Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Off With a Bang: Assault on Second Amendment Begins
FrontPage Magazine ^ | January 8, 2013 | Matthew Vadum

Posted on 01/08/2013 4:33:15 PM PST by SJackson

- FrontPage Magazine - http://frontpagemag.com -

Off With a Bang: Assault on Second Amendment Begins

Posted By Matthew Vadum On January 8, 2013 @ 12:40 am In Daily Mailer,FrontPage | 40 Comments

President Obama is planning an aggressive, in-your-face, blitzkrieg-style campaign against Americans’ fundamental Second Amendment right to self-defense.

After a madman murdered 26 people including 20 young schoolchildren last month at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, Obama initially urged a reinstatement of the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban. The demonstrably useless law lapsed in 2004 and had no detectable impact on crime. It was designed to cater to big-city liberals and their irrational fear of firearms.

But the Obama administration’s plans to assault the Bill of Rights grew more ambitious over the Christmas holidays. The administration has now had an opportunity to brainstorm more extensively with the left-wing gun-grabbing lobby, which is heavily financed by radical financier George Soros.

The president is hoping to use the bloody Newtown massacre to impose sweeping new restrictions on firearms and to create a massive new database to track and spy on law-abiding gun owners. Americans are wise to be wary of such proposals. Governments the world over have used such databases time and time again to crack down on internal dissent, lay the groundwork for gun confiscation, and clear the way for genocidal slaughter.

Citing multiple sources “involved in the administration’s discussions,” the Washington Post reports that the Obama White House is now “weighing a far broader and more comprehensive approach to curbing the nation’s gun violence than simply reinstating an expired ban on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition.”

According to the newspaper:

A working group led by Vice President [Joe] Biden is seriously considering measures backed by key law enforcement leaders that would require universal background checks for firearm buyers, track the movement and sale of weapons through a national database, strengthen mental health checks, and stiffen penalties for carrying guns near schools or giving them to minors…

Vice President Biden “guaranteed” Boston Mayor Thomas Menino that President Obama would push through sweeping firearms restrictions before February.

“He said, ‘Tommy, I guarantee you, we’ll get it done by the end of January,’” Menino said, according to the Boston Herald. “They’re going to get it done.”

Obama may intend to bribe and blackmail businesses in order to win their support for his assault on law-abiding gun owners, the Post article suggests.

“[T]he White House is developing strategies to work around the National Rifle Association that one source said could include rallying support from Wal-Mart and other gun retailers for measures that would benefit their businesses,” the article stated.

The Obama White House is coordinating its strategy with New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, an outspoken enemy of the Second Amendment. Bloomberg co-founded Mayors Against Illegal Guns with Boston’s Menino.

Biden’s working group is reportedly gearing up to present a package of recommendations to the president soon. After that the Community Organizer-in-Chief intends to head up a public-relations campaign to further inflame the public before the passions generated by the Newtown murders cool.

“They are very clearly committed to looking at this issue comprehensively,” said Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, which is participating in Biden’s group.

Despite ceaseless cheerleading by their allies in the mainstream media, leftists probably won’t be able to shoot holes in the Second Amendment easily.

Lawmakers from both parties are opposed to further crackdowns on the ownership of guns, which author David B. Kopel notes are already “the most severely regulated consumer product in the United States — the only product for which FBI permission is required for every single sale.”

Newly sworn-in Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) said gun control proposals now being discussed –including a plan by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) to create a national gun registry– are unconstitutional. The federal government doesn’t have “any business having a list of law-abiding citizens” who choose to exercise their right to keep and bear arms, he said.

After Newtown “within minutes, we saw politicians run out and try to exploit this tragedy, try to push their political agenda of gun control,” Cruz told “Fox News Sunday.”

What happened in Newtown is “a tragedy, but it’s not a tragedy that should be answered by restricting the constitutional rights of all Americans.”

Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) also cautioned against taking aim at gun owners’ rights.

“I think you need to put everything on the table, but what I hear from the administration — and if the Washington Post is to be believed — that’s way, way in extreme of what I think is necessary or even should be talked about. And it’s not going to pass,” the new freshman senator said on a Sunday TV talk show.

Heitkamp said mental health-related proposals have to be part of any package aimed at reducing violent crime.

“Let’s start addressing the problem. And to me, one of the issues that I think comes — screams out of this is the issue of mental health and the care for the mentally ill in our country, especially the dangerously mentally ill. And so we need to have a broad discussion before we start talking about gun control,” she said.

Obama’s sudden reversal on gun rights shouldn’t come as a surprise. Obama has a long anti-gun track record that he carefully distanced himself from when he began running for the presidency. In his academic days he told a colleague: “I don’t believe people should be able to own guns.”

As a candidate for state office in 1996, Obama promised to ban “the manufacture, sale & possession of handguns.” Seeking his U.S. Senate seat in 2004, Obama advocated blocking citizens nationwide from receiving concealed-carry permits.

This documented antipathy toward Second Amendment rights stands in stark contrast to Obama’s statements on the presidential campaign trail in 2008 when he promised to respect Americans’ individual right to bear arms.

“When you all go home and you’re talking to your buddies and you say, ah ‘He wants to take my gun away.’ You’ve heard it here, I’m on television so everybody knows it. I believe in the Second Amendment. I believe in people’s lawful right to bear arms. I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I won’t take your handgun away.”



TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Front Page News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: banglist; bloodoftyrants; democrats; donttreadonme; guncontrol; nocompromise; obama; secondamendment; tyranny; wewillnotcomply; youwillnotdisarmus

1 posted on 01/08/2013 4:33:19 PM PST by SJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SJackson

“....fundamental Second Amendment right to self-defense.”

.
Wow. Lose that right, and this country will become totally unliveable considering its multicultural condition.

Red states had better consider to ban together.


2 posted on 01/08/2013 4:42:37 PM PST by 353FMG ( I refuse to specify whether I am serious or sarcastic -- I respect FReepers too much.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

Let’s start by repealing the NFA of ‘34.


3 posted on 01/08/2013 4:45:10 PM PST by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

I honestly don’t think these politicians give a hoot about gun laws.

It’s always about money. So if the government starts enacting gun control what is going to happen next ? Lawsuits anyone ? And in the lawsuits who makes the money - lawyers, who feed politicians with more donations.

system sux.


4 posted on 01/08/2013 4:49:50 PM PST by mike_9958
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 353FMG
Red states had better consider to ban[d] together.

The Bamster has long stated that he sees Abraham Lincoln as his guide for an ideal president. Perhaps we misunderstood, and he values Lincoln's willingness to send Federal troops against US citizens... These "Red states" of which you speak might find themselves in trouble.

5 posted on 01/08/2013 4:55:53 PM PST by tpmintx (Gun free zones are hunting preserves for unarmed people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

Gun control will be succesful in neighborhoods like Holmes’ and Lanza’s. Not much chance of success in non-middle-class neighborhoods.


6 posted on 01/08/2013 4:59:35 PM PST by familyop (We Baby Boomers are croaking in an avalanche of rotten politics smelled around the planet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2

That’d be a good start, for sure.


7 posted on 01/08/2013 5:08:32 PM PST by andyk (I have sworn...eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2
Let’s start by repealing the NFA of ‘34.

The NFA was pretty much re-written in '68, and that is the law that would need to be repealed. I say repeal them all.

The only problem would be that owners of Class III firearms would see the values drop precipitously. A transferable M-16 from before '86 is currently worth about $20K. If these acts are repealed it would probably drop to about $2K in value, depending what the manufacturers would charge for a new one.

8 posted on 01/08/2013 5:14:34 PM PST by tpmintx (Gun free zones are hunting preserves for unarmed people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: tpmintx
These "Red states" of which you speak might find themselves in trouble.

Hmmm. The last time I read about the guns in TX, it was estimated there were 2+ for every man woman and child in the state in private ownership. Do you really think that it would be possible for the brown shirts to go door to door and remove them? Not going to happen and TX will not give them up at the state level. Will not happen.

9 posted on 01/08/2013 5:23:34 PM PST by Texas Fossil
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

The evidence of their lies is painfully apparent. If their purpose is to somehow save lives with gun control they should logically start in the inner cities where most gun violence occurs. They have taken no steps in this direction and won’t.


10 posted on 01/08/2013 5:35:26 PM PST by muir_redwoods (Don't fire until you see the blue of their helmets)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

I’ve dealt with the Secret Service for 40 years, and this bunch of mercenary, gutless cowards are the most vile of the lot. These pricks are more interested in finding hookers than guarding a president.

For all you FReepers noting the decline of America, the decline of honor in the federal government is 10 times worse.


11 posted on 01/08/2013 5:35:43 PM PST by sergeantdave (The FBI has declared war on the Marine Corps)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SJackson
What really pisses me off the most is the thought that for decades these same leftists lectured Americans incessantly about how they had to compromise their values and be more accepting of those who's world view they many times found repugnant.

Now that these leftists are in total charge tolerance goes out the window - they're completely unwilling to give any consideration to values and principles important to anyone else. Worse, they are trying to make them illegal.

These people do not deserve the least bit of respect, let alone obedience.

12 posted on 01/08/2013 5:47:51 PM PST by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 353FMG
You must understand that the left reads the 2nd Amendment differently than the right does. To the left the 2nd Amendment states this:

The right of lawless Obama thugs to murder, rape, and rob unarmed Americans shall not be infringed.

13 posted on 01/08/2013 5:53:52 PM PST by Enterprise ("Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: tpmintx

Therein lies a risk to us and maybe a goal for the bamster: the only way to enlist the support of the armed forces would be against a seceeding state, they could and would never be engaged in a fight against US citizens, but against a separatist state? Well, as you say, Lincoln was the model for that. Just a thought.


14 posted on 01/08/2013 6:00:09 PM PST by Riflema
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Riflema

“Therein lies a risk to us and maybe a goal for the bamster: the only way to enlist the support of the armed forces would be against a seceeding state, they could and would never be engaged in a fight against US citizens, but against a separatist state? Well, as you Well, as you say, Lincoln was the model for that. Just a thought.”

You’re full of crap. Our armed forces are not Nazis, nor gestapo, nor eizengruppen. Got it?

Don’t ever infer that our Marines and soldiers are Nazis.


15 posted on 01/08/2013 6:43:16 PM PST by sergeantdave (The FBI has declared war on the Marine Corps)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: SJackson
Without the right to defend your own life, all other rights are meaningless.

16 posted on 01/08/2013 6:48:29 PM PST by BitWielder1 (Corporate Profits are better than Government Waste)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

I think we are being scammed....something else is going on they don’t want us to know about while this “gun” issue is being plastered everywhere. Heck, Canada could NOT even get it’s citizens to Register their guns. They finally gave up after about 10 years of trying. I truly believe something else is going on that we should have our eyes on.


17 posted on 01/08/2013 7:32:42 PM PST by goodnesswins (R.I.P. Doherty, Smith, Stevens, Woods.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

Obama and his evil leftists are piggybacking on the recent shooting tragedy in CT to attack our Second Amendment rights for two selfish reasons.

First, as statists, they hate the idea that there is any limit on the power of the government/state to command and oppress the people/subjects.

Second, they are attacking gun rights as a dog & pony show/diversion to over shadow another big problem their big government is doing - our out of control government spending & borrowing. The left wants no serious discussion on cuts to spending so it it paints conservatives as heartless nuts who cling to guns, hate helping children and won’t help poor people.

Conservatives need to turn the tables. why does big government fear honest citizens who have had guns all these years and have behaved well? Why does big government insanely spend & borrow when four years of out of control spending has not improved the status of all of us, poor, middle class and even those called rich?


18 posted on 01/08/2013 7:40:27 PM PST by RicocheT (Eat the rich only if you're certain it's your last meal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

The biggest liar communist ever to dwell in the Whtie House will not disarm America no matter what stunt he pulls. The free republic would cease to exist if he succeeded.

R2KBA is core to Americans and Freedom. Obama’s Gestapo will learn what true Resistance looks like and it will not be pretty. The last time Clinton tried it, almost the entire Congress got the heave ho and Clinton only held onto office by the hair in his teeth — then Dems were trounced out for 8 years, and had to lie about the issue to barely win 2 president campaigns, and now they want to do it again like crack cocaine smokers — never mind the consequences.

George W Bush said it aptly: an expression widely used in Midland, TX, where I too was raised: “Bring it on!”.

Our nationalist socialist will learn the meaning of serving the public - the public does not serve him.


19 posted on 01/08/2013 7:43:20 PM PST by FlyingEagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FlyingEagle
Clinton only held onto office by the hair in his teeth

Eeee-yewww...

20 posted on 01/08/2013 7:51:50 PM PST by ROCKLOBSTER (Celebrate Republicans Freed the Slaves Month)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: tpmintx

What Obama really admirers about Lincoln is he suspended writ of habeas corpus, and signing arrest warrants for Congressman and the Chief Justice of the United States.


21 posted on 01/08/2013 8:38:47 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: muir_redwoods

“The evidence of their lies is painfully apparent. If their purpose is to somehow save lives with gun control they should logically start in the inner cities where most gun violence occurs. They have taken no steps in this direction and won’t.”

Yup, should starr with inner cities like south central L.A., south side Chicago, Bedford-Stuyvesant, etc.


22 posted on 01/08/2013 8:45:37 PM PST by WildHighlander57 ((WildHighlander57 returning after lurking since 2000))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: WildHighlander57

starr = start


23 posted on 01/08/2013 8:50:44 PM PST by WildHighlander57 ((WildHighlander57 returning after lurking since 2000))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: SJackson
The 2nd amendment does NOT give us the "right' to bear arms. The 2nd amendment simply states that the government has no power to infringe upon the pre-existing "natural right" of self defense, which is a long-established right in ancient English Law.

In simple terms: We already have the right to bear arms -- the government has no power to infringe upon that right.

24 posted on 01/08/2013 9:02:17 PM PST by vortigern
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vortigern
"The 2nd amendment does NOT give us the "right' to bear arms."

Which document are you reading from?

25 posted on 01/08/2013 9:07:10 PM PST by eyedigress ((zOld storm chaser from the west)/?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: eyedigress

Read the whole post.


26 posted on 01/08/2013 9:12:29 PM PST by vortigern
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: eyedigress
"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Read the words. What to they say? They imply there's a pre-existing right to bear arms, and not a right being given by the 2nd amendment -- As much of the Constitution is written to protect the people from the government.

27 posted on 01/08/2013 9:17:43 PM PST by vortigern
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: SJackson
“When you all go home and you’re talking to your buddies and you say, ah ‘He wants to take my gun away.’ You’ve heard it here, I’m on television so everybody knows it. I believe in the Second Amendment. I believe in people’s lawful right to bear arms. I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I won’t take your handgun away.”

Prezdent MuzzieBoy is a lying licker of stinking dog squeezins.

28 posted on 01/08/2013 9:23:13 PM PST by kiryandil (turning Americans into felons, one obnoxious drunk at a time (Zero Tolerance!!!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vortigern

Exactly, amendment 3 explicitly says why.


29 posted on 01/08/2013 9:24:49 PM PST by eyedigress ((zOld storm chaser from the west)/?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: eyedigress

The Declaration tells us where we get the Right to Keep and Bear Arms - from our Creator.

vortigern is correct.


30 posted on 01/08/2013 9:31:28 PM PST by kiryandil (turning Americans into felons, one obnoxious drunk at a time (Zero Tolerance!!!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: tpmintx
The only problem would be that owners of Class III firearms would see the values drop precipitously. A transferable M-16 from before '86 is currently worth about $20K. If these acts are repealed it would probably drop to about $2K in value, depending what the manufacturers would charge for a new one.

Just because I own a couple cars doesn't mean I want car prices to continue to skyrocket. In the short term, you'd still be able to trade one you own for a different one, even if prices plummeted 90%. In the long term, if those are the kind of guns you like, you WANT them to be cheaper and obtainable with fewer infringements on your rights. And philosophically, I'm sure that anyone that's into freedom enough to own a machine gun would gladly pay $18K to live in a free country. I would, and I don't even own a machine gun.

31 posted on 01/08/2013 9:36:12 PM PST by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: goodnesswins
Heck, Canada could NOT even get it’s citizens to Register their guns. They finally gave up after about 10 years of trying.

REally? According to my know-it-all liberal sister-in-law, Canadian gun bans have been wildly successful. (eye roll)

32 posted on 01/08/2013 9:49:55 PM PST by ponygirl (Be Breitbart.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: ponygirl
According to my know-it-all liberal sister-in-law, Canadian gun bans have been wildly successful.

If you want to have some fun, you can register an AR-15 with the Canadians and take it across the border.

Takes about nine months to get all the paperwork done, but it is entirely possible to do.

33 posted on 01/08/2013 11:48:43 PM PST by superloser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: superloser
If you want to have some fun, you can register an AR-15 with the Canadians and take it across the border.

I've never had a problem transporting rifles and shotguns into or through Canada. Used to be able to transport handguns that customs would seal in a plastic bag.

34 posted on 01/09/2013 12:04:18 AM PST by Alaska Wolf (Carry a Gun, It's a Lighter Burden Than Regret)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: tpmintx

....But yet, history has been, very, very kind to Lincoln because he is viewed as having “preserved the union”.


35 posted on 01/09/2013 4:10:41 AM PST by Biggirl ("Jesus talked to us as individuals"-Jim Vicevich/Thanks JimV!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: sergeantdave

Thank-you for standing up for those who serve the USA in the armed forces.


36 posted on 01/09/2013 4:12:41 AM PST by Biggirl ("Jesus talked to us as individuals"-Jim Vicevich/Thanks JimV!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: SJackson
Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) also cautioned against taking aim at gun owners’ rights. “I think you need to put everything on the table, but what I hear from the administration — and if the Washington Post is to be believed — that’s way, way in extreme of what I think is necessary or even should be talked about. And it’s not going to pass,” the new freshman senator said on a Sunday TV talk show.

Interesting to note how rational this new D Senator is on her first weekend in DC. Let her attend a few caucus meetings so Harry can tell her how things work in DC and she'll be sponsoring a bill to outlaw Red Ryder BB Guns.

37 posted on 01/09/2013 4:21:05 AM PST by IamConservative (The soul of my lifes journey is Liberty!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sergeantdave

I didn’t mean to infer they were. Quite the opposite actually: I said that the ONLY way he could get their support would be to re-frame the fight as Fed vs state(s), not Govt vs People.


38 posted on 01/09/2013 4:22:18 AM PST by Riflema
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: tpmintx

I have a NFA weapon and would gladly take the hit on the money if it was repealed. S&W 76 was supposed to be named that because that was what it cost to manufacture. Cost me $6700


39 posted on 01/09/2013 7:03:30 AM PST by smithandwesson76subgun (full auto fun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: superloser

I’d just like to FIND an AR-15 at this point.


40 posted on 01/09/2013 7:40:47 AM PST by ponygirl (Be Breitbart.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: sergeantdave
>>“Therein lies a risk to us and maybe a goal for the bamster: the only way to enlist the support of the armed forces would be against a seceeding state, they could and would never be engaged in a fight against US citizens, but against a separatist state? Well, as you Well, as you say, Lincoln was the model for that. Just a thought.”
>
>You’re full of crap. Our armed forces are not Nazis, nor gestapo, nor eizengruppen. Got it?
>Don’t ever infer that our Marines and soldiers are Nazis.

He didn't infer that the troops were NAZI, but correctly stated there is American precedent: the Civil War. Further, given some discussions I've had with members of armed forces -- in addition to my own experience -- there really is a tendency to "just follow[ing] orders."

The trial of LTC Lakin also illustrates a glaring gap in military jurisprudence: for the very authority which ordered him to Afghanistan (what his charges stemmed from) must needs be delegated via the Chain-of-Command from the President, and the President gains his authority as Commander-in-Chief from the Constitution. One cannot [legitimately] accept the authority given by the Constitution while simultaneously rejecting the requirements of that Constitution.

The above, therefore, makes me concerned that any soldier rejecting orders to fire upon American Citizens will not be given a just trial, but instead be regarded as one who disobeys orders -- regardless of the legitimacy of those orders.

Now, this is not to say that there won't be some/many who reject such orders; but rather that the military will become fractured should a succession-style (or martial-law) event happen.

41 posted on 01/09/2013 8:31:03 AM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: goodnesswins
I think we are being scammed....something else is going on they don’t want us to know about while this “gun” issue is being plastered everywhere. Heck, Canada could NOT even get it’s citizens to Register their guns. They finally gave up after about 10 years of trying. I truly believe something else is going on that we should have our eyes on.

What do you think it is? -- Debt-stuff? Obamacare stuff? -- I've also heard that the CO theater shooting (and Sandy Hook) both have discontinuities; could they be ginning up gun-ban stuff to take focus away from the events which [seem to have] sparked the ban-talks? Perhaps that they were, if not government staged, then 'government sponsored' events, blending false-flag & psy-ops?

42 posted on 01/09/2013 8:41:12 AM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: ponygirl

Where does your SIL live? (Besides lib la la land)


43 posted on 01/09/2013 9:02:38 AM PST by goodnesswins (R.I.P. Doherty, Smith, Stevens, Woods.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Texas Fossil
Hmmm. The last time I read about the guns in TX, it was estimated there were 2+ for every man woman and child in the state in private ownership.

Do you remember Waco? At the time, I commented to a few friends that the Davidian's had about the same number of guns as any random collection an equivalent population of Texans.

Personally, I think that very few LEO's in Texas would be willing to enforce such an order.

Is it "armed insurrection" if the state government is on your side?

44 posted on 01/09/2013 11:01:31 AM PST by tpmintx (Gun free zones are hunting preserves for unarmed people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: goodnesswins

She’s from Buffalo


45 posted on 01/09/2013 11:40:37 AM PST by ponygirl (Be Breitbart.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: tpmintx
Yes, I remember Waco. (was living in OK at the time) There was never a satisfactory review of those actions. Nuts.

Personally, I think that very few LEO's in Texas would be willing to enforce such an order.

I agree.

Is it "armed insurrection" if the state government is on your side?

Short answer is no. If there is a "rebellion" in TX it will come at the state level. Texas is still largely run by the adults. DC is not. If the Idiot-in-Chief goes the Executive Order route as rumored, we are appoaching the buckle of Pandora's Box. He is not popular in TX, he knows it full well. We shall see if he is trying to incite an open rebellion. At some point the issue of the Constitution will be the pivot point.

46 posted on 01/09/2013 1:39:59 PM PST by Texas Fossil
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

“Further, given some discussions I’ve had with members of armed forces — in addition to my own experience — there really is a tendency to “just follow[ing] orders.”

Really?!!? That’s disturbing. My experience is the opposite. Maybe I hang out with a better quality of Americans than you. How about you name this “tendency to follow orders” group so we can send in proselytizers to correct the Nuremberg “following orders” compunction.

There’s a small gang of commie infiltrators and doom and gloom surrender monkeys here on FR trying to demoralize conservatives. When you post stuff like this, you better have some facts to back up your opinion.

Comparing the 1861 Civil War to today is absurd. There’s real life and modern day examples of what happens to dictators who order their army to shot their families in their beds. Kaddhafi tried that and ended up dead on the hood of a BMW SUV, shot dead with his own gold-plated 9mm. His elitist army officers and UN bureaucrats decorated lampposts across the country.


47 posted on 01/09/2013 4:09:30 PM PST by sergeantdave (The FBI has declared war on the Marine Corps)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: eyedigress
"The 2nd amendment does NOT give us the "right' to bear arms."

Which document are you reading from?

Essentially correct. The Constitution only enshrines some of our rights. It is a dangerous and slippery path to believe that our rights come from a piece of paper. It is what liberals want us all to believe. Don't fall for it.

48 posted on 01/09/2013 8:52:20 PM PST by jeffc (The U.S. media are our enemy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: All


Help FR Continue the Conservative Fight!
Your Monthly and Quarterly Donations
Help Keep FR In the Battle!

Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!

49 posted on 01/09/2013 9:00:58 PM PST by musicman (Until I see the REAL Long Form Vault BC, he's just "PRES__ENT" Obama = Without "ID")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: sergeantdave
“Further, given some discussions I’ve had with members of armed forces — in addition to my own experience — there really is a tendency to “just follow[ing] orders.”
Really?!!? That’s disturbing. My experience is the opposite. Maybe I hang out with a better quality of Americans than you. How about you name this “tendency to follow orders” group so we can send in proselytizers to correct the Nuremberg “following orders” compunction.

Maybe, it certainly wasn't as widespread as you might think; however I encountered it in training environs from the teachers -- which means that it was definitely inserted into the minds of troops; and usually it came in the form of the "[when] you signed up, you signed up to defend the Constitution, not enjoy it[s protections]."

There’s a small gang of commie infiltrators and doom and gloom surrender monkeys here on FR trying to demoralize conservatives. When you post stuff like this, you better have some facts to back up your opinion.

See the above.

Comparing the 1861 Civil War to today is absurd.

Not entirely; there are some parallels -- notably concerning the Rights & Powers of the several States. (Some people would say that governments only have powers, this is generally true, however in a federal system where the states delegate powers there are rights: just like in any legal contractual agreement.)

There’s real life and modern day examples of what happens to dictators who order their army to shot their families in their beds. Kaddhafi tried that and ended up dead on the hood of a BMW SUV, shot dead with his own gold-plated 9mm. His elitist army officers and UN bureaucrats decorated lampposts across the country.

That's true; and one thing the elite are not really considering as they continue provoking the average Joe. That, and the fact that they see killing off at least a tenth of the population of the country as 'necessary' for their plans is not something that instills a confidence in getting a peaceful solution.

50 posted on 01/09/2013 11:05:04 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson