Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: they are too late for mine-- lost them in a boating accident Why do people say this? Do you really think they would believe you anyway? And if they did believe you...what is the purpose of holding onto firearms you can't use? If the time comes where you have to bury your guns, the time has come to use them. Oh yeah. Of course caching some supplies for future ops is always a good idea.

Pre-positioned supplies always gets the thumbs up.

I'm talking about "they banned guns, I'm going to bury mine"
If they banned guns, it's time to use them.

Oh and I would rather live free or die trying than live as a slave. I will never loose my wepaons in a boating accident <- Which is the cowards way out.

When do you fight when they are leading your wife and kids off to different railroad cars headed for a different camp? If you "lost yours in a boating accident" you will not have the courage to fight even then.   And even if you did to what effect???? Then it is too late. Think about it.. And if you don't have the balls then give your arms to someone with a valid MAN card.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: they are too late for mine-- lost them in a boating accident Why do people say this? Do you really think they would believe you anyway? And if they did believe you...what is the purpose of holding onto firearms you can't use? If the time comes where you have to bury your guns, the time has come to use them. Oh yeah. Of course caching some supplies for future ops is always a good idea. Pre-positioned supplies always gets the thumbs up. I'm talking about "they banned guns, I'm going to bury mine" If they banned guns, it's time to use them.

Understood.
Just pointing that out for others.

MOLON LABE MOLON LABE My barrel will be hot and my fingers will be dead when they get them back

Not while I have ammo left.

Quoted: Could the Government really take our "assault rifles?" Theoretically, no due to the Fourth Amendment: FOURTH AMENDMENT [U.S. Constitution] - 'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.' As a practical matter, the answer is "YES," due to the Golden Rule: He who has the gold makes the rules.

The Fourth Amendment doesn't ever enter into it.  If they pass a law making "assault weapons" illegal, they're contraband.  If you're caught with one, you'll be arrested.  If .gov has probable cause to believe you have one in your house, they'll get a warrant, shoot your dog and kick in your doors.  And it'll all be perfectly legal.  (Except maybe the part about the dog.)

There might be a Fifth Amendment takings issue, but even that's far from a sure thing.  When they made Ecstasy and other "designer drugs" illegal, I don't recall any government programs to buy up the formerly legal supply.  The most likely result would be that a court would say that it's not "taking of private property for public purposes" for which just compensation is required; it's merely a forfeiture of contraband for which you're entitled to nothing.

They probably could.  Make sure you turn in the ammo first, though.

Quoted: It always amazes me how quickly something such as registration and confiscation take place in any given country...People think, Oh, it can't happen to me...and then, surprise! With a do nothing Rep. majority and an administration out on cloud 9 somewhere, all it would take is an amendment attached to some remote crime bill, thrown in just 15 minutes before a holiday recess and the idiots in congress wouldn't read the bill because they want to go home...that type of politics happens all the time....I never feel overly confident with government.

i wish some "representatives" would sack it up and pass some pro-gun legislation like this.

Ha If it ever happened, I guess I would have to break out the tactical shovel w/attached M3X. C'mon happy buried fun stash....

FMCDH

Quoted: Quoted: I'm already a member of the NRA and vote every election. A lot here aren't and don't.

+1 Far too many gun owners find it easier to sit on their azz and complain without getting involved
with pro gun organizations. Is the NRA perfect? NO! Is the NRA our best defense? HELL YES!

Quoted: 1. shoot 2. shovel 3. shutup 2 & 3 should take care of things for a few years. Receivers are pretty small.

If gun are banned to the point where you have to bury them, just the receiver won't do.  you'll need the complete gun ( and some spare parts )

Quoted: Quoted: Could the Government really take our "assault rifles?" Theoretically, no due to the Fourth Amendment: FOURTH AMENDMENT [U.S. Constitution] - 'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.' As a practical matter, the answer is "YES," due to the Golden Rule: He who has the gold makes the rules. But if the feds pass law saying our guns are illegal, would that not give them "probable cause?"

That law would be illegal because it would be an ex post facto law.  As a practical matter, however, how would it be fought & what would be the consequences as it is being fought?  Let's say that some brave soul goes out of his way to get arrested for possession of an illegal gun.  Then he gets convicted and fights it to the Supreme Court & it is overturned.  Whoop de do.  In the meantime, what is happening?  We will be expected to turn our guns in as law abiding Americans or the JBTs will come around & collect them.  Let's say some more brave souls decide to mount an armed resistance during confiscation & the appeals process.  All of a sudden the sheep will have to make a stand.  The liberal media will be villifying guns even more than they do now.  Where do you think that the great majority of those sheep will find their sympathies?  

Unfortunately our liberal courts are becoming more liberal.  Look at Rehnquist & O'Connor, both appointed by conservative Republican presidents & they turned out to be liberals.  I am not very hopeful about Alito & Roberts.  They have no restrictions now.  They could turn liberal tomorrow.  Hopefully I'm wrong & they won't.

I disagree. Gold is for the mistress - silver for the maid Copper for the craftsman, cunning at his trade "Good!" said the Baron, sitting in his hall, "But Iron - Cold Iron - is master of them all." Rudyard Kipling They're welcome to my crabgrass. I'm keeping my iron.

That's fine but you're living an antiquated paradigm.  Do you think that the weapons of the .gov are limited to what we know that they have now?  Of course not.  They have much more sophisticated weapons available that they have simply not chosen to use yet.  It is still easier to deploy young American men & women & let them take the hits both literally & figuratively.  We are, after all, fighting an extremely unsophisticated enemy, a group still not really in the Middle Ages yet.

Likewise the tools/weapons used by the .gov in the gun roundup won't necessarily have to be guns against the Resistances guns.  They can use fabrications and "information" as mentioned above.  How tough is it to plant drugs on you & get a conviction as the poster above mentioned?

My initial point is that the .gov has the ultimate weapon, money, in unlimited supply.  Money certainly buys power, so the .gov has the ultimate power as far as us individuals are concerned.  Our choices are severely limited in comparison.

"What will you do?  What WILL you do?"

It will take another 25 years before they're banned.

But when they're banned, it will be for real.  No pansy ass klinton ban.

I have a line in the sand.  I've made a mental commitment to stand on it.  That is all I will say.


ETA: So that never comes I hope, I'm an NRA member and I vote based on it.

Molon Labe

Quoted: Quoted: Could the Government really take our "assault rifles?" Theoretically, no due to the Fourth Amendment: FOURTH AMENDMENT [U.S. Constitution] - 'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.' As a practical matter, the answer is "YES," due to the Golden Rule: He who has the gold makes the rules. The Fourth Amendment doesn't ever enter into it.  If they pass a law making "assault weapons" illegal, they're contraband.  If you're caught with one, you'll be arrested.  If .gov has probable cause to believe you have one in your house, they'll get a warrant, shoot your dog and kick in your doors.  And it'll all be perfectly legal.  (Except maybe the part about the dog.) There might be a Fifth Amendment takings issue, but even that's far from a sure thing.  When they made Ecstasy and other "designer drugs" illegal, I don't recall any government programs to buy up the formerly legal supply.  The most likely result would be that a court would say that it's not "taking of private property for public purposes" for which just compensation is required; it's merely a forfeiture of contraband for which you're entitled to nothing.

Here's the Fifth Amendment:

Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

You fight it based on "private property be taken for public use..." & I'll fight it based on "...unreasonable searches and seizures..."

All the while, of course, you will be ignoring the ex post facto aspects of the new "law."

Enjoy.

Welcome to my world friend.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Could the Government really take our "assault rifles?" Theoretically, no due to the Fourth Amendment: FOURTH AMENDMENT [U.S. Constitution] - 'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.' As a practical matter, the answer is "YES," due to the Golden Rule: He who has the gold makes the rules. But if the feds pass law saying our guns are illegal, would that not give them "probable cause?" That law would be illegal because it would be an ex post facto law.  As a practical matter, however, how would it be fought & what would be the consequences as it is being fought?  Let's say that some brave soul goes out of his way to get arrested for possession of an illegal gun.  Then he gets convicted and fights it to the Supreme Court & it is overturned.  Whoop de do.  In the meantime, what is happening?  We will be expected to turn our guns in as law abiding Americans or the JBTs will come around & collect them.  Let's say some more brave souls decide to mount an armed resistance during confiscation & the appeals process.  All of a sudden the sheep will have to make a stand.  The liberal media will be villifying guns even more than they do now.  Where do you think that the great majority of those sheep will find their sympathies?   Unfortunately our liberal courts are becoming more liberal.  Look at Rehnquist & O'Connor, both appointed by conservative Republican presidents & they turned out to be liberals.  I am not very hopeful about Alito & Roberts.  They have no restrictions now.  They could turn liberal tomorrow.  Hopefully I'm wrong & they won't.

It would only be an ex post facto law if they criminalized having possessed an "assault rifle" before the ban took effect.  Merely banning something prospectively is not and can never be an ex post facto law.  


ETA:  There have been plenty of judges appointed by Republican Presidents who have turned liberal once they got on the court, but Rehnquist is not among them.

Quoted: That law would be illegal because it would be an ex post facto law.

And the lautenberg amendment was a ex post facto law too. But it is still being enforced.

Quoted: What do you think happened in California?  Don't be fooled - CA's law is a total ban on "assault weapons" - it's just taking a few years to take effect. Can anyone born after 1993 own an AR-15 in CA?  No.  Once the current generation of registered AR-15 owners die, no one will ever lawfully own an AR-15 in CA.

Bingo.  I used to laugh at the guys who told me "My dad has a registered AR-15.  So he'll pass it on to me."

Sorry, bud.  You can't legally transfer an assault weapon in CA.

Quoted: in case you guys hadn't noticed gun control is a big LOSER come election time and some dems are begining to realize this. the big problem is that the republican leadership is doing it's best to drive the base away.

Dems will run progun and then ban anyway.

Quoted: Quoted: That law would be illegal because it would be an ex post facto law.   And the lautenberg amendment was a ex post facto law too. But it is still being enforced.

Ex post facto is jailing you for what you owned prior to the law being put in place.  Making continued ownership of something illegal after the law is passed is not ex post facto.  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: if that happens i swear i'll move to canada. oh wait....shit! what are the firearm laws like down unda? Aussies can't own guns They can, but there are severe restrictions. I doubt that your .gov can actually steal your weapons, they would probably have to pay for them like the .aus "gun buyback program". The more guns you own, the harder it would be to start confiscating your guns. The gun-haters would probably love to start confiscating them, but not necessarly when they see the price.

They would pay for as many as they could, and likely put a higher price on the 'evil' ones and perhaps take them in such an order. The "Buy back programs" are simply a form of SELLING your firearms - That is VERY different than Gov. officials coming to YOUR HOME and TAKING your firearms from you, and then handing you $$$ for compensation. And FYI, you did not purchase your firearms from the Government.

If you buy into a buy back program you are a fool.


"From my cold, dead hands"

People on here act like the gooberment actually has to follow their own laws and obey the constitution.

Case in point the Supreme Court hasn't TOUCHED the 2A since Miller. And we all know there were do defendants or council present. There was not even a brief filed on behalf of the case and the prosecuter lied. Hasn't been touched since. Look at all the gun laws on the books now. Every single gun law on the books violates the 2nd ammendment but NOTHING is done to stop it.

Case in point 2, the war on SOME drugs. Warrentless searches, confiscation on property with NO convictions etc etc ad nasauseum. The 4th amendment is DEAD and HAS been. The Patriot Act just put the nails on the coffin. Has Bush been arrested for illegal wiretaps.... didn't think so.

The first ammendment is dead. Wear a anti-war T-shirt at a political event get hauled off to jail. Try to pray in school good luck (and I'm agnostic). "Free Speach Zones". Media ignoring certain issues and acting as a megaphone for the feds. Sorry the 1st ammendment is dead too.

IRS - well they violate every one of your rights..

All of you that think that the supreme court will come to our rescue WAKE UP. Its a long wait for a train don't come.... They have had nearly 100 years to fix some of these problems and they have not done a thing. Freedom has to be a cause of the PEOPLE the GOV'T is the CANCER. It is like hoping your Lymphoma will knock out the Brain Tumor. The final responsibility for freedom lies with the PEOPLE. And for nearly 100 years we have been sheep trusting the wolf to do whats right. And people today STILL think the same way! There should not be ONE supporter of BUSH on this site (yes I voted for him too). If not because of the 2nd ammendment but because of his utter disregard for the Bill of Rights and passage of the Patriot Act. Not that the Dem's are any better. Your two party system gives you the choice of a Facists or a Communist. Please vote for your flavor of Police State...... but Oh you have a CHOICE of which slave master you get....

People hate the NRA because they don't do enough for RKBA. Hey wake up the game is changing. The liberal hunters are getting pissed off at them and they are leaving. Sounds like EXACTLY what we want so fucking join and get your hard core EBR friends to do so. When the NRA hears from its members and every one of them is chanting 2A 2A 2A 2A fuck the fudd'hunters. They will and ARE listening. They are FINALLY changing.

STOP supporting the Republican Party. Unless you have a closet constitutionalist, Join the Libertarian Party. Don't like abortion. Me neither. Not all Libertarians want abortion. Lots of them are against it. So am I. Take away all federal welfare funding programs form it and CHARGE the people getting it or TAX it and it will diminish! No laws needed.... Don't like the open door imagration policy? Neither do I. Eliminate the welfare state and there is no reason to come here. Require anyone in the country to go through the legal hoops to become a citizen IN ENGLISH, or you are deported and CHARGED for the trip. TANSTAAFL. If you can't pay for the deportation trip go to jail. Lots of free market solutions.

Not that anyone here will do this. People get stuck in their dogma. Know what our next choice will be? McCain or Hillary. Wow how to pick a winner there...... Wake Up the system is broken the old dogmas have created this situation and are perpetuating it. Getting back to the original point, if there is a ban expect it to be permanent no 10 year sunset, and expect it to be retro active. If you are a lound outspoken critic of all this EXPECT to have some bogus charges laid on you that will not even require a conviction to get the media to pronounce you guilty. The people will be happy to see the ATF come and burn out a child pornographer drug using terrorist...

Frankly as much as I hate it the NRA is one of our last hopes of a peacfull change. So stop being divisive and start helping changes happen. We can not get perfect all at once but have to take a slice at a time. Or risk death for ourselves and family when the chips fall.

This thread is an excellent example of why I like buying rifles/pistols off of individuals....... Me guns?  What guns?  I don't have any guns, what does your paper say I have?

Gentlemen prepare to become handloaders.  Buy powder, bullets, brass, and primers now.  I agree with the idea they will try to tax our ammo to crazy extents.

I along with another person or so have gone in together to buy a reliable reloading press and are stocking away powerds, primers, etc......  Not just enough for us.  Enough to Barter with as well.

Well, they could try.

Yes and there isnt shit you can do about it.

Example...

Ruby Ridge.

Waco.

Pull your guns and kill some BATF agents. They have more people and bullets and they will shoot your babies in the face and say it was self defense or an accident and get paid leave. You dont win with shoot outs. You assasinate the political leaders that want to impose the facist laws. Not battle their brown shirts.

Is it easier to pop Hitler with a sniper rifle, or battle the SS in the streets of Munich.

It would only be an ex post facto law if they criminalized having possessed an "assault rifle" before the ban took effect. Merely banning something prospectively is not and can never be an ex post facto law.

True, and that's what the original proposition was in this thread.

ETA: There have been plenty of judges appointed by Republican Presidents who have turned liberal once they got on the court, but Rehnquist is not among them.

False.  He was far too liberal.

I guess that doesn't matter, though.  You're going to believe what you want to believe.

And the lautenberg amendment was a ex post facto law too. But it is still being enforced.

...hence my comments about the one who has the money making the rules.  Same with the Second Amendment, which "shall not be infringed."  Depending upon which author is writing on a given day, they will usually quote 20,000 to 30,000 laws further regulating the Second Amendment, which "shall not be infringed."

Ex post facto is jailing you for what you owned prior to the law being put in place. Making continued ownership of something illegal after the law is passed is not ex post facto.

See my comment above about the original proposition.

Quoted: People on here act like the gooberment actually has to follow their own laws and obey the constitution. Case in point the Supreme Court hasn't TOUCHED the 2A since Miller. And we all know there were do defendants or council present. There was not even a brief filed on behalf of the case and the prosecuter lied. Hasn't been touched since. Look at all the gun laws on the books now. Every single gun law on the books violates the 2nd ammendment but NOTHING is done to stop it. Case in point 2, the war on SOME drugs. Warrentless searches, confiscation on property with NO convictions etc etc ad nasauseum. The 4th amendment is DEAD and HAS been. The Patriot Act just put the nails on the coffin. Has Bush been arrested for illegal wiretaps.... didn't think so. The first ammendment is dead. Wear a anti-war T-shirt at a political event get hauled off to jail. Try to pray in school good luck (and I'm agnostic). "Free Speach Zones". Media ignoring certain issues and acting as a megaphone for the feds. Sorry the 1st ammendment is dead too. IRS - well they violate every one of your rights.. All of you that think that the supreme court will come to our rescue WAKE UP. Its a long wait for a train don't come.... They have had nearly 100 years to fix some of these problems and they have not done a thing. Freedom has to be a cause of the PEOPLE the GOV'T is the CANCER. It is like hoping your Lymphoma will knock out the Brain Tumor. The final responsibility for freedom lies with the PEOPLE. And for nearly 100 years we have been sheep trusting the wolf to do whats right. And people today STILL think the same way! There should not be ONE supporter of BUSH on this site (yes I voted for him too). If not because of the 2nd ammendment but because of his utter disregard for the Bill of Rights and passage of the Patriot Act. Not that the Dem's are any better. Your two party system gives you the choice of a Facists or a Communist. Please vote for your flavor of Police State...... but Oh you have a CHOICE of which slave master you get.... People hate the NRA because they don't do enough for RKBA. Hey wake up the game is changing. The liberal hunters are getting pissed off at them and they are leaving. Sounds like EXACTLY what we want so fucking join and get your hard core EBR friends to do so. When the NRA hears from its members and every one of them is chanting 2A 2A 2A 2A fuck the fudd'hunters. They will and ARE listening. They are FINALLY changing. STOP supporting the Republican Party. Unless you have a closet constitutionalist, Join the Libertarian Party. Don't like abortion. Me neither. Not all Libertarians want abortion. Lots of them are against it. So am I. Take away all federal welfare funding programs form it and CHARGE the people getting it or TAX it and it will diminish! No laws needed.... Don't like the open door imagration policy? Neither do I. Eliminate the welfare state and there is no reason to come here. Require anyone in the country to go through the legal hoops to become a citizen IN ENGLISH, or you are deported and CHARGED for the trip. TANSTAAFL. If you can't pay for the deportation trip go to jail. Lots of free market solutions. Not that anyone here will do this. People get stuck in their dogma. Know what our next choice will be? McCain or Hillary. Wow how to pick a winner there...... Wake Up the system is broken the old dogmas have created this situation and are perpetuating it. Getting back to the original point, if there is a ban expect it to be permanent no 10 year sunset, and expect it to be retro active. If you are a lound outspoken critic of all this EXPECT to have some bogus charges laid on you that will not even require a conviction to get the media to pronounce you guilty. The people will be happy to see the ATF come and burn out a child pornographer drug using terrorist... Frankly as much as I hate it the NRA is one of our last hopes of a peacfull change. So stop being divisive and start helping changes happen. We can not get perfect all at once but have to take a slice at a time. Or risk death for ourselves and family when the chips fall.

ecxactly!

i've said it before: we are where we are because people listen to the rhetoric and propaganda of the parties, and jump in line behind the one that sounds best. each parties use their power, derived from the support of their constituants, to pass laws restricting the other side. people cheer like they've just won some battle. but they haven't. they've helped the .gov enslave folks on the other side of the aisle.

we're fu*ked because people think there is a war being fought between liberal and conservative. they are wrong. the war being waged is the same war that has been waged since the first government came into existance. the war is between the people and the government.

Quoted: the .gov can if they want. there will be no war, don't fool yourself. i was chastised on here just yesterday for (half-jokingly) suggesting we bust some windows in the homes of these "representatives" that keep introducing and voting for gun control. breaking windows! if we wouldn't even be willing to do $50 worth of damage to someones property in order to send a message, do you really think we'd be willing to fight a "war"? not a chance. when the government wants them, they'll take them.

+1.  As much as I'd love to join in the chest-beating, the fact is they can and do take guns away from people all over the country every day.  Short of some massive, organized revolution (which is basically impossible given the current surveillance and police capablities of the .gov) people will not fight them off one house at a time.  

Pretty much everyone here will hand them in when asked, or maybe keep one hidden away somewhere, but there will be no great revolution over our guns.

The ones who keep the evil guns will be very smug and satisfied with that AR-15 buried in a piece of PVC pipe in some national forest, but they won't be using them for their purpose.  

You have guns to prevent tyranny, that is the entire purpose behind the 2A.  Tyranny happens in small doses all around us every day, and we take it and focus instead on what will be coming on the TV tonight.

Quoted: This thread is an excellent example of why I like buying rifles/pistols off of individuals....... Me guns?  What guns?  I don't have any guns, what does your paper say I have? Gentlemen prepare to become handloaders.  Buy powder, bullets, brass, and primers now.  I agree with the idea they will try to tax our ammo to crazy extents. I along with another person or so have gone in together to buy a reliable reloading press and are stocking away powerds, primers, etc......  Not just enough for us.  Enough to Barter with as well.

This is great in theory, but not in practice. The War on Violence (I'm sure that's how they'll spin it) will be fought with undercover agents and surveillance, just like the War on Drugs.  They'll start out with the people on their list, then move on to spying to find the rest.

Quoted: Molon Labe

Quoted: It would only be an ex post facto law if they criminalized having possessed an "assault rifle" before the ban took effect. Merely banning something prospectively is not and can never be an ex post facto law. True, and that's what the original proposition was in this thread. ETA: There have been plenty of judges appointed by Republican Presidents who have turned liberal once they got on the court, but Rehnquist is not among them. False.  He was far too liberal. I guess that doesn't matter, though.  You're going to believe what you want to believe. And the lautenberg amendment was a ex post facto law too. But it is still being enforced. ...hence my comments about the one who has the money making the rules.  Same with the Second Amendment, which "shall not be infringed."  Depending upon which author is writing on a given day, they will usually quote 20,000 to 30,000 laws further regulating the Second Amendment, which "shall not be infringed." Ex post facto is jailing you for what you owned prior to the law being put in place. Making continued ownership of something illegal after the law is passed is not ex post facto. See my comment above about the original proposition.

What?  The original proposition was ownership of assualt weapons becomes illegal and we are ordered to turn them in or face collection.  That's not ex post facto.  Period.  

Quoted: we're fu*ked because people think there is a war being fought between liberal and conservative. they are wrong. the war being waged is the same war that has been waged since the first government came into existance. the war is between the people and the government.

Thank god I'm not the only one who sees this.  The .gov, whatever the flavor, is not your friend.  The Libertarians basically want to get rid of as much of it as they can.  That's why I vote for them.

Confiscation of firearms. I dont think the gun grabbers are that stupid.  

I traded my Elephant in for a Hedgehog back in 2000 and I haven't regretted it too much yet. Some of the anti-war LP'ers out there are a bit dense.

Quoted: Time to do like what gruops like Christian Exodus is doing, only for guns.  Every damn gun owner moves off to some state and vote ourselves in and tell the feds to fuck off.

http://www.freestateproject.org/

frog boiling.

the grabbers are patient and are going to just slowly whittle it down with so much BS and burocracy no one will want to bother jumping thru the hoops and end up not getting a gun.

Like what has happened in alot of countrys ie japan its legal to own a gun theres just such a shitload of buaracry hardly anyone goes thru it.

"Come and take them" ignores many of the fundamental principles of war, especially guerilla warfare.

The only feasable way for the few gunowners to have any kind of real impact in a violent manner (if it had to come to that) and come out on top (as in not get your family, dog, and yourself shot) would be to do something in a pseudo-beltway sniper manner. If only 1,000 people were ready to fight for their rights, then that would mean 20 beltway "snipers", actually well trained, determined snipers, would be causing panic in each state. The targets would have to be JBT's and anti-gunners. Maybe if enough chaos were created, the people would see their government as being powerless to protect them, and turn against it. Not to mention the fence sitting gunowners who would see that a such a movement is achieving real results and is not just a few repeats of waco, then they might be compeled to take up arms as well. The key is not to stage one man stands, one determined man is crazy individual, 1,000 determined men is a military force.


*edit* these ideas are not my own, nor would ever think of such violent acts, even as a means to prevent the rape of the constitution, which is itself a violent act *edit*

well i dont know about you guys, but ill have to give them ALL of my AMMO first, then they can have the guns

The real question here is, will the regular guys on the ground who have to implement the policy do so.  I don't doubt that one day, if the 2nd is chipped away so nothing but a small rock remains, they will go for the final stroke.  However, if the a significant number of individuals of the BATF, FBI, local law enforcement, and .mil refuse to go door to door collecting all the guns, then the program will fail.

BUT, and I realize that is huge but, it requires the individuals who make up those branches of the government to show courage and say no to the powers that be.  

Quoted: Oh and I would rather live free or die trying than live as a slave. I will never loose my wepaons in a boating accident <- Which is the cowards way out. When do you fight when they are leading your wife and kids off to different railroad cars headed for a different camp? If you "lost yours in a boating accident" you will not have the courage to fight even then.   And even if you did to what effect???? Then it is too late. Think about it.. And if you don't have the balls then give your arms to someone with a valid MAN card.

When most people say, "lost them in a boating accident," they are speaking figuratively.  As in, they are "lost" until an adequate number of people are organized to stage a "response" at which time, the firearms will be "dried off" and put to use.

Quoted: Quoted: if that happens i swear i'll move to canada. oh wait....shit! what are the firearm laws like down unda? Aussies can't own guns

yes they can...  its just super hard to get them... if they are in the northern territory is not too hard to get a bolt rifle.  handguns are hard to get, semi-rifles are also near impossible... but single/boltaction rifles arnt too hard.

Quoted: Quoted: Could the Government really take our "assault rifles?" Theoretically, no due to the Fourth Amendment: FOURTH AMENDMENT [U.S. Constitution] - 'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.' As a practical matter, the answer is "YES," due to the Golden Rule: He who has the gold makes the rules. The Fourth Amendment doesn't ever enter into it.  If they pass a law making "assault weapons" illegal, they're contraband.  If you're caught with one, you'll be arrested.  If .gov has probable cause to believe you have one in your house, they'll get a warrant, shoot your dog and kick in your doors.  And it'll all be perfectly legal.  (Except maybe the part about the dog.) There might be a Fifth Amendment takings issue, but even that's far from a sure thing.  When they made Ecstasy and other "designer drugs" illegal, I don't recall any government programs to buy up the formerly legal supply.  The most likely result would be that a court would say that it's not "taking of private property for public purposes" for which just compensation is required; it's merely a forfeiture of contraband for which you're entitled to nothing.

Yeah, I know I've been active in this thread but....it struck a nerve...

The other thing with the above, the .gov will simply say, "Firearms are dangerous weapons, and to ensure that people of this country are secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures BY CRIMINALS or OTHERS THAT WOULD DO THEM HARM, we are going to take away said weapons so no one can hurt you."

Think that is far fetched???

Quoted: The real question here is, will the regular guys on the ground who have to implement the policy do so.  I don't doubt that one day, if the 2nd is chipped away so nothing but a small rock remains, they will go for the final stroke.  However, if the a significant number of individuals of the BATF, FBI, local law enforcement, and .mil refuse to go door to door collecting all the guns, then the program will fail. BUT, and I realize that is huge but, it requires the individuals who make up those branches of the government to show courage and say no to the powers that be.

This would mean the arms we presently bear are meaningless...If the gov't must have a "moment of constitutional clarity" for there to be hope, our guns are nothing but a security blanket...which is false.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Could the Government really take our "assault rifles?" Theoretically, no due to the Fourth Amendment: FOURTH AMENDMENT [U.S. Constitution] - 'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.' As a practical matter, the answer is "YES," due to the Golden Rule: He who has the gold makes the rules. The Fourth Amendment doesn't ever enter into it.  If they pass a law making "assault weapons" illegal, they're contraband.  If you're caught with one, you'll be arrested.  If .gov has probable cause to believe you have one in your house, they'll get a warrant, shoot your dog and kick in your doors.  And it'll all be perfectly legal.  (Except maybe the part about the dog.) There might be a Fifth Amendment takings issue, but even that's far from a sure thing.  When they made Ecstasy and other "designer drugs" illegal, I don't recall any government programs to buy up the formerly legal supply.  The most likely result would be that a court would say that it's not "taking of private property for public purposes" for which just compensation is required; it's merely a forfeiture of contraband for which you're entitled to nothing. Here's the Fifth Amendment: Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. You fight it based on "private property be taken for public use..." & I'll fight it based on "...unreasonable searches and seizures..." All the while, of course, you will be ignoring the ex post facto aspects of the new "law." Enjoy.

Nothing in the Fourth Amendment would prevent Congress from making guns illegal and ordering the People to turn them in or face prosecution.  If such a law were passed and the cops had probable cause to believe that you possessed an illegal weapon, nothing in the Fourth Amendment would prevent them from getting a warrant, entering your property, seizing the weapon, and throwing your ass in jail.  Seizing contraband is simply not unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.  That's the way the Fourth Amendmant has always worked.  

And I'm not "ignoring" the "ex post fact aspects" of the new law; there's nothing there to ignore.  An ex post facto law is one that punishs conduct that happened before the law was passed.  If Congress passes a law that says "guns are now illegal, turn them in or be prosecuted," that is not an ex post facto law because the prosecutable offense is failing to turn in your guns after the law was passed.  The fact that you made a bad investment and will be out some money is just tough luck.

If you want to argue that such a law would exceed Congress's power under the Commerce Clause, you'd certainly lose in a modern court, but at least you could make a respectable argument based on the Framers' intent.  

If you want to argue that such a law would violate the Second Amendment, you'd have a tough row to hoe, but you could make a respectable argument based on the historical foundations of the Amendment and extant Supreme Court precedent.

If you want to ague that such a law would violate the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment, you might have a shot, although it too would be a long shot.

But if you want to argue that it would be an "ureasonable seizure" under the Fourth Amendment or an  ex post facto law, no one with any understanding of the law will take you seriously.  You might be able to convince the folks who think federal courts derive their authority from the gold fringe on the flag, but that's about it.  

Freakin' amateur lawyers.  I blame Al Gore and his cursed Internet.

Wife and kids will go to the in-laws (if I know it's coming) and I will bunker in.

Some things are worth taking the ultimate stand for.  The RKBA is one of them.

Boating accident already took my rifles.  A very sad day for me....