# obamas gun ban list is out!



## shotlady (Aug 30, 2012)

Obama's Gun Ban List Is Out

Posted on 11/20/2012

Obama's Gun Ban List Is Out | ANMilitia

Obama's Gun Ban List Is Out

Alan Korwin - Author Gun Laws Of America GunLaws.com

Here it is, folks, and it is bad news. The framework for legislation is always laid, and the Democrats have the votes to pass anything they want to impose upon us. They really do not believe you need anything more than a brick to defend your home and family. Look at the list and see how many you own. Remember, it is registration, then confiscation. It has happened in the UK, in Australia, in Europe, in China, and what they have found is that for some reason the criminals do not turn in their weapons, but will know that you did.

Remember, the first step in establishing a dictatorship is to disarm the citizens.

Gun-ban list proposed. Slipping below the radar (or under the short-term memory cap), the Democrats have already leaked a gun-ban list, even under the Bush administration when they knew full well it had no chance of passage (HR 1022, 110th Congress). It serves as a framework for the new list the Brady's plan to introduce shortly. I have an outline of the Brady's current plans and targets of opportunity. It's horrific. They're going after the courts, regulatory agencies, firearms dealers and statutes in an all out effort to restrict we the people. They've made little mention of criminals. Now more than ever, attention to the entire Bill of Rights is critical. Gun bans will impact our freedoms under search and seizure, due process, confiscated property, states' rights, free speech, right to assemble and more, in addition to the Second Amendment. The Democrats current gun-ban-list proposal (final list will be worse):

Rifles (or copies or duplicates):
M1 Carbine,
Sturm Ruger Mini-14,
AR-15,
Bushmaster XM15,
Armalite M15,
AR-10,
Thompson 1927,
Thompson M1;
AK,
AKM,
AKS,
AK-47,
AK-74,
ARM,
MAK90,
NHM 90,
NHM 91,
SA 85,
SA 93,
VEPR;
Olympic Arms PCR;
AR70,
Calico Liberty ,
Dragunov SVD Sniper Rifle or Dragunov SVU, Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, or FNC, Hi-Point20Carbine, HK-91, HK-93, HK-94, HK-PSG-1, Thompson 1927 Commando, Kel-Tec Sub Rifle; Saiga, SAR-8, SAR-4800, SKS with detachable magazine, SLG 95, SLR 95 or 96, Steyr AU, Tavor, Uzi, Galil and Uzi Sporter, Galil Sporter, or Galil Sniper Rifle ( Galatz ).
Pistols (or copies or duplicates):
Calico M-110,
MAC-10,
MAC-11, or MPA3,
Olympic Arms OA,
TEC-9,
TEC-DC9,
TEC-22 Scorpion, or AB-10,
Uzi.
Shotguns (or copies or duplicates):
Armscor 30 BG,
SPAS 12 or LAW 12,
Striker 12,
Streetsweeper. Catch-all category (for anything missed or new designs):
A semiautomatic rifle that accepts a detachable magazine and has:
(i) a folding or telescoping stock,
(ii) a threaded barrel,
(iii) a pistol grip (which includes ANYTHING that can serve as a grip, see below),
(iv) a forward grip; or a barrel shroud.
Any semiautomatic rifle with a fixed magazine that can accept more than
10 rounds (except tubular magazine .22 rim fire rifles).
A semiautomatic pistol that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine, and has:
(i) a second pistol grip,
(ii) a threaded barrel,
(iii) a barrel shroud or
(iv) can accept a detachable magazine outside of the pistol grip, and
(v) a semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds.
A semiautomatic shotgun with:
(i) a folding or telescoping stock,
(ii) a pistol grip (see definition below),
(iii) the ability to accept a detachable magazine or a fixed magazine capacity of more than 5 rounds, and
(iv) a shotgun with a revolving cylinder.
Frames or receivers for the above are included, along with conversion kits.
Attorney General gets carte blanche to ban guns at will: Under the proposal, the U.S. Attorney General can add any "semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General."

Note that Obama's pick for this office, Eric Holder, wrote a brief in the Heller case supporting the position that you have no right to have a working firearm in your own home. In making this determination, the bill says, "there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event." In plain English this means that ANY firearm ever obtained by federal officers or the military is not suitable for the public.

The last part is particularly clever, stating that a firearm doesn't have a sporting purpose just because it can be used for sporting purpose - is that devious or what? And of course, "sporting purpose" is a rights infringement with no constitutional or historical support whatsoever, invented by domestic enemies of the right to keep and bear arms to further their cause of disarming the innocent.

Respectfully submitted, Alan Korwin, Author Gun Laws of America Gun Laws of America

Forward or send to every gun owner you know&#8230;
Watch This, If You Want More Proof:
YouTube - CNN- Obama To BAN Guns SPREAD THIS FOLKS, PLZ!





A partial list of gun rights groups:

Gun Owners of America
Gun Owners of America - Gun Owners Of America

Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership

FREEDOM=GUNS
FREEDOM=GUNS

National Rifle Association
NRA

Second Amendment Committee
Second Amendment Committee :: Welcome

Second Amendment Foundation
Second Amendment Foundation Online

Second Amendment Sisters
Second Amendment Sisters - Self-Defense is a Basic Human Right

Women Against Gun Control
- Women Against Gun Control


----------



## Not Crazy Yet (Nov 11, 2012)

Thanks for posting, very important information.


----------



## Fuzzee (Nov 20, 2012)

Bring it.


----------



## Rocky (Nov 10, 2012)

Well that sucks...


----------



## joec (Nov 12, 2012)

Ah and this will pass both houses of Congress, I don't think so. We have a lot bigger fish to fry from the economy, the middle east, global warming etc to deal with, especially after recent finding by the SCOTUS stricking down some local laws. Be more afraid of your local governments be it state, county or city as they are the ones that will grab your guns first. Simply look at NYC, NYS, Chicago, California, etc.


----------



## Lucky Jim (Sep 2, 2012)

Sorry to sound stupid but looking at that gun ban list, is it really as bad as it seems?
I mean, aren't there plenty of other guns NOT on the list that citizens will be able to buy?


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

joec said:


> Ah and this will pass both houses of Congress, I don't think so. We have a lot bigger fish to fry from the economy, the middle east, global warming etc to deal with, especially after recent finding by the SCOTUS stricking down some local laws. Be more afraid of your local governments be it state, county or city as they are the ones that will grab your guns first. Simply look at NYC, NYS, Chicago, California, etc.


This what they will do first to implement their plan. Obama has shown that he does not need Congress, he has written many presidential directives that will allow the implementation of the ban and confiscation if he chooses. I still think the ban will come first then the control of ammo. Many states (including Texas) will not be a part of this, I don't believe (at least I hope not). I have been suprised lately to find out that even may liberals here in TX are also gun owners. (I work in an office full of liberals) The fed's are looking to control the states if they can. That's why he is trying to pass the UN Arms Trade Treaty, to override the states and have total control. As for SCOTUS, Obama is only 1-2 retirement(s) away from having a majority there. With a majority in the court, he will be unstoppable.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

If you think I may be full of it, do a google search on either UN Arms Treaty or presidential directives from Obama. I have read many that affect us and they are scary. Full gov't take over including the airwaves.


----------



## Rocky (Nov 10, 2012)

Lucky Jim said:


> Sorry to sound stupid but looking at that gun ban list, is it really as bad as it seems?
> I mean, aren't there plenty of other guns NOT on the list that citizens will be able to buy?


That list contains just about every weapon worth having in an armed confrontation against an organised enemy. But besides that, it is constitutionally illegal for the government to ban ANY firearms. You saw what happened in Oz and your own country. We do not want that here.

At a deeper level, it is not about losing our weapons, it is about losing our rights as U.S. citizens. The Statists want us to be completely under their control. They want to do away with all those pesky "rights" that keep them from doing whatever they want. Taking away weapons is simply one step that will lead to their unopposed control of every aspect of our lives.

They could not have disarmed England had they not first removed your right to self defence. After that they legislated away the rights that Englishmen had enjoyed for so long one right at a time.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

Rocky said:


> They want to do away with all those pesky "rights" that keep them from doing whatever they want. Taking away weapons is simply one step that will lead to their unopposed control of every aspect of our lives.
> 
> They could not have disarmed England had they not first removed your right to self defence. After that they legislated away the rights that Englishmen had enjoyed for so long one right at a time.


Bingo!


----------



## Reathe (Nov 17, 2012)

has anyone thought of the chain of events that could follow here? this is bad on every front even for liberals that don't like guns. do a little thought experiment and start it off with this ban in place. first things first they will let it simmer before doing anything, collect data from ATF and such. what happens when they move to wide area confiscation. how many "yahoos" will open fire on LEOs? how many on both sides will get killed? how many officers will resign over an attack of conscience? how far away is martial law from that point? deaths won't remove the ban or stop these people from sending in troops that very well end up killed. what would you like to go and legally "steal" some Texas mans AR-15s on the open plains and his home is a few miles out and he happens to own 1 or 2 BMGs. who is going to go sign up for that? who sees state succession at that point in time a real possibility. you think recruitment would suffer much? is it too far fetch that big O wont call the in the UN, after all they don,t recognize personal property rights or firearm rights. if part of these possible events happens how far away is civil war? whats to say another nation won't capitalize with all the distraction and smoldering fighting. this has all sorts of spooky possibilities, that i think are not that far fetch, that should scare the shit out of everyone.


----------



## Lucky Jim (Sep 2, 2012)

Did the American people know he was going to spring a gun ban on them before they voted him in for a second term, or did he wait til after the election to announce it?


----------



## Lattice (Nov 19, 2012)

Lucky Jim said:


> Did the American people know he was going to spring a gun ban on them before they voted him in for a second term, or did he wait til after the election to announce it?


Everyone with an ounce of sense knew it would happen. But the masses weren't paying attention. They were too focused on the goodies that he would give them, and how much money Romney has.


----------



## Rocky (Nov 10, 2012)

Lucky Jim said:


> Did the American people know he was going to spring a gun ban on them before they voted him in for a second term, or did he wait til after the election to announce it?


It wasn't the average working person that re-elected Obama, it was all the people looking for hand outs as well as those who wish to allow illegal immigrants to stay here and ride our welfare system into the sunset. Check out a map showing the states who voted for Obama and you will see the pattern.

This is why the franchise should never have been given to anyone on any type of government handout. Why work for a living if you can vote in a guy who will force those who DO work to support you?

That's why Obama is still in power.


----------



## Lattice (Nov 19, 2012)

There are obviously many more factors that go into it. But that is the basics of it.


----------



## Luma (Nov 21, 2012)

I was just a kid when the previous ban went into effect, so apologies if this question seems stupid. If this ban gets approved are the weapons we already own "grandfathered" in, or do they have the right to take them away?


----------



## sbasacco (Sep 10, 2012)

well...looks like I will just take my .22, my bow and my crossbow and slink quietly off into the night.....

I thought that Canada was bad. They are considering dropping the long gun registry here. Costs too much to maintain and enforce.


----------



## AquaHull (Jun 10, 2012)

Lucky Jim said:


> Did the American people know he was going to spring a gun ban on them before they voted him in for a second term, or did he wait til after the election to announce it?


As usual a very interesting view from across the pond. Some voters would benefit from that insight


----------



## D80buckeye (Nov 17, 2012)

Take some of the timfoil off, folks. For starters this is an old list from 2009. Secondly the Dems don't own the house so via due process this isn't happening. Outside of due process using underhanded methods (ie: UN Disarmament or executive order) then you've got something to talk about.


----------



## Lattice (Nov 19, 2012)

Luma said:


> I was just a kid when the previous ban went into effect, so apologies if this question seems stupid. If this ban gets approved are the weapons we already own "grandfathered" in, or do they have the right to take them away?


No, the federal government has no right laid out in the enumerated powers to strip anyone of any constitutional right. But that does not mean that the would not try. They are of the mob rule mentality.


----------



## Reathe (Nov 17, 2012)

Luma said:


> I was just a kid when the previous ban went into effect, so apologies if this question seems stupid. If this ban gets approved are the weapons we already own "grandfathered" in, or do they have the right to take them away?


the key portion of the bill (its not all here this seems to be just a list) is there will be no grandfathering. another thought... how many people would lose their jobs form manufacturing to dealers...


----------



## joec (Nov 12, 2012)

inceptor said:


> This what they will do first to implement their plan. Obama has shown that he does not need Congress, he has written many presidential directives that will allow the implementation of the ban and confiscation if he chooses. I still think the ban will come first then the control of ammo. Many states (including Texas) will not be a part of this, I don't believe (at least I hope not). I have been suprised lately to find out that even may liberals here in TX are also gun owners. (I work in an office full of liberals) The fed's are looking to control the states if they can. That's why he is trying to pass the UN Arms Trade Treaty, to override the states and have total control. As for SCOTUS, Obama is only 1-2 retirement(s) away from having a majority there. With a majority in the court, he will be unstoppable.


He has, such as? First executive orders are limited in scope and can be overturned by congress. The power doesn't extend to treaties as only the Senate has the power to ratify a treaty. I also don't think even with at least 1 perhaps 2 judges being replace on the SCOTUS will have much effect either as most SCOTUS judges take recent rulings as well as long standing rulings in to their rulings with few exceptions. At any rate I don't see it happening in the next 4 years regardless as the will just isn't there at this time. It will also take at least another 4 years to get our financial problems fixed besides as I said the middle east.

As for liberals owning guns I'm willing to bet there are as many liberals with them as conservatives out there. Not every liberal is for gun control just like every conservative is against gun control.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

Here is a link to one of those directives.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/2010executive_order.pdf


----------



## Lattice (Nov 19, 2012)

joec said:


> He has, such as? First executive orders are limited in scope and can be overturned by congress. The power doesn't extend to treaties as only the Senate has the power to ratify a treaty. I also don't think even with at least 1 perhaps 2 judges being replace on the SCOTUS will have much effect either as most SCOTUS judges take recent rulings as well as long standing rulings in to their rulings with few exceptions. At any rate I don't see it happening in the next 4 years regardless as the will just isn't there at this time. It will also take at least another 4 years to get our financial problems fixed besides as I said the middle east.
> 
> As for liberals owning guns I'm willing to bet there are as many liberals with them as conservatives out there. Not every liberal is for gun control just like every conservative is against gun control.


Executive orders are actually pretty difficult to overturn. Yeah either house can dismiss it with a two thirds majority as can the SCOTUS. But in the history of the U.S. only two have been dismissed. Don't make light of them just because they can be done away with.


----------



## Alpha-17 (Nov 16, 2012)

OK, maybe I missed it, but exactly where is this info coming from? I saw that the list used is old, from '09, but from what exactly? And why is it suddenly relevant again?


----------



## Sinkhole (Nov 17, 2012)

So if this passed we'd be left with Pump Shotguns, Bolt Action or Single Shot Rifles and Lever Action Guns. Looks like the only semi-auto rifles that will survive are hunting rifles similar to the Remington 750 and the SKS w/fixed mag. It would also appear that they are planning to go towards a 10rnd mag capacity across the board.


----------



## nadja (May 1, 2012)

Even IF they could get the bill passed, they would not have an easy time of taking them away. They would of course ban anything on the list from being sold, and then the biggie, they would ban the sale of all ammo and componants to civilians period. That is the way I believe they would go about it.


----------



## Verteidiger (Nov 16, 2012)

The reality is the re-election did nothing to change the balance of political power -- it was a status quo election. Democrat in the White House, Democratic control in the Senate, and Republican control in the House.

Same as the last four years. 

I do not think gun control measures will gain any traction. Too many other problems to deal with -- economy, fiscal cliff, jobs, Middle East, Afghanistan wind down, deficit, tax code revisions, new banking and consumer regulations, implementation of new health care programs, housing and foreclosure crisis, energy policy, and so on. 

I think an attempt to resurrect an assault weapon ban would be dead on arrival and would not survive Congressional debate.

Just my opinion, but it is based on what confronts the politicos and the divided powers the framers of the Constitution built into the structure of the Constitution -- so the Legislature can check the power of the President from going against the will of the People.

Bigger problems will confront them and AWB will move to back burner status. 

We should remain vigilant, but I think it will not happen unless and until the Democrats can control the House. Next election (2014) the Republicans better get their act together, or we could face a real problem then.

Just my opinion.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

I hope you are correct. I am a cynic and am not counting on it.

Obama does not need worry about re-election so he is free to push his agenda. He starting talking about the ban and extending the boundaries of the old ban during the debates. Right after the election this became one of his 1st targets. His cronies immediately jumped on the bandwagon. He is a Socialist, they do not believe in individual rights or freedoms. All for the greater good of the people comrade.


----------



## Lattice (Nov 19, 2012)

Verteidiger said:


> I do not think gun control measures will gain any traction. Too many other problems to deal with -- economy, fiscal cliff, jobs, Middle East, Afghanistan wind down, deficit, tax code revisions, new banking and consumer regulations, implementation of new health care programs, housing and foreclosure crisis, energy policy, and so on.


Someone needs to read Art of War.

"Engage people with what they expect; it is what they are able to discern and confirms their projections. It settles them into predictable patterns of response, occupying their minds while you wait for the extraordinary moment - that which they cannot anticipate."

When the people are focused on other things is the perfect time for them to attack the second amendment.


----------



## Mr B (Nov 23, 2012)

They can have my guns after I run out of ammo and im dead. If the government is stupid enough to think there going to take our guns away from us, they better be ready for a cival war like they have never seen before. Because like Isoroku Yamamoto said when Japan was thinking of invading the united states in WWII, there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

joec said:


> Ah and this will pass both houses of Congress, I don't think so. We have a lot bigger fish to fry from the economy, the middle east, global warming etc to deal with, especially after recent finding by the SCOTUS stricking down some local laws. Be more afraid of your local governments be it state, county or city as they are the ones that will grab your guns first. Simply look at NYC, NYS, Chicago, California, etc.


 You fail to see that Congress is not how it will be done. They will have nothing to say about it. The Supreme court will be used. All it takes is 5 or 9 to change anything the Constitutions says. No madder what you think it says no madder what it has said up to now 5 of 9 can change it at anytime. We got by with one vote the last time the 2nd was ruled on and it was sated " they got it wrong and I will fix that when I appoint one more Justice" those are not my words.
Stop wasting your time on what you think Congress will or will not allow. 5 of 9 make all the rules and and they are appointed not elected.


----------



## Verteidiger (Nov 16, 2012)

Lattice said:


> Someone needs to read Art of War.
> 
> "Engage people with what they expect; it is what they are able to discern and confirms their projections. It settles them into predictable patterns of response, occupying their minds while you wait for the extraordinary moment - that which they cannot anticipate."
> 
> When the people are focused on other things is the perfect time for them to attack the second amendment.


Actually, I have read The Art of War. This is a political issue, not field generalship in times of warfare. Perhaps had you mentioned Machiavelli, or perhaps de Tocqueville, you would be closer to relevant lines of reasoning.

In order to understand why this imagined gun confiscation cannot occur requires an understanding of the differences between substantive legal rights as opposed to procedural legal rights, and the resultant prohibitive effect on the passage of retroactive laws. Only then can an informed intelligent discussion on the subject be undertaken. As long as there has been no lawful declaration of a state of emergency, or imposition of martial law that would be followed by a suspension of the Bill of Rights, there is no extant legal mechanism to attempt to confiscate legally purchased firearms owned by peaceable American citizens.

That is why the last AWB was prospective in effect only. The ban was on future manufacturing and importation, and consequently, all future gun purchase transactions. All guns lawfully possessed could continue to be owned, unless state law was more restrictive than Federal laws.

If you want something to worry about, worry about composition of the US Supreme Court, and the effect of new justices upon the time-honored doctrine of _stare decisis_ -- a new case involving ownership of "military style assault weapons" could allow prospective gun control to become law. But current owners are protected, both by judicial precedent on the issue currently, and the substantive versus procedural rights distinction mentioned previously.

With a divided Government, the Republican controlled House is the bulwark against an AWB happening in the next two years.

Again, just one man's opinion, but a learned one, nevertheless.

In sum, they cannot confiscate, absent extreme and extraordinary events that are not likely to arise.

The Framers of the Constitution knew how to control the tyranny of monarchs and presidents. What they did allow was the tyranny of the majority. Fear a one-party controlled Legislature and Executive. That situation does not exist at present, and cannot for the next two years.

After that, well, slam some fresh batteries in your crystal ball. Mine cannot see beyond 11/2014!


----------



## Lattice (Nov 19, 2012)

Why are you trying to put words in my mouth?


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

I hope you're right Verteidiger, I sincerely hope you're right. I have a bad feeling things won't go they way they are supposed to.


----------



## Verteidiger (Nov 16, 2012)

Lattice said:


> Why are you trying to put words in my mouth?


Not was I was doing, at all. Merely expressing my opinion on the subject, and replying to your reading suggestion with a couple of my own.

Not here to argue with anyone, just speaking my mind on a subject I know a little about.

I meant no offense, and I hope none was taken.


----------



## Alpha-17 (Nov 16, 2012)

Verteidiger, I too hope you're right. I think a lot of this current ban talk is really over hyped, but at the same time, the government has surprised me in the past by actually doing something. Using the current legal framework, a ban should easily be blocked, but all it takes is an "incident" to provoke a state of emergency, or other declaration, to get a ban through. An outright confiscation-style ban is unlikely, but something requiring registration, banning production, or future sale, could easily be passed, and in a few years, lead to full confiscation.


----------



## Verteidiger (Nov 16, 2012)

inceptor said:


> I hope you're right Verteidiger, I sincerely hope you're right. I have a bad feeling things won't go they way they are supposed to.


Thank you, Inceptor. Time will tell, but I am comfortable with my position on the subject.

There are ways around the barriers that our system of Government so carefully constructed back in the days of our Founding Fathers. But there are a whole bunch of people who value Liberty who watch what is being done, and we are vigilant for sound reasons. If an alarm needs to be sounded, I am sure many of those, like me and others here, plan to start ringing the bells. Loud and clear.


----------



## Lattice (Nov 19, 2012)

Verteidiger said:


> Not was I was doing, at all. Merely expressing my opinion on the subject, and replying to your reading suggestion with a couple of my own.
> 
> Not here to argue with anyone, just speaking my mind on a subject I know a little about.
> 
> I meant no offense, and I hope none was taken.


None was. Trust me I do have rhino hide for skin. I only asked because of what you said about confiscation. Now I am all for a civilized argument, ala intelligent debate.

Now, if you believe that politics is not war in itself then you my friend are very mistaken. Politics is very much a tactical war.

Last for years obscure round about attacks on the 2a only. Now that we are even worse off economically than before and everyone is focused on that. Many gun owners were lulled into a false sense of security because there were no overt attacks (overt to the masses anyway), and the wins we have earned. This is evidenced in the fact that you rarely heard anything about the 2A during the campaigns.

So, a majority of the people feel secure in their 2A rights. Do you see the rush to ammo and black rifles that we saw four years ago? No, not so much. It is the perfect time for them to actively attack.

Hence.

"Engage people with what they expect; it is what they are able to discern and confirms their projections. It settles them into predictable patterns of response, occupying their minds while you wait for the extraordinary moment - that which they cannot anticipate."


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

Not having won the lottery yet, I am slowly building up my supply. I do expect a run, ban or both on ammo in the not too distant future. I also have my eye on a couple of new toys before it happens. I hope there is enough time. We are running strictly on cash now.


----------



## Verteidiger (Nov 16, 2012)

Alpha-17 said:


> Verteidiger, I too hope you're right. I think a lot of this current ban talk is really over hyped, but at the same time, the government has surprised me in the past by actually doing something. Using the current legal framework, a ban should easily be blocked, but all it takes is an "incident" to provoke a state of emergency, or other declaration, to get a ban through. An outright confiscation-style ban is unlikely, but something requiring registration, banning production, or future sale, could easily be passed, and in a few years, lead to full confiscation.


Thank you, Alpha-17. It is advisable to keep a watchful eye, but gun grabbing is much easier said than done.

There is an old political quip that says no one's life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness is secure anytime Congress is in session, and that is quite true.

But the Courts do overrule unconstitutional legislation for a reason -- it is inherent in the structure of divided powers.

Martial law exists, and can be invoked. There are other measures which are even more Draconian, but that is too far off topic.

And I am not interested in publishing my thoughts on certain subjects on the Internet -- people should always remember who first built the Internet, and I am not talking about Al Gore.

Our government does employ people who read these forums, so I will leave it at that.

_Quis custiodet ispos custodes_. A little free Latin for the paid watchers. Peace.


----------



## ColoradoChris (Nov 12, 2012)

Obama is evil.


----------



## Lattice (Nov 19, 2012)

I have met people that have told me that I am evil because I find beauty in all people. 

Is he wrong for this country? Most certainly. But to associate him with evil is wrong. Evil is the man who rapes his own daughter. Or the mother who forces her own child to drink bleach. To say that a person is evil because of his political beliefs is just as wrong as saying that I am evil because I am not Christian.


----------



## Rocky (Nov 10, 2012)

He may not be "evil", Lattice, but he'll do until the real thing comes along... ;-)


----------



## SHOOT (Nov 16, 2012)

Many degrees but he is evil . . .


----------



## TxBorderCop (Nov 19, 2012)

Lucky Jim said:


> Sorry to sound stupid but looking at that gun ban list, is it really as bad as it seems?
> I mean, aren't there plenty of other guns NOT on the list that citizens will be able to buy?


As a Cop, I can tell you this is the start. Once this is passed and in effect, the next stage comes out where you won't be able to buy ammo, then anything including a Ruger 10/22 which will be classified as an assault weapon because it has a 10 round magazine.

An armed populace are citizens.
A disarmed populace are subjects.

I refuse to be a subject.


----------



## Piratesailor (Nov 9, 2012)

joec said:


> Ah and this will pass both houses of Congress, I don't think so. We have a lot bigger fish to fry from the economy, the middle east, global warming etc to deal with, especially after recent finding by the SCOTUS stricking down some local laws. Be more afraid of your local governments be it state, county or city as they are the ones that will grab your guns first. Simply look at NYC, NYS, Chicago, California, etc.


Simple solution.. move to Texas.. just have a passport!


----------



## joec (Nov 12, 2012)

Piratesailor said:


> Simple solution.. move to Texas.. just have a passport!


I actually lived in Texas for 10 years from 1969 to 1979 and no thanks, that was long enough. I live in Kentucky even a more gun friendly state than Texas. I will say though the gun ban lists are great for gun sales as people will run out to buy them even if they don't have a need for them. Kind of like virus checkers on computers, no one had virus until virus checkers came along. :shock:;-)


----------



## TxBorderCop (Nov 19, 2012)

I tend to agree with Lattice. All it takes is a Gun Ban rider placed on a big Bill (say the Military appropriations) - who is going to vote against money for our Military forces overseas embroiled in two (for now, just wait for Israel, Syria and that mess to become further inflamed) confilicts? Bad press all the way around. And politics is more like a black ops tactical campaign than anything else.

It's not going to be a jack booted, kick in the door attack. It will be an quiet, end around, stick it in the back style attack. And HE will use Executive Orders to ban ammo supplies (such as telling ammo manufacturers that if they sell to the US DOD then they CANNOT sell that same ammo to civilians) and magazines.

And Rocky is right, Lattice.



> He may not be "evil", Lattice, but he'll do until the real thing comes along...


----------



## Rogue_Scout (Nov 26, 2012)

Art of War is a book I think everyone should read. I have an old copy.... I think its time I crack it open again.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

Piratesailor said:


> Simple solution.. move to Texas.. just have a passport!


Move here over 30 yrs ago. Texas has been very good to me.

This will be a good place to be when that happens.


----------



## joec (Nov 12, 2012)

inceptor said:


> Move here over 30 yrs ago. Texas has been very good to me.
> 
> This will be a good place to be when that happens.


I guess the Beaumont area isn't as good as Northern Texas would be. Surrounded by chemical, oil, DuPont refineries, a few feet above sea level and a night time sky line that looked like a scene from Blade Runner. Did 10 years and left when I couldn't smell the air any more. Only place in the state with the work I was doing at the time. Now if I could get in West or North Texas might still be there.


----------

