Fellow gun owners: hide your property

There are those in our government who are actively seeking to take measures in the coming days or weeks to outlaw AND confiscate your guns. I'm not talking about assault rifles. I'm talking about all handguns, pistols and non-single action shotguns and rifles.



Disclaimer: This is not intended to imply blame towards any single political party, group, or entity for this potential eventuality. If you want to know that information, it is readily available with 10 seconds of research on Google.

No discussion of specifically who it is who is trying to make this happen. Gotcha!

Little by little the government is trying to take away our freedoms. How unfortunate. When the people fear the government there is socialism. When the government fear the people there is freedom

But the government cannot fear us without our guns. Our guns are a means to not only fight off those who would harm us, but also a weapon against a tyrannical government. That is the whole reason that our founding fathers instilled the 2nd amendment.

Yeah, a bunch of hicks with assault rifles are going to stop the US Military...

Try telling that to the Iraqi army. Well, the ones who survived.

I am not taking sides here. I don't know the answer. But the argument that guns will prevent a government from turning into socialism is a huge stretch. Our country is armed to the hilt currently, yet we are far closer to socialism than ever. And, needing assault rifles to protect against crime is also proven to be ineffective (an owner is significantly more likely to hurt an innocent than a baddie).

Then again, I love with all my heart our constitution and the amendments.

Like I said, I don't have an answer. This is a very important and difficult problem we face today.

More freedom was taken away with the patriot act than anything else, yet the sheep were so blind by 9/11 they went along with it.

I have yet to see a single legit source say someone is coming to take away guns out of peoples homes.

As a gun owner I encourage reasonable restrictions. I encourage background checks, why not? I have nothing to worry about. Will it stop every shooting? No of course not, but whats the harm in it?

This country, more than anything else, needs to have a serious conversation on mental health. Its terrible in this country, and the cause of a good amount of crime.

I think you have extremists on both sides of this discussion.

I have talked to a many a fellow hunter who believes there is NO place for assault weapons with magazines to be sold to general public, yet we have an gun industry which releases a press statement of a possible infringement and the susceptible are out there buying thousands upon millions of more rifles, shotguns, assault style weapons, etc out of the manufactured fear of "our guns are going to be confiscated"

We have gun advocacy groups with a political agenda that has continually imposed their will on certain members and aspects of government so that a large not so vocal element of our citizenry is disenfranchised by the resulting effect.

Instead of championing "constitutional carry for all" as some would advocate, our society should focus more on common sense, reasonable minded, regulations on guns sold to the mentally unstable, and shore up the many times unregulated transactions held at gun shows.

But then again advocacy of an agenda is and has been trumping the general well being of our citizenry as a whole.

You forget that each state has its own militia as well.

Well we do know that Chicago has the most draconian gun laws in the country yet it hasn't curbed violence at all there. We also know that forcing law-abiding citizens to turn in their grandfather's Remingon 870 that was handed down to them isn't going to stop the criminal element from toting their Mac-10s.

If a man passes a comprehensive background check and owns a proper gun safe, I see no reason why he shouldn't be allowed to have a registered M249 if he wants one. It's a piece of property. It's an inanimate object. In responsible hands, it's harmless. If that M249 was ever used in a crime by ANYONE then the original owner could be charged as an accomplice to that crime. That's fine by me.

No, I didn't forget. Bad assumption on your part. I was speaking to the vast majority of gun owners who make the claim that they need it to protect themselves against the government who are NOT part of a militia.

Not that I think a militia will stop the US military anyhow, but that's a separate angle.

IMO, I an swinging towards some sort of restriction against the 2nd amendment. The founding fathers were not imagining high volume magazines and assault style weapons when they added this right. I also wonder, "When DO we restrict the sale of a weapon?"

Hypothetically speaking, if I invent a handgun that shot heat seeking mini-missiles that could split into 10 projectiles and take out 10 separate targets with computer guided lethal hits every single time, is that ok to sell at Walmart?

Or, what if the bullets had some sort of charge in them that could collapse a building? Or mini-nuclear blasts?

Or, a handgun that was totally undetectable by airport security? Or a gun that silently and painlessly injected anthrax spores into someone so they die weeks later? Or flame throwers that fit into a small backpack? Or a howitzer? Can I buy a howitzer? I'd have the biggest gun In my neighborhood! Why can't I have a howitzer? Tanks? It's just a gun on a track? Can I buy an M1?

When does it stop?

And,yes, I know that some of the items above can already be purchased. I know someone with a 50 cal. And a WW2 era fully functional flamethrower.

I know a 15 yr old kid who could do more damage with a laptop and an Internet connection to the govt than anyone I know with a gun.

Why is everyone so against blanket background checks?

This issue to me is very similar to abortion. Both issues will never completely change but being preventative on both issues would be a benefit to our society.

Gun laws can work both ways. Mexico has very strict laws but a very high gun violence rate. Britain since implementing their stricter gun laws has seen gun violence and violence as a whole plummet well below America's levels per citizen. Similar stories with Australia and Canada. I can see this is one bad comment away from getting flagged for turning into a political argument so I'll try to stay clear of that.


But I think both sides can agree, that stricter gun laws cannot be the only recipe, better mental health care along with the commonality of violence in media that young people watch every day also must be looked at. Not just at video games as a lot of older folk like to point out. Seeing as the Dutch buy many more teenage video games involving violence than America does but have a much lower violence rate.

As a hunter I am a member of the NRA. That being said, don't expect them to agree to an assault weapon ban or extended magazine ban or any of that. The gun industry including assault weapon makers give tons of money to the NRA every year, which propels them to the number one lobbying firm in Washington. They aren't going to cut off who pays their bills.

The way The Constitution set up this country with checks and balances across the board of government, I don't see a government takeover of the people possible even if nobody had a gun. The fact is The President and The Executive Branch can't take hardly anything over without the backing of the Legislative Branch and Judicial Branch and so forth.

Well as I understood it bear arms meant well... bear arms.

That's nice but I'd rather have the bears head mounted on my wall

And all gun users have to wear those silly white wigs, too.

Then if you feel the 2nd Amendment is no longer applicable to modern weaponry, adopt a new amendment to change it. Until then, it remains a right under the Constitution.

That is incorrect.

The 2nd amendment does not specifically give any instruction as to which weaponry is given as a right. The "right" is defined by subsequent laws and regulations, of which there have been numerous examples dating back to Prohibition era bans on Tommy guns up to the ban on certain assault rifles in the '90s. Our congress is currently considering new legislation that may restrict access again. In short, no amendments are needed.

Additionally, there are several Supreme Court rulings that both protect the 2nd amendment as well as allow the government (state and federal) to enact restrictive measures.

Freedom of speech, amendment 1, does not mention the internet either.


I'm against gun control. They do that, they will be coming for my pitchfork next.

You are assuming that the Military or the Police would support the President.

Amish, your assumption about me assuming is quite incorrect!

Where did you get this idea that I think the US military will be supporting the president in the event of a civil uprising? Who said anything about a President at all? The President could be on either side of the battle field (e.g. Military coup vs. Presidential dictatorship).

From your quote that armed citizens would need to defend themselves against the military. Congress knows they cannot pass too restrictive of a gun law. The only thing - beyond limiting high cap magazines, would be a presidential order. That is why Biden is floating that out there - Obama didn't want to say it because they probably wish to gauge the flack he would receive.

I have a friend who is a police officer in a mid sized community. He says all of his fellow officers are a like mind: They would not enforce any law limiting ownership or requiring people to turn in their guns. I have heard similar stories from a few friends

I am only talking about a future scenario where civilians fight against our military. I was not tying to the specific situation that is ongoing today in congress. My comment was a rebuke to what I hear people saying ("I need my guns to protect my rights in the case that they are taken")-- that is, *should* a civilian revolt ever occur, I highly doubt civilians armed with ANY type of weapon (incl. assault guns) can stand up to our military.

Note that our military could be operating on their own (i.e. coup) or they could be operating under a presidential decree (martial law, etc.).

Also, I do not think state militia's would be much of a hindrance either. A road bump at best.

About the only restriction I could agree to is on the gun shows and private sales. All firearm sales must pass through a registered dealer or be passed between family members. I cannot legally sell you an over the counter cough drop but I can sell you any firearm I own without doing a background check.