun when you pry my cold, dead fingers from the trigger.”   You made fun of it and derided those who believed in the spirit of the idea it propounded.

Unfortunately, it’s not much seen any more and I’ve been unable to find one for my own use.

For that reason, I’ve designed one of my own.

It says: “When you come for my guns, bring yours. You’ll be needing them.”  
I think it speaks for itself.

NOT AT ALL  !!!!!!!






WTF OVER ???



Are these people fucking stupid or what???????

Believe me, I really typed that... and yes, I'm 16... edjukashun werked fo' mee

What I fear is a situation where gun owners aren't caused to be inflamed quite enough to unite and fight.  

For example, a ban on the manufacture of new or replacement parts for "military" style rifles would bring our endeavors to a grinding halt.  

The manufacturer's would be bogged down in  protracted legal battles and wouldn't number enough anyway to really take a real fight to anyone.

Most gun owners, skeet shooters, hunters, and casual shooters, are not very sympathetic to "military" style weapons anyway.  So they likely wouldn't be inflamed either.  

We would be permitted to keep what we have, but no new stuff, and no replacement parts.  Pretty soon, no one would want to shoot their ARs and AKs for fear of breaking them.  

It would be as they'd banned the guns outright, and it is likley that not a shot in protest would be fired.  

Add to that situation a ban on "military" ammunition or some quota system on ammunition ,and you've effectively banned guns for everyone--in the sense that those without significant stores of ammunition would not be able mount any resitance for any significant length of time.  

Again, this would amount to an effective ban after a few short years.  

These measures WILL drive some to take up arms, but I'm afraid that it would be too little too late.

Oh, well.  If that's the case, then that day might just be as good as any to die.  

It is and inevitable and slow process... we will lose our right to keep and bear arms.  It also won't come in a sweeping decision, so scratch fighting back for most people.

The only chance we have is to fight them tooth and nail on each bill they try to pass.

Oh yeah, stock up now.

- BG

Quoted: Quoted: not only how can it be enforced but who is going to pay for it? Good point but I bet UK, Canada and Japan put up a lot of money for it. Still it would take millions of dollars if not billions. Plus military operations to round up illegal guns. CRC

Yes… UK Government spent many millions on compensation when it bought back all the legal handguns when it banned them to "make the streets safer"……

Now we have no legal handguns but at least 500,000 illegal handguns… it was a retarded idea.

ANdy

Now how would a Worlwide Gun Ban be Reisisted

Quoted: It is and inevitable and slow process... we will lose our right to keep and bear arms.  It also won't come in a sweeping decision, so scratch fighting back for most people. The only chance we have is to fight them tooth and nail on each bill they try to pass. Oh yeah, stock up now. - BG

+1 on the stock up now advice.

Why don't we ask the people in Australia?  

I can't stand to watch the video of all of their guns go into the chopper.  It is not working too well, but enslavement is a slow process.

How will they do it here?  One gun at a time!

There will be registration schemes, restrictions on ammo, fees and licensing, and most importantly the brainwashing of the young.  By the time the last gun goes into the chopper, the only people that will remember freedom will be too old to do anything about it.  The only people with guns will be criminals and gangs (and the police).  When all of the gun bans do not work, we will eventually devolve into a socialist police state.  People will welcome the blue helmets, in hopes of restoring law and order.  

Just look to California as a perfect example of their master plan.  Every year, Socialist politicians propose 10-20 serious gun related bans, and only 2 or 3 pass.  Thus, the noose tightens.  Eventually they will pull the lever and the trap door will drop.  Resisters will be labelled as terrorist, or whatever the current "evil" is, and sent to prison or re-education camps.  

It can and will happen.  Divide and conquer is what the gun grabbers have done, and it has worked perfectly.  The hunters and sportsmen are in total and complete denial.  This is a classic boiled frog.  By the time he realizes he is being cooked, it is too late.  

I fear the time to refresh the tree of liberty with the blood of patriots and tryants has past.  The only question is, will they serve fish on Fridays in the death camp?