Obama Goes Beyond Mere Gun Control, Hints at Confiscation

[DCPatriot]

  Absolutely without a shred of doubt!  We have absolutely NOTHING to gain by surrendering our 2nd Amendments rights and EVERYTHING to lose.  Remember; contrary to what some have been taught or believe,  a majority, NOT a minority of colonists supported the fight against Great Britain...

"If FREEDOM is what we want, it is ours for the taking.  Let the REVOLUTION begin".

   --- Dr. Ron Paul

I was taught that 1/3 of the population supported the fight....1/3 didn't....and the remaining 1/3 couldn't have cared less.   

[ABX]

I was taught that 1/3 of the population supported the fight....1/3 didn't....and the remaining 1/3 couldn't have cared less.   

It doesn't matter if 1/3rd support it if they don't get out from in front of their computers and TVs and make themselves heard. 1/3rd may give lip service, but how many people will actually stand up and say No?  It is hard enough to even get people to run for local office these days (who don't have ulterior long term political ambitions). School boards often are half filled or their seats, along with many local races, go unopposed. Voting turnout is extremely low. People don't take part in neighborhood watches, heck, many don't even know their neighbor's names.

..and when they do all get together and stand for something, they end up fractioning over something else.

[andy58-in-nh]

More guns. Less crime. Simple as that.

Absolutely true, and statistically valid everywhere you care to look.

Liberals don't care to look, though. They thrive on emotion, not reason, and desire not freedom, but control.

Have you noticed that the reflexive left-wing response to a crime committed with a gun is often no different than their response to an episode of self-defense with a gun? 

They tend to attack the gun, ignoring both the intentions of the actor and the nature of the act.  "He (the criminal/lunatic) shouldn't have had access to a gun" vs. "He (the victim) shouldn't have used a gun".

Firearms have no intentionality. They cannot determine their own purpose. A gun can be used to commit a crime or to prevent one from taking place, and it is human intention, not some mystical power inherent in a firearm that determines the purpose which it is made to serve.

But Progressives (essentially being mystics and not rationalists) live in terminal fear of everything they cannot control, thus seeking government not as a safeguard against external threats, but as insulation from life's unpleasant realities, and inevitably: against anything they just don't like.

[DCPatriot]

Absolutely true, and statistically valid everywhere you care to look.

Liberals don't care to look, though. They thrive on emotion, not reason, and desire not freedom, but control.

Have you noticed that the reflexive left-wing response to a crime committed with a gun is often no different than their response to an episode of self-defense with a gun? 

They tend to attack the gun, ignoring both the intentions of the actor and the nature of the act.  "He (the criminal/lunatic) shouldn't have had access to a gun" vs. "He (the victim) shouldn't have used a gun".

Firearms have no intentionality. They cannot determine their own purpose. A gun can be used to commit a crime or to prevent one from taking place, and it is human intention, not some mystical power inherent in a firearm that determines the purpose which it is made to serve.

But Progressives (essentially being mystics and not rationalists) live in terminal fear of everything they cannot control, thus seeking government not as a safeguard against external threats, but as insulation from life's unpleasant realities, and inevitably: against anything they just don't like.

 

[aligncare]

They'll do it like they did gay marriage and now are doing transgender rights. It will become a pop culture meme with bullies and victims. You are either a bully, a victim, or you stand for one of the two. No one wants to be a bully or be considered standing for a bully. Everyone roots for the under dog and the victim to triumph in the end. They have a pattern they found has been working. I suspect we'll start to see this come up in a lot of pop culture. Teen shows where someone accidentally gets shot so all the kids talk about how bad guns are. Sitcoms where the dad wants to buy a gun and all the family talks him out of it because they are scared of it. Crime dramas around mass shootings focusing on if the killer didn't have a gun, he could have turned his life around. Hollywood speeches. Music videos. The works.

Good points. But Hollywood would go broke if they didn't have guns in movies. What a riot that would be:

Rambo VII! The ultimate adventure!

A brutal and sadistic Burmese army renegade threatens peaceful missionary workers with --gasp!-- abusive language and insults.

But, all's not lost. Vietnam veteran John Rambo is recruited to rescue villagers from a horrible fate.

Adventure! Thrills! Danger -- you could break a nail!

A rockthrowing, slapping, pinching, hair pulling action thriller!

[oldno7]

 It's down right convenient for barry to want to compare terrorism stats to gun deaths, it has no relevance.

Maybe he would like to compare numbers of abortions vs. gun deaths....

lets publish that on an alphabet tv station.

[mountaineer]

But Progressives (essentially being mystics and not rationalists) live in terminal fear of everything they cannot control, thus seeking government not as a safeguard against external threats, but as insulation from life's unpleasant realities, and inevitably: against anything they just don't like.

Good point, Andy, and that's exactly the problem with the American left: feelings over facts.

[libertybele]

Obama's little angry speech after the shooting was filled with outright lies and no one dared question him.  He's got an agenda and he's going to implement it, just mark my words.

Absolutely ... he has an agenda.  During his entire presidency he has done whatever he wants and so far no one, including the 535 members of Congress has stopped him.  IF he were to issue an executive order side stepping the 2nd Amendment and/or start mandatory confiscation of weapons he would definitely cause many to rise up and there are many law enforcement personnel that would not comply ... ah.. not to worry...the U.N. has his back.

[famousdayandyear]

Good points. But Hollywood would go broke if they didn't have guns in movies. What a riot that would be:

Rambo VII! The ultimate adventure!

A brutal and sadistic Burmese army renegade threatens peaceful missionary workers with --gasp!-- abusive language and insults.

But, all's not lost. Vietnam veteran John Rambo is recruited to rescue villagers from a horrible fate.

Adventure! Thrills! Danger -- you could break a nail!

A rockthrowing, slapping, pinching, hair pulling action thriller!

Wait a minute. BRB.  Broke a nail field stripping my Judge.

[Free Vulcan]

Absolutely ... he has an agenda.  During his entire presidency he has done whatever he wants and so far no one, including the 535 members of Congress has stopped him.  IF he were to issue an executive order side stepping the 2nd Amendment and/or start mandatory confiscation of weapons he would definitely cause many to rise up and there are many law enforcement personnel that would not comply ... ah.. not to worry...the U.N. has his back.

True, but the UN coming here with troops would be a galvanizing moment for a great number of people. Americans will put up with alot within the context of American law, but troops from turd world banana republics and theocracies trying to pull their usual oppression and brutality on Americans will bring on a backlash of large proportions.

[DCPatriot]

True, but the UN coming here with troops would be a galvanizing moment for a great number of people. Americans will put up with alot within the context of American law, but troops from turd world banana republics and theocracies trying to pull their usual oppression and brutality on Americans will bring on a backlash of large proportions.

....which will provide him with a 'reason' to call for Martial Law, etc..   

[Free Vulcan]

....which will provide him with a 'reason' to call for Martial Law, etc..   

They can try, but we simply don't have the military assets or the money to pull it off for long. China isn't going to fund $2 trillion dollar deficits while the economy crashes, welfare payments go ballistic, and we aren't buying their stuff. The bureaucats with visions of takeover dancing in their heads don't realize it's a financial and logistical paradox.

[DCPatriot]

They can try, but we simply don't have the military assets or the money to pull it off for long. China isn't going to fund $2 trillion dollar deficits while the economy crashes, welfare payments go ballistic, and we aren't buying their stuff. The bureaucats with visions of takeover dancing in their heads don't realize it's a financial and logistical paradox.

...which is why he's got "blue-helmet" UN troops on standby.

Furthermore, since when do you think Barack Obama gives a fiddler's f**k about a financial/logistical paradox? 

[Relic]

They'll do it like they did gay marriage and now are doing transgender rights. It will become a pop culture meme with bullies and victims. You are either a bully, a victim, or you stand for one of the two. No one wants to be a bully or be considered standing for a bully. Everyone roots for the under dog and the victim to triumph in the end. They have a pattern they found has been working. I suspect we'll start to see this come up in a lot of pop culture. Teen shows where someone accidentally gets shot so all the kids talk about how bad guns are. Sitcoms where the dad wants to buy a gun and all the family talks him out of it because they are scared of it. Crime dramas around mass shootings focusing on if the killer didn't have a gun, he could have turned his life around. Hollywood speeches. Music videos. The works.

You are spot on. Gun rights advocates will be portrayed as average conservatives have been portrayed, uneducated, low class, backwards losers. People that no one wants to be around, or be accused of being one of them!

Liberals own pop culture. Pop culture rules the masses. We are on a runaway train. It's not a matter of IF it will crash, it's only a question of when, and how bad. We can snipe amongst ourselves for our own amusement, but the real battle has been lost.

[Free Vulcan]

...which is why he's got "blue-helmet" UN troops on standby.

Furthermore, since when do you think Barack Obama gives a fiddler's f**k about a financial/logistical paradox?

They will need a minimum of a million troops to pull it off, which alone I don't think we can do alone. That's approximately one soldier for 325 US citizens.

To put it in perspective, New York City Metro has 20M people in it and 13K sq miles. Pro-rated that's about 60K troops or about 5 per square mile.

For my county that's about 110 troops for a 35K, population, 15K households and 400 square miles.

And those troops have to be paid, fed, fueled, armed and ammo'd, or they can't/won't do their job, which is going to be hard if we're floating bonds and there's no takers except at real high interest rates. It won't be long before we're floating bonds to pay off the retiring bonds and then just to pay the interest.

Then the long arm of the Federal govt will get very short, very fast.

[EC]

No where near that many needed.

Pacification of the USA is doable with 200k troops, 150k in a pinch. You've been considerate enough to disarm the vast majority of your population centers and essential infrastructure nodes.

[aligncare]

They will need a minimum of a million troops to pull it off, which alone I don't think we can do alone. That's approximately one soldier for 325 US citizens.

To put it in perspective, New York City Metro has 20M people in it and 13K sq miles. Pro-rated that's about 60K troops or about 5 per square mile.

For my county that's about 110 troops for a 35K, population, 15K households and 400 square miles.

And those troops have to be paid, fed, fueled, armed and ammo'd, or they can't/won't do their job, which is going to be hard if we're floating bonds and there's no takers except at real high interest rates. It won't be long before we're floating bonds to pay off the retiring bonds and then just to pay the interest.

Then the long arm of the Federal govt will get very short, very fast.

Interesting analysis. Brings down the fanciful to a pragmatic level. Nice take.

[Relic]

They will need a minimum of a million troops to pull it off, which alone I don't think we can do alone. That's approximately one soldier for 325 US citizens.

To put it in perspective, New York City Metro has 20M people in it and 13K sq miles. Pro-rated that's about 60K troops or about 5 per square mile.

For my county that's about 110 troops for a 35K, population, 15K households and 400 square miles.

And those troops have to be paid, fed, fueled, armed and ammo'd, or they can't/won't do their job, which is going to be hard if we're floating bonds and there's no takers except at real high interest rates. It won't be long before we're floating bonds to pay off the retiring bonds and then just to pay the interest.

Then the long arm of the Federal govt will get very short, very fast.

Hmmmmm... I don't see it that way. It's much, much easier.
If somehow they could invent a reason for confiscation, the government would simply make gun ownership illegal, with severe penalties for those who don't comply with surrendering their weapons.

Done.

Those who don't give up their weapons, when they are caught with them, are heavily fined, and sent to re-education. Just like a DUI, maybe worse.

[DCPatriot]

Hmmmmm... I don't see it that way. It's much, much easier.
If somehow they could invent a reason for confiscation, the government would simply make gun ownership illegal, with severe penalties for those who don't comply with surrendering their weapons.

Done.

Those who don't give up their weapons, when they are caught with them, are heavily fined, and sent to re-education. Just like a DUI, maybe worse.

Like hell.....they will declare any non-compliance an act of war against the United States and they will be shot....just like looters during the Great San Francisco Earthquake in 1906.    http://www.infoplease.com/spot/sanfran1906earthquake.html


And their homes will be given to Muslims and/or Hispanic immigrants.   

[Free Vulcan]

No where near that many needed.

Pacification of the USA is doable with 200k troops, 150k in a pinch. You've been considerate enough to disarm the vast majority of your population centers and essential infrastructure nodes.

Yes and no. Places like Chicago, New York, and LA? Yes, at least among the lawful citizenry. Places like Nashville, Topeka, Des Moines, Mobile and Springfield, IL? Not so much. Then there's the vast scale of distance of the rural areas in the US, dotted with small towns. You can't maintain control with 1 soldier per 10 square miles or more in the rural areas with the number of guns out there.

There are other factors at work, not the least of which is the will cities burn, and troops will be shifted there, and we have States with Governors that in such a power vacuum are going to fill it with their own authority. There's also the factor that the more control they try and assert, the more it will backfire by crashing the economy and making it increasingly difficult to pay for such action. There are many other logistical nuances out there I guarantee the Feds haven't taken into account.

I will maintain that any martial law scenario will be a feint. The global powers that be want this country broken up into several, with areas occupied by other countries, and not a dictatorship. We as a nation are too dangerous to them for even that.

[Free Vulcan]

Hmmmmm... I don't see it that way. It's much, much easier.
If somehow they could invent a reason for confiscation, the government would simply make gun ownership illegal, with severe penalties for those who don't comply with surrendering their weapons.

Done.

Those who don't give up their weapons, when they are caught with them, are heavily fined, and sent to re-education. Just like a DUI, maybe worse.

It all depends on their timing and methodology. Given the tendency of the Feds to be jackboots, their own actions may result in a harsh backfire of reaction.

[Relic]

Like hell.....they will declare any non-compliance an act of war against the United States and they will be shot....just like looters during the Great San Francisco Earthquake in 1906.    http://www.infoplease.com/spot/sanfran1906earthquake.html


And their homes will be given to Muslims and/or Hispanic immigrants.   

That's possible. The financial gain for the government is key. They don't want to jail someone without compensation.

[Bigun]

Hmmmmm... I don't see it that way. It's much, much easier.
If somehow they could invent a reason for confiscation, the government would simply make gun ownership illegal, with severe penalties for those who don't comply with surrendering their weapons.

Done.

Those who don't give up their weapons, when they are caught with them, are heavily fined, and sent to re-education. Just like a DUI, maybe worse.

With all due respect, I think you greatly misunderstand the depth of passion that exists when it comes to this subject. This is NEVER going to happen and the fedgov knows it!

[Free Vulcan]

I will posit that in a gun confiscation/martial law scenario where the Feds screw it up and fail to convince the population to comply, it will boil down to two key factors: the Republican governors, and the State of Texas. If the Governors are willing to stand up, and if Texas says hell no, many will follow.

[PzLdr]

Hmmmmm... I don't see it that way. It's much, much easier.
If somehow they could invent a reason for confiscation, the government would simply make gun ownership illegal, with severe penalties for those who don't comply with surrendering their weapons.

Done.

Those who don't give up their weapons, when they are caught with them, are heavily fined, and sent to re-education. Just like a DUI, maybe worse.

Randy Andy Cuomo, with a White House run gleam in his eye, passed the SAFE Act in New York, banning high capacity mags [over 10 shot capacity, w/ 7 rounds max., requiring the registration of all previously "grandfathered 'assault weapons' [he also tightened up on the definition], and banning the sale of NEW assault weapons to all but police. Failure to conform on any of the above is a Class 'D' felony. 95% [low estimate] of 'assault weapon' owners refused to register their guns. Nobody I know, or read about surrendered their mags. And this is New York. So the government can go piss in their hat. They're going to be ignored. And then when they try to take the weapons [after checking FFls], the fun begins.