# Could This Be Where America's Gun Control Is Headed......



## Cait43 (Apr 4, 2013)




----------



## XD40inAVL (Feb 1, 2013)

I saw a very disturbing movie based on historical fact where only the police and military had guns. It was called Schindler's List.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

I don't see this happening here. There are just too many guns and gun owners, and people in positions who would be called upon to confiscate them who would not do so. Sheriff's departments, local and state police, national guard, and even the military (though they could not be used for something like this under the current laws). Not to mention there are around 100 million gun owners in the country. Certainly quite a few would turn in their firearms, but a lot would not. And in many states, laws would quickly be passed to outlaw any federal attempts to disarm their citizens. It would by a nasty business.

In my last joy (I am retired), I worked for a major defense contractor (think one of the biggest). We would frequently have military personnel in our building for seminars and training. I made it a habit at lunch sometimes to ask some of them this question;

"I an order was issued from the executive branch of the federal government to begin the process of private firearms confiscation, do you think the military would comply?"

To a man, they answered that some probably would but the majority would not because it would be a violation of their oath of service and an illegal order.

Gathering up all of the private arms in this country is a pipe dream of the anti's. It would be an extremely difficult and bloody endeavor.


----------



## Smitty79 (Oct 19, 2012)

It could happen slowly. First you limit magazines and types of guns and make it so kids can't inherit. It may take generations. But it could happen here. The general push from the left, that is taught to our children from age 5, is "government good", "individual liberty and freedom is dangerous and bad".


----------



## XD40inAVL (Feb 1, 2013)

SouthernBoy said:


> I don't see this happening here. There are just too many guns and gun owners, and people in positions who would be called upon to confiscate them who would not do so. Sheriff's departments, local and state police, national guard, and even the military (though they could not be used for something like this under the current laws).


The militarization of our law enforcement agencies is indoctrinating the rank and file that citizens are the enemy of the government. Rising military leaders are being asked if they would obey orders to fire on US citizens.



> 2009 Nobel Peace Prize nominee Jim Garrow shockingly claims he was told by a top military veteran that the Obama administration's "litmus test" for new military leaders is whether or not they will obey an order to fire on U.S. citizens.


Why has DHS ordered almost 3,000 armored urban vehicles (MRAPs) for use in US Cities?


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

XD40inAVL said:


> The militarization of our law enforcement agencies is indoctrinating the rank and file that citizens are the enemy of the government. Rising military leaders are being asked if they would obey orders to fire on US citizens.


Understand, nothing surprises me anymore. I've lived long enough to see huge changes in our nation. What does surprise me is the speed at which we are rushing towards our own destruction.

Total disarmament carried out en masse would be very difficult... next to impossible. So the chip away method will continue to be what we will see. The only thing is those chips will get larger. The future for you younger people here does not look to good.


----------



## Smitty79 (Oct 19, 2012)

SouthernBoy said:


> Understand, nothing surprises me anymore. I've lived long enough to see huge changes in our nation. What does surprise me is the speed at which we are rushing towards our own destruction.
> 
> Total disarmament carried out en masse would be very difficult... next to impossible. So the chip away method will continue to be what we will see. The only thing is those chips will get larger. The future for you younger people here does not look to good.


I will start by saying that I have never used, or wanted to use an illegal drug. I am a small "l" libertarian. The militarization of our law enforcement comes from the war on vice. The FBI went to Tommy Guns to stop bootleggers and modern police fighting vehicles are, mainly, to stop drug gangs. Make it legal and there's no money in it so their are no gangs. Or at least the gangs that are left can't afford ammunition at the current inflated price.


----------



## Cait43 (Apr 4, 2013)

Let's say I have this cake. It is a very nice cake, with "GUN RIGHTS" written across the top in lovely floral icing. I received it from the 2nd amendment.

Along you come and say, "Give me that cake." I say, "No, it's my cake." You say, "Let's compromise. Give me half." I respond by asking what I get out of this compromise, and you reply that I get to keep half of my cake.

Okay, we compromise. Let us call this compromise The National Firearms Act of 1934....

There I am with my half of the cake, and you walk back up and say, "Give me that cake."

I say, "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise." What do I get out of this compromise? Why, I get to keep half of what's left of the cake I already own.

So, we have your compromise -- let us call this one the Gun Control Act of 1968 -- and I'm left holding what is now just a quarter of my cake.

And I'm sitting in the corner with my quarter piece of cake, and here you come again. You want my cake. Again.

You say, "Let's compromise once more." What do I get out of this compromise? I get to keep one eighth of what's left of the cake I already own?

So, we have your compromise -- let us call this one the Machine gun ban of 1986 -- and I'm left holding what is now just an eighth of my cake.

I sit back in the corner with just my eighth of cake that I once owned outright and completely, I glance up and here you come once more.

You say nothing and just grab my cake; This time you take several bites -- we'll call this compromise the Clinton Executive Orders -- and I'm left with about a tenth of what has always been MY DAMN CAKE and you've got nine-tenths of it.

Then we compromised with the Lautenberg Act (nibble, nibble), the HUD/Smith and Wesson agreement (nibble, nibble), the Brady Law (NOM NOM NOM), the School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act (sweet tap-dancing Freyja, my finger!)

I'm left holding crumbs of what was once a large and satisfying cake, and you're standing there with most of MY CAKE, making anime eyes and whining about being "reasonable", and wondering "why we won't compromise".

I'm done with being reasonable, and I'm done with compromise. Nothing about gun control in this country has ever been "reasonable" nor a genuine "compromise".
--Jeff Slack


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

Cait43 said:


> Let's say I have this cake. It is a very nice cake, with "GUN RIGHTS" written across the top in lovely floral icing. I received it from the 2nd amendment.
> 
> Along you come and say, "Give me that cake." I say, "No, it's my cake." You say, "Let's compromise. Give me half." I respond by asking what I get out of this compromise, and you reply that I get to keep half of my cake.
> 
> ...


Excellent metaphoric analogy. Good job.


----------



## 45tex (May 20, 2013)

These days, gun control is working. Cait43 posted a great analogy. Anything we give up today will never be walked back in a following administration. 
There is little hope in a society where the press is the willing lap dog of a Marxist theology.
In Texas we let 'open carry" get away from us a long time back. Nobody in leadership today has the fortitude to stand tall for Texas today. They are fast to point out the problem and 
ever so slow to act to solve it. The Texas legislation is held lock stock and barrel by Republicans and yet nothing changes.


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

Compromise is the first step to defeat.


----------

