Yes, they do want to take your guns

[Spats McGee]

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the 1995 clip is Eric Holder talking about brainwashing people about guns. Bart's collection wouldn't be complete without that one.

 

[yzguy87]

Thanks for the info Spats. Looked it up and found a million hits.
Here's a link if anyone's interested in reading about it:
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/03/18/Holder-Fight-Guns-Like-Cigarettes

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Spats suggestion would be a good one; but the 1995 link was originally to Feinstein's "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in" comment after the 1994 ban. Here is a more recent Youtube link:
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ffI-tWh37UY

 

[Panzerschwein]

Stay ever vigilant guys. We all need to keep our heads on a swivel and deal with these issues as they arise.

 

[Spats McGee]

Close, but no cigar for me, I guess.

Bart, I think you should add Holder's brainwashing clip to the list.

 

[AKElroy]

Quote:
except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards.......

Perfect. Allow weapons only to the very same potential oppressors the second amendment was drafted to be a check against. This is exactly, precisely, 180 degrees opposite of what the framers intended.

 

[Pointshoot]

Thanks to the OP for posting this. I have it bookmarked and will refer to it when I hear "They don't want to take your guns."

Of course, many who say that aren't interested in actual facts. They either are pushing an agenda, or act emotionally rather than intelligently/rationally.

I've pointed out many times that you're far more likely to be struck by lightning than be a victim in a mass shooting (look up the 10 year stats). Despite this, people are 'logically challenged' and fall victim to the 'Do Something' disease and the 'There Outta Be a Law . . ' mentality. That is, they hear the stats, but don't seem to be able to understand their consequences.

Bottom line: There ain't a 'problem' with guns, folks.

 

[40-82]

If it weren't for gun rights activists, we would have already lost our right to possess guns. Somebody would introduce a bill titled "gun safety or child safety" and your congressman would vote for it without reading it because after all who isn't for gun safety and child safety. Except for hot button issues most legislation is passed without being read by the legislators who vote for it. The major media outlets would never share the details of this new legislation, and they would actively lie about its provisions. Federal teams would show up at your door to confiscate your guns and put you in prison before you knew you had lost your rights.

Even in a moderately conservative state like my home state of Virginia every legislative session sees bills introduced that would completely strip us of our rights, and most of it is introduced under benign sounding names that appear on the surface as quite reasonable. Its almost refreshing to read links from an anti-gun legislator who will honestly say what he believes. As it stands now in Virginia we have two U.S. Senators who would love to say to Diana Feinstein, "Count me among your 51."--If they dared.

 

[Midwest]

Look what happened in Australia

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Perhaps, Justice Scalia should reconsider reasonable restrictions if he write another opinion.

Scalia said:

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second
Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through
the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely
explained that the right was not a right to keep and
carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever
and for whatever purpose.

"Purpose" indicates "use". The second Amendment does not protect the use of arms, only the keeping and bearing of arms. Scalia left the door wide open for a case that will narrowly follow the Second Amendment, ignoring any use - good use or bad use - of arms and concentrate strictly on the keeping and bearing of arms. Let us call that strict scrutiny.

Everyone has the right to keep and bear arms. No one has the right to indiscriminately use them.

When someone wants to take your guns away, they are "concerned" how you might use them, such as to thwart tyranny, or defend yourself, or rise up with enough force to exterminate government gone awry.

Woody

 

[bainter1212]

It's easy to see why they don't teach history the way they used to. Anyone who really understood the history of the world and the persecution that so many people have been through would never support any anti 2nd amendment bill. It's the amendment that puts teeth in all the rest and without it all others would be easy to do away with.

This.
Unless you are wealthy and powerful, there is a good statistical chance that you or your descendants will be oppressed and possibly even killed by an oppressive force.

The bad things in history didn't happen to those in power.....they happened to people like you and I. I imagine that events in the future will continue in the same vein.

This is why we must remain vigilant. It IS for the children! The right of our kids to grow up in a world free from tyranny.

 

[Red Wind]

Scary stuff. Thank you for the reminders and the links,Bartholomew Roberts.

 

[another pake]

Why We Are Here

This is very good stuff! And an invaluable "quick find asset".

IMO it should hold a position of "Supreme Stickie" and have a Category Thread box all it's own, immediately below the THR title banner. That way we would have quick access whenever the need arose.

 

[JustinJ]

The word "they" implies that gun control is a binary subject with everybody on only one of two sides. Without question, there are people who would love to see all guns confiscated but they are representative of only themselves. There is a wide range of views on gun rights ranging from zero regulation to zero gun rights. The vast majority of Americans, in and out of government, fall somewhere in between.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

The word "they" implies that gun control is a binary subject with everybody on only one of two sides. Without question, there are people who would love to see all guns confiscated but they are representative of only themselves.

No, "they" is the traditional plural word for more than one person. The only thing it implies is that there is more than one person - and as you can see by the link, there is certainly more than one person who wants to confiscate legally owned guns held by peaceable citizens who haven't misused them -a nd contrary to your statement, they represent more than just themselves. Sen. Feinstein represents the state of California, who has seen fit to send her back to that office repeatedly since she made her original statement in 1995. Governor Cuomo represents the state of New York.

The politicians in those links were not miracled into their positions and they did not get there without an elaborate support network of campaign assistance on the ground and funding. They are not only representative of many more people, they are so confident in their support that they are willing to state openly that they seek confiscation.

Which brings us to your binary argument - certainly there is no question that there are a lot of people who may fall between total confiscation and absolute Second Amendment rights, even on just this website. However, unless those people are going to show up and provide the funding and groundwork for politicians, their opinion is meaningless. Nobody cares what it is. The politicians don't care and I don't care because it has zero effect on what happens politically.

 

[Midwest]

They CONFISCATED guns in New Orleans after Katrina


.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

The politicians don't care and I don't care because it has zero effect on what happens politically.

I think it would be more accurate to say 'dictatorially' instead of 'politically.' At any rate, nothing will change until people begin to value their rights and freedoms more than they value the supposed 'safety' the anti-gun-rights crowd touts. At this stage of the game, we are at the impasse that we neither deserve freedom nor security.

Woody

 

[Midwest]

"NYPD cracks down on long guns that hold more than five rounds"

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/12/05/nypd-targets-owners-multi-clip-shotguns-rifles/



.

 

[steelerdude99]

What amazes me is that whenever the anti-gun person talks about guns incorrectly, the more others of the same kind listen closely. How many times have we heard of high-caliber-magazines or other mumbo jumbo magazine-clips?

I recall about a year ago when Denver congress-woman DeGette was talking about magazines and did not know that when they were expended of all of their bullets, that more can be put in. She was proposing banning manufacture; so that when they are all used up ... then they are all gone.

chuck

 

[Ignition Override]

It is a surprise to me that so many politicians in the US made such clear, blatant public comments about either confiscation or forced-buybacks.

Most of these comments were probably made after Newtown (?). Imagine how many gun-owning sportsmen still don't believe that we need the services of the NRA. We can defend the Sec. Amendment as an army of one.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

One more from the LA Times May 28, 2014:
You say gun control doesn't work? Fine, let's ban guns all together.

 

[barnbwt]

What's with the author of that article going out of their way to carve an exemption for hunters? Urban-environmentalist anti's hate hunters . I personally loved the dismissal of self defense entirely due to "unmeasurable figures" although we're supposed to believe the un-disprovable science* underpinning gun ban logic (and it's provable lack of impact on effecting crime) is on firm footing.

Just goes to show how out of touch they are; they really do think we still have a bunch of Fudds that can be split off (or they think that 'the rest of us' still need to hunt to survive in our barefoot, hardscrabble lives, or something similarly asinine)

TCB

*"horse sense"

 

[rdhood]

It is a surprise to me that so many politicians in the US made such clear, blatant public comments about either confiscation or forced-buybacks.

BUT, but but:

The word "they" implies that gun control is a binary subject with everybody on only one of two sides. Without question, there are people who would love to see all guns confiscated but they are representative of only themselves.

It surprises me that, when given ample evidence of HUGE numbers of people that want ALL guns gone, someone still can't see the forest for the trees.

 

[316SS]

I personally loved the dismissal of self defense entirely due to "unmeasurable figures" although we're supposed to believe the un-disprovable science* underpinning gun ban logic ...
*"horse sense"

He knows what he knows (and so much of what he knows isn't so). BTW I don't think your footnote is fair. I'd say he has the sense of a certain part of a horse ...

 

[Bobson]

Look what happened in Australia

What a nightmare. I don't see how someone could go through that and not be genuinely frightened.