I would like to see some evidence of that.dbateman wrote:The police over here dont need a worent to kick in your door if you have
a firearms license the fact that you are law abiding citezen is enugh
for them to blow your door in
there were 20 millon sks/skk imported in to Au in the buy back thay
only got 500,000 back
Way OT- Turn in firearms...
Forum rules
Welcome to the Leverguns.Com General Discussions Forum. This is a high-class place so act respectable. We discuss most anything here other than politics... politely.
Please post political post in the new Politics forum.
Welcome to the Leverguns.Com General Discussions Forum. This is a high-class place so act respectable. We discuss most anything here other than politics... politely.
Please post political post in the new Politics forum.
-
- Senior Levergunner
- Posts: 1098
- Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 5:36 pm
- Location: Western Australia
-
- Senior Levergunner
- Posts: 1403
- Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2007 10:12 pm
- Location: kansas
taking guns
One big thing I worry about that could happen, we saw how John Kerry was saying things to indicate that he wanted us totally committed to the U.N.. If UN troops and henchmen were given the task of searching out guns and gunowners, they would be mostly foreigners who hate us anyhow, with no sympathy or feelings at all for our causes or rights. Imagine some Russian or Chinese UN troops setting out in your front yard with orders to take your guns one way or the other? I might try and take out the first one through the door, but it would be hell after that.
To hell with them fellas, buzzards gotta eat same as the worms.
Outlaw Josey Wales
Member GOA
NRA Benefactor-Life
Outlaw Josey Wales
Member GOA
NRA Benefactor-Life
-
- Senior Levergunner
- Posts: 1020
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 3:50 pm
- Location: Vermont, USA
- Contact:
How many really think it will come to commando style raids of citizens' homes?
My money is still on an incremental ban coupled with a variety of sin taxes on guns and ammo, as well as a licensing system that is convuluted and expensive.
The US gov is still a gov and has to save at least a little face in the international community. Kicking in the door of Joe deer hunter at 3 am doesn't look good.
My money is still on an incremental ban coupled with a variety of sin taxes on guns and ammo, as well as a licensing system that is convuluted and expensive.
The US gov is still a gov and has to save at least a little face in the international community. Kicking in the door of Joe deer hunter at 3 am doesn't look good.
Yes, but when the news media reports it, 'Joe Deer Hunter' is simply renamed 'a suspected terrorist/arms dealer/drug dealer/baby killer/wife beater/spotted owl killer' and nobody outside the guy's circle of friends thinks much about it, other than 'another dirtbag off the street.' As long as enough of the people ARE dirtbags, the process continues.Jason_W wrote: Kicking in the door of Joe deer hunter at 3 am doesn't look good.
It's 2025 - "Cutesy Time is OVER....!" [Dan Bongino]
-
- Levergunner 1.0
- Posts: 92
- Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2007 4:10 pm
Re: taking guns
If a President Hillary or Obama were to give away our 2nd Amendment rights to the U.N., would that actually be possible? Would/could we actually see 'em here disarming us legally?brucew44guns wrote:One big thing I worry about that could happen, we saw how John Kerry was saying things to indicate that he wanted us totally committed to the U.N.. If UN troops and henchmen were given the task of searching out guns and gunowners, they would be mostly foreigners who hate us anyhow, with no sympathy or feelings at all for our causes or rights. Imagine some Russian or Chinese UN troops setting out in your front yard with orders to take your guns one way or the other? .
Jeff
-
- Senior Levergunner
- Posts: 1020
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 3:50 pm
- Location: Vermont, USA
- Contact:
Re: taking guns
One might be inclined to see UN troops on US soil as a foriegn invasion. It's also possible that the same citizen who would be reluctant to fire upon US troops would not have the same qualms regarding a foriegn military force.Jeff Pitts wrote:If a President Hillary or Obama were to give away our 2nd Amendment rights to the U.N., would that actually be possible? Would/could we actually see 'em here disarming us legally?brucew44guns wrote:One big thing I worry about that could happen, we saw how John Kerry was saying things to indicate that he wanted us totally committed to the U.N.. If UN troops and henchmen were given the task of searching out guns and gunowners, they would be mostly foreigners who hate us anyhow, with no sympathy or feelings at all for our causes or rights. Imagine some Russian or Chinese UN troops setting out in your front yard with orders to take your guns one way or the other? .
Jeff
Not me of course. I'm a good little boy and a willing subject. I know that what my government tells me to do is for the best.

-
- Levergunner 2.0
- Posts: 111
- Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 12:00 pm
- Location: Western NY
A new President could sign a treaty that gives away any of our rights. Treaties are the suprememe law of the land, according to the Constitution.
However, there is a good deal of debate whether treaties can over rule the bill of Rights.
I side with those who say treaties cannot over rule the bill of Rights.
Tom
However, there is a good deal of debate whether treaties can over rule the bill of Rights.
I side with those who say treaties cannot over rule the bill of Rights.
Tom
-
- Levergunner 3.0
- Posts: 982
- Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 9:05 pm
- Location: New Kent County, VA
Jason_W wrote:How many really think it will come to commando style raids of citizens' homes?
My money is still on an incremental ban coupled with a variety of sin taxes on guns and ammo, as well as a licensing system that is convuluted and expensive.
The US gov is still a gov and has to save at least a little face in the international community. Kicking in the door of Joe deer hunter at 3 am doesn't look good.
I do. First, they'll give us an abitrary amount of time to " Do the right thing and turn them in."
Then, as a show of force, they'll bash a few heads in, ruin a few lives, and destroy a few families.
After that, who's going to put up resistance?
" Well, I have a family..."
Or, " I would rather just give them up, than go to prison..."
You know , the typical reasoning for submitting to rule.
-
- Levergunner 2.0
- Posts: 111
- Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 12:00 pm
- Location: Western NY
Sounds like the plan before Lexington and Concord...do. First, they'll give us an abitrary amount of time to " Do the right thing and turn them in."
Then, as a show of force, they'll bash a few heads in, ruin a few lives, and destroy a few families.
I don't know. Maybe some will.After that, who's going to put up resistance?
"and if some green thing survives this darkness, then my labors will not have been wholly in vain. I am a steward also, don't you know."
Sort of a paraphrase of Gandalf, speaking with Denethor, in the LOTR books.
Denethor went nuts because he saw the inevitable evil approaching, but could not maintain hope in the face of it.
have hope, go nuts, give up.
Three choices.
I try to choose like Abraham did.
Hope against hope. Hope in what is not seen, against what we do see.
Tom
Hell, the current President just said that arms in the hands of the People are a danger to society.engravertom wrote:A new President could sign a treaty that gives away any of our rights. Treaties are the suprememe law of the land, according to the Constitution.
However, there is a good deal of debate whether treaties can over rule the bill of Rights.
I side with those who say treaties cannot over rule the bill of Rights.
Tom
I have a hard time believing that he is the only ivory tower elitist who feels this way.
I believe that it is only a matter of time, and a short time at that.

Government office attracts the power-mad, yet it's people who just want to be left alone to live life on their own terms who are considered dangerous.
History teaches that it's a small window in which people can fight back before it is too dangerous to fight back.
History teaches that it's a small window in which people can fight back before it is too dangerous to fight back.