Who's most likely to try to take your gun away'?

Who is most kikely to take your gun away?

  • Hillary

    Votes: 103 60.6%

  • Rudy

    Votes: 24 14.1%

  • Mitt

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Obama

    Votes: 41 24.1%

  • Fred

    Votes: 1 0.6%

  • Ron

    Votes: 1 0.6%
  • Total voters
    170
I say Rudy would, here's why....

First, none of these people would ever personally TRY to come and take our guns. They would have to send armed men willing to take on that dangerous task for them. How much is a LE officer's, soldier's, etc job worth to him. Attempting to pull off a national "turn in all your guns now or face deadly force" would open a bottomless can of worms. But I think we understand what was meant by the poll question. And I also assume it meant who as president.

Clinton and Obama would be very likely push AWBs, waiting periods, bulk ammo purchase bans, and the like. I don't think either would attempt a mass confiscation due to Obama not having the guts and Hillary not wanting to risk the backlash.

I'd see Rudy being the one to declare martial law over a supposed national security or terrorism situation. Gun ban being part of it. Easier to get more help from forementioned armed men when it is for our supposed protection rather than someone's grand social engineering scheme.

I realize there is a potenial for any president to abuse his power in such a way. However the Constitution does require that someone fill that spot and I'll gladly take my chances with Ron over Rudy, Clinton, or Obama.
 
I can't believe nobody's said this yet, so let me proudly say:

NONE of them will take my gun away, no matter how many illegal laws they pass. Not until all my ammo's gone.

What about the rest of you guys?
 
Rudy has some serious explaining to do before he gets my vote.
Click to expand...

Why would you purposely plan to allow yourself to be duped by smoke, mirrors, & lies that are inevitably forthcoming from Rudy before the general (if he wins the primaries, which he won't), just like Kerry's phot ops out duck hunting and supposed belief in the 2A, when he had voted for every gun ban to ever come down the pike as a senator. They'll say anything to get into office. Their RECORD, alone, will tell you what they'll do once they get IN office.

I agree with apr1775 - Rudy would be worse than Hillary or others. Hillary just cares about running up the middle of the road and staying popular, and passing her health care plan. She doesn't want to expend a lot of political capital which would be an impediment to her domestic policies like healthcare, in order to pass gun bans when she saw how that hurt Dems in the recent past many times, her husband included. Rudy on the other hand, is a law and order, fascist type, who actually believes (evidently) that gun laws help reduce crime. He would be all about martial law and disarmament in the event of a major attack or catastrophe.
 
NONE of them will take my gun away, no matter how many illegal laws they pass. Not until all my ammo's gone.
Click to expand...

Oooooooo..chest pounding. What state do you live in :cool:

Note: if Congress passes it and a court does not toss it it's constituional and not illegal.

wilddidyousayrudywyoming?
Click to expand...

If I decide to vote for Rudy (and there is a good chance I would have to) I would do so based on factors other than his position on gun control (which is pragmatic vis a vis ideological I bet)....

The only one who can take your guns away is your local congresscritter. Choose wisely.

WildmoreimportantthingsaboutthepresidentAlaska TM.
 
NONE of them will take my gun away, no matter how many illegal laws they pass. Not until all my ammo's gone.
Click to expand...

You may want to think seriously about your willingness to participate in said actions should confiscation occur. How many people will participate? Will the local LE be sympathetic to the people? Local media (believe it or not they have the power to portray you as either a nutjob or a hero in the eyes of the people watching)? Are you willing to allow your family/friends to pay the price with you?

I'm not saying I would not stand up to injustice such as what you describe, but I certainly wouldn't broadcast my intentions in an internet forum. In this scenario you look like, at best, a keyboard commando; at worst unstable. Those are contingencies that, should you decide to prepare for, would best be done in private or with those you trust.

I'd see Rudy being the one to declare martial law over a supposed national security or terrorism situation. Gun ban being part of it. Easier to get more help from forementioned armed men when it is for our supposed protection rather than someone's grand social engineering scheme.
Click to expand...

AGREED. This is an insightful view and the more likely scenario.

Oooooooo..chest pounding. What state do you live in
Click to expand...

LOL!! I know this question wasn't directed at me, but Wyoming is currently fighting the ATF over some state legislation that was designed to enable people who are convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence to obtain firearms legally in the state under certain circumstances. They've been fighting over it for a couple of years... Wyo AG and assembly think that a misdemeanor should not be enough to brand a person as prohibited for the rest of their life under federal law. It's gone both ways and Wyoming is currently appealing the latest ruling in favor of the ATF. It could get very interesting on a national level... regardless, I like living in a state that fights for it's peoples' rights. Good riddance to CA.... that's the last place I wanted to be when the SHTF.

The states fighting the feds may be the ultimate way for a bloodless revolution to occur..... when insulated by the state the people are much more powerful.


Quote:
wilddidyousayrudywyoming?
Click to expand...

I figured that would get your attention! :D

If I decide to vote for Rudy (and there is a good chance I would have to) I would do so based on factors other than his position on gun control (which is pragmatic vis a vis ideological I bet)....
Click to expand...

My vote will be based on factors other than gun control as well.... I just hope Rudy vs. Hillary is not my ultimate choice. If that is the case I'm not sure what I will do.
 
url
 
:confused::confused::confused:
Note: if Congress passes it and a court does not toss it it's constituional and not illegal.
:confused::confused::confused:

WildAlaska: have you ever read the Declaration of Independence where it speaks of natural rights? These rights are God given regardless of how governments infringe apon them, and it is the right and duty of people to alter or abolish abusive governments. (here I go again sounding like a radical by quoting the founding fathers). The US Supreme Court in US v Cruikshank said that the right to keep and bear arms predates the Constitution. So even if all three branches of government tell me I must be disarmed, I feel no moral duty to go along with it.

[moderators: if I go too far, just say so]

Can someone please tell me a reason to support Rudy other than you value FEELING safe over BEING free??? That is the only core message I hear the mayor offer. If I'm missing something, please let me know.
 
You may want to think seriously about your willingness to participate in said actions should confiscation occur. How many people will participate? Will the local LE be sympathetic to the people? Local media (believe it or not they have the power to portray you as either a nutjob or a hero in the eyes of the people watching)? Are you willing to allow your family/friends to pay the price with you?

I'm not saying I would not stand up to injustice such as what you describe, but I certainly wouldn't broadcast my intentions in an internet forum. In this scenario you look like, at best, a keyboard commando; at worst unstable. Those are contingencies that, should you decide to prepare for, would best be done in private or with those you trust.
Click to expand...

Gee, thanks for the unsolicited advice. /sarcasm

Just because I only have a few posts on THIS forum doesn't mean I'm a forum noob, Mr. Name-caller. Interesting how you contradict yourself. First you say that I should think twice about participating in said actions, then you say that you might consider doing so, you just wouldn't broadcast it on an internet forum. So what does that make you, a mealy-mouthed coward? Maybe you should more carefully align your thoughts before flaming people.

Also interesting that you didn't flame the person who said virtually the same thing a few posts before me:
Shooter said:
The ones most likely to take my guns is the SWAT team and the coroner. I'll not give them up peacefully. Not politiction is getting them.

Take them at your peril!!!
Click to expand...
Hmm, maybe I'm not the only one who thinks this way. The coward monicker is looking more apropo by the minute.:rolleyes: Give up your guns if you want to, maybe slavery is more suited to you.
 
have you ever read the Declaration of Independence where it speaks of natural rights?
Click to expand...

Yep. The Declaration isnt law.

These rights are God given regardless of how governments infringe apon them, and it is the right and duty of people to alter or abolish abusive governments
Click to expand...

Kindly show me where God has given someone the right to have guns. Show me that god exists first :)

So even if all three branches of government tell me I must be disarmed, I feel no moral duty to go along with it.
Click to expand...

OK...now we know you dont beleive in the rule of law.

WildthisdiscussionisgettingoldAlaska TM
 
The coward monicker is looking more apropo by the minute. Give up your guns if you want to, maybe slavery is more suited to you.
Click to expand...

All righty then.:rolleyes:

WildperhapsaneditisinorderfastAlaska TM
 
Last edited:
Wildalaska said:
OK...now we know you dont beleive in the rule of law.
Click to expand...
Ah, I see...

So if the government said that all Alaskans without exception must surrender themselves to be bound with chains and given rough enemas with lit cattle prods until they expire, you would obey the rule of law?

fosyouknownothingaboutthebillofrightsten TM
 
[/QUOTE]Quote:
have you ever read the Declaration of Independence where it speaks of natural rights?

Yep. The Declaration isnt law.


Quote:
These rights are God given regardless of how governments infringe apon them, and it is the right and duty of people to alter or abolish abusive governments

Kindly show me where God has given someone the right to have guns. Show me that god exists first


Quote:
So even if all three branches of government tell me I must be disarmed, I feel no moral duty to go along with it.

OK...now we know you dont beleive in the rule of law.[/QUOTE]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is this getting trivial?

If the Declaration isn't law, does that mean we're still subjects of the British crown down here in Virginia????

The forum here is "legal and political" not "philosophy and religion". I'm not going to go off on a tangent to try and show you that God exist; He'll do that better than I can. Point is: our basis of government was founded on the notion of we were all created with God given rights and the only legitimate reason for government to exist is to protect those rights. We can work on the basis of that belief, or what's the alternative? Can you show me where you rights come from? Do you have any rights?

Would you say then; any evil act done by governments is legitimate as long as it carried out in some "legal" maner? Would those who refuse to participate in such evil acts not respect the rule of law?
 
So if the government said that all Alaskans without exception must surrender themselves to be bound with chains and given rough enemas with lit cattle prods until they expire, you would obey the rule of law?
Click to expand...

O....my...god..

Thats the best I can do, sorry.

By the way, I know folks who pay good money for that...Freudian slip??:D

Can you show me where you rights come from? Do you have any rights?
Click to expand...

We have a whole ongoing thread on that...enjoy :)


fosyouknownothingaboutthebillofrightsten TM
Click to expand...

Yep, you're right, they don't teach us that in law school and when you do criminal defense you never even consider that:rolleyes:

By the way, the TM after my smarmy sig line means you cant do it without paying me...my fee for run on sig lines is $100 per letter, pay up:D

WildawholenewrevenuestreamAlaska TM
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top