Texas Liberal

All People Matter

Just How Is It The Government Could Come And Take Away Your Gun?

(Blogger’s Note 12/18/12—I wrote this post in 2008 and it is just as true today as it was four years ago. Efforts to restrict the types of guns that led to the Newtown, Connecticut massacre will not stop law abiding folks from owning guns. They will simply lead to fewer crazy massacres of innocent people who are doing no more than going about daily life.)

(Blogger’s Note 1/16/13—Here is a link to President Obama’s sensible gun control orders that he discussed today. These orders will not stop lawful people from having guns.)  

This morning I listened to a radio report about a Barack Obama campaign appearance in Scranton, Pennsylvania. A voter, who seemed friendly enough by the sound of her voice, asked Senator Obama about rumors she had heard that if elected he would take away people’s guns.

I just shook my head when I heard this.

One thing I’ve always wanted to know is just how the government could go about taking people’s guns away?

Let’s say that by some impossible occurrence, the Second Amendment were repealed. This could not happen for real, but let’s just say for purposes of this blog post that it did happen.

Do you think people would just give up their guns?

How about the late Charlton Heston you see in the photo above and the National Rifle Association members he represented? Will they give up their guns because they were instructed to do so?

Do you think this couple in the picture below would just go to voluntary drop-off point and give up that gun they have on the stove? Or hand it over to federal gun collector who rings the door to collect the guns?

( The picture was taken by Kyle Cassidy for his book Armed Americans–Portraits of Gun Owners In Their Homes.)

Or this guy—Would he quit hunting because a law was passed banning guns?

No—Whatever gun control laws passed at the margins of the millions and millions of guns owned in America, none are going to involve going into people’s homes and taking away guns. Do you think Barack Obama is going to be sitting in the Oval Office signing an order to round-up people’s guns?

If we reached the point of government forcing everybody who owns a gun to give it up, we would be in a police state of some kind in any case. Gun owners and the rest of us would be over-matched by the huge weapons and tanks that the government has.

Nobody is coming for your gun. People should be worrying about other stuff. If it is gun issues that are stopping you from voting for Barack Obama, you don’t have much to worry about. The NRA has a vested stake in keeping people hyped-up on this issue. Ask the NRA what they are going to do to get you higher wages or to improve the school your kids attend.

About these ads

September 7, 2008 - Posted by | Books, Campaign 2008, Politics | , , , , , , , ,

73 Comments »

  1. Apparently that woman didn’t bother listening to his acceptance speech, where he said, “The reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than for those plagued by gang violence in Cleveland, but don’t tell me we can’t uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals.”

    Some people…

    Comment by fyreflixie | September 7, 2008

  2. fyreflixie–Thanks for this comment—It adds a great point to the post.

    Comment by Neil Aquino | September 7, 2008

  3. They said this about John Kerry as well, which is why he felt compelled to be photographed in a field with a shotgun almost exactly four years ago.

    It’s probably the oldest fear tactic in the book, and it still seems to be working. *sigh*

    Comment by PDiddie | September 7, 2008

  4. Hey, I got in laws who really think he will come and take their guns. Seriously. They actually think this is going to happen.

    I just give up with them. They live a step above poverty, with more kids than they can afford, and yet they continue to be stupid.

    Comment by D Garcia | September 7, 2008

  5. http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/09/05/obama-im-not-going-to-take-your-guns-away/

    September 5, 2008, 2:38 pm
    Obama: ‘I’m Not Going to Take Your Guns Away’

    The latest example came Friday during a small political event at SCHOTT North America Inc., a glass factory in Duryea, Pa., where even a hand-picked crowd threw Barack Obama a curve ball.
    A woman in the crowd told Obama she had “heard a rumor” that he might be planning some sort of gun ban upon being elected president… “If you’ve got a gun in your house, I’m not taking it,’’ Obama said. But the Illinois senator could still see skeptics in the crowd, particularly on the faces of several men at the back of the room.
    So he tried again. “Even if I want to take them away, I don’t have the votes in Congress,’’ he said. “This can’t be the reason not to vote for me. Can everyone hear me in the back? I see a couple of sportsmen back there. I’m not going to take away your guns.’’

    I don’t have the votes in Congress-yet!
    Wow! I feel much better.

    Comment by JackA | September 7, 2008

  6. Jack A–It’s clear Obama is saying he won’t be taking people’s guns.

    Comment by Neil Aquino | September 7, 2008

  7. I have the same problem in my family on this issue. One of my parents and that parents’ relatives are all from what I call “deep Tennessee.” As SOON as Barack won the Dem nomination, the email started: ‘he’s going to take our guns, he’s going to take our guns.” I reminded them that after 8 years of Clinton, no one took their guns. I remind them that a President cannot just ignore the second amendment. Still, all I hear is “he’s going to take our guns.”

    I give up. This is how the Repubs work: distract Joe American with fears (gay marryin’, baby-killin’, gun-grabbing Dems) so that Joe American doesn’t realize he is voting against his own best financial interests.

    Barack flipping off that line about “clinging to religion and guns” SURE didn’t help.

    Comment by Judith | September 7, 2008

  8. anyone who says ( gay marryin baby killin gun grabbing dem) should have the guns taken from them, i think people should have a test to get a gun or have a baby.

    Comment by bill brady | September 8, 2008

  9. If someone is afraid the government will take their guns, then make sure they don’t drive, ’cause they need a government issued license to drive, a vehicle registered with the government!

    Surely, the government will want to keep these folks (gullible enough to believe that NRA ‘boogie man in the closet’ nonsense) off the streets.

    Comment by HeavyDuty | September 8, 2008

  10. “Ask the NRA what they are going to do to get you higher wages or to improve the school your kids attend.”

    That’s a bit silly, like “ask Planned Parenthood what they are going to do about Social Security” or “ask the National Education Association what they are going to do about highway safety.”

    Various pressure groups have their niches, and they advance their positions within those niches.

    Comment by Matt Bramanti | September 8, 2008

  11. Matt–Not silly at all. The NRa is part of the giant right wing conspiracy that helps distract people over false issues while they get ripped off for wages and working conditions.

    Comment by Neil Aquino | September 9, 2008

  12. Wait, you KNOW about the giant right wing conspiracy? Dammit, now we have to go change all the secret handshakes.

    Comment by Matt Bramanti | September 9, 2008

  13. It hides in plain view for all who wish to see.

    Comment by Neil Aquino | September 9, 2008

  14. Obama’s support for the Chicago and DC gun bans speaks for itself. It isn’t necessary for them to “collect” every gun, just to make it illegal to defend yourself with a gun even in your own home. Confiscation by other means is still confiscation.

    Comment by pjryan49 | September 10, 2008

  15. Here it is folks. I have been an avid hunter my whole life I believe in it whole heartedly i shot my first deer with my granmothers gun while hunting with my father and i have been hooked ever since. I can honestly say that I would give up any rights to own a firearm if it meant saving a life. I trully believe that giving up your firearms would save millions of lives and if you don’t believe me just read a national paper. Sometimes you have to make sacrifices to improve the way of life.

    Comment by Paul | September 17, 2008

  16. Please check your facts. No gun ban has ever saved a life. Criminals will obtain weapons regardless of the law. They are criminals: by definition, criminals do not obey the law. On the other hand, right to carry laws are proven to reduce crime and “gun violence” thereby saving lives. Additionally, civilian use of guns to protect themselves and their property has resulted in many saved lives.

    Self defense is one of the inalienable rights that are a component of our existence as human beings. To denigrate that right or prevent people from exercising that right or deprive them of the best tools to enable them to exercise that right is to deny a fundamental human right. Our Second Amendment protects the individual’s right to life by creating a civil right of gun ownership so that the individual can exercise the inalienable right of self defense.

    Comment by pjryan49 | September 17, 2008

  17. The previous commenter makes an excellent point.

    Criminals violate society’s most fundamental laws — don’t steal, don’t murder, and the like.

    Given that they refuse to obey The Big Laws, why should we expect that they’ll obey less fundamental ones, like gun registration, magazine capacity limits, and the like?

    Comment by Matt Bramanti | September 21, 2008

  18. Nobody is going to be taking your guns. That is the bottom line of my post.

    Comment by Neil Aquino | September 21, 2008

  19. “I reminded them that after 8 years of Clinton, no one took their guns. I remind them that a President cannot just ignore the second amendment.”

    No, he just made guns too expensive for a lot of people. I couldn’t afford mags for shooting matches anymore, and I couldn’t afford of the rifles people shot in matches because they cost too much after the ban.

    And worse, Clinton, with a Dem. majority in Congress opened the door for an expansion of the so called “assault weapons ban”

    I know, I know, ya’ll don’t have any assault weapons. That’s just because the guns you own haven’t been put in the category yet. Ask someone in the U.K. if they owned an assault weapon.

    Comment by Wayne J. Barricklow | October 7, 2008

  20. You don’t like the price of your weapons? Maybe you have a problem with free markets and our entire way of life here in America.

    Comment by Neil Aquino | October 7, 2008

  21. Don’t think we’re paranoid, we have this fine old tradition of standing up for the rights of the individual including the right to self defense. Some of our politicians and left wing nuts have made serious attempts to take our guns. They don’t come at the issue in a straight forward manner, hiding behind popular misconceptions that the anti gun people claim promote as common sense restrictions to prevent gun violence. Facts don’t enter into the argument from their side. What they call assault weapons are semi automatic rifles. The claim is that these have no sport purpose when in fact they are used as both hunting and target rifles. We hold shooting matches here using military style rifles and pistols. Civilians can obtain military rifles from the government as part of a program to encourage shooting sports in this country. The anti gun people conveniently ignore this fact in their propaganda. They also include incidents of self defense and accidents in their gun violence statistics. And, some of their common sense restrictions, as the restriction on magazine capacity, outlaw purely sporting arms with virtually no connection to criminal violence. Other common sense measures create new and novel definitions as to what an assault weapon is. A colt Model 1911 Pistol is not an assault weapon, it is a semi automatic handgun yet under the regulations in D.C. which many prominent politicians supported, a 1911 Colt is classed as an assault weapon or machine gun. There is an old bromide, figures don’t lie but liars can figure and it applies to the people in this country who want to disarm the public. As for the Brits, criminal use of handguns is on the rise since the ban.

    Comment by pj | October 7, 2008

  22. There is no popular pressure in this country to take away people’s guns. It is not an issue Mr. Obama will taking up if we wins the election.

    Comment by Neil Aquino | October 9, 2008

  23. pj no one wants your gun please keep it in your house and with a trigger lock if you have children, in a locked gun case if you suspect your house could get robbed while you are away. keeping the guns out of the hands of criminals and mentally ill people is the goal for most people. If you need a ak47 for moose hunting most people will think thats excessive but its your business what you want your gun for. I dont believe in gun bans as much as controlling who gets them.

    Comment by bill brady | October 9, 2008

  24. Bill: Wish it were so but the liberals in congress have attempted many times to outlaw self defense. Some states already have. Taking by outright seizure is the least probable action of the anti gun crowd. Measures in Congress and many state legislatures have proposed extreme taxes on ammunition, banning many hunting rounds because they can penetrate today’s body armor, restricting gun shop locations by restrictive zoning, improperly classifying semi automatic rifles and pistols as assault weapons so that they are regulated by existing assault weapon bans, serial numbering cartridges and requiring that a paper trail be maintained from manufacturer though use by individuals for each cartridge with heavy fines is someone other than the purchaser used a cartridge. Then we have the idiotic regulations mandating storage conditions in the home that make it impossible to use the gun for self defense. All of these “common sense regulations” were intended to have the same effect as a gun ban and seizure while severely restricting your right to self defense.

    Comment by pj | October 11, 2008

  25. pj its like abortion, we dont need people having abortions when the kids fucking talking and we dont need body armor penetrating rounds to shoot some dumb animal in the woods. I do not agree with hunting personally not because its cruel because its killing for pleasure. abortion is killing for survival, neither one should be illegal but there has to be a limit to the wheres and whats and how longs… i dont want your guns taken away or my daughters right to choose, just limits that are not out of control

    Comment by bill brady | October 12, 2008

  26. Abortion is killing for survival. That line took my breath away. I hardly know how to respond to that. Having the experience of parenting with all the joys and sorrows that entails I can not conceive of anyone calling abortion a killing for survival. How does killing a nascent human life become a survival issue?

    As for body armor penetrating rounds, you miss the point. Most body armor is only effective against low velocity pistol or light rifle ammunition. Most hunting rounds are high velocity rounds that will penetrate body armor designed to stop pistol rounds. There are valid reasons for the use of high velocity hunting ammunition that have absolutely nothing to do with their ability to defeat body armor. That is why we fight against restrictions that many consider “common sense”. The restrictions are not based upon real world experience but on the desire of a few to restrict our rights. We fight to protect your rights as well, even if you do not exercise them.

    As to the right to choose, every right is also a responsibility and I hope that your daughters will exersize their right responsibly.

    Comment by pj | October 13, 2008

  27. I am a parent as well and when my daugher was born she was planned and we knew what to expect. Now that is not the case for so many and again guns, abortion, death penalty, i support them all with in limits of what is reasonable. unfortunately the hunter with the armor peircing round is not the threat to law enforcement its the criminal with the armor peircing round that can take down a cop during a robbery that is the issue. its like saying i should be able to go hunting with napalm or i should be able to catch the woods on fire so the deer can run out and i can shoot it will a ak47 from the back of my ford f250 , it makes no sense. abortion for many is their only chance for survival in society to have a chance to go onto something better for them as well as society. its not meant to be taken literaly. nothing takes my breath away that is for sure, i think hunting as well as the right to bare arms should be protected but within reason. thats my opinion and i can only speak for myself.

    Comment by bill brady | October 14, 2008

  28. The problem is not the Government coming into houses to seize firearms–at least not in this generation. But it is not a stretch to imagine that “assault weapons” will be banned, thus ending the hobby of collecting WWII rifles and hand guns, for example. These, as a previous comment mentions, are semi-automatic rifles (M1 Garand, M1 Carbine) and pistols (Colt 1911). During the Clinton Administsration, any rifle with a bayonete lug was banned–as though there were a lot of drive-by bayonettings. Many collectors have extensive collections, built up over many years, and worth a lot of money. Most of these rifles are never fired, just as many people who collect spoons don’t use them as eating utinsils. Even driving to a collectors’ convention in Nevada that necessitates transiting California is a worry because they have laws banning some of the items in the collection. Seemingly benign, “sensible”, “reasonable” laws against firearms have unintended consequences–or, as some of us believe, hidden agendas. These people have a long timeline to accomplish their goal of banning firearms. Notice the draconian school rules where a child who draws a picture of a gun is expelled; or a child wearing a Hornaday T-shirt must cover it up. Eventually children come to believe that ALL firearms are evil. If we came back 3 generations from now we would likely not recognize the country’s firearms laws.

    Comment by Bob Bird | October 19, 2008

  29. Not if we teach our children the principles of governance written into the Declaration of Independence. Those certain inalienable rights that are aspects of our being preclude confiscation of the means of self defense, one of those certain inalienable rights.

    Comment by pj | October 19, 2008

  30. what percentage of our population collects guns vs dies at the end of one? Not that i really care. i think guns should be kept legal. i dont want a gun in my house and its my choice but those that do i have no issue with. I think if we educated better and treated drug offenders instead of just jailing them we would have a more functional society, the drug wars in mexico will not get better with legalization but the money wasted in the states would decrease if we treated drugs like alchahol and treated the illness. please just talk straight and dont let either side use guns, gods, gays, abortion as a wedge issue to make you think you have to vote a certain way. vote for who will serve the people of this country best.

    Comment by bill brady | October 20, 2008

  31. For the record, there are fewer than fifty thousand firearm incidents in the U.S.A. (less than one weeks worth of TV shows or one hour’s worth of video games) Of those less than half are criminal. The Brady bunch et al include accidents, self defense and suicides in their “gun violence” figures. The actual criminal use of guns is less than knives or blunt force implements. As for legalizing drugs; be careful what you wish for, legal addiction is just as personally destructive as illegal addiction.

    Comment by pj | October 20, 2008

  32. What is that man doing to that polar bear and the gun? That photo just makes me a little sad, bears are my favorite animals.

    Comment by Bigger in Texas | October 22, 2008

  33. The man is killing the bear for no clear reason.

    Comment by Neil Aquino | October 23, 2008

  34. Neil, could you explain how a DC-style ban is functionally different from a taking?

    It banned people from having handguns pretty much anywhere but the home, where the guns had to be kept in a nonfunctional condition (unloaded and disassembled or locked).

    So if a Washington resident is not able to load, unlock/assemble, fire, transport, carry, buy or sell a handgun, what rights in that handgun does he retain?

    Comment by Matt Bramanti | October 23, 2008

  35. I don’t know what they did in a little place of 600,000 people out of 300 million people in our country. And the Supreme Court undid it anyway. So what’s the problem?

    Is a taking like an “abduction?” Do they come at night from the mothership to dismantle the guns of the Earthlings?

    Nobody is taking your gun.

    Comment by Neil Aquino | October 24, 2008

  36. Perhaps not at the moment but they will try again, especially if Obama is elected with a totally democrat congress.

    Comment by pj | October 24, 2008

  37. “I don’t know what they did in a little place of 600,000 people out of 300 million people in our country.”

    That’s unfortunate. You should keep better informed about situations on which you render opinions.

    “And the Supreme Court undid it anyway. So what’s the problem?”

    Really? You don’t have a problem with unconstitutional legislation if the Supreme Court strikes it down? I don’t believe that.

    “Is a taking like an ‘abduction?'”

    I’m referring to the legal concept of a “taking.” For instance, courts have held that very strict governmental controls on property can constitute a “taking” pursuant to the Fifth Amendment, even if title to the property isn’t transferred to the state.

    So I’ll ask again: if the law bans the use, carrying, loading, firing, buying and selling of a gun, what ownership rights would the ostensible owner retain?

    Comment by Matt Bramanti | October 25, 2008

  38. i dont agree that anyone should have the right to tell you not to have a gun in your house. i think that responsible gun owners will have locks when children are living in the house and would have a safe or something where in the case someone broke into their house the gun would not be stolen and then into the hands of criminals. i think the gun makers are not at fault as much as the lobbyist that leave the dog off the leash. i think that most people are affraid of the guns in the hands of the criminals more then the avg. gun owner that has the same fear and that is why they have a gun. Again this is a issue used to wedge our countymen apart and there has to be a compromise on both sides that could be met to make the majority of the population safer and more comfortable with guns and how they are sold and used.

    Comment by bill brady | October 26, 2008

  39. Matt—I get the drift of all of it and have little need to display what I do or do not know to you.

    And nobody is coming for your gun.

    Bill—Yes–It is a wedge issue. But,hopefully, one that will not make the difference this year.

    Comment by Neil Aquino | October 27, 2008

  40. Neil, I’d just ask that you think my question through a little more, even if you won’t answer it publicly.

    What ownership rights does a person keep in a product that cannot be legally purchased, sold, transferred, unlocked, moved, carried or operated?

    What’s the difference between that and a seizure, except that the latter would free up some closet space?

    Comment by Matt Bramanti | October 29, 2008

  41. yeah no one is going to take your guns ? look what happened in New Orleans after Katrina… martial law was declared and tactical police teams swept in and took peoples guns right out of their homes… now unless you live in a bunker and have people with you that also have guns you don’t stand a chance and thats to even assume if you want to fire at police officers just doing their job…

    Comment by son of liberty | November 14, 2008

  42. Right now, Democrat Carolyn McCarthy’s new “assault weapon” ban is already written, and many gun hating Democrats in both houses are just waiting for Obama to be inaugurated so that they can submit the bill. That it will be submitted is not a question.

    The bill would ban many more semiautomatic rifles and pistols than the original passed under Clinton. And unlike the original, it does not include a grandfather clause; that is, the people who already own rifles subject to the ban would not be allowed to keep them.

    The original 1994 “assault weapon” ban prohibited manufacture or importation of new rifles (for non police and military use) covered by the ban. It was still legal to own, sell, use, and transfer the rifles that had existed before the ban was enacted. (That’s why the ban effectively priced these guns out of the market for many people– and that is decidedly NOT the result of the free market when supply is fixed by law).

    So if this new bill passed, it would in fact ban many legal firearms held by hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of Americans. Obama may have higher priorities than gun control, but Carolyn McCarthy is pretty much a one issue legislator (much like I am pretty much a one issue voter– same issue, opposite sides). And given Obama’s previous statements and votes regarding guns, does anyone here want to tell me he would veto such a bill if it landed on his desk?

    The rifle which most people refer to as an “AK-47″ (real AK-47s are full-auto machine guns; more about this below) is not excessive to hunt a moose. It’s inadequate to hunt a moose. The 7.62×39 chambering is simply too weak to humanely and reliably put down a moose. The biggest game it could reliably take would be a whitetail deer (far smaller than a moose). And the .223 chambered rifles like the AR-15 are too weak even to reliably bring down smaller deer like the whitetail. In hunting circles, the .223 is considered a “varmint” rifle, most useful for hunting rabbit-sized game.

    That’s one thing that the promoters of these fraudulently named “assault weapon” bans don’t tell you. What they call “assault weapons” are, in most cases, considerably weaker than most common hunting rifles.

    I use “assault weapon” in quotation marks because the rifles described by the original and the new ban are not assault weapons. Actual assault weapons are machine guns, and those have been functionally banned since the National Firearms Act of 1939. (There are ways to lawfully obtain full auto guns manufactured before 1986, but the procedure is so tortuous and expensive that it is in effect a ban… and many states have total bans on these guns anyway.)

    In case it’s not already clear, machine guns (in full auto mode) will rapidly shoot round after round if the trigger is held back, stopping only when the ammunition supply has been exhausted. And that’s not what we’re talking about with the “assault weapon” ban.

    What is meant by “assault weapon” by the dishonest promoters of such bans are semiauto rifles. Pull the trigger once, get one and only one shot, no matter how long you hold the trigger back. They are not battlefield weapons (those are full autos). And they are not more powerful than hunting rifles; as rifles go, the ones subjected to the “assault weapon” ban are at the bottom end of the power scale.

    So why do the gun haters want to ban them so badly? Your guess is as good as mine. It’s not because they are commonly used in crime; they are used in at most 1-2% of gun crime. Maybe because they are usually black and have what some consider a menacing appearance? They have the look of the full auto rifles the military uses (you know, actual assault rifles). But they’re not the same… the versions that would be subject to the new ban have completely different internal parts that do not allow them to shoot in full auto (machine gun) mode at all. And they are not easily converted– the BATFE considers any rifle that can easily be converted into a machine gun to BE a machine gun, and as such illegal per the 1939 ban.

    And if the ban as described was not bad enough, the law contains a provision that would allow the US Attorney General to add ANY gun of any type to the list of “banned” guns if he decides, at his sole discretion, that the gun is not particularly suited to sporting purposes, EVEN IF that gun is commonly used for sporting purposes! He would have complete power to ban any gun he wants without any discussion or accountability to the American people.

    The Second Amendment is not about sport. Mere sport would not have warranted placement in the Bill of Rights, preceded only by the right to free speech and expression. The “sporting purposes” language is based on the Gun Control Act of 1968, which still (in much amended form) forms the backbone of most federal gun control today.

    Talk of whether these rifles are suitable for hunting is mostly a red herring. While (as described above) there are a few cases where black rifles would be appropriate for taking game, that has never been their intended purpose. I don’t think that the Phoenix Police intend to go hunting with all those black rifles that David Spade bought them recently, do you?

    Comment by Porcupine9 | January 9, 2009

  43. This would be how:

    Comment by Van | February 13, 2009

  44. sorry that link is broken…if you go here… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4&eurl=http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=191&feature=player_embedded …then you will see with your own eyes how it is the government can take away our guns.

    Comment by Van | February 13, 2009

  45. Well another left winger towing the line for the Dems and Obama.
    The so called Assault Weapons Ban would be enough as stated above and let’s not forget about the 500% tax Obama wants to put on firearms and ammo. They are not stupid enough to try and take them. They will try to tax and ban them out of existence. Banning all firearms that can accept a detachable magazine. Come on and smell the coffee. Little by Little they will chip away at that freedom…….

    Comment by Ray | February 15, 2009

  46. You folks will have the same gun rights at the end of the Obama White House as you did before and the NRA will keep fear-mongering because that is all they have left to offer.

    Comment by Neil Aquino | February 15, 2009

  47. I am confused – send help

    Comment by Pete Clough | March 7, 2009

  48. Mr, Aquino, I have no problem with the free market system. I have a problem with banning guns so that so few are available that no one can have them except the very rich. Sure the government didn’t come knocking on doors and taking full auto rifles, they put them into a registration scheme, then banned them from manufacture. Sure, I technically have the right to own an M-16, but at $15,000 to $20,000, the registration program is a defacto ban has made it possible for only the very rich to own them.

    Another semi-auto ban- like the ones that have been before congress the last four years and didn’t pass because they didn’t have a democratic majority or a democratic president to sign them- another semi-auto ban will do the same thing for semi-auto rifles and shotguns. And these bans are in the works. Look at HR 1022. Look at HR45. They’re waiting for a good mass shooting to push the issue.

    Comment by Wayne J. Barricklow | March 15, 2009

  49. “You folks will have the same gun rights at the end of the Obama White House as you did before and the NRA will keep fear-mongering because that is all they have left to offer.”

    Are you a betting man, Mr. Aquino?

    Comment by Wayne J. Barricklow | March 16, 2009

  50. We will have the same rights at the end of the Obama admin as we had at the beginning? I DON’T THINK SO. For whatever reasons, now as of May 26, 2009 it is nearly impossible to find any decent semi-auto pistol nor any popular ammo at any price. The dealers shelves are nearly empty all acrooss America. Go see if you don’t believe me.
    Jan2, 2010 more new laws go into effect in California for semi-auto handguns.
    New anti-gun legislation is introduced every week in some US jurisdiction. Chip away at our 2nd Amendment bit by bit. B4 long only a shadow of it will remain. New USSC judge appointed by Obama mid 2009 will likely be anti-gun and very liberal.

    Comment by Navy Davey | May 26, 2009

  51. the nwa has interest in guns because they sell them. they create the fear that left will take your guns and they sell more. guns to gangs, guns to mexico, guns stockpiled in houses, i will take my chances without a gun in my house and i live in a area where there are alot of guns not being used for the intent they are created for, i dont want the rights guns or the hunters guns i want the people to get to a point where they are not needed. kids everywhere have guns and they shoot each other everyday. guns are not the issue people are. we need to change the laws for people that commit crimes with guns, violent offenders will always be violent and as long as we keep releasing them back into society we will have this fear in people that think they need all the guns in their hands trucks and houses. i will not live in fear nor will i live with fear/hate it takes to have loaded guns under my bed! good luck gun owners…

    Comment by bill brady | May 31, 2009

  52. Wow. You guys are all prety much missing the point. Yes the discussion is about guns, but it’s more about the dissolution of the Constitution and what it stands for. Take a moment to re-evaluate just the Bill of Rights and you will see how governments on all levels, especially the Federal government, are attempting to circumvent those basic rights through general legislation. Remember that a law never GIVES you anything, it only serves to take it away. There are already plenty of gun laws in place. However, they are not being enforced. New laws are something we do not need. The long reach of the government is getting longer right under our noses without much resistance. People, if you wish to trade your liberties for a little government security, please by all means move to Canada, Mexico, Cuba, Argentina, etc. People hunt to provide fresh, non-processed provisions for thier families and so forth, as well as for the sporting aspect. Do you think that the meats you eat are born in a plastic wrapper? God help us all if something catastrophic occurs. Look at Katrina. So many helpless, relying on the government for help. From a story my close friend told me about leaving the city, while re-fueling on the side of the road from cans they had filled in advance, passengers had to stand, armed with thier GUNS, to prevent others from mobbing them and stealing thier gas. This nation was built on firearms and those you trust with your tax dollars are steady trying to take them. Current legislation being introduced is all over the internet, available through credible goverment sources. Please become informed before making judgements upon others for caring about the state of our Union.

    Sincerely,
    Former Clinton Democrat

    Comment by Shawn | June 24, 2009

  53. Shawn you are missing the point. we as a socirty do not need machine guns in the hands of children and drug dealers we have that now and it does not work. I think that every person should have the right to have a gun in their home if they choose. when the constitution was written the world was not the same place it is today. like the bible. the times have changed and having smart laws that keep guns out of the hands of murdering assholes is important. the majority has elected obama into office because the right started a war on lies to the american people and has destroyed what was left of this country so as far as moving to canada mexico or cuba get going because you are no longer the majority in your simple way of thinking.

    Comment by bill brady | June 26, 2009

  54. Whereas, by requirement of the United States Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, no one can be sworn into office as president of the United States without being a natural born citizen;

    If BHO “Kenyan born” and all those that support him are willing to break the law as important as stated above, then what is to stop them from breaking other laws.

    Well maybe the rest of us law abiding Americans may one day have to step up and protect the Constitution of America.

    Learn your history, or just stay dumb I don’t care. The Dems “The Liberal Party” have always used the minorties for politcal gain, and it was the Repulican party that ended slavery, and have supported civil rights ever since.

    Comment by Gene | July 23, 2009

  55. gene hahahahaha yes we know the republicans are all for civil rights and they have not broken any laws in the last 8 years. if Obama is illegal i will still take him over the devils in disguise that have ruined in the country and the world in the last 8 years in the name of god.

    Comment by bill brady | July 23, 2009

  56. i think obama wants our guns to overpower us!!!!!!!!!!

    Comment by Hello :) | December 29, 2009

  57. it will never happen. who supplies the military with guns and ammo? if they can’t stay in business (by selling us said guns and ammo) then who will supply the military? it’s all about the money!!!

    Comment by mikem | February 2, 2010

  58. The federal and state governments are starting to gouge the people who are the backbone of the nation- it’s farmers and ranchers. They are constantly raising the price of everything. The damn banks are robbing the hell out of old folks- they are paying no interest whatsoever on savings of these hard-working people. All this when everyone knows that Texas farmers and ranchers are the original stewards of the land. We don’t need the government taxing us too much, or taking our guns or water. Now get out of our way and get off of our ass!

    Comment by concerned citizen | February 13, 2010

  59. I have to say as a member of the NRA i find a lot of this offensive. We are not a bunch of extremists and lunatics raving about our guns being taken away. Democrats know that the 2nd amendment protects the 1st. What is happening is that the libs are slowly chipping away at the 2nd amendment, one ban at a time. So the fear is out there that EVENTUALLY our guns will be taken. But this will not happen. As the writer said, American would not stand for it. However, the NRA and other like groups are there to protect our 2nd amendment rights. “A man with a gun is a citizen, a man without a gun is a subject.”

    Comment by Jeffrey M Larsen | February 18, 2010

  60. The NRA fights every gun measure of every kind and as far as I’m concerned is an accessory to a lot of gun violence in this nation. If sometype of repressive government comes to the U. S, it will come from the right in the name of so-called freedom.

    Comment by Neil Aquino | February 18, 2010

  61. Neil Aquino. Since you are against “so-called freedom”, what else are you against. Are you against “so-called” private property rights? Are you against “so called” free speech. How about “so-called” freedom of religeon?
    If the left that is in control now comes to take away your rights, I promise I will come to your aid, in spite of the fact that you have no regard for my “so-called freedom”.
    I pray every time I pick up my weapon that I won’t have to use it against another human being, and in a perfect world with no perverts or murderers or ARMED thugs, I would not need to even pick up my gun except for sporting reasons.
    You can sleep better tonight because 100 million good American citizens like myself are here with our guns and our sense of right and wrong.

    Comment by Paul Hay | July 12, 2010

  62. Paul–And I’ll pay taxes to better the lives of all people no matter how much the right resists health insurance for all, makes sure we can’t address climate change, makes sure that our cities are awash in guns, makes sure that education is underfunded and on and on and on. I’ll do my part as a citizen no matter how much folks care more about gun rights more than do about human rights and the well-being of our fellow Americans.

    Comment by Neil Aquino | July 13, 2010

  63. I am a hunter and I believe that we should always have the right to bear arms. If someone in the theater in Colorado would have had a gun permit they would have stopped the shooting.

    Comment by hunter | July 22, 2012

  64. I read a sign that says it best: “Yeah trust the government… just ask the Indians how that went.” The article is somewhat right… the only real way the government is going to control this topic is by pushing the price of material up for ammo and weapons themselves. But we already know they will lie and cheat their way to pass any law as we have seen with (CRAP) ObamaCare. If you buy into any gun control law you are a fool to think that criminals will obey these laws.

    Comment by Brandon | July 24, 2012

  65. Amazing what politicians will do.
    Their favorite activity is lieing,
    Just like some of the statements
    in this article. So what part of progressive
    do liberals not understand? Progressive
    Means they won’t take your gun until
    They get good and ready to do it.
    Then they will find a way and do it quickly.
    Am i missing something here?

    Comment by Michael | August 21, 2012

  66. I love how people say things won’t happen. That the government won’t do something that rash. That someone in a high position won’t make a decision that would affect the well-being of the citizens of that country. It won’t happen to you here in Germany, or here in Australia, no, of course not in Asia. Whatever. :) Keep flying your kite of naivity and you will soon see you have been undercut and whine – “When the hell did this happen!” Good Day!

    Comment by Ed | December 20, 2012

  67. We need to wake up folks. The government can not longer be trusted to do the best for us until we are smart enough to vote out all the incumbents and let them know who put them in office. also we need to somehow take away all their extravagant benifits. They should get no more than we get. Government should not be deciding what benefits they get, we should. The only threat to the government officials if voted out is loss of office, they get their benefits either way which isn’t right. uprising and riot happen when people have finally had enough.

    Comment by Steve Haugen | January 3, 2013

  68. Wow. Were Americans this jaded and eager to throw-away their rights back in 2008? Now, in Jan 2013 and in the middle of the anti-gun furor and calls for seizure of private weapons and blanket bans, this entire post seems ludicrous.

    Honestly, this is an apologetic work; nothing more than an excuse to vote for a candidate that is KNOWN to hold stances which are opposed to the constitution. Lie to yourself if you want to, it is your right. Obama won’t take that away, he’s been lying for a long, long time now…

    Comment by Bob Jackson | January 8, 2013

  69. perhaps we should outlaw meteors and we wont have to worry about them either, gun control is insanity

    Comment by Kendall | February 18, 2013

  70. Go LIbertarian Party! Stop the control freak government!

    Comment by monique | March 13, 2013

  71. i don’t think it’s right to gust take away our protection or take away something i paid for i would rather be in a desert than have my stuff token away bullshit!!!!!!!

    Comment by yahques smith | April 3, 2013

  72. I live in Canada. I’m not afraid to go out at night because it is virtually impossible for me to get shot, Which is always nice.

    Comment by Canadian Moose | June 7, 2013

  73. You are simply wrong. The US federal government and a number of state as well as city governments do want to take you guns so that you can not oppose the institution of an old fashioned oligarchy and one party rule. That is the direction the US is going. Connect the dots between the IRS suppression of voters, twisting the census in to a voter suppression tool, Death Panels, giving the IRS our private medical records, NSA violations of privacy, the tapping of so many reporter’s phones & families, the Fast and Furious scandal, the arms dealing cover up that ended in Bengazie murders, supporting Alquieda through the Muslim Brotherhood, over turning secular governments in the middle east, sending our troops to Syria against the will of the American people, and so much more, ALL OF THOSE THINGS THAT OBAMA HAS LIED ABOUT. He has violated our rights in so many ways that he should be impeached even if simply for entering it into historical record.

    More over, I am willing to bet that when someone eventually UNSEALS Obama’s university records, we will find that he went to school on a scholarship reserved for FOREIGN students. Where is that birth certificate also! It is my hope that when the majority of Americans take that into account it will be easy to repeal and expunge all of the Oligarchic Socialist government expansion that Obama has done to entrench his wealthy friends.

    Comment by Nosmo King Jr | June 16, 2013


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 137 other followers

%d bloggers like this: