Confiscation by WHO?

[Oh Shoot]

You won't see the outlawing of something in the Bill of Rights without first going into a Constitutional Convention. ..

 

Just a note, hasn't ever been but one Constitutional Convention called by the States, the original one.

 

The way all amendments since have been done is first by 2/3 vote in both House and Senate, and then ratification by 3/4 of the states.

 

All but one of the amendments have been ratified by state legislatures, although the 21st (to repeal prohibition) was  done by each state holding a convention.

 

Congress determines the method for ratification of any given amendment, and in the case of state conventions the rules for those are handled according to each State's laws.

 

- OS

[Dolomite_supafly]

You are trying to argue something I never said. All I have said was IF, and that is a big IF, firearms were outlawed officers would have no problems enforcing that law like they would any other law. I was never arguing the likelihood of it happening just the way it will happen IF, again a big IF, they were outlawed.

 

If guns are outlawed officers will have no moral opposition to it, heck they have moral oppositions to stuff they arrest people for today.

 

Dolomite

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I'm not trying to argue anything, just make sense of where you were coming from. In the case of the use of an EO,

which was brought up in another thread, and orders were given to essentially round up guns, I wonder your take

on that? Since that would be an illegal order. A lawful order is one thing, but I doubt seriously a lawful order will happen,

anyway, as opposed to some who actually think it may happen, but with this administration, I do expect it to be that way,

which is unlawful use of authority.

 

Just a note, hasn't ever been but one Constitutional Convention called by the States, the original one.

 

The way all amendments since have been done is first by 2/3 vote in both House and Senate, and then ratification by 3/4 of the states.

 

All but one of the amendments have been ratified by state legislatures, although the 21st (to repeal prohibition) was  done by each state holding a convention.

 

Congress determines the method for ratification of any given amendment, and in the case of state conventions the rules for those are handled according to each State's laws.

 

- OS

Thanks for the correction. That's what I meant. :D

[Guest bkelm18]

I dont know Dolomite. I dont feel it would last very long before you'd start seeing news casts of people fighting back. The British thought they had a legal right to disarm us as well. They learned first hand what that got them. They would attempt to keep it low key though. But I dont feel it would be very low key for very long. If this is the approach they choose to take, it will by all means, be a nasty one, and will get ugly.

 

 

The world of today is a much different world than 1776.

[Worriedman]

The world of today is a much different world than 1776.

You can not get people to write a letter, much less actually pick up arms.

[Guest The Dude]

The world of today is a much different world than 1776.

 

 

I agree. Its sad but true. But it shouldnt be. People seem to have more concern for whats on the tube than they do on whats going on with our liberties and future. Far too many people have the mentality that "is long as it dont affect me, then I dont care". And they assume no responsibility for thier lack of action, or desire. Most are dumbed down morons that cant hardly tell you the Bill of Rights.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Most can't do as well as hardly. You're being kind. :D

[Guest The Dude]

Most can't do as well as hardly. You're being kind. :D

Yes. The clear stupidity in our country is amazing, but sad.

[mcurrier]

[quote name="The Dude" post="868717" timestamp="1356488126"]Yes. The clear stupidity in our country is amazing, but sad.[/quote]It seems that the fate of our country hinges on what Lindsay Lohan, Honey Boo-Boo and Kim Kardashian do next.

[Guest Gwith40]

What do you guys think about this:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAlrMQTx5k4

 

Very interesting...particularly from about 8:58 on. Youtube keeps taking it down.

[JohnC]

[quote name='Gwith40' timestamp='1356498148' post='868817']What do you guys think about this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAlrMQTx5k4 Very interesting...particularly from about 8:58 on. Youtube keeps taking it down.[/quote] What I do with vids that are important but get taken down is download real player and save it to my pc. Then you can upload and share it later. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Guest bkelm18]

What do you guys think about this:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAlrMQTx5k4

 

Very interesting...particularly from about 8:58 on. Youtube keeps taking it down.

 

This doesn't have the same feel as other Anonymous videos. Part of me suspects this isn't from them, it's just made to look that way.

[TMF]

Ha, I thought the World Health Organization was coming after my stuff now when I saw the thread title. Maybe next week.

[mcurrier]

[shortround]

Again, I am talking about if firearms are outlawed, not if they random come calling to take guns. If they outlaw firearms and a warrant is issued for having one it is a legal warrant.

 

An officer will uphold the law even if his personal feelings tell him otherwise. They do it all the time. Don't belive me? Ask any officers you know if they believe marijuana should be illegal. The vast majority I have asked have said it shouldn't be. Yet those same officers continue to arrest people for possessing marijuana. I do not believe firearms would be any different.

 

Dolomite

 

Agreed. Heck, how many cops routinely break the speed limit, but have no issue with writing tickets to people who do the same exact thing? History shows us that it is very easy to put your morals to the side and tell yourself "I'm just doing my job."

[DaveTN]

What do you guys think about this:
Very interesting...particularly from about 8:58 on. Youtube keeps taking it down.

They keep taking it down because Anonymous is a criminal enterprise consisting of cowards. Regardless of their message, these are not people we want on our side, or making our arguments for us. The Feds don’t fear their threats; they mess with the feds and they will be in prison where they belong.

If I were part of the Brady Bunch I would try to make it appear that there is an alliance between these criminals and legal gun owners.

[E4 No More]

I can only speak as a former LEO, but I believe that it would take a completely passed law that has undergone challenge in the Supreme Court for me to obey a confiscation law. But I do recognize Dolomite's point. I knew plenty of officers who had no problem breaking the law in order to "win" against the bad guy because they "fight fire with fire." It's one of the reasons that I left law enforcement: I couldn't stand the corruption, and I'm not talking about just in my town.

[Worriedman]

I spent Wednesday in a duck blind with a small town Officer and the Police Commissioner of that same small town.  Both are of the opinion that only Law Enforcement and Military should have access to "Assault Weapons" and "Hight Capacity clips".

 

Needless to say the conversation was somewhat strained.  The remainder of souls in the blind were less than supportive of that stance, and the discussion as to why they felt they should be allowed to keep that specific type of weapon, with any kind of magazines simply because of their choice of employment failed to satisfy the other occupants.

 

I am sure this but the first of many such conversations to come...

[mikegideon]

I just don't understand how the house could roll over on us like that. I'm hearing the same old crap from the same old Democrats. How many house repubs are chomping at the bit to get on any Dem agenda?

[Guest Gwith40]

Youtube takes down a lot of things they don't seem to agree with...legality doesn't seem to be one of the criteria. I put that link up because it seemed a bit out of character for that group..but who knows. The Feds take them down?  They don't seem to be doing a very good job of that so far. Maybe I missed something. If you guys have never heard of the battle of Athens, you should look it up. It occurred right after WW2, in and around Athens Tn. It had to do with a crooked political machine running the area. Local vets kicked out the corrupt sheriff and his cronies, forcibly.

[GlockSpock]

Also factor in these two likely scenarios:

 

Confiscation would be best implemented in tough times. In tough times you need lots of law enforcement. If the best and only chance a LEO has at feeding his family and keeping them from starving is from being a LEO, he may do things he disagrees with morally. 

 

Also, although many LEO's may generally agree with the 2nd Amendment, there are many things that LEO's hate. Criminalize "Assault Rifle" owners to the point that they are considered terrorists, and then LEO's are "fighting the bad guys" aren't they?

 

That's the way Nazis killed a bunch of Jews isn't it?

[Guest Gwith40]

The only difference is that very large numbers of law enforcement officers would probably be killed as well. It would be an ugly scene. I have a friend who is an officer in another state. We got into a discussion about similar things and he said he thought the awb was a good thing...when I asked him to articulate why, he didnt really have clear reasoning. This from an otherwise very intelligent man. I think the departments sometimes feed a bit of the propoganda, which is a dangerous thing.

[K191145]

Youtube takes down a lot of things they don't seem to agree with...legality doesn't seem to be one of the criteria. I put that link up because it seemed a bit out of character for that group..but who knows. The Feds take them down?  They don't seem to be doing a very good job of that so far. Maybe I missed something. If you guys have never heard of the battle of Athens, you should look it up. It occurred right after WW2, in and around Athens Tn. It had to do with a crooked political machine running the area. Local vets kicked out the corrupt sheriff and his cronies, forcibly.

Here's a link for reading by the JPFO.

http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/athens.htm

[mcurrier]

"The government can not tell us what we can and can not own.  The government can go to hell.  If need be, we will send them there."  - Unknown

[mcurrier]