Candidate Who Campaigned For New AWB Says She Isn't Going to Take Your Guns

there is no comparison between Hillary and Trump on gun rights, they dont even come close.

just because Trump said "something" anti gun in the past is trivial to what Hillary has said he whole carrer, and what she has said she is going to do if elected.

yeah we get it, Trump is a wild card. But that means he can be reached on the subject.... and apparently has this election, with the NRA.

if your voting for gun rights this election, you wont be voting for Hillary....
 
If we are ever going to have a third party candidate that could actually win now would be the time for them to magically show up.
 
When it comes to politicians and "assault weapons" or just guns in general, we have people ranging from "some (more) regulation is needed for public safety" to "if I could get the votes, Mr&Mrs America, TURN THEM ALL IN!!!".

If I ever see a politician who says "we have enough laws, leave the people the HELL ALONE!!!" THAT ONE, I would gladly vote for!!
 
"Nobody is trying to take your guns" ranks right up there with "The check is in the mail"
Click to expand...
Here's my take on it. I remember when Biden was openly talking about bans in the 1990's. I remember Feinstein's "Mr. and Mrs. American, turn them in" talk. They were coming for our guns.

That's why they keep having to say, "we're not coming for your guns" now. Memories are long on this, and I've no reason to believe people like Biden and Feinstein have changed their stripes.

As for their claims that they want "just one this one thing," we heard that when they got the Brady Bill and AWB. The ink wasn't even dry on the President's signature before Feinstein and Schumer crowed to the media that those measures were "a good start" and "just the beginning."

It's always been about incrementalism. The plain fact is, more background checks and categorical bans aren't going to do anything about violence, and they know it. If we take the course of ignoring all other options and focus on simply making it harder to own guns, half-measures aren't going to do the job. Only a complete, total ban couple with confiscation is going to have any significant (not total) effect.

So, yes. Gun control as a policy requires getting rid of all guns to be the least bit effective.

They are coming for your guns. They can't do it any other way.
 
Before considering my comments please note that I am a retired attorney having served for 36 years in a division of the Iowa Department of Justice, a Vietnam veteran, and a life member of the NRA and RMEF.

I am not suggesting these responses should occur.

But . . . if they do come "for your guns" wouldn't the response of MANY Americans be wide-spread civil protests or even some form of a "revolution" against the government(s)?
 
I'm pretty sure compliance will be the result of gun bans. Sure there will be some that hold out.

Us law abiding citizens will comply as we do now.
 
Some will comply. Many will just stash them away. House to house searches for 30 million guns probably wouldn't happen.

However, a ban would be devastating. No more sales, or competitions. Using a banned gun in self-defense, now that would be fun.

Now, we don't do revolution threads on TFL.

I think the lay of the land is clear:

1. Bad anti candidate gets in and has control of Congress - expect an all encompassing ban.

2. Bad anti candidate gets in and Congress is split. NO ban unless some horror show rampage causes a moral panic and then a ban.

3. Antigun states continue to tighten the screws. SCOTUS useless on specific gun type issues. May be useless on the total ban depending on the court makeup.

4. A ban makes the guns useless for most common usages - buried in the backyard and waiting for Red Dawn 3 - at your theaters now - makes the guns pretty useless for average folks.

Prediction : My guess is #2 and 3 after the election.
 
lefteye said:
. . . .But . . . if they do come "for your guns" wouldn't the response of MANY Americans be wide-spread civil protests or even some form of a "revolution" against the government(s)?
Click to expand...
Only if the gov't "comes for the guns" all at once, which I don't foresee. That has the potential to be a bloodbath.

IMHO, the more likely scenario is one in which the gov't takes the guns and wins by attrition. Pass a ban and make possession illegal. Some folks will comply, and turn their guns in. Those who won't comply have to go underground. All the gov't has to do is wait. Catch one guy with a prohibited gun during a traffic stop. Seize gun and bring charges. Destroy gun. Another guy gets ratted out by his future ex-wife during divorce proceedings. Get affidavit and warrant & go get his guns. I'll grant you that it would take a very long time, but I don't see that approach stirring up bloodshed the same way that door-to-door searches would.
 
I agree, expect a social attrition like smoking.
Click to expand...
We'll see things banned by statute. There will still be shootings. The government will start a "see something, say something" sort of program. Perhaps there will be rewards for turning in your gun-owning neighbors.

It won't have to happen all that often. A few highly-publicized busts and prosecutions will be enough to have a chilling effect. After all, who wants to explain the possibility of a multi-decade prison sentence to the spouse or family who just aren't as enthusiastic about the 2nd Amendment?

As for an actual organized, effective armed resistance? I don't see it happening. We lost that spark as a people long ago. Think about it. Most people don't even vote. Those that do act as if they're Guardians Of The Republic. Someone who doesn't welch out of jury duty acts as if it's the 13th labor of Hercules.

If arms have to be twisted for that minimal level of civic participation, how do we really expect the public to organize in resistance to something like gun confiscation?

Our opponents have played a VERY long game, and they benefit from this cultural slide towards apathy.
 
Tom Servo said:
As for an actual organized, effective armed resistance? I don't see it happening.
Click to expand...

what about the private militia movement? They seem to be unorganized except they all have one thing in common, preserving the Second Amendment. What are their numbers at, I would think collectively there is enough of them to form a credible standing army.
 
2. Bad anti candidate gets in and Congress is split. NO ban unless some horror show rampage causes a moral panic and then a ban.
Click to expand...
we have yet to see what the"October Surprise" is....

Also, in reference to Glenn's post # 48, option 3 with states tightening the screws is the most likely outcome. I agree with the other scenarios he laid out.
 
I agree, expect a social attrition like smoking. You do what?

That's certain out there now.
Click to expand...

That's not a coincidence, it's part of the anti gun plan.

"We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes. It used to be that smoking was a glamour symbol -- cool, sexy, macho. Now it is dirty, deadly -- and banned."

Rosenberg's thought is that if we could transform public attitudes toward guns the way we have transformed public attitudes toward cigarettes, we'd go a long way toward curbing our national epidemic of violence.

This, of course, isn't medicine -- though smoking, obviously, leads to medical problems. It's a combination of education and social ostracism, buttressed by legal sanction...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...th-guns/6c7f2bd2-fa57-4d69-b927-5ceb4fa43cf4/
Click to expand...

The Rosenberg quoted used to be the head of The Center for Injury Prevention, a division of the CDC. It was his wildly biased anti gun "research" that prompted Congress to forbid the CDC from continuing to advocate gun control.

The government has no business being in the social ostracism business, AKA discrimination.
 
"I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record."

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000

While he says all the right things to us, (with the above exception) he's been saying all the wrong things to so many others. So much so that it seems his entire candidacy is on the brink of collapse.

There is no doubt that we should be worried about Hillary because Donald Trump is going to self destruct in 10...9...8...7...
 
Why?

It is my hobby. I like putting holes in paper targets and long distance. My local range only has 100 yards but I enjoy shooting, reloading and even cleaning my few guns. Why are these 'public servants' so worried about me?
I would imagine that in a couple of decades technological advances will make projectile spitting arms obsolete. I know I may not be alive then but will the desire to ban citizens from arms be as fervent?
Really I just want to be left alone to enjoy life. What gives with these folks?
:mad:
 
Really I just want to be left alone to enjoy life. What gives with these folks?
Click to expand...

It seems to me that the group that once spoke of diversity and doing your own thing has morphed into the Party of Political Correctness and Groupthink. They decide what you need, how much you need, when you need it and all “reasonable” people agree. Remember – It Takes a Village…
 
It seems to me that the group that once spoke of diversity and doing your own thing has morphed into the Party of Political Correctness and Groupthink. They decide what you need, how much you need, when you need it and all “reasonable” people agree. Remember – It Takes a Village…
Click to expand...

They're all for diversity - of everything except opinion. They've boiled down the entire spectrum of human emotion to "hate" and Facebook likes. Any deviation is meet with an emotional meltdown. At a local university, students were in tears and went to housing department management demanding that they take down the object that they found unbearably upsetting - a Trump poster.

Early this year, an emergency meeting of [student housing department] student leadership and senior staff was called as a response to a student who had placed a Trump poster in the window of his dorm room. In this four hour long meeting, a series of tearful resident advisors appealed to senior staff to forcibly ban all mentions of the bigoted presidential candidate from campus whether satirical or otherwise. Citing a damaged sense of community as a result of the poster, sections of our student leadership criticized the fact that it wasn’t immediately removed by the housing department and stated that allowing for the poster to remain in the window was equivalent to USF openly endorsing anti-immigration policy.

https://sffoghorn.org/2016/04/28/outrage-over-t-shirts-trumps-free-expression/
Click to expand...

They'll take the Second Amendment first, the First Amendment second.
 
Last edited:
Tom Servo said:
If arms have to be twisted for that minimal level of civic participation, how do we really expect the public to organize in resistance to something like gun confiscation?
Click to expand...

Personally, I view voting and personal property as two different things. People generally in the U.S. may be more territorial to their own personal property than voting, especially if they see the system as corrupt. That being said, I think an organized resistance to gun confiscation is unlikely. Organized resistance to gun confiscation may become more likely if there is heavy resistance to it involving sieges, shootouts, etc. I'm sure the general media will continue to paint those defending their guns as wack jobs but if the police kill enough people just for their guns, then that may be enough to galvanize the rest of the gun owners into organized resistance against gun confiscation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top