Can they take our guns?

[Guest Boonie]

can they take our guns? and how.

[Guest dwrd]

By prying them from cold dead hands?

[Guest Astra900]

[molonlabetn]

The first step is not going to be taking what you have... it will be making sure you can't get any more, and cant use the ones you have. If that happens, after exhausting all legitimate means of preventing it, whether or not they can take your guns is up to you...

If you give them up, they won't have to take them.

If they come at you with full force, they can overpower you and take them.

If you manage to evade their attempts to subdue you, as a gun owner, it's up to you to decide what to do with the tools of freedom you have become a fugitive to keep.

All I know is... if one waits for the knock to come at the door before they act, it's too late. So, 'can' they?... Yes, if we let it get to that point. Right now, however, there are no provisions for such a direct confiscation, so there is still time to avert, delay or prepare for it.

[creeky]

It's much easier and profitable for the to simply tax them out of the common man's reach.

[TGO David]

It's much easier and profitable for the to simply tax them out of the common man's reach.

The course that they most assuredly will take. My theory is that that unopposed, it will progress something like this:

1st step... new, non-expiring "Assault Weapons" ban.

2nd step... serious taxation on ammo and firearms themselves. Likely parallel with the passing of the 1st step.

3rd step... government sponsored buy-backs

4th step... forced forfeiture and confiscation

[DavidD]

The first step is not going to be taking what you have... it will be making sure you can't get any more, and cant use the ones you have. If that happens, after exhausting all legitimate means of preventing it, whether or not they can take your guns is up to you...

If you give them up, they won't have to take them.

If they come at you with full force, they can overpower you and take them.

If you manage to evade their attempts to subdue you, as a gun owner, it's up to you to decide what to do with the tools of freedom you have become a fugitive to keep.

All I know is... if one waits for the knock to come at the door before they act, it's too late. So, 'can' they?... Yes, if we let it get to that point. Right now, however, there are no provisions for such a direct confiscation, so there is still time to avert, delay or prepare for it.

Well said!

It's much easier and profitable for the to simply tax them out of the common man's reach.

And that my friends is where it will start along with the AW ban as previuosly mentioned.

[Guest nraforlife]

ONLY if you let them

[saintsfanbrian]

Can they? They are the government which has become a juggernaut that has no "watch dog". So of course they can.

Will they? Obama and the Left wing democrats will do what they can while they can to make it happen.

The NRA and all other Gun Owners groups are going to be more necessary in the next 4 to 8 years than you could imagine. Only by giving them more money (which I hate doing but will) can they be effective. We need to keep them lobbying for our cause.

Should it come down to a government complete take over of the guns I believe there will be a few states if not many that will decide enough is enough. I would suspect it will be the inner states (Colorado, Montana, the Dakotas, Oklahoma, Texas, Nebraska, Tennessee etc) that might go out on that limb.

Civil war? Maybe,

[StumpyBeagle]

I think all it will take is one incident, either real, or staged once Obama is sworn in. And with as many billybubba rednecks, skinheads, idiots, Clansmen, or just some nut with voices telling him to go do his deranged duty there are out there it won't take long before someone supplies them with exactly what they are looking for. They won't hesitate to act first and then fight the court battle of whether its constitutional or not for the next eight to ten years.

[Volzfan]

The first step is not going to be taking what you have... it will be making sure you can't get any more, and cant use the ones you have. If that happens, after exhausting all legitimate means of preventing it, whether or not they can take your guns is up to you...

If you give them up, they won't have to take them.

If they come at you with full force, they can overpower you and take them.

If you manage to evade their attempts to subdue you, as a gun owner, it's up to you to decide what to do with the tools of freedom you have become a fugitive to keep.

All I know is... if one waits for the knock to come at the door before they act, it's too late. So, 'can' they?... Yes, if we let it get to that point. Right now, however, there are no provisions for such a direct confiscation, so there is still time to avert, delay or prepare for it.

Exactly!!!

[Garufa]

can they take our guns? and how.

No, they cannot take your guns. It would be legally and logistically impossible to do so. Like some here have said expect to be taxed to death if some crusade happens to go though Washington regarding firearms. The chances in the foreseable future of that I think are small, unless the new government really does not want to fix the past awful 8 years and prepare this county for any kind of future.

If the proclamation comes down from on high to seize all weapons in the US, I believe it would take a declaration of marshall law, suspension of the Constitution, mobilizing every NG unit in the country and deploying active duty forces within our own boundaries (ALL of them).

Ain't gonna happen.

And.....

The first step is not going to be taking what you have... it will be making sure you can't get any more, and cant use the ones you have. If that happens, after exhausting all legitimate means of preventing it, whether or not they can take your guns is up to you...

If you give them up, they won't have to take them.

If they come at you with full force, they can overpower you and take them.

If you manage to evade their attempts to subdue you, as a gun owner, it's up to you to decide what to do with the tools of freedom you have become a fugitive to keep.

All I know is... if one waits for the knock to come at the door before they act, it's too late. So, 'can' they?... Yes, if we let it get to that point. Right now, however, there are no provisions for such a direct confiscation, so there is still time to avert, delay or prepare for it.

Very well said!

[Guest tcampbell]

He can try to take anything he wants to...not just guns....

I'm not part of the "yes we can" faction....I belong to the "no I won't" faction

[poak]

No, they cannot take your guns. It would be legally and logistically impossible to do so. Like some here have said expect to be taxed to death if some crusade happens to go though Washington regarding firearms. The chances in the foreseable future of that I think are small, unless the new government really does not want to fix the past awful 8 years and prepare this county for any kind of future.

If the proclamation comes down from on high to seize all weapons in the US, I believe it would take a declaration of marshall law, suspension of the Constitution, mobilizing every NG unit in the country and deploying active duty forces within our own boundaries (ALL of them).

Ain't gonna happen.

And.....

Very well said!

On top of that, I don't foresee 100% of the members of our armed forces and law enforcement departments willing to get behind such an action.

[Guest nraforlife]

As I said earlier ONLY IF YOU LET THEM !!!

In our own native land, in defense of the freedom that is our birthright, and which we ever enjoyed till the late violation of it -- for the protection of our property, acquired solely by the honest industry of our fore-fathers and ourselves, against violence actually offered, we have taken up arms. We shall lay them down when hostilities shall cease on the part of the aggressors, and all danger of their being renewed shall be removed, and not before. - Jefferson

Edited November 6, 2008 by nraforlife

[saintsfanbrian]

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

Remember this is what our military swears to. As long as it is in that statement (uphold the constitution) it will take an amendment before they should go door to door to help seize the arms. The President cannot make an order against the Constitution. The Supreme Court has already ruled that the 2nd is an individual right. Obama would have to first appoint justices that would over turn this and have a case that would go before them in order to over turn it. I don't think he will get federal supreme court justices in his first 2 years. I could be wrong and I think that in the mid term elections we will probably pick up a few seats in the house and senate.

[Guest bheard]

Look for the TAX, and soon.

BH

[Guest GUTTERbOY]

They can only do what we allow them to do.

[Garufa]

They can only do what we allow them to do.

They can do whatever they want once elected. That goes for both sides of the political gene pool.

If you mean that in another way, well then.....I hear ya.

[Kano]

Newsmax

In an effort to trim its high murder rate, Brazil's government has virtually outlawed possession of handguns in public by almost everyone, with the exception of police, soldiers, prison guards and security officers.

The law, which took effect shortly before Christmas, is being hailed by opponents of gun rights as a bold new social experiment they hope will reduce murder rates.

However, other countries that have tried this not-so-new type of "bold social experiment" have had unhappy results.

Nations that have severely restricted and banned firearms have seen their crime rates increase. The United Kingdom, after banning ownership and possession of most guns in 1997, saw its crime and murder rates skyrocket, according to government figures. The same phenomenon occurred in Australia.

Socialist Sweden, despite its peacenick reputation and attacks on gun rights, has a higher murder rate than the United States, Interpol has revealed.

In the U.S., a sweeping federal review of anti-gun laws has found no evidence they reduce violence.

An Aug. 5, 2000 study by the Journal of the American Medical Association found the Brady law had not affected the number of gun homicides, though supporters promised it would when it was passed during the Clinton administration in the mid-1990s.

In Canada, a disastrous attempt at requiring registration of guns has been a boondoggle costing $1 billion and rising.

In Brazil, authorities have also implemented tough new measures against anyone engaging in illegal sales of weapons. Such offenders now face lengthy prison terms with no bail.

The law also raises the minimum age of gun ownership from 21 to 25, and requires every gun buyer to be subjected to a background check.

Meanwhile, a report in the New York Times said, all other gun owners are being informed they will likely have to turn in their weapons within six months. And socialist President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, who signed what officials are calling the disarmament act Dec. 23, is also planning a national referendum in 2005, in which voters will decide on a ban on all handgun sales in Brazil.

"This is an expression of the unanimous will of society to cut the spiral of violence that unsettles us and embarrasses us before humanity," Lula da Silva said when signing the bill.

A homicide occurs in his country about once every 12 minutes, said the president, and "this statute is certainly not the solution to everything, but it is an exceptional step forward."

Brazil, a country of about 182 million people, has more murders by firearm annually – roughly 40,000, the Washington Post reports – than the United States, with a population of 292 million (the U.S. firearms murder rate in 2003 was about 29,000, the paper said).

And, despite opposition to the new rules by Brazilian gun rights groups and National Rifle Association, polls there indicate most people – 80 percent – support both new rules. Sixty-seven percent said they supported a ban on the ownership of all guns. Gun rights groups lobbied lawmakers hard to reject the bill.

Officials in Brazil say that about 2 million guns are legally registered but that the number of unregistered guns in a country larger than the contiguous 48 United States is as high as 20 million.

'Mercy of the Criminals'

Gun makers in Brazil and elsewhere say criminals will continue to buy firearms on the black market or will smuggle them in, meaning the new rules will leave the law-abiding public unarmed and vulnerable.

"Brazil, which is struggling for equality, has just passed a law that leaves the poor at the mercy of the criminals," said Renato Conil, a vice president at Forjas Taurus, Brazil's largest gun-maker. "Now it's only the victim that will be disarmed."

But gun control supporters said claims by opponents that the law will have no effect on the black market industry argue a third of the 77,000 weapons seized by police since 1951 were purchased legally.

[Guest Todd@CIS]

On top of that, I don't foresee 100% of the members of our armed forces and law enforcement departments willing to get behind such an action.

Unfortunately, too many would if ordered.

I'm always amazed at how many people have never read the Constitution.

I take a copy of it to work with me everyday...

Want a free copy?

https://secure.heritage.org/firstPrinciples/pocketconstitution.aspx

Edited November 7, 2008 by Todd@CIS

[Guest SUNTZU]

Newsmax

"Brazil, which is struggling for equality, has just passed a law that leaves the poor at the mercy of the criminals," said Renato Conil, a vice president at Forjas Taurus, Brazil's largest gun-maker. "Now it's only the victim that will be disarmed."

In America, if what BHO has campaigned for throughout his career as a politician comes to pass, the poor will be you and I, the criminals will be BHO and his minions.

I will not go gentle into that good night.

[TripleDigitRide]

Some folks really amaze me with their paranoid delusions that our government will come to our homes and take our guns away.

I'm fairly confident Obama will come out with some sort of ban. I'm almost as equally confident that he will do his best to make it more difficult for us to buy other guns and ammo.

Even though I couldn't force myself to vote for him, the idea that Obama is the reincarnation of Hitler is quite absurd. Obama is no more of a Hitler-type Nazi dicator that Bill Clinton was when he signed into law the AWB back in 1994. We managed to live though Clinton's ban, and I'm sure we will manage to live though another one if/when Obama is able to get his way.

Yes, the thought of another AWB sucks. No, I don't think it's the governments right to infringe on our Constitutional Rights, but lets not turn this into something it isn't. Remember, this isn't a dictatorship, and Obama would need the assistance of a whole lot of people to put a door-to-door search and seizure into effect. I would seriously like to believe that he wouldn't get near the support needed for such a venture.

Even if he is able to get another AWB passed, it's not going to happen anytime soon. It took nearly 2 years for Bill Clinton to get the first AWB passed.

Everyone getting themselves into a premature frenzy is ridiculous. The guy wasn't elected (NOT SWORN IN) President for 24 hours and people started going mental. Making such knee jerk reactions and immediately buying up all the guns and ammo makes no more sense than the wackjobs who sit in line for 3 hours because some fool said there was going to be a gas shortage. We all saw what happened there. It was little more than an opportunity for unnecessary inflated fuel prices, only to be called "supply and demand". That was a joke just like the unnecessary inflated prices of gun related items. It's nothing more than suppliers getting more wealthy off the fear of the American people.

Edited November 6, 2008 by TripleDigitRide

[jughead]

and please tell me what happened in that pip squeek state called california did they not confiscate so called ugly rifles. please correct me if i am wrong.

[Guest SUNTZU]

When you start hydroplaning is not the time to try and get insurance on your vehicle.