Government taking away gun owner rights

[lovemachine]

My uncle is a stubborn old redneck. And he loves to self proclaim this to everyone too. He says this is a fact, but I dunno. Says that the Health Care Bill is hiding this other bill from everyone, but after the Health bill is passed or shot down, Obama is going to pass a law to start taking away weapons. I don't know if its true. But my question, if they are able to do something like that, would the government actually be able to, legally, enter our homes and take any firearm we have? What are the chances of that ever happening?

Also, he says this is why he always buys used guns. His rule, NEVER do paperwork for guns. That way they can't be taken away.

What's your opinion?

 

[Paco Bedejo]

would the government actually be able to, legally, enter our homes and take any firearm we have?

That depends on your definition of "legally". If you mean "constitutionally", then no. If you mean "based upon unconstitutional laws", then certainly.

What are the chances of that ever happening?

Pretty slim during our lifetimes. Unfortunately, there would be a lot of bloodshed if they tried it & everyone knows it. It's this knowledge which acts as a deterrent to such acts. You know...it seems like that just might be one of the reasons for the 2A in the first place

 

[dburkhead]

Pretty slim during our lifetimes. Unfortunately, there would be a lot of bloodshed if they tried it & everyone knows it. It's this knowledge which acts as a deterrent to such acts. You know...it seems like that just might be one of the reasons for the 2A in the first place

The only way it remains "slim" is if people remain constantly vigilant against the possibility and work actively to prevent it.

As for "bloodshed" ask yourself how many people fought back against the gun grab after Katrina and what makes one think that the percentages would be any better in the US as a whole--particularly if there were some "emergency" to "justify" it--than they were in NO after Katrina.

 

[Que]

People have always been righteously paranoid about the federal government taking away their guns. This is a good thing. The Constitution is a carrot and a stick in many cases. In my opinion, if the federal government ever attempted to take away guns, it would have too many citizen soldiers to deal with. Not to mention that we have the Second Amendment on our side. Now, how the Supreme Court will ultimately rule about it (2nd Amendment) applying to states is another question. There is a possibility that the federal government will not take guns away, but if the courts rule that the Second doesn't directly apply to states, then some states (not Indiana) may revoke and disallow personal carry.

 

[E5RANGER375]

The only way it remains "slim" is if people remain constantly vigilant against the possibility and work actively to prevent it.

As for "bloodshed" ask yourself how many people fought back against the gun grab after Katrina and what makes one think that the percentages would be any better in the US as a whole--particularly if there were some "emergency" to "justify" it--than they were in NO after Katrina.

well if i was one of the residents there, i would have fought back. you dont have to always kill to fight back. hiding from them when they come to take them would be a form of fighting back too, but if it ever happened nation wide then yes it would have to come to violence! and some of you might call me a criminal for saying that, but im not. its been proven that the basis for the law that was innacted to do that in louisiana was unconstitutional. so if you kill an agent of the government while they are violating the constitution does it make it wrong? Is it wrong to kill a robber who is pointing a gun at you? he is breaking the constitution too so whats the difference i ask you? just food for thought, im not insinuating a revolt, but im pretty confident that the majority of Americans will stand up too if the time comes. a lot of people know whats right and are willing to do things, but they need leaders to show them the way, just like in the revolutionary war, they had to be organized by strong leaders or else it would have all fallen apart. the govt agents that hate the constitution know that the people would rise up, so i dont see them being stupid enough to try it for now, but WE MUST BE EVER WATCHFULL ALWAYS!!! the enemy NEVER attacks while you are expecting it. I also bet their were Americans down in louisiana who stood up for their gun rights but maybe they hid instead of fought and you didnt hear about them. but im sure some did stand up, maybe even were arrested, but still stood up.

 

[dburkhead]

well if i was one of the residents there, i would have fought back. you dont have to always kill to fight back.

Maybe. I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. OTOH, I also have to wonder how many people in NO would have made the same claim back before Katrina.

Whether you, or I, personally would be one of the ones who wouldn't comply doesn't really matter much. A handful of die-hards refusing to give up is one thing (and that "thing" pretty much leads to prison or death), but I'd really like to see some evidence that there would be more people, as a percentage, than there were in New Orleans refusing to comply.

 

[E5RANGER375]

yep and you can be sure their are discusions about that very thing in the government behind closed doors right now. they know the only way it might work at first is if they did it during disasters and in stages. cause everyone would rise up if they did it all at once. thats why bills like 1065 are so important.

 

[WeAreNotAlone]

Those that want to disarm the civilian population are always quick to sensationalize those that misuse firearms. While each case in itself is a tragedy for those affected, if you were to compare the mayhem guns in civilian hands have caused, against the mayhem inflected by guns in the exclusive control of governments history has proven time and time again anytime the goverment has all the weapons and you have none millions will die.

CLICK HERE- Fun facts that will drive Anti-Gunners crazy :

DEATH BY GOVERNMENT: GENOCIDE AND MASS MURDER

Above is a report that took 8-years in the making. It gives details on the millions, upon millions of persons that have been killed by "government" forces, or decree.

PS: Have your Anti-Gunner friends read it, and then ask them if they still want firearms ownership restricted to LE and Military only.


******************

The true intent of the second amendment.


Judge Kozinski in his eloquent dissent to the denial of appeal for an en banc rehearing of Silveira explained it perfectly:

The majority falls prey to the delusion—popular in some circles - that ordinary people are too careless and stupid to own guns, and we would be far better off leaving all weapons in the hands of professionals on the government payroll. But the simple truth - born of experience - is that tyranny thrives best where government need not fear the wrath of an armed people.

--

All too many of the other great tragedies of history - Stalin’s atrocities, the killing fields of Cambodia, the Holocaust, to name but a few - were perpetrated by armed troops against unarmed populations. Many could well have been avoided or mitigated, had the perpetrators known their intended victims were equipped with a rifle and twenty bullets apiece, as the Militia Act required here. If a few hundred Jewish fighters in the Warsaw Ghetto could hold off the Wehrmacht for almost a month with only a handful of weapons, six million Jews armed with rifles could not so easily have been herded into cattle cars.


My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons of history. The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed - where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.


Source: The Smallest Minority


.


​

 

[88E30M50]

I don't think there's much of a chance that the govt will go door to door collecting weapons. They know that would be difficult and could spark coordinated resistence. The way the weasels in politics will do it is the same way they did it in England. Start small with registry and some simple 'common sense' controls. Then, slowly work up in very small steps, none of which accomplishes anything big, but together are huge. Then, in the end, instead of searching and collecting weapons, you just start by taxing them. Then, you outlaw them and give amnesty for the sheep to turn them in. After that's gone on for a while, you sensationalize every case where weapons are found and humiliate and imprison offenders.

Pretty soon, people that used to be pro-gun will be turning their grandfathers 1911 in along with everything else they have, because they don't think they can stand alone. In the end, you would see videos of dump trucks full of rare M1s, pistols, shotguns and anything else deemed too dangerous to the keepers of the sheep, being cut and melted.

Any infringement on the 2nd Ammendment should be seen as part of a complete ban and fought as if it were a life or death issue.

 

[trnsplntfrmohio]

Think it can't happen. Look at what happened to GB.

First gun registration
Then the honest people turned in their guns.
Then the police took the rest of the guns.
Now only the criminals have guns and crime is rampant in GB.

 

[Mike H]

I believe according to GOA they are saying that there are provisions in the current Obomacare bill that will have some repercussions for certain classes of gunowners.

 

[Joe Williams]

Government, through CDC, has been trying to call gun ownership a health problem for years. Even use the term "epidemic." What do you think they will do once they nationalize health care?

 

[jdhaines]

well if i was one of the residents there, i would have fought back. you dont have to always kill to fight back. hiding from them when they come to take them would be a form of fighting back too, but if it ever happened nation wide then yes it would have to come to violence! and some of you might call me a criminal for saying that, but im not. its been proven that the basis for the law that was innacted to do that in louisiana was unconstitutional. so if you kill an agent of the government while they are violating the constitution does it make it wrong? Is it wrong to kill a robber who is pointing a gun at you? he is breaking the constitution too so whats the difference i ask you? just food for thought, im not insinuating a revolt, but im pretty confident that the majority of Americans will stand up too if the time comes. a lot of people know whats right and are willing to do things, but they need leaders to show them the way, just like in the revolutionary war, they had to be organized by strong leaders or else it would have all fallen apart. the govt agents that hate the constitution know that the people would rise up, so i dont see them being stupid enough to try it for now, but WE MUST BE EVER WATCHFULL ALWAYS!!! the enemy NEVER attacks while you are expecting it. I also bet their were Americans down in louisiana who stood up for their gun rights but maybe they hid instead of fought and you didnt hear about them. but im sure some did stand up, maybe even were arrested, but still stood up.

Although I agree with you, I've often wondered how something like this would work. It's one thing to stand up for your rights, it's another to live and fight another day. If the JBTs started taking guns how would people willing to stand up organize? If it just started this evening I could resist, but probably be shot. How would I know it wouldn't be in vain, and how would I know if everyone was going to do the same...or if everyone was going to go quietly at first, then organize later. I wonder this sometimes. It's almost like we need some way to be in contact with everyone else. Is there anything like this outside of organized militias?

 

[SSGSAD]

I believe according to GOA they are saying that there are provisions in the current Obomacare bill that will have some repercussions for certain classes of gunowners.

I agree 100%, this "healthcare" bill, is NOT about healthcare, it IS about CONTROL, including, GUN control...

 

[lovemachine]

Huh. I guess my uncle isn't full of after all. I need to hit the lottery now, so I can start buying all the guns I can!

 

[MinuteMan47]

MOLON LABE ! ! !

 

[WeAreNotAlone]

Huh. I guess my uncle isn't full of after all. I need to hit the lottery now, so I can start buying all the guns I can!

If I hit the lottery I'd be tempted to try to find another place to call home.

.

 

[T-rav]

Remember folks the people in power in this country took it over from the foundation starting in the late 1800 early 1900's its a progressive system, if too many people remain silent they will get what they want. Look at all the sheep that dont give a damn about this HC bill. The HC debacle started back with Teddy R. he got the ball rolling and look where it is at now almost cramed down our throats. Progressives are VERY patient and strike in the dark of night, we can not let this happen any longer. So I say MOLON LABE! The attack has not started full force on the Bill of Rights but be prepared for a fight when they do come for it!

 

[ReadnFool]

As has been mentioned, it will not be done in one great gun grab, but in stages. It was very scary when I looked at the timeline for gun control in Great Britian and saw lots of bits and pieces that have been enacted in certain states here in the US. Check out the following link for a good summary. If you do a google search on Great Brittian Gun Control History you come up with several much more detailed articles.

A Brief History of British Gun Control, (or, How to Disarm the Law Abiding Populace by Stealth), by P.A. Luty

Attribute to The Libertarian Enterprise
In 1900 the British government trusted the people with firearms and to be their own guardians. Prime Minister Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, the Marquess of Salisbury said he would "laud the day when there was a rifle in every cottage in England". However in 1903 Britain passed its first ever "gun control" law, a minor one requiring a permit to carry a handgun and restricting the age of purchasers. It was the first toe over a slippery slope towards complete firearms prohibition.

In 1919 the British government, in fear of communist insurgents and domestic and foreign anarchists, passed its first sweeping anti-gun laws (under the smokescreen of crime control) even though gun related crime was almost non existent in the England of the day. British subjects could now only buy a firearm if they could show "a good reason" for having one and the firearm certificate system that we have today (implemented and abused by police) was introduced. The 1920 gun control act was the beginning of the end for private firearms ownership in England. So much for Robert Gascoyne-Cecil's remarks of "a rifle in every cottage in England" being a laudable goal.


In 1936 short barrelled shotguns (such as shot pistols used for ratting) and fully automatic firearms were outlawed. Why? Not because such firearms were ever misused but because the government dictated that civilians had "no legitimate reason" for owning them. Where have we heard that before! Another slide down the slippery slope. The reasoning has now changed from the government NEEDING TO SHOW REASONS FOR THE RESTRICTIONS to the people NEEDING TO SHOW REASONS TO EXERCISE THEIR RIGHTS, to a government TELLING them that there was NO ACCEPTABLE REASON.



The English Bill of Rights states "That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and as allowed by law" Sir William Blackstone, commenting on this in his Commentaries on the laws of England said, "The fifth and last auxiliary RIGHT of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition, and as allowed by law, which is also declared by the same statute IW & M ft.2c.2 and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression". I wonder what happened to "the natural RIGHT of resistance and self preservation" (from domestic criminals and out of control governments). Have not the "sanctions of society and laws" been shown "insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression"?



In 1936 the government added a "safe storage" requirement on the owners of handguns and rifles to "prevent the guns falling into the wrong hands" Where have we heard that one before, and how often do the British police use that particular requirement to harass what is left of the British gun owning community?



As a direct consequence of the 1920 gun control act, not only did Britain not have "a rifle in every cottage" but they had to ask American citizens to send them every type of rifle and handgun at the outbreak of WWII, so British people would have some means of defending their homes and islands against the Nazi hordes massing across the English Channel. Americans responded by sending every type of firearm to the unarmed and helpless people of Britain. No surprise, but at the end of the war the British people did not get to keep the guns, the government seized many of them back and dumped them in the sea. Such was the British government's gratitude to the American public and distrust of their own people.



In 1946 "self defence" was no longer considered a good reason for requiring a police issued firearms certificate. The slippery slope got even steeper.



In 1953 carrying any type of weapon for self defence was made illegal, making the streets even safer for the criminal element and giving great "crime control" soundbites to the police and press.



In 1967 a chap by the name of Harry Roberts blasted three policemen to death in a London street using a 9mm Luger pistol and the British government restricted shotguns for the very first time. Try to figure out the logic... handgun used... shotguns licensed for the first time in British history. Opportunistic, or am I just being a cynical bastard?


In 1982 black powder muzzle loader shooters and handloaders were required to allow police inspection of their security arrangements to ensure "safe storage" of the powder they possessed, meaning that agents of the state could demand entry into an Englishman's home at any time of day or night without a warrant.



In 1988 all semi-automatic rifles were banned, including pump action rifles. The personal property of law abiding people was once again outlawed and seized. All the guns were registered and easy to find, that is to say, all the legally held ones.



In 1996 all handguns were banned and they too were all registered with the agents of the state. Well, need I say more? You get the picture. Also in 1996 carrying any knife with a blade longer than 3 inches was made illegal. Presumably one cannot stab someone to death with a three inch knife. You now had to show "good reason" for carrying a knife, the presumption of innocence, until proven guilty of a crime, was gone.



In England today you cannot carry any type of weapon for self defence and you cannot use a firearm to defend your home, family, or property. The gun and weapon laws have made crime safe for criminals and the other violent thugs and miscreants who infest our country today.



In 2006 the government passed the Violent Crime Reduction Act. The VCRA restricted all "realistic" toy/replica guns. Now Britons were not to be trusted with even imitation non-firing replicas. "Violent crime reduction" was once again used as the smokescreen to enact oppressive laws and deprive the law abiding of their property. As part of the VCRA an airgun can no longer be purchased by mail order and the name and address of the purchaser must be registered with the seller. Is the bigger picture now getting clearer?

In 2009 talks with the British government were started to devolve airgun laws to the Scottish parliament. If and when the Scottish parliament is given the power over airgun legislation the Parliament has vowed to ban the sale of all airguns in Scotland. In the coming years, England will follow the Scottish example and airgun registration and an eventual licensing system will follow. The slippery slope is now in a vertical freefall.



Am I suggesting that there has been some nefarious plan all along to disarm and subjugate the British people? Yes, partly. I am also suggesting that this is a cycle of government behaviour long recognised, one we should be paying attention to, and breaking. We KNOW what governments do; they acquire power at the expense of the governed. They do it slowly, almost imperceptibly, and usually for nefarious reasons and political expediency.

 

[WeAreNotAlone]

As has been mentioned, it will not be done in one great gun grab, but in stages. It was very scary when I looked at the timeline for gun control in Great Britian and saw lots of bits and pieces that have been enacted in certain states here in the US. Check out the following link for a good summary. If you do a google search on Great Brittian Gun Control History you come up with several much more detailed articles.

A Brief History of British Gun Control, (or, How to Disarm the Law Abiding Populace by Stealth), by P.A. Luty

Attribute to The Libertarian Enterprise
In 1900 the British government trusted the people with firearms and to be their own guardians. Prime Minister Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, the Marquess of Salisbury said he would "laud the day when there was a rifle in every cottage in England". However in 1903 Britain passed its first ever "gun control" law, a minor one requiring a permit to carry a handgun and restricting the age of purchasers. It was the first toe over a slippery slope towards complete firearms prohibition.

In 1919 the British government, in fear of communist insurgents and domestic and foreign anarchists, passed its first sweeping anti-gun laws (under the smokescreen of crime control) even though gun related crime was almost non existent in the England of the day. British subjects could now only buy a firearm if they could show "a good reason" for having one and the firearm certificate system that we have today (implemented and abused by police) was introduced. The 1920 gun control act was the beginning of the end for private firearms ownership in England. So much for Robert Gascoyne-Cecil's remarks of "a rifle in every cottage in England" being a laudable goal.


In 1936 short barrelled shotguns (such as shot pistols used for ratting) and fully automatic firearms were outlawed. Why? Not because such firearms were ever misused but because the government dictated that civilians had "no legitimate reason" for owning them. Where have we heard that before! Another slide down the slippery slope. The reasoning has now changed from the government NEEDING TO SHOW REASONS FOR THE RESTRICTIONS to the people NEEDING TO SHOW REASONS TO EXERCISE THEIR RIGHTS, to a government TELLING them that there was NO ACCEPTABLE REASON.



The English Bill of Rights states "That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and as allowed by law" Sir William Blackstone, commenting on this in his Commentaries on the laws of England said, "The fifth and last auxiliary RIGHT of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition, and as allowed by law, which is also declared by the same statute IW & M ft.2c.2 and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression". I wonder what happened to "the natural RIGHT of resistance and self preservation" (from domestic criminals and out of control governments). Have not the "sanctions of society and laws" been shown "insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression"?



In 1936 the government added a "safe storage" requirement on the owners of handguns and rifles to "prevent the guns falling into the wrong hands" Where have we heard that one before, and how often do the British police use that particular requirement to harass what is left of the British gun owning community?



As a direct consequence of the 1920 gun control act, not only did Britain not have "a rifle in every cottage" but they had to ask American citizens to send them every type of rifle and handgun at the outbreak of WWII, so British people would have some means of defending their homes and islands against the Nazi hordes massing across the English Channel. Americans responded by sending every type of firearm to the unarmed and helpless people of Britain. No surprise, but at the end of the war the British people did not get to keep the guns, the government seized many of them back and dumped them in the sea. Such was the British government's gratitude to the American public and distrust of their own people.



In 1946 "self defence" was no longer considered a good reason for requiring a police issued firearms certificate. The slippery slope got even steeper.



In 1953 carrying any type of weapon for self defence was made illegal, making the streets even safer for the criminal element and giving great "crime control" soundbites to the police and press.



In 1967 a chap by the name of Harry Roberts blasted three policemen to death in a London street using a 9mm Luger pistol and the British government restricted shotguns for the very first time. Try to figure out the logic... handgun used... shotguns licensed for the first time in British history. Opportunistic, or am I just being a cynical bastard?


In 1982 black powder muzzle loader shooters and handloaders were required to allow police inspection of their security arrangements to ensure "safe storage" of the powder they possessed, meaning that agents of the state could demand entry into an Englishman's home at any time of day or night without a warrant.



In 1988 all semi-automatic rifles were banned, including pump action rifles. The personal property of law abiding people was once again outlawed and seized. All the guns were registered and easy to find, that is to say, all the legally held ones.



In 1996 all handguns were banned and they too were all registered with the agents of the state. Well, need I say more? You get the picture. Also in 1996 carrying any knife with a blade longer than 3 inches was made illegal. Presumably one cannot stab someone to death with a three inch knife. You now had to show "good reason" for carrying a knife, the presumption of innocence, until proven guilty of a crime, was gone.



In England today you cannot carry any type of weapon for self defence and you cannot use a firearm to defend your home, family, or property. The gun and weapon laws have made crime safe for criminals and the other violent thugs and miscreants who infest our country today.



In 2006 the government passed the Violent Crime Reduction Act. The VCRA restricted all "realistic" toy/replica guns. Now Britons were not to be trusted with even imitation non-firing replicas. "Violent crime reduction" was once again used as the smokescreen to enact oppressive laws and deprive the law abiding of their property. As part of the VCRA an airgun can no longer be purchased by mail order and the name and address of the purchaser must be registered with the seller. Is the bigger picture now getting clearer?

In 2009 talks with the British government were started to devolve airgun laws to the Scottish parliament. If and when the Scottish parliament is given the power over airgun legislation the Parliament has vowed to ban the sale of all airguns in Scotland. In the coming years, England will follow the Scottish example and airgun registration and an eventual licensing system will follow. The slippery slope is now in a vertical freefall.



Am I suggesting that there has been some nefarious plan all along to disarm and subjugate the British people? Yes, partly. I am also suggesting that this is a cycle of government behaviour long recognised, one we should be paying attention to, and breaking. We KNOW what governments do; they acquire power at the expense of the governed. They do it slowly, almost imperceptibly, and usually for nefarious reasons and political expediency.

Thank you sir, I've been looking for info that can be used to enlighten "Hunters, Target-Shooters' that think their weapons are safe, not caring if military style weapons are banned.