Think Gun Confiscation Can't Happen Here? Think Again...

[Indianajonze 379]

chilling stuff, esp the video...

 

its bad enough that they were forcibly evicting people from their homes, but to disarm them as well? this and what happened in boston make you wonder wtf is going on...

 

https://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/korwin-police-never-confiscate-guns-myth/

[45Frank 32]

I have heard many on hear say it won't happen. We'll see, just look how many things are now illegal in NJ. If they find one illegal item that will be reason to take everything else.

[siderman 1,138]

You can be sure that when push comes to shove the police will do as they're told and do all the pushing and we get shoved. I've read many times how the cops "on the street ' for the most part support "our" rights and its the higher-ups that push the anti agenda. That may be so I dont really know but no cop will risk his career and pension by refusing to follow orders which is what it would come down to- him or me/us. Besides, its an easy argument to make now that they are already enabling the existing anti/unconstitutional agenda NJ has forced on us with all the restrictions in place and more to come. I dont for one minute expect any leniancy from the police when it comes to anything firearms, now or in the future. Confiscation?-Already here via the back door, 

[mipafox 438]

There was never any question. It happens every day. They violate all other rights enumerated as well.

 

The Constitution does not restrain the government. It merely inspires us to pressure them, or to fight.

[Newtonian 453]

The article mainly rehashes old stories but nonetheless raises several interesting points.

 

Post-Katrina confiscation and at-gunpoint invasions and evacuations in Boston both involved guns, but the main story to me is the utter disregard for the 4th and, incidentally the 5th Amendment. The out-of-state "it can't happen here" crowd on these forums views our freedoms exclusively through the 2nd Amendment. They don't realize that your legislature can grant you all the gun rights in the world, but when five heavily armed police knock at your door anything and everything is possible, the entire Constitution goes out the window and along with it any false comfort you may have enjoyed through that laminated card in your wallet or guarantees of "Constitutional carry."

 

I don't care what state you live in, the government hates guns because firearms threaten them. Your representative may belong to a hundred pro-2A organizations and have his picture taken next to the bodies of seven home invaders he's just slain with his bare hands, but his main objective is re-election -- and taking any stand that helps to achieve that. If it's pro-gun then hallelujia, if it's anti-gun he'll take that too. And if/when the shit hits the fan he's looking out for himself, his status, and the continuation of the system in which he operates. Your fucking gun rights are the last thing on his mind.

 

The second point is the myth that cops or sheriffs or whatever put the Constitution above their own narrow self-interest, i.e. retiring at a large fraction of his salary (padded by overtime) at age 45. This utter nonsense, which runs against any understanding of human nature for the last 50,000 years, is promulgated on every right-wing news service I subscribe to. It's also complete and utter bullshit. Believe it at your own risk. And please do consider that unicorn I have for sale. It's a beauty.

[mipafox 438]

The article mainly rehashes old stories but nonetheless raises several interesting points.

 

Post-Katrina confiscation and at-gunpoint invasions and evacuations in Boston both involved guns, but the main story to me is the utter disregard for the 4th and, incidentally the 5th Amendment. The out-of-state "it can't happen here" crowd on these forums views our freedoms exclusively through the 2nd Amendment. They don't realize that your legislature can grant you all the gun rights in the world, but when five heavily armed police knock at your door anything and everything is possible, the entire Constitution goes out the window and along with it any false comfort you may have enjoyed through that laminated card in your wallet or guarantees of "Constitutional carry."

 

Your aim is off. You don't have out of staters saying "it can't happen here." I just said it does every day, and confirmed it could go as far as we are unwilling to resist.

 

Clean up your own yard.

[Newtonian 453]

Your aim is off. You don't have out of staters saying "it can't happen here." I just said it does every day, and confirmed it could go as far as we are unwilling to resist.

 

Clean up your own yard.

My yard is hopeless, not to mention totally beside the point. Someone come up with an idea that does not involve sorcery or hallucination and I'll be there. I had one that had at least some small chance but nobody cared. 

 

Your comments were spot on but I can't recall the last time (outside of my windbag posts) anyone here has specifically mentioned any rights other than the 2nd Amendment, or ventured beyond the NRA/Conservative/Free USA/guns guns guns are everything party line. Re-read some of the comments about me, the ban of a couple of years ago that you helped reverse, then tell me gun people respect fundamental rights outside of their own little world.

 

Posts touting "free America" continue through 2nd Amendment blinders. And pardon me, but you've hardly been consistent in this regard. Today's post notwithstanding, even you have maintained essentially that nothing can change Pennsylvania's gun culture. Wait until a couple of hundred thousand more "refugees" start voting in your state, and your parliament of whores (aka your legislature) begins pandering to them. Wait until Hillary's stacked Supreme Court begins ruling favorably on her executive orders. Your jelly-spined legislators will put up a good show, then shrug their shoulders and shimmy away like $20-a-night hookers.

 

You suggested all of this in your post but there's no harm in reinforcing and elaborating that precious little remains of the Bill of Rights except for your ability to open carry in the fruit aisle at the local Weis. You know that but from what I read very few people who frequent these forums actually do. 

 

All our rights are connected.

[AlDente67 563]

So the lesson here is to say No to such questions.  Correct?

 

From the video, I'd love to know the reasoning behind stopping boats fleeing from the city.

[Indianajonze 379]

So the lesson here is to say No to such questions.  Correct?

 

From the video, I'd love to know the reasoning behind stopping boats fleeing from the city.

 

i'm not sure there was one other than to search for and seize guns. the same thing with the family fleeing the city in their car. it makes no sense at all. i can somewhat understand if they want to prevent roving bands of thugs from taking to the streets in fits of armed looting, but 1) that's not what they were doing in any of the cases shown and 2) those people likely were prevented from legally owning firearms in the first place and SHOULD have had their firearms seized and have been arrested. regardless, from the article and the video i learned that the answer to these questions is certainly "no" if asked. 

 

newtonian, i agree. these were both really, really bad, but to me the worst situation was what happened in boston. it's one thing to stop a fleeing car/boat/whatever and confiscate weapons. it's highly illegal but not the worst thing i could think of, and you'd have a reasonable expectation you'd get your property back. it's quite another to bang on the door of your own home, order your entire family onto the street at gunpoint by heavily armed military and ransack your house, all in the premise of "keeping you safe". i MIGHT have complied with the gun seizure, but i've thought a lot about the boston situation over the past couple of years and i've concluded that i probably would not have complied. i would have sent my family out onto the lawn and i would have remained in the house, tell them calmly that there's no one else in the house and refusing entry without a warrant. then it would be a game of who blinks first. my hope would be that in the face of rolling cameras like that situation, they'd err on the side of leaving well enough alone rather than shooting an innocent person in his own home on live tv. same if i were being forcibly evicted from my home like the woman during katrina. i would likely not have gone. i've researched the boston situation to death, and there were shockingly few accounts of people who refused the search. a few people in the various forums maintained it was all voluntary and if you refused they simply went away. other accounts said they tried refusing and were basically grabbed by the body and dragged out of the house, so who the hell knows. what REALLY bothers me is that this was all swept under the rug in the aftermath, and the damn governor responsible for ordering the house to house searches was even touted as a presidential candidate

 

finally, i'm not entirely sure i agree that police would go along with a concerted seizure effort. what you said makes perfect sense, but i would imagine there are large chunks of the population that would not allow the police to take their guns without SIGNIFICANT effort. here in NJ who knows, but for certain in the south and west, the forums are filled with them (molon labe and all that). do you think a local police force would enforce the orders in the face of armed insurrection? not sure...

[paulnj088 9]

isnt this why we stock pile ammo?

[mipafox 438]

isnt this why we stock pile ammo?

It aint for the Chinese.

 

Why do you think they (government) stockpile ammo?

[Newtonian 453]

 

finally, i'm not entirely sure i agree that police would go along with a concerted seizure effort. what you said makes perfect sense, but i would imagine there are large chunks of the population that would not allow the police to take their guns without SIGNIFICANT effort. here in NJ who knows, but for certain in the south and west, the forums are filled with them (molon labe and all that). do you think a local police force would enforce the orders in the face of armed insurrection? not sure...

Repressive regimes almost always begin with a few vastly outnumbered bullies, then something happens. That "something" is what gun-owners underestimate IMO. Five armed goons knock on your door. To save yourself and/or your family you accept their offer of "security." A dozen of your friends hear about it and one or two are snitches, maybe under duress or fear. Repeat 30 or 40 times and within a week almost everybody within 10 miles is disarmed and shitting in their pants. Then someone's resistance is met with 150 rounds and you hear eyewitness reports of his guts spilling on Spring Street.

 

Terror works. Under the right circumstances one person can control 100 or even 1000 others.

 

See previous posts on what would likely happen if cops had to choose between their jobs, lives, and security and your puny gun rights. Or any of your rights.

[Indianajonze 379]

its one thing for the police to do their jobs and willingly enter armed conflict with thugs and gangbangers who just raped someone or robbed a store. you shoot there knowing you're doing the right thing and are willing to risk your life, pension, etc for the job. but to trade bullets with jimmy from down the road who works at the 7-11, has kids that go to class with yours and and is an honest, law-abiding citizen who's only crime is that he happens to own a gun? i'm sure there'd be a few gung-ho jackasses on power trips that would do it, but i think lots of normal people would have pause...

[345Sire 158]

So the lesson here is to say No to such questions.  Correct?

 

From the video, I'd love to know the reasoning behind stopping boats fleeing from the city.

My concern with this is that if you say no and they search you regardless, the ramifications of them finding some(or any) could be far worse than if you had to turn them over. Most of us would likely have several of our firearms conveniently placed in a central easy to reach location in whatever type of vehicle, wheeled or prow type.  Perhaps the answer might be to have two separate spots? Admit to one? Tricky to accomplish under stress I know,,,,,,,,,,,?????

[Kevin125 4,772]

Repressive regimes almost always begin with a few vastly outnumbered bullies, then something happens. That "something" is what gun-owners underestimate IMO. Five armed goons knock on your door. To save yourself and/or your family you accept their offer of "security." A dozen of your friends hear about it and one or two are snitches, maybe under duress or fear. Repeat 30 or 40 times and within a week almost everybody within 10 miles is disarmed and shitting in their pants. Then someone's resistance is met with 150 rounds and you hear eyewitness reports of his guts spilling on Spring Street.

 

Terror works. Under the right circumstances one person can control 100 or even 1000 others.

 

See previous posts on what would likely happen if cops had to choose between their jobs, lives, and security and your puny gun rights. Or any of your rights.

 

Then you covertly locate the goons at a later date and make them go away, one at a time.  In your hypothetical scenario.....

 

Hence... a reciprocal message is sent.

[Newtonian 453]

Then you covertly locate the goons at a later date and make them go away, one at a time.  In your hypothetical scenario.....

 

Hence... a reciprocal message is sent.

 

Nice fantasy. Unfortunately it's worked only in situations where the resistance was organized and itself heavily armed. I can't think of even one example though. Traditionally in war before 1950 "reciprocal messages" of the kind you speak were met with brutal, many-fold retaliations that eventually scared everyone into submission. 

 

It can work in reverse through "asymmetric" terror tactics when the larger force follows the Geneva Convention but the natives don't. E.g. our misbegotten forays in Viet Nam, Iraq and Afghanistan, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Guaranteed, if the Israelis responded to Palestinian bullshit the way any Arab country would, the only people who would have even heard the term "Palestinian" would be tenured Harvard professors specializing in extinct cultures.

 

My mother in law tells stories about how the vastly outnumbered Germans subdued her town and surrounding areas during WWII. They didn't just hang the guy who stole the sack of wheat, they hung his friends and family and let their corpses rot in public. They conquered not through Marquis de Queensbury rules of engagement but through brutality, through terror. Tell me you'd tell your 16 year old to go steal a sack of wheat under those circumstances, and you can have my pet unicorn for free. 

 

Long-winded (surprise!) way to point out that at least in our state there's no cohesion, no organization, no sense of purpose except for blowhard claims of stockpiling guns and ammo -- as if you can shoot more than one gun at a time, as if those few thousand rounds you've buried mean anything when you're dead or in jail. 

 

We can't even get these 1 million lazy bastards off their asses to vote, which is the civilized and to me the only sane way to get what you want. You think they're going to somehow "resist"??

[Kevin125 4,772]

I didn't say the outcome would go one way or another, but if a gov't became a ruthless regime, I believe there would be an effort to inflict as much damage as possible to the bad guys.  Life as we know it would be over, so why the hell not drag the bad guys down with you?  Unless you're protecting small children and have few options, what other choice do you have?

 

It's as much a fantasy as the situation you laid out.

 

And though it's not the same good vs evil situation, in Iraq, those insurgents as they were called, inflicted horrific damage. Granted.... THEY were the bad guys... but the strategy is similar.

 

And my "16 year old" might just put up a bigger fight than most people I know.

[Kevin125 4,772]

I'll add this.   It's highly unlikely we would see a situation like you describe.  Thugs hired to seize property or a government gone Full Castro....  What we have is creeping tyranny.  A little bit at a time.  Those bad guys pulling the strings in this unseen war, like Obama for example... aren't going to do something dramatic.  Just a small piece at a time.  It's been going on inside the federal gov't full throttle since 2008.  And elsewhere in society for far longer.  This is the classic act of boiling a frog to death one degree at a time.  No way would they reveal their hand by doing something so over the top as full tyrannical rule.  A little at a time.  So most people don't notice.  And others think they're doing good stuff for.. "the people".

[Newtonian 453]

I didn't say the outcome would go one way or another, but if a gov't became a ruthless regime, I believe there would be an effort to inflict as much damage as possible to the bad guys.  Life as we know it would be over, so why the hell not drag the bad guys down with you?  Unless you're protecting small children and have few options, what other choice do you have?

 

It's as much a fantasy as the situation you laid out.

 

And though it's not the same good vs evil situation, in Iraq, those insurgents as they were called, inflicted horrific damage. Granted.... THEY were the bad guys... but the strategy is similar.

 

And my "16 year old" might just put up a bigger fight than most people I know.

Unfortunately that's not how the world works, how it has worked for thousands of years. It's easy to be brave in a bluster and bullshit forum like this. All bluster and bullshit.

 

The "ruthless regime" you speak of, by the way, is already here. I and others have provided dozens of examples in various posts and we're all familiar with our state's firearms laws.

 

What have you done thus far to end it?

 

Do you vote in each and every election? Were you canvassing for the gun-friendly candidate in districts that were lost by less than 200 votes two elections ago? Do you refuse to pay income taxes? Drive without a license? Do you carry a firearm each and every day, wherever you are, as you are entitled as a sovereign human being and as the 2nd Amendment guarantees?

 

 

By the way my answer to all those questions is also "NO" so I'm not preaching from a holier-than-thou perspective. Just pointing out the bullshit that dominates these discussions.

[Kevin125 4,772]

Oh... I didn't realize we were all still English Subjects.

 

In any event, I don't need to lay out what I do, what my life entails or anything else you asked about.

 

Nothing I wrote had anything to do with being brave or having bluster.

 

The "ruthless" I'm referring to isn't here in practice.  Look to China, Cuba, Venezuela and a host of other nasty governments in the middle east.. including that non-government we call ISIS.  Gun Laws?  The people under the rule of who I'm citing would kill to improve their situation and have to "suffer" under our gun laws.  As bad as they are... that's not what I'm referring to.

[siderman 1,138]

"Ruthless lite" may be more appropriate to the truth. 8 yrs of Obamanation and possibly 4-8 more of Hellory could be 16 yrs of relentless assault undermining the 2A among other ways of life here.Thats a long time to resist with the MSM and education system helping them.Throw in a power shift in the Senate and Congress and it could be looking a LOT different in just a few more.yrs here. Our children could see the swiftest cultural change this country has seen yet.

[Kevin125 4,772]

or maybe ...Passive Aggressive Ruthless.

 

Creating a society that forces the public into submission to a government's will, assuring that no one from the "public" could, by their own doing, rise to independence and freedom.

 

But all you wrote is correct.  I'd add that we've already seen that cultural change.  The leftist have taken over the majority of the federal court system and by doing so have altered our system of government to be one where the executive branch rules and has at it's disposal and under it's control, the Judicial branch.   The legislative branch no longer has a purpose.

 

In terms of legal recourse... a convention of states is all that's remains if the outcome of this election does not restore our government to what it was created to be.

[Newtonian 453]

"Ruthless lite" may be more appropriate to the truth. 8 yrs of Obamanation and possibly 4-8 more of Hellory could be 16 yrs of relentless assault undermining the 2A among other ways of life here.Thats a long time to resist with the MSM and education system helping them.Throw in a power shift in the Senate and Congress and it could be looking a LOT different in just a few more.yrs here. Our children could see the swiftest cultural change this country has seen yet.

The speed of change just in the last 15 years has been breathtaking. Bush II was the long reliever, Obama the setup guy, Hillary will be the closer. Yeah I know the unwashed from west of the Delaware recently got to carry guns into playgrounds for deaf wheelchair bound crack-addicted preschoolers during church services, on Good Friday, but I can't even carry one to my mail box so fuck them and their endless yakking about their "rights." They don't give a shit about me or my rights and I don't give half a shit about them. They can call spitballs weapons in Mississippi for all I care. 

 

I'm talking about the stuff that affects everything we do, what we're allowed to say, terms of employment, personal privacy and natural rights, which include but are not limited to guns. "Our children" were brainwashed right before our eyes, with our consent. The kooks who live on $11,300 per year for a family of eight so they could home-school their kids were right. Their kids will be the last ones beating the drum for liberty while ours will become the pied pipers who will legislate and rule and insist that people not "hate," and eventually lead this country of lemmings off the cliff.

 

Yes I feel much better than five minutes ago. Thanks for axsking.

[Indianajonze 379]

well said

[45Frank 32]

its one thing for the police to do their jobs and willingly enter armed conflict with thugs and gangbangers who just raped someone or robbed a store. you shoot there knowing you're doing the right thing and are willing to risk your life, pension, etc for the job. but to trade bullets with jimmy from down the road who works at the 7-11, has kids that go to class with yours and and is an honest, law-abiding citizen who's only crime is that he happens to own a gun? i'm sure there'd be a few gung-ho jackasses on power trips that would do it, but i think lots of normal people would have pause...

One thing I've learned over my life is MOST/MANY LEO are wusses who hide behind their guns and badge. They always go after the safest people first. They went after folks who were old and elderly, then those with guns packed and safe as they should be. They rarely ever start with the thug who may confront them or shoot back.

I was once accosted by a team of LEO in NJ when my ex swore I tried to harm her from 700 miles away. A group of pussies barged in my home while I was painting and kicked the latter out from under me and stood on my back with guns pointed at my head for half an hour. Oh she lied and they already knew it but I'm sure they went back and jerked each off. The warrant they had was ILLEGAL. The only thing they found was my FID card and they acted like they found a H-Bomb. After taking me to jail for NOTHING they made me sit there because I wouldn't tell them what happened to EVERY gun I had purchased in my life. They knew of every one! Not until a real officer came in and knew me and where they went was I released. This was just their sat night party with OT.

Yet I can go thru two counties I know of in NJ this day and point out a hundred drug dealers on corners and they avoid those areas on purpose, they may get hurt there!

[mipafox 438]

Oh... I didn't realize we were all still English Subjects.

 

In any event, I don't need to lay out what I do, what my life entails or anything else you asked about.

Male escort?