Gun control passes and you're ordered to hand in your guns for shreading

[Timmy44221]

I just want to make it public that I dont have a problem with them banning hunting firearms. The constitution does not protect our right to hunt (on public land).

Our forfathers may not have seen the need to protect our hunting rights, but they did see the need to protect our Right to self defence.


HOWEVER, they cannot take away my firearms that are for target practice, and to defend myself. So that means they cannot ban any firearms, because I can use any firearm on the market to practice with, and many of them for for defence.
I am also willing to bet that the government subscribed to this thread. I personaly will not just hand in my firearms. Any of them. We have the Right to have them, and they give us the means to defend ourselves.

Those who say we are parinoid. We (I) are parinoid. But that doesnt make us (me) wrong.

[LUVMYSIGP225]

Originally Posted by Krackels

Like TwoValveKid said, I hope you're right but I wouldn't put it out of the realm of possibilty.

The Brady Campaign and other far left politicians see no need for private gun ownership. In their opinion the only ones that should have guns are the police and the military. Everyone else should be reliant on them for protection.

Let me play Devil's Advocate for just one moment. Take your statement that Brady wants to totally outlaw all civilian gun ownership. Compare it with this CURRENT statement on their webiste right now.....and I quote....

"Q. Is Brady a "gun ban" organization? Are you really just trying to make all guns illegal in America?

Brady believes that a safer America can be achieved without banning guns. Our stand is simple. We believe that law-abiding citizens should be able to buy and keep firearms. And we believe there are sensible gun laws that we can and should insist upon when it comes to gun ownership.
First and foremost, we should try to keep guns out of the hands of those who should not have them, including criminals and children."

Are you saying that they are lying? It is in the "about" section on their website right now. Just a little food for thought.

[jednp]

Originally Posted by LUVMYSIGP225

Let me play Devil's Advocate for just one moment. Take your statement that Brady wants to totally outlaw all civilian gun ownership. Compare it with this CURRENT statement on their webiste right now.....and I quote....

"Q. Is Brady a "gun ban" organization? Are you really just trying to make all guns illegal in America?

Brady believes that a safer America can be achieved without banning guns. Our stand is simple. We believe that law-abiding citizens should be able to buy and keep firearms. And we believe there are sensible gun laws that we can and should insist upon when it comes to gun ownership.
First and foremost, we should try to keep guns out of the hands of those who should not have them, including criminals and children."

Are you saying that they are lying? It is in the "about" section on their website right now. Just a little food for thought.

I'm gonna say they are lying. They don't want to come right out and say, we want to ban every firearm from being owned. To do that, might wake sheep up and have them see the truth about their movement, and realise they are literally trying to strip one of their rights from them. As long as the brady bunch lies and tells people that guns like the AR15 and semi-auto AK47, are automatic weapons and spray bullets, then they have them right where they want them. On board to support their agenda because they don't know any better.

To them, every single gun has the potential to be illegally sold, stolen, or used in a crime. So the only legal gun, is no gun in the end with them. I don't care what their "about" section says about them on their site. What I do know, and what all of us know is they are full of lies about guns and can't be trusted.

[Deacon Dave]

From the Brady website: "And we believe there are sensible gun laws that we can and should insist upon when it comes to gun ownership.
First and foremost, we should try to keep guns out of the hands of those who should not have them, including criminals and children."

So by WHO'S standard is the "sensible gun laws" to be measured? What might be "sensible" to a hoplophobic may not be sensible to a gun owner. Most people in Kalifornia must think that a greater than 10 round magazine ban is sensible, since they live there and put up with it. (Yes I know there are some gun owners in Kali that don't think it is sensible, but the majority of citizens must, because I don't see pressure being put to change the law.)

It isn't that they have lied, it is just they haven't told you the WHOLE truth by what they mean by "sensible gun laws."

Notice in the second sentence, "...we should try to keep guns out of the hands of those who should not have them, including criminals and children." It didn't say ONLY criminals and children, or EXCLUSIVELY criminals and children. It just says INCLUDING criminals and children. So there are other groups that aren't criminals and children that they don't want having guns. Would that include mentally ill? The statement isn't specific they leave it open ended.

What they also don't tell you is HOW they intend to do that. 15 day waiting period? Requiring all gun owners to have UL certified safes to store your weapons? It is an open ended statement, that they don't like answering with details. Because the details is what matters, because it reveals THEIR standard of "sensible".

[jednp]

Originally Posted by Deacon Dave

From the Brady website: "And we believe there are sensible gun laws that we can and should insist upon when it comes to gun ownership.
First and foremost, we should try to keep guns out of the hands of those who should not have them, including criminals and children."

So by WHO'S standard is the "sensible gun laws" to be measured? What might be "sensible" to a hoplophobic may not be sensible to a gun owner. Most people in Kalifornia must think that a greater than 10 round magazine ban is sensible, since they live there and put up with it. (Yes I know there are some gun owners in Kali that don't think it is sensible, but the majority of citizens must, because I don't see pressure being put to change the law.)

It isn't that they have lied, it is just they haven't told you the WHOLE truth by what they mean by "sensible gun laws."

Notice in the second sentence, "...we should try to keep guns out of the hands of those who should not have them, including criminals and children." It didn't say ONLY criminals and children, or EXCLUSIVELY criminals and children. It just says INCLUDING criminals and children. So there are other groups that aren't criminals and children that they don't want having guns. Would that include mentally ill? The statement isn't specific they leave it open ended.

What they also don't tell you is HOW they intend to do that. 15 day waiting period? Requiring all gun owners to have UL certified safes to store your weapons? It is an open ended statement, that they don't like answering with details. Because the details is what matters, because it reveals THEIR standard of "sensible".

What the highlighted portion really states, is first they don't want gun shows, they don't want face to face sales, they don't want more than 1 gun a month because if you buy more than 1 a month it means you are selling them, they want every gun registered and you to have a license to own guns. And then for the children part, what that means is if you keep guns in the home, they want to force you to lock them up with a trigger lock, preferably in a safe, disassembled, ammo locked up seperately. cuz that's how criminals get the guns and how children get guns. Despite the fact that gun accidents with children have gone down a lot in recent years. I'm all for locking your guns up to keep them out of the wrong hands, but don't tell me that my protection gun has to be locked away empty and disassembled. I'll choose what is correct in my house if I have kids in it, not the brady bunch.

[TwoValveKid]

The harder you make it to buy guns the easier it is for criminals to commit crimes and not have to worry about citizens having them. Case and point, washington DC.

Its also a "you just dont understand" think. I brought it up with a former boss and work and he laughed at me because he couldnt understand why i would want an "assult weapon" anyway, or a gun for that matter. Upon asking him what he thought was an "assult weapon," he came up with the nice cliche responses of an uzi and a "machine gun." I smniled and told him to please be more informed about what really is going on before he tries to joke about it.

[jednp]

Originally Posted by TwoValveKid

The harder you make it to buy guns the easier it is for criminals to commit crimes and not have to worry about citizens having them. Case and point, washington DC.

Its also a "you just dont understand" think. I brought it up with a former boss and work and he laughed at me because he couldnt understand why i would want an "assult weapon" anyway, or a gun for that matter. Upon asking him what he thought was an "assult weapon," he came up with the nice cliche responses of an uzi and a "machine gun." I smniled and told him to please be more informed about what really is going on before he tries to joke about it.

Offer to take your boss out shooting, show him the light. Guarantee he will have a blast and change his tune!

[TwoValveKid]

I offered. I also told him if the "need" for him to have one ever arose his mind would greatly change. And not to my suprise at all...he laughed and disagreed.

He is a cookie cutter guy. I honsetly think they could put a pile of dog **** on the ballot and paint it blue and smack a "D" on it and he would vote for it.

[Broadside]

To get to the point of revolt I would need it to be about more then just the 2nd amendment. It would need to be about the constitution as a whole.

The federal government keeps prying into state affairs and embedding useless taxes and burden on the people. The federal government holds tax payers money dangled from the end of a stick like a carrot in front of a horse. A effort to get states compliance on any issue such as roads, education, law enforcement or just about anything federally funded. They are doing the same with the constitution and people’s rights are slowly being eroded by the corruption of all 3 branches.

At some point in time the Government needs to fix the problems and reduce the government control or the people will rise up and change it. People against the 2nd amendment don’t usually have weapons. The people with guns will get to make the rules if it comes down to it. Those without the ability of self defense or protection will have to rely on the good graces of those who do.

These are several of the themes and premises the Revolutionary War and Civil War were fought on. I would hope it never comes down to anything like this. History has habit of repeating itself and the lessons learned from those who lived it are short in the memory of those who live it today.

[Krackels]

Originally Posted by Deacon Dave

From the Brady website: "And we believe there are sensible gun laws that we can and should insist upon when it comes to gun ownership.
First and foremost, we should try to keep guns out of the hands of those who should not have them, including criminals and children."

<snippity, snip, snip, snip>

It doesn't really matter what they say because we've seen from their previous actions.

Few people realize that the original name was Handgun Control Inc. which has been renamed The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence presumably because their original name conjured images of 'gun control'. What better way to understand the organization than to understand how the founder thinks.

These are actual quotes and I can provide references if need be:
"We would like to see, in the future, what we will probably call needs-based
licensing of all weapons. ...Where it would make it much more difficult for
anybody to be able to purchase handguns."--Sarah Brady

"...I don't believe gun owners have rights.”--Sarah Brady

"To me, the only reason for guns in civilian hands is for sporting purposes..." --Sarah Brady

If their founder being Anti-Gun wasn't enough the organization perpetually uses lies to deceive the public to accomplish their goals.

A quick reading through their FAQ on the Assault Weapon Ban will find all manners of lies and leading statements.
For example.

Originally Posted by Brady Campaign FAQ on AWB

Assault weapons are commonly equipped with some or all of the following combat features: ....

A threaded barrel designed to accommodate a silencer, which is useful to assassins but clearly has no purpose for sportsmen. Silencers are illegal so there is no legitimate purpose for making it possible to put a silencer on a weapon.

--Wow. If they're 'combat' features then I guess they should be banned.
But wait, I thought 'silencers' were just highly regulated and were perfectly legal to posses and own if your state allows it and you go through through all the necessary regulations.

Q: Why did police support the ban so strongly?

A: While there are no exact numbers of assault weapon incidents, police across America in the 1980s reported that semi-automatic assault weapons had become the "weapon of choice" for drug traffickers, gangs and paramilitary extremist groups.

--It's interesting to know that 'while there are no exact numbers of...incidents' they don't even venture to make a guess.
Which I can only assume is because the guess would be inconcievably low (if it were to be accurate) or completely false.