Newscum trying to circumbent the 2A.

[ZipZap]

Originally Posted by Rob

Pandering


Quit letting these people get all of you worked up. The only reason they have the jobs that they do is they are good at the grift and pander to the emotional desires of the uneducated.

The issue is that there are some that would welcome disarmament, and they do need to know, even abstractly, that there is a large portion of the population that will physically resist such a movement. So, even if it's just a poke on Twitter, or something else that seems innocuous, they can never be allowed to feel comfortable.

Only 50 miles away from home...

https://www.denverpost.com/2023/06/0...itol-ban-guns/

[Rob]

Originally Posted by ZipZap

The issue is that there are some that would welcome disarmament, and they do need to know, even abstractly, that there is a large portion of the population that will physically resist such a movement. So, even if it's just a poke on Twitter, or something else that seems innocuous, they can never be allowed to feel comfortable.

Only 50 miles away from home...

https://www.denverpost.com/2023/06/0...itol-ban-guns/

Hypothetically: Say a state does pass a law outlawing some form of gun ownership. How many law enforcement personnel are going to willingly follow orders and go door to door in order to retrieve the guns that were not willingly turned in at the time that the new law was passed?

Would you volunteer to retrieve those weapons? Even if they had to send in entire SWAT teams to take those weapons, they would first have to protect the surrounding area by evacuating the immediate neighbors which would also draw attention to the situation.

It will never happen.

[Shrike6]

Like I have told LEOs that I have had friendly conversations with, who I respect , just please don’t be the first one through my door.

[GTOguy]

Originally Posted by Steve_R

Your state voted him in as Governor, you tell us.

You know what? I'm blaming YOU.

[m and t's77]

https://www.thevettebarn.com/forums/...d.php?t=132724

[ZipZap]

Originally Posted by Rob

Hypothetically: Say a state does pass a law outlawing some form of gun ownership. How many law enforcement personnel are going to willingly follow orders and go door to door in order to retrieve the guns that were not willingly turned in at the time that the new law was passed?

Would you volunteer to retrieve those weapons? Even if they had to send in entire SWAT teams to take those weapons, they would first have to protect the surrounding area by evacuating the immediate neighbors which would also draw attention to the situation.

It will never happen.

Totally agree. In the meantime, we need to continue to impress that taking away weapons will turn out to be much more dangerous to them than leaving law-abiding citizenry alone. There is an inherent safety when folks believe you may just be crazy (desperate, fed up, nihilistic), as well as armed.

The funny ones always say, "good luck with your small arms against tanks and F-15's" To them I say, "You're assuming which side those forces will ultimately be on, and you're likely wrong."

[bill_daniels]

Originally Posted by Rob

Hypothetically: Say a state does pass a law outlawing some form of gun ownership. How many law enforcement personnel are going to willingly follow orders and go door to door in order to retrieve the guns that were not willingly turned in at the time that the new law was passed?

Would you volunteer to retrieve those weapons? Even if they had to send in entire SWAT teams to take those weapons, they would first have to protect the surrounding area by evacuating the immediate neighbors which would also draw attention to the situation.

It will never happen.

Did you see law enforcement busting people for violating diktats such as keeping their barber and beauty shops open, going to the beach, going to church, going out to eat at restaurants, and even taking children to the park for some exercise? Not every agency and jurisdiction did that, of course, but the point is, we already have an answer to your question. We're seeing right now, in real time, the ATF going around demanding people give up FRT's (forced reset triggers) that the government just magically knows they have.

And one last thing, you saw what happened to the Oath Keepers. A group of military and LEO's, active and retired, that pledged one simple thing, that they would never participate in disarming their fellow citizens, is now labeled as a domestic terror group that "tried to overthrow the government. You think local sheriffs don't understand they can be dragged through kangaroo courts and imprisoned just like the Oath Keepers' leadership has been?

So no, I don't share your optimism. Some sheriffs, some agencies may balk, but there will be plenty of agencies that WILL follow those orders. And when it comes down to it, I don't see those local sheriffs standing up when the federal government comes in to do it. Those police, sheriffs, constables, marshals....they have families, too.

And if you think our military is going to come in and save the day, I have some bad news for you.

This was back in the 1990's. Do you think things are better now, or worse?

https://jpfo.org/articles-assd/29palms-mcmanus.htm

Firing on U.S. Citizens?

While all of the questions in this survey should have stimulated concern, the survey’s final question has generated an enormous amount of attention:

The U.S. government declares a ban on the possession, sale, transportation, and transfer of all non-sporting firearms. A thirty (30) day amnesty period is permitted for these firearms to be turned over to the local authorities. At the end of this period, a number of citizen groups refuse to turn over their firearms. Consider the following statement: I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the U.S. government.

The survey results: 42.3 percent strongly disagreed with this statement; 19.3 percent disagreed; 18.6 percent agreed; 7.6 percent strongly agreed; and 12.0 percent had no opinion. In one of the footnotes appearing in his thesis, Cunningham quotes comments placed by some of the Marines next to their answers to this question: "What about the damn Second Amendment? … I feel this is a first in communism! … Read the book None Dare Call It Conspiracy by Gary Allen." "I would not even consider it. The reason we have guns is so that the people can overthrow the gov’t when or if the people think the gov’t is too powerful." "Freedom to bear arms is our Second Amendment. If you take our Amendments away then you can take this job and stick it where the sun don’t shine! … It is a right to own firearms for defense (2nd Amendment); I would fight for that right!"

Based on the disagreement expressed by 61 percent of the Marines, Cunningham concluded that "a complete unit breakdown would occur in a unit tasked to execute this mission."

How do you think those numbers would look now, especially when the military has purged soldiers for refusing to be injected with a worthless but dangerous
'vaccine,' and the military is recruiting the woke left.

[6spdC6]

Getting older but I do remember during one of the hurricanes that devastated a area Local LEOS and national guard were ordered by superiors to confiscate civilian owned weapons in the area. They went door to door! They even took away a revolver from a frail little about 82 YO woman after body slamming here to the ground. There was looting going on in her area she needed that gun!

The thing is in any bad news event some will do a 100% what they are told to do (Nuremberg Defense) and some will not. It will come down to what transpired in our Civil war. Brothers and friends on totally opposite sides,

Found some of it, it happened other places also!

Did New Orleans police confiscate guns after Katrina?
In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans Chief of Police Eddie Compass ordered police and National Guard units to confiscate firearms from civilians who remained in the area.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by GTOguy

Why do Democrats think that passing more laws and restrictions to impede the law-abiding will keep criminal intent out of the minds of thugs who don't obey any law?

Is it pure f-ing delusion or is it stupidity?

Neither.....Exactly what they want. They want us defenseless so they can complete the take over of our America.

[Rob]

Originally Posted by bill_daniels

So no, I don't share your optimism. Some sheriffs, some agencies may balk, but there will be plenty of agencies that WILL follow those orders. And when it comes down to it, I don't see those local sheriffs standing up when the federal government comes in to do it. Those police, sheriffs, constables, marshals....they have families, too.

You keep watching your tv and drinking their kool-aid

[bill_daniels]

YouTube

https://www.youtube.com/results?sear...g+door+to+door

[aerovette]

Originally Posted by Rob

Hypothetically: Say a state does pass a law outlawing some form of gun ownership. How many law enforcement personnel are going to willingly follow orders and go door to door in order to retrieve the guns that were not willingly turned in at the time that the new law was passed?

Would you volunteer to retrieve those weapons? Even if they had to send in entire SWAT teams to take those weapons, they would first have to protect the surrounding area by evacuating the immediate neighbors which would also draw attention to the situation.

It will never happen.

MANY. The same number that arrested those attending church, those that entered a bank without a mask, those that arrested gym owners, the list goes on. During Covid and the Floyd riots, a lot of the decent cops left the job.

The disruption and chaos is actually a bonus for the media.

[mrvette]

Originally Posted by GTOguy

Why do Democrats think that passing more laws and restrictions to impede the law-abiding will keep criminal intent out of the minds of thugs who don't obey any law?

Is it pure f-ing delusion or is it stupidity?

Originally Posted by aerovette

It's stupidity.

TRAINED stoopidity........

[slewfoot]

Originally Posted by Steve_R

He can propose anything. 38 states must vote to approve a new amendment. The chance of 38 states approving anything like he proposes is exactly 0%.

He's simply pandering to the left - again - to enhance his upcoming run for POTUS.

I'm not worried about it at all. During the past 5 years and more so the past 3 and after a school shooting, gun control topics were hot for a month or so, caused a run on guns and ammo. All caused by those on the podiums crying "they gonna take our guns! They gonna take our guns!"

What happened? Nothing, except higher prices by every gun owner hording as much as they could for no reason.

It's so predictable. 2a has about as much chance of being screwed with as proclaiming the end of racism. Ain't gonna happen and no point losing sleep over it.

Yes they are chipping away at accessories but all guns are still here. "If" they were to get a ban on assault weapons, it would probably start by production first followed by a book full of stipulations but as far as knocking on your door, I doubt it.

I was in Sportsmans Warehouse the other day and what amazed me was an entire aisle of kids toy guns and such like we had as kids. I have not seen a display like that in many years

[Frankie the Fink]

Its all the same old drumbeat:

1 Limit the types of firearms citizens can purchase
2 Limit the people that can purchase firearms
3 Make the process so onerous that people just give up or are intimidated

The remaining few stalwart people that are eligible to own the limited firearms and put up with the bureaucracy to get them will be tracked, intimidated and demoralized separately as the core problem.

[ZipZap]

Washington HB 1240...

More than "creeping".

If anyone has a hi-res version, please post.