Will America Break Up?

[American Patriot]

There's a difference in dreams and reality... which is something Obama (and perhaps the pastor) has not figured out though.

Dreams do not necessarily come true. But the reality of the day, those things into which we can each delve dictate the path this country takes.

Obama might wish to destroy the country, but the only way to do it is to take our guns and he's about to succeed on that front too.

(Those things I mentioned, that I could remember came from another person you laid it out pretty clearly. All are real events, not dreams too....)

[vector7]

We will soon see just how far this Administration will take this.

[American Patriot]

I think someone needs to kick the legs out from under this administration.

I don't think standing around and waiting is the right thing to do, writing and letting them know in no uncertain terms they are NOT going to "carry this" any further is the only stance we should have right now.

[vector7]

Boehner: Will consider gun-control legislation

By Molly K. Hooper - 12/20/12 02:01 PM ET
Tweet
Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) on Thursday refused to rule out a vote on gun-control legislation in the next Congress.

The highest-ranking elected Republican lawmaker said that he would take the recommendations of a commission led by Vice President Joe Biden on gun control "under advisement."

This kind of leadership is contributing to the fall, people need to make their plans accordingly.

[American Patriot]

yup. 100% right

[Malsua]

Obama will sign it. It will pass obstacles in the house and the senate, it will pass and then what? I know the obvious answer...I'm looking more at specifics.

[American Patriot]

You want someone here to say, "We go to war"? Or, "let's get together and ....x"?

Not gonna happen. lol *I* won't be the first one to lay out a plan online.

[Malsua]

You want someone here to say, "We go to war"? Or, "let's get together and ....x"?

Not gonna happen. lol *I* won't be the first one to lay out a plan online.

Not where I was going with that.

I was not looking for an operational plan for a civil war. It would be foolish to discuss it even if it were something any of us were planning to do, which, for the record, I am not.

I meant...so they pass the law, it bans everything. Then what?

The coming knocking at the door? Agents start dying? They seize bank accounts of anyone with guns? I mean...how does this thing play out.

How exactly is tyranny visited upon the American people by it's government? I suspect a signature on such a gun ban document will be akin to a death warrant they sign themselves. They won't see it that way but I believe ultimately they will. There are enough people willing to go to war over it, they should be fearful. That they are not shows just how much hubris exists in the federal government.

[American Patriot]

Not where I was going with that.

My mistake....

I was not looking for an operational plan for a civil war. It would be foolish to discuss it even if it were something any of us were planning to do, which, for the record, I am not.

For the record, neither am I. Not actively planning anything... except selling the house now.

I meant...so they pass the law, it bans everything. Then what?

So I am clear, you're asking for opinions here, or supposition? I'm good with that, I can predict things too and give my opinion.

The coming knocking at the door? Agents start dying? They seize bank accounts of anyone with guns? I mean...how does this thing play out.

All of the above.

How exactly is tyranny visited upon the American people by it's government? I suspect a signature on such a gun ban document will be akin to a death warrant they sign themselves. They won't see it that way but I believe ultimately they will. There are enough people willing to go to war over it, they should be fearful. That they are not shows just how much hubris exists in the federal government.

Those who vote for the gun ban will be looked at as "traitors" to the Constitution, they broke their oaths of office.

People who own weapons will begin looking for ways to hide, get rid of or make disappear guns and ammo.

The tyranny starts when they start knocking on doors; and believe me like many others I've said "That won't happen, they simply can't do it." But they have gotten around most of our Bill of Rights by the Executive office passing orders and delegating authority to the various Departments and Bureaus.

Even in the Feinstein bill (which isn't out yet that I can see but the summary shows it) they will turn over the oversight of this to the BATFE.... no test against the second amendment that way.

The truth is, I have had people tell me flat out "They aren't going to come collect your weapons, you're being stupid!" As Vector pointed out in the other thread it is easier to stay in the "comfort zone" and look to those of us who have guns as "kooks".

I have two work partners. One is male, one is female from Korea. The male told me "I don't see ANY REASON you should be able to own a weapon that can shoot a 100 bullets in ten minutes". (I had a response).

The female, God Bless her, came to me when the kids were confirmed to be dead in Ct. and said "They will come for your guns, just like they did in Korea, and Germany and other places. You can't let them have your guns."

She wasn't born here and saw the South Korean government hide the murders of hundreds of people in a small town that revolted by cutting off communications, and saying the North Koreans had "invaded the area".

The other guy went on to tell me "I have n porblem with you owning guns, as long as you can't shoot a hundred bullets! I don't have a problem with hunting and the second amendment." He is a former hippie turned conservative, but apparently not conservative enough.

So I explained the Second Amendment to him; and he said "You think the government is going to KILL people?" I pointed out Waco. He said they were kooks. I said the media made you believe that. He mentioned McVey. I told him McVey had help from the Muslims and he said I couldn't prove it, when I said no, I can't.

He said "Why do you NEED a gun that can shoot 30 rounds at a time?"

My response was, "I don't need, I want. (he laughed) The document is called 'The Bill of Rights', not the 'bill of needs'."

He rolled his eyes and dropped the argument apparently writing me off as a kook. (Which is not good because we both have clearances. If anyone acts 'weird' by your opinion you're supposed to report that... there's no doubt in my little mind he is the kind to do just that, and do it with enough conviction that he believes what he is saying) Now you see some of my issues here.

---

Yesterday, one guy asked me "So, did you get any new guns? Have you added ammo to your collection?" (He's a progun guy). I laughed and told him I didn't need to.

Then I turned and looked at the other guy that I ususaly get into arguments with, a black fella, and asked him "Did you get your stuff?"

He looked and me seriously and said, "That's not me, that's you WHITE GUYS who kill people. You white people are the racist crazy people who shoot theaters full of innocent civilians".

He was serious. There was more, but I won't repeat the rest.

So Mal, my belief is the media will make the first few people who end up dying because of their guns sound like "White, racist assholes who had it out for the government and probably belonged to militia groups who are supported by white supremacists".

That's MY take on it.

[MinutemanCO]

I will never discount the concept of dreams. I will always view them with analytical perspective, but never disregard until said personal analysis is complete. The reason being... the Bible makes prophetic mention of the giving of dreams in the foretelling of future events and the Bible has never been inaccurate in its prophecy.

[Ryan Ruck]

Not where I was going with that.

I was not looking for an operational plan for a civil war. It would be foolish to discuss it even if it were something any of us were planning to do, which, for the record, I am not.

I meant...so they pass the law, it bans everything. Then what?

I don't know if you've heard Mal but compliance with the CA AWB is believed to be anywhere from 5%-20% depending on who you believe. Funny they can't even give a much more exact number on that.

He said "Why do you NEED a gun that can shoot 30 rounds at a time?"

Why does a person need a printing press/printer that can shoot out 100s of papers at a time or, a video camera and video transmitter, or a microphone and radio transmitter? Someone could spread a lot of hate speech or false information very easily. If a person wants to spread information there should be some common sense regulation to make sure it is done responsibly.

Why does a person need a religious following of 100s of people? Someone could brainwash a lot of people in the name of a "religion" very easily. If a person wants to follow a religion, there should be common sense licensing.

Why does anyone need a car or motorcycle that goes over 65 MPH? Most speed limits on public roads are at or below that and someone could easily kill a lot of people speeding. All you need transportation for is to get from point A to point B.

Why does anyone need alcohol? Alcohol is responsible for thousands of deaths and illness per year.

Why does anyone need the 4th or 5th Amendment? If you haven't done anything wrong, you don't have anything to hide.

[American Patriot]

None of those arguments really would have worked, Ryan. lol

We're talking ex-hippies here.

[Malsua]

I can tell you that the NJ AWB has a pretty good compliance record. I know a lot of people with guns and not a single one of them has a non NJ AWB compliant one nor would they. I certainly wouldn't. Now if you toss in all the gangstas, I don't know how much that drops compliance. Among the law abiding, I'm guessing it's at or above 99%. In a state with 8 million people, with a 99% compliance, that still means there are 80,000 non ban compliant firearms in NJ and I believe the number is not that high.

[Ryan Ruck]

Ex-hippie you say?

[Ryan Ruck]

Sorry Mal, I realized I left out in the compliance post that it was 5%-20% compliance with registration when the CA AWB passed.

Most people since the ban passed are buying AWB compliant guns.

[Phil Fiord]

Rick,

One thing your race baiting co worker forgets is inner city gun crime. Those guns are not owned legally in any case I have come across and most are held by black or latino males. Look at Detroit. Chicago?

So of law abiding owners, we know the use of the guns in crime is so very low it makes no sense to demonize legal owners.

Also, on the subject of Detroit, I came across a female of color today. She and I got into a good discussion and I know our politics are vastly different. She came to the Northern Virginia area from Detroit not long ago. She was telling me stuff I knew already about crack and gun shootings and such but when she said human trafficking, I had pause. I asked what kind of ht? She said young girls being pimped out by crackhead parents so they could get money since there ain't no jobs.

It made me queasy. Third world status is not a good description as it is insulting to third world places. No. I think its first world socialist created moral degeneration.

[vector7]

Not where I was going with that.

I was not looking for an operational plan for a civil war. It would be foolish to discuss it even if it were something any of us were planning to do, which, for the record, I am not.

I meant...so they pass the law, it bans everything. Then what?

The coming knocking at the door? Agents start dying? They seize bank accounts of anyone with guns? I mean...how does this thing play out.

How exactly is tyranny visited upon the American people by it's government? I suspect a signature on such a gun ban document will be akin to a death warrant they sign themselves. They won't see it that way but I believe ultimately they will. There are enough people willing to go to war over it, they should be fearful. That they are not shows just how much hubris exists in the federal government.

I think it may go down to the state level, some states already have tough gun laws and the toughest are the ones calling for confiscation.

Other states like Texas and Arizona would probably not comply, which brings us back to the title of the this thread.

However, it looks like the Left is working on a building a weapon to deal with these southern states right now.

[American Patriot]

open us up for invasion in the south and the southern states will be tied up defending themselves against invaders from everywhere (including the middle east) to see the US Gov coming down on them.

[Ryan Ruck]

Notice how they are no longer hiding it...

New Hampshire Legislator: We Need to 'Restrict Freedoms' of Conservatives

January 3, 2013

A New Hampshire legislator wants her constituents to know that she feels conservatives are the "single biggest threat" her state faces today, and she wants to use her powers to legislate to "pass measures that will restrict" the freedoms of Granite State conservatives.

In a blog post made last month on the left-wing site Blue Hampshire, 3rd District State Representative Democrat Cynthia Chase advised her fellow legislators to use their positions to make New Hampshire less welcoming to any conservative or libertarian planning on moving to her state—not to mention those already in residence.

For those unaware, a conservative project of sorts has been underway in New Hampshire since 2001. The idea is that Americans of conservative ideals are to move to New Hampshire, gather in communities, run for office, and work to drive the state toward libertarianism and conservatism. It is called the "Free State Project" and adherents are called "Free Staters."

These Free Staters figure that the state’s motto, “Live Free or Die,” should really mean something and it is these citizens whose freedoms legislator Chase wants to oppress.

In her December 21 post, Chase wrote that, "Free Staters are the single biggest threat the state is facing today."

"In the opinion of this Democrat, Free Staters are the single biggest threat the state is facing today. There is, legally, nothing we can do to prevent them from moving here to take over the state, which is their openly stated goal. In this country you can move anywhere you choose and they have that same right. What we can do is to make the environment here so unwelcoming that some will choose not to come, and some may actually leave. One way is to pass measures that will restrict the 'freedoms' that they think they will find here. Another is to shine the bright light of publicity on who they are and why they are coming."

Of course, it is one thing to be a proponent of laws that might have the unintended consequences of restricting others' freedoms. If one truly believes in such policies, well, they may be disastrously wrong, but at least they'd be honestly wrong. A fine point, to be sure.

But here we have a legislator that doesn't just want to pass laws that are tangentially restrictive. She wants to purposefully use her powers to write laws to target individuals with whom she disagrees, take away their freedoms and liberties, and all in the hopes that the citizens she is oppressing might move away from her state.

As New Hampshirite Steve MacDonald notes, "this sounds like tyranny."

Imagine if a legislator had written a blog post targeting the freedoms of gays, or women, or some other minority? One would think that the media would go wild with such a story. But here we have an elected official suggesting that government be used in the United States of America to eliminate freedoms for certain citizens in order to gain political control and the media is silent.

Sounds like tyranny, indeed.

All I can say is, "Thank God for the Second Amendment." Honestly, if it wasn't for that, they'd already be rounding us up and shoving us in furnaces.

[American Patriot]

I don't think they have been "hiding" for the past few weeks now, Ryan. There have been a bunch of references (usually about guns) to removing some freedoms.