The cat is out of the Bag - Total Confiscation

E

Elker_43

New member
Well TFLers,
Here is the article that firms up what we all know and it is spelled out in a step by step progressive formula to totally confiscate our firearms. Not just a selected few, BUT ALL OF THEM.

It is the old frog in the heated pot of water.

Just a few of the paragraph's....
"The only way we can truly be safe and prevent further gun violence is to ban civilian ownership of all guns. That means everything. No pistols, no revolvers, no semiautomatic or automatic rifles. No bolt action. No breaking actions or falling blocks. Nothing. This is the only thing that we can possibly do to keep our children safe from both mass murder and common street violence. Unfortunately, right now we can't. The political will is there, but the institutions are not. Honestly, this is a good thing. If we passed a law tomorrow banning all firearms, we would have massive noncompliance. What we need to do is establish the regulatory and informational institutions first. This is how we do it......"

Another:
"We must make guns expensive and unpopular, just like cigarettes. A nationwide, antigun campaign paid for by a per gun yearly tax paid by owners, dealers, and manufacturers would work well in this regard. We should also segway into an anti-hunting campaign, like those in the UK. By making hunting expensive and unpopular, we can make the transition to a gun free society much less of a headache for us."

Want to read the whole thing and its not that long:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/21/1172661/-How-to-Ban-Guns-A-step-by-step-long-term-process


Probably the rants of a mad man liberal crazy nutcase and I know that most of us will say "nah, can't happen here", however, I bet those in Germany, Japan, Russia, etc. said the same thing years ago to the tune of hundreds of millions of lives.

What do you think????
 
It's no secret that there are liberals out there, like many of California's elected officials, that want a blanket ban on all firearms.

That said, if you look over the comments the author of that article made in the comments section, you will see that he doesn't even have a clue about what the second amendment actually stands for, and that many of the commenters disagree with him. In fact, it's quite clear that he's your basic liberal idiot who thinks banning civilian ownership of firearms is going to somehow stop violence dead in its tracks.
 
Last edited:
Auto246 -
Yes, you are right he is a typical liberal who knows nothing about the 2nd. It is also, even though a column comment, the first time that I have read in some sort of written specificity a citizens detail of the "confiscation map". This map to confiscation is an inherent learned lesson in the minds of the progressives of our country.

My bet is that he is a 50ish college graduate in journalism from some liberal college and Saul Alinsky is his hero. To him, it doesn't matter about the meaning and reason for the RTKBA, it is the socialistic training he has received for this very thing that we all have been worried about.

As we all know, registry in the form of Universal BG checks is the lead to control of weapons one can and cannot have and is being promoted almost daily in black and white All freedom loving citizens of this country need to become fully aware of this map to confiscation and that it lies squarely in "our" laps to make all aware of what will happon if we do not act now.
 
Guys, that is clearly written by a gun owner. When was the last time you met a gun control supporter who casually threw around terms like "7.62x54R" "AWB" and "GOA.". Outside of gun forums, those terms are meaningless. Opposition to guns is often driven by ignorance (see "shoulder thing that goes up") yet this guy is familiar with all the laws and functional specifics.

IIRC, that article was written by someone at AR15.com who was just trying to provoke liberals into arguing for even more insane laws.
 
Obamacare

Be aware that how they will derive the list is through the CDC. With his recent executive order mandating/clarifying that all healthcare professionals MUST ask if you have firearms in your home as part of the pre-screening process, they will have their list nice and tidy. The premise is so that your regular doctor can now decide if you are mentally stable enough to own firearms. If they feel you are not, your name goes to the CDC and they come knocking on the premise of safety. They don't need to pass anything, the government already did!
 
Some Non-Gun People have good comments

This from the Editorial of my local paper. If only it could make it into the Washington Post! Here is the entire article,

And this problem often appears to boil down to one word.

Fear. It’s all about fear. If we allow the government to regulate guns, that’s just a slippery slope, like the one that happened in Nazi Germany! If we don’t bump up regulations right now, murders and gun violence will continue to escalate; actually it’s already too late! On both sides, the ones who speak the loudest provide simple, one-dimensional solutions to a complex, socially-ingrained problem. And if you don’t agree with them, then you must be against them.
Click to expand...
 
This is part of the Progressive agenda and nothing new. To my mind, the Progressive movement is the greatest threat to our country. Sorry if this is too political...
 
Be aware that how they will derive the list is through the CDC. With his recent executive order mandating/clarifying that all healthcare professionals MUST ask if you have firearms in your home as part of the pre-screening process,
Click to expand...

Misrepresenting the other side's position doesn't help us. The Executive Orders don't require doctors to ask about guns in the home. It clarified that the ACA doesn't *prohibit* doctors from asking. Doctors still don't have to ask, and if asked, patients still don't have to answer.
 
I heard this morning that govt. employees (congress) are exempt from the law if passed, anyone else hear that rumor?
 
Still, all I am seeing are more ideas that will take away firearms from law abiding citizens, but yet does nothing to adress the use of firearms used in crimes. I just don't get why people can't see that all a full ban of guns would do is give the criminals the upper hand.
 
Grizz12 -

The words in the Diane Feinstein bill (which has only been introduced) has the words "exemption of law enforcement and government officials" embedded in the bill structure. This is probably what you heard or read. What is a Government official? Who knows at this point. The Govt could use the language to exempt only Senators and Congressman, but could extend that to as minor an "official" as a janitor in the warehouse in a Government stationary store????

This is precisely why the citizens of the US feel a need to arm themselves against the government. As long as those in power abuse their power by exempting themselves and who they choose from the controls they are all too willing to place on the citizens, the citizens will recognize those in power as being a threat.
 
The cat is out of the bag? Really? :rolleyes:

You guys need to find something else to be paranoid about. Take a look at the poll at the end of the article... even on Dailykos there is less than 2% support.
 
With all due respect, his EO did clarify the requirement for healthcare professionals to help with the mental illness aspect. Thats what the professionals who do that for a living have said. That isn't my opinion, but rather their interpretation in relation to all of his recent EO's.
 
Here's the thing: with the Heller decision, the only way you could legally do this would be to add an amendment to the Constitution repealing the 2nd amendment. Even if this actually happened (I would put the probability of this happening at zero percent), there is the practical matter that the government would have to somehow try to enforce it. Consider the local and state LEO agencies which are sending open letters to the president specifically refusing to enforce laws they feel violate the 2nd amendment (high capacity mag ban, "assault weapons").

I have zero concern about a total ban.
 
Just a few of the paragraph's....
"The only way we can truly be safe and prevent further gun violence is to ban civilian ownership of all guns. That means everything. No pistols, no revolvers, no semiautomatic or automatic rifles. No bolt action. No breaking actions or falling blocks. Nothing. This is the only thing that we can possibly do to keep our children safe from both mass murder and common street violence. Unfortunately, right now we can't. The political will is there, but the institutions are not. Honestly, this is a good thing. If we passed a law tomorrow banning all firearms, we would have massive noncompliance. What we need to do is establish the regulatory and informational institutions first. This is how we do it......"

Another:
"We must make guns expensive and unpopular, just like cigarettes. A nationwide, antigun campaign paid for by a per gun yearly tax paid by owners, dealers, and manufacturers would work well in this regard. We should also segway into an anti-hunting campaign, like those in the UK. By making hunting expensive and unpopular, we can make the transition to a gun free society much less of a headache for us."
Click to expand...

Whether this was written to inform, bemoan or provoke, the logic isn't there. What makes the author believe that an outright ban would spark non-compliance, while a registration (basis for taxation) would not. On the other hand, I could forsee a spike in boating accidents....

Here's the bottom line: enforcing the existing laws (anywhere from 300 to "more than 20,000") has been, and remains, financially unaffordable, and so would a new one which calls for universal registration (the basis for taxation, and BTW, confiscation) of the 300 million (ok, make it 200 million, or even 50 million, post boat accidents) firearms out there. The government couldn't even keep track of the 2K guns in Fast & Furious (so far they've located two, with disastrous consequences). As an AZ resident, I am furious about how such a negligent and dangerous mindset (and accompanying performance) on the part of those in .gov connected with this failed program continues to have the support of the liberals. I've seen denial, but this takes the cake.

MR2

PS. The image of riding a two-wheeled device in an anti-hunting campaign captures the tone and value of said article. :)
 
Last edited:
Actually, the comments section for this is a great read. Virtually all the arguments are against this "proposal". Pretty funny. My favorite: "Sh*t like this gives liberals a bad name. You should delete this police state fantasy."
 
What do you think????
Click to expand...


Tin foil hat material. Rants of an extremist. No different than the rants of a extreme pro-gunner that thinks even the dangerously mentally ill have the inherent right to own nuclear weapons.
 
I can't believe a liberal blog site like Kos published a post about banning guns! OMG, we should boycott somebody!

Seriously? Do you go looking for stuff to get spun up about?
 
Guys, that is clearly written by a gun owner. When was the last time you met a gun control supporter who casually threw around terms like "7.62x54R" "AWB" and "GOA.". Outside of gun forums, those terms are meaningless. Opposition to guns is often driven by ignorance (see "shoulder thing that goes up") yet this guy is familiar with all the laws and functional specifics.
Click to expand...

Whether its real or just an ARFCOMer trying to mess with liberals I don't know. The author states in the comments section that he comes from a rural background where hunting was extremely popular, and you would think that someone like that would have at least a basic knowledge of some of the more popular hunting rounds and firearms.

However, this author also states in the comments section that the second amendment is now null and void because the militia it mentions is now the National Guard. At least the other liberal commenters know that isn't the case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top