Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 41

Thread: What good is it getting a gun now with Obama.

  1. #1
    New member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Eagle River, Alaska
    Posts
    6

    Default What good is it getting a gun now with Obama.

    My apologies in advance if this starts up any kind of flame wars but after hearing the news stories of folks going out at a all time record and buying gun's in anticipation of a Obama gun ban. The thought crossed my mind what good is it? With the Dem's having power any gun ban could and I really hate to use these words, would probably include some sort of a confiscation of some weapons. This I would expect would increase to more firearms styles down the road. I do not think Obama is worried about ever getting another Alaskan vote. Purchasing any firearms now, the fed's know who you are, what you are buying and could very well come track you(and me) down. How do we protect ourselves from this? I know we would like to say that we would never ever give them up but in reality what could we do to keep them? So in this case to avoid the Fed's, is buying or trading for used older guns that are off of the background check's of the Fed's? Just about anything we could do could become illegal.
    I also think they would have a hard time going after any Alaskan if this came about.
    Comments?

  2. #2
    Member Wombat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Eielson Air Force Base
    Posts
    158

    Default

    The thought of a gun ban bothers me. Though I wouldn't worrie too much about what the gov knows is in your home. I'm not sure how much info is saved on the buyer but, if the records show I have three I may have an armory (not that I do ). Deep down, the gov would have a hard time keeping loyal people to confiscate them. My .02

  3. #3
    Member danattherock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    5,608

    Default

    While I appreciate your concern, it is my opinion that we have nothing to worry about. The Dems are no more likely to ban guns than the Republicans were to ban abortion. They are hot topics that people love to push down our throat. But the reality is that both are protected by the constitution. And as a safety net, I think we all know what would happen to any president that tried to take our second amendment away. Another reason why it won't ever happen.
    The two loudest sounds known to man: a gun that goes bang when it is supposed to go click and a gun that goes click when it is supposed to go bang.

  4. #4
    Supporting Member Amigo Will's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Wrangell
    Posts
    7,600

    Default

    The lower 49 are not concerned much about what folks have in Alaska except for the oil.Heck they had been useing steel shot down south long before we even heard about it.

  5. #5
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    What good is it getting a gun now with Obama......
    The same as it was before Obama.

    Guns have utility, just like forks, fishing poles, and brooms.

    With Obama's pledge to raise taxes and redistribute wealth, what good is it working for a living?

  6. #6
    Member tccak71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    2,174

    Default

    I think the recent Heller case would make any attempt to outlaw handguns (and confiscate others) useless. It wouldn't surprise me to see an attempt at a PERMANENT assault weapons ban though; that scares the heck out of me.

    Tim

  7. #7
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tccak71 View Post
    .....It wouldn't surprise me to see an attempt at a PERMANENT assault weapons ban though; that scares the heck out of me......
    Considering the Miller and Heller decisions, I don't believe such a ban would survive a Supreme Court challenge.

  8. #8
    New member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    anchorage
    Posts
    3

    Default

    I believe there to be a time and place for civil disobedience. If it comes down to the government taking away properly purchased, private property I think it would be a good instance to practice civil disobediance. I know myself and a lot of my friends wouldn't give up our guns. When they take away the second amendment they can take away the first and it isnt a time to become complacent. Anyways my feelings on the matter.

  9. #9
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by manstallion_gregmo View Post
    I believe there to be a time and place for civil disobedience. If it comes down to the government taking away properly purchased, private property I think it would be a good instance to practice civil disobediance. I know myself and a lot of my friends wouldn't give up our guns.........
    Nationwide gun registration and confiscation just ain't gonna' happen:

    The Toronto Star and the Canadian Press are reporting that hundreds of thousands of gun owners in Canada, possibly at least one third of all Canadian gun owners, have yet to register their firearms under the new Canadian mandatory gun registration scheme. So far, the Star reports that noncompliance has forced the Canadian government to waive registration fees for a period of time, as a form of encouragement. The costs of the program, meanwhile, have spiraled up many times higher than anticipated. The Canadian Firearms Centre is preparing to send out reminder letters to those hundreds of thousands of gun owners who have yet to register their firearms. Guns must be registered by January 1, 2003. Possession of non-registered guns can lead to five years in prison and other charges under the Firearms Act or the Criminal Code.

    Pro-gun activists in Canada are hinting that "holdouts" are not likely to comply anytime soon, so the government may be facing the grim prospect of having to arrest, try, convict, and imprison some 667,000 "lawbreakers." As the Press reported: Alliance MP Garry Breitkreuz believes the gun registry will have trouble convincing the holdouts. "If they didn't capture these people during their stay-out-of-jail sale, then I don't know how many would still comply with the law," Breitkreuz said.

    The law does little to curb gun use by criminals, and criminals are obtaining firearms easily illegally, or in some instances legally. At a recent Hell's Angels trial in Montreal police confirmed that a handgun and three pump action shotguns found in the home of convicted killer Maurice "Mom" Boucher were apparently acquired legally, despite the registration and licensing scheme. Meanwhile, Native Americans in the Northwest Territories run short of regulated ammunition needed for hunting and feeding their families.

    "Registration and licensing doesn't work in Canada, and it wouldn't work here," CRPA spokesman Chuck Michel said. "It is a waste of money. Put more police on the streets, then they can go after the people who are really committing the crimes."

    In response to criticism, Canadian's gun ban lobby is now hedging on what they had promised that the law would accomplish. Instead of reducing crime, or making people safe, spokesperson Wendy Cukier now claims that "...Strengthening control means reducing the risk that guns will be misused. It doesn't guarantee they won't be misused..." Cukier also noted that, out of the estimated 1.4 million gun owners who have applied for registration, some 4000 have been either denied or have had their permits revoked. That's a whopping 0.3% of all gun owners in Canada, further proving that the vast majority of gun owners tend to be law-abiding......

  10. #10

    Default

    I buy firearms now for the same reason I always have, because I can. The possibility of a ban or confiscation weighs little in my consideration, although it may speed me up a bit.

    No one can say for sure if they themselves have the metal to stand up against the government should the time come when a broad ban and confiscation effort were undertaken, but I for one have no intention of complying nor of allowing them in to take them. And I'd hope that before such a day came, we'd all stand against it together in one way or another.

    Point being, I am not going to allow the possibility of a ban or confiscation stop me from exercising my natural, God-given rights recognized by the 2nd Amendment, and I wouldn't feel obligated to obey a law which would attempt to take that right away either.

    Quote Originally Posted by Moondog View Post
    My apologies in advance if this starts up any kind of flame wars but after hearing the news stories of folks going out at a all time record and buying gun's in anticipation of a Obama gun ban. The thought crossed my mind what good is it? With the Dem's having power any gun ban could and I really hate to use these words, would probably include some sort of a confiscation of some weapons. This I would expect would increase to more firearms styles down the road. I do not think Obama is worried about ever getting another Alaskan vote. Purchasing any firearms now, the fed's know who you are, what you are buying and could very well come track you(and me) down. How do we protect ourselves from this? I know we would like to say that we would never ever give them up but in reality what could we do to keep them? So in this case to avoid the Fed's, is buying or trading for used older guns that are off of the background check's of the Fed's? Just about anything we could do could become illegal.
    I also think they would have a hard time going after any Alaskan if this came about.
    Comments?

  11. #11
    Sponsor ADfields's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Missing Palmer AK in Phonix AZ.
    Posts
    6,416

    Default It won't work here???

    It won't happen here you say? Half the country can't paint their house without a permit and color approval.

    In my Dad's lifetime we have lost: full autos, explosives at the hardware store, black powder without signing, buying .22 ammo if your 17 years old, to list a couple. Then the Brady Bill and all the stuff we lost there, hi-cap mags, hole groups of small arms, waiting periods, and what not.

    We lost so much in the last 80 years I'm getting ill thinking about it right now!!!

    Fast forward to your grandkids lifetime, what will it look like in say 2050?
    England and Australia I would bet. Just because it's happening slowly, one little law at a time, don't think it's not happening or wont happen!

    It started with "they don't need Tommy guns" and it ends with "since all animals are endangered hunting is illegal and we have police to protect them, so they don't need guns at all in this modern age." We all know it's true and it's just a mater of how long. I say not when I'm alive!!!

    Andy

  12. #12
    New member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Jacksonville Beach, Florida
    Posts
    30

    Default

    The Supreme Court (not to be confused with the Supreme Taco) recently, after oh so long waiting, gave their ruling on the verbage of the second amendment and secured our rights to firearms ownership. I am much more concerned about protecting the ammunition source, since it is not mentioned in the second amendment. The SA states the main reason for firearms ownership is to quell the tyranny of government. I am no anarchist, by no means, but I sometimes wonder if it is time to take up arms against our government considering that they are only working in the best interests of maintaining their own power and not in the best interest of the people. Who needs a 100 billion dollar particle collider? Why do the peoples federal tax money go to pay for a million dollars worth of public art in Idaho? Why can't Idaho pay for that? I will keep my guns no matter what. When the government comes to collect them, I will simply tell them that I sold them at the gun show to a passerby, and no, I don't remember his name.
    Don't contact the secret service, I'm just full of hot air.
    Chris

  13. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by danattherock View Post
    While I appreciate your concern, it is my opinion that we have nothing to worry about. The Dems are no more likely to ban guns than the Republicans were to ban abortion. They are hot topics that people love to push down our throat. But the reality is that both are protected by the constitution. And as a safety net, I think we all know what would happen to any president that tried to take our second amendment away. Another reason why it won't ever happen.
    Where in the constitution does it mention abortion? Abortion is not a right nor is it "protected" by the constitution.

  14. #14
    New member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Eagle River, Alaska
    Posts
    6

    Default Supreme Court

    The Supreme Court did the right thing with their recent ruling, 5 to 4 decision. Now when this come up again and I am sure it will, there are probably at least two just justices that are getting up there in years so should Barry get to add a new judge or two would there be any doubt as to how any future court decisions will go in regards to "ANYTHING" firearm related. Maybe we should be buying up black powder weapons or hand load using black powder as if ammo gets baned we could always make our own.

    A interesting link on how to make it. Don't try this at home

    http://www.dangerouslaboratories.org/foxfire5.html

    Personally I think if anyone tried to take anything away from Alaskans it would not be easy or pretty. They would probably have to get the military to help collect them even if they could find anyone at all to go knock on doors.

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Knik-Fairview, Alaska
    Posts
    927

    Default

    I don't think anyone has to worry about an outright gun ban, but Obama has repeatedly mentioned "reasonable regulation" and has never let a single gun control vote get past him without him voting for it. Guns are not illegal in Canada you know, but they are highly regulated. Don't forget the OSHA tactics on ammo, powder, and primer last year either ...when they tried to call that stuff 'explosives' and for (uhem) 'safety reasons' only certain types of regulated shops could sell the stuff? The NRA and others pushed back hard, and they backed off ...but said "for further reconsideration". The OSHA regulation effort will likely soon come back to haunt us. Just off the top of my head, I can imagine the following regulatory steps being attempted within the next 24 months or so:

    - The OSHA classification of ammo, primers, and powder as "explosives" together with explosion-proof shop storage requirements, licensing, and regulations on who can sell/buy/transport these items. OSHA has already tried this once.

    - A high tax increase on anything gun related. Obama has already promised a 500% increase in taxes on ammo and ammo-making components.

    - A redefinition of the word "automatic" to include any type of gun that "automatically" loads another round as any operation of the gun is executed (bolt actions with magazines, pumps, revolvers, etc.) Pelosi and others have already brought this up.

    - National gun registration for all guns, period. This has already come up as well.

    - Required training and licensing in order to own a gun. This has come up before as well. Keep in mind that training and licensing costs and pragmatics may make owning a gun very difficult even though technically legal.

    - Restrictions on storage and transportation similar to Canada. You may be able to keep qualified long guns at home, and maybe ammo, but one or more classifications of guns and ammo (maybe all ammo ...see OSHA above) may need to be kept in a government-ordained vault to be checked out for use and checked back in when done.

    - No handgun ownership without special license as in Canada (which are issued only in extremely rare cases)

    - Mandatory long jail sentences, extremely high fines, and life-long bans on ownership could occur if any kind of accidental discharge or accidental injury occurred, or if any crime were committed and a gun were involved.

    - FFL's could become very expensive and very difficult to get.

    - Fines and punishment to gun and ammo dealers for very slight infringements could be such that any slight mistake could lead to the closure of the gun store. Keep in mind that this is already occurring and that 75% of the gun stores in this country have closed their doors in the last 15 years.

    - A permanent ban on assault weapons could be attempted.

    - Gun shows could be outlawed.

    - Private person-to-person gun sales could be outlawed unless executed through a licensed dealer.

    - As time passes, the definitions could be changed and consequently the regulations be tightened to the point that the American public are disarmed, i.e. change the definition of 'automatic', 'assault gun', 'excessive capacity', etc.

    So you see? Lots can be done while not losing the 2nd Amendment. I'm sure there is more that people can think of than what I did, but given the wrong people in charge, I can imagine all of the above being attempted as "reasonable regulation." There will be a LOT of push-back and non-compliance in this country however, so I can't see too much of this stuff actually succeeding, but even succeeding in part could result in dramatic changes to our current freedoms. And keep in mind that unless it's through a constitutional amendment, all such regulations are reversible and would likely be reversed during the next non-Democrat administration. I would never suggest that anyone break the law, but given the likely reversal, you'd think a lot of people would hide/bury their guns and wait it out. Same with ammo and other regulated items.

    So why buy guns and ammo and reloading supplies right now? As a minimum, to escape the Obama Tax. As a maximum, to exercise civil disobediance and refuse to comply while you and our representative organizations fight back. Personally, I'd recommended stocking up on everything. You can always change your mind later and sell the stuff at a much higher price ...regulations only increase gun and ammo value.

    Brian

  16. #16
    New member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Jacksonville Beach, Florida
    Posts
    30

    Default

    The words are: SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. The Supreme court jesters ruled on the verbage of "a well regulated militia" and "the right of the people", however they did not rule on, nor clarify the last part of the phrase; SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. I fail to see how such a clear wording of what the Framers were trying to express has been distorted and misconstrued and reworked to the disadvantage of law abiding citizens who happen to want to arm themselves. I believe that any halfway educated english speaking individual is capable of understanding that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" means exactly that. Restrictions of the type being discussed by our leaders constitute an infringement of our inalienable rights. Lord, help Capital Hill come to its senses.
    Chris

  17. #17
    Member stevelyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Fairbanksan in Aleutian Hell
    Posts
    1,316

    Default

    With the Dem's having power any gun ban could and I really hate to use these words, would probably include some sort of a confiscation of some weapons.
    They'd still have to come and take it and for some of us, we've decided to make it an expensive undertaking with a price hopefully they're not willing to pay in exchange for a govt job and benefits.
    Now what ?

  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Knik-Fairview, Alaska
    Posts
    927

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by swamp creature View Post
    The words are: SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. The Supreme court jesters ruled on the verbage of "a well regulated militia" and "the right of the people", however they did not rule on, nor clarify the last part of the phrase; SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. I fail to see how such a clear wording of what the Framers were trying to express has been distorted and misconstrued and reworked to the disadvantage of law abiding citizens who happen to want to arm themselves. I believe that any halfway educated english speaking individual is capable of understanding that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" means exactly that. Restrictions of the type being discussed by our leaders constitute an infringement of our inalienable rights. Lord, help Capital Hill come to its senses.
    Chris
    When has the government ever NOT tried to infringe your rights? Anyway ...sounds like you're an activist in the making. We need lots and lots and lots of folks like that. I for one intend to rain written, emailed, and phone-called feedback on those that would infringe our rights and I do and will continue to financially support organizations that protect our rights and represent people or classes in litigation.

    Keep it up!

    Brian

  19. #19
    New member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Jacksonville Beach, Florida
    Posts
    30

    Default

    I've said what I came here to say, and no I am going to Infringe upon a ham sandwich. mmmmmm,

    Chris

  20. #20
    Member akjeff's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Palmer
    Posts
    788

    Default Rights

    Rights are like muscles. The ones that get the most exercise are the strongest. Go exercise your 2nd amendment right and buy a new gun and some ammo.

    akjeff

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •