Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
XD45

We're Coming for Your Guns. And Someday, We'll Take Them.

Recommended Posts

I haven't seen any panic in this thread.  Maybe you see something I don't.

 

As far as surviving without your guns, well that's great as long as the government and criminals behave themselves.  Cause none of us need a gun until we need a gun.  If you take my meaning.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I look at my cache of guns and ammo and I think, if I ever had to bug out in a hurry I would have to leave 80% of it behind.

I guess in my SHTF scenario  I look at only what I could carry on my person for long term survival  is what really counts.

Bottom line…GUNS & AMMO are heavy for what their worth. A Bow and Knife makes much more sense for long term survival.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The discussion here is the desire of the left to take away guns from private citizens, and by extension the loss of other freedoms that will follow.

 

The discussion of what's needed in a shtf situation, or whether it is better to bug out or shelter in place is really a different topic.

 

Good men and women have every reason to fear gun confiscation because no disarmed people have ever remained free.  Arms in the hands of the citizenry is a basic tenet of a free society.  I could live without guns.  I could also live without any freedom at all.  I don't intend to allow that to happen.

 

These moronic rants by columnists serve a useful purpose.  They remind us that there really are those who want to completely disarm us.  And they remind would-be tyrants that we are watching and we will not submit.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I did get off topic. I was just trying to make a point why losing my guns would not be that big of a deal to me.

The Govt, even with all their superior firepower, I believe, could still be outwitted by a lesser armed group of individuals.

History has shown this to be true.

 

Sorry about taking the topic off subject, I guess I tend to do that often.  homer.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My biggest concern at the moment is going to come on the 24th of December, and the rubbish that follows. I'm just curious to see how it unfolds.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My biggest concern at the moment is going to come on the 24th of December, and the rubbish that follows. I'm just curious to see how it unfolds.

Without ratification it's meaningless for US. Albeit looming for any future senate to ratify.

 

How it affects any other assholes that signed on regarding import to US. Not sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is so sad is that this "august columnist", after he has done his "useful idiot" functions, will be among the very first to be put against the wall and shot dead. If this were to happen, (which I sincerely do NOT hope for) I wonder what his last thoughts on Earth will be?

 

... "AH SHIT! THIS CAN'T BE HAPPENING TO ME! I AM TOO IMPORTANT! I AM STILL SO USEFUL TO THE CAUSE! WE HAD A DEAL! NO! ... NO! .... NO!! ..... NO!!! ......

 

BANG!

 

HB of CJ (old coot) Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My biggest concern at the moment is going to come on the 24th of December, and the rubbish that follows. I'm just curious to see how it unfolds.

 

WTF happens on December 24th...!? Got it

 

I haven't seen any panic in this thread.  Maybe you see something I don't.

 

As far as surviving without your guns, well that's great as long as the government and criminals behave themselves.  Cause none of us need a gun until we need a gun.  If you take my meaning.

 

I read the article, same shit the left always talks, the commie states there are more guns in the U.S. than China has China-men.

 

Try to ban all those firearms with the exception of hunting rifles and shotguns, ( Cuz those weapons only kill rabbits and chipmunks ) guess he never heard of Charles Whitman.

 

Over 1k comments on that article (couple hundred that i did read) not 1 that was for more gun control. Pretty entertaining comments tho

 

Anyhow, I'm more concerned with civil unrest and from reading AA's post I hope we are not riding into an ambush because we are focused on the wrong shell.

 

If we are missing something..? then please enlighten us. Could we be more vigilant, yes, there is always more to do because Freedom isn't Free...

Edited by SmilinEd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

My biggest concern at the moment is going to come on the 24th of December, and the rubbish that follows. I'm just curious to see how it unfolds.

Without ratification it's meaningless for US. Albeit looming for any future senate to ratify.

How it affects any other assholes that signed on regarding import to US. Not sure.

EO could possibly happen. I wouldn't put it past him. Time will tell.

 

My biggest concern at the moment is going to come on the 24th of December, and the rubbish that follows. I'm just curious to see how it unfolds.

Without ratification it's meaningless for US. Albeit looming for any future senate to ratify.

How it affects any other assholes that signed on regarding import to US. Not sure.

EO could possibly happen. I wouldn't put it past him. Time will tell.

 

 

 

My biggest concern at the moment is going to come on the 24th of December, and the rubbish that follows. I'm just curious to see how it unfolds.

 

 

WTF happens on December 24th...!? Got it

 

I haven't seen any panic in this thread.  Maybe you see something I don't.

 

As far as surviving without your guns, well that's great as long as the government and criminals behave themselves.  Cause none of us need a gun until we need a gun.  If you take my meaning.

 

 

I read the article, same shit the left always talks, the commie states there are more guns in the U.S. than China has China-men.

 

Try to ban all those firearms with the exception of hunting rifles and shotguns, ( Cuz those weapons only kill rabbits and chipmunks ) guess he never heard of Charles Whitman.

 

Over 1k comments on that article (couple hundred that i did read) not 1 that was for more gun control. Pretty entertaining comments tho

 

Anyhow, I'm more concerned with civil unrest and from reading AA's post I hope we are not riding into an ambush because we are focused on the wrong shell.

 

If we are missing something..? then please enlighten us. Could we be more vigilant, yes, there is always more to do because Freedom isn't Free...

The ATT.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't put it past him either. Most likely import restrictions through EO.

 

I believe the more current and present threat is the kind of self inflicted idiocracy my neighbors to North pulled this last election. I also believe the article in the OP is targeted directly at the type of gullible vulnerable people that voted their own rights away in WA. state just because they chose not to know any better.

Edited by Long Shot
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that (ATT) is dead,

 

Sens. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.V.) released a bipartisan letter this week signed by 48 of their colleagues pledging to oppose the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), which Secretary of State John Kerry signed on behalf of the United States in September. 

This letter makes it clear that the Senate will not ratify the treaty in the foreseeable future.

 

Since a treaty requires a two-thirds majority to win the Senate's advice and consent, the ATT is at least 17 votes short of the 67 votes needed to secure ratification. And if anything, the Moran-Manchin letter understates Senate opposition to the treaty.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/10/18/good-news-from-washington-un-arms-trade-treaty-doa-in-us-senate/

 

The Constitution provides that the president "shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur" (Article II, section 2). The Constitution's framers gave the Senate a share of the treaty power in order to give the president the benefit of the Senate's advice and counsel, check presidential power, and safeguard the sovereignty of the states by giving each state an equal vote in the treatymaking process. As Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist no. 75, “the operation of treaties as laws, plead strongly for the participation of the whole or a portion of the legislative body in the office of making them.” The constitutional requirement that the Senate approve a treaty with a two-thirds vote means that successful treaties must gain support that overcomes partisan division. The two-thirds requirement adds to the burdens of the Senate leadership, and may also encourage opponents of a treaty to engage in a variety of dilatory tactics in hopes of obtaining sufficient votes to ensure its defeat.

 

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Treaties.htm

 

And the Republicans control 45 seats now till the end of the yr, then they pick up an additional 9 seats.

 

Whatever Kerry signed isn't worth squat.

 

December 6 2014,

 

Republicans closing in on ninth Senate pickup in Louisiana

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/11/28/republicans-closing-in-on-ninth-senate-pickup-in-louisiana/

 

I will be watching MSNBC that night also

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The senate doesnt have to ratify anything when dipshit utilizes executive action. And if he does, Im willing to bet that just like congress, no action will be taken. Politicians on both sides blow a lot of smoke up our asses, and rarely do what they say they will do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The senate doesnt have to ratify anything when dipshit utilizes executive action. And if he does, Im willing to bet that just like congress, no action will be taken. Politicians on both sides blow a lot of smoke up our asses, and rarely do what they say they will do.

Cap,

 

That's not entirely correct. For any treaty to be binding US law the senate dose have to ratify it with a 2/3 majority according to the constitution. We all know Ø' blowme has the utmost respect for our constitution.

 

However it's far from dead. It passed in the UN and has the secretary of states signature on it. Any future senate can pick it up and ratify it. The only way for the US to un- sign it is for all the member nations of the UN to unanimously vote to release US.

 

This entire administration deserves the firing squad for acts of treason.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im well aware of the "correct" way to make things law when it comes to foreign influence, but my point is that the people in power who should give a shit about our processes, dont. I still dont trust them, nor have any faith in them.

 

Obama inc. has been shitting on our constitution since he got in office. I hope Im wrong, but I have a feeling he'll make every effort he can to get this through before he leaves office.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Senate does not ratify treaties—the Senate approves or rejects a resolution of ratification. If the resolution passes, then ratification takes place when the instruments of ratification are formally exchanged between the United States and the foreign power(s).

Most treaties submitted to the Senate have received its advice and consent to ratification. During its first 200 years, the Senate approved more than 1,500 treaties and rejected only 21. A number of these, including the Treaty of Versailles, were rejected twice. Most often, the Senate has simply not voted on treaties that its leadership deemed not to have sufficient support within the Senate for approval, and in general these treaties have eventually been withdrawn. At least 85 treaties were eventually withdrawn because the Senate never took final action on them. Treaties may also remain in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for extended periods, since treaties are not required to be resubmitted at the beginning of each new Congress. There have been instances in which treaties have lain dormant within the committee for years, even decades, without action being taken.

 

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Treaties.htm

 

Rand Paul and Marco Rubio sit on that committee with rino's McCain, Corker and a few others.

 

I hear what you are saying and I have same concerns. But I hope this one is harder to get around constitutionally

Edited by SmilinEd
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kerry was a coward and a traitor going back to Viet Nam.

 

No surprise he would sign the treaty.

 

But then the democratic party is pretty much all traitors, racists , cowards and communists

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Id like to hope that nothing will come of it, but theres no telling what will happen now days. Nothing surprises me when it comes to this rogue administration, or government in general. To me the ATT is a real threat and should be watched closely.

 

I even half expect far too many people to vote for such stupidity if/when given the chance. Its all in how they sell it.

 

Time will tell.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This may be stretching the tinfoil very thin but when I read this passage I can see the potential of shenanigans.  "provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur"

 

It sickens me to even think it, but after the way they "deemed to have passed" the unaffordable healthcare act I can't rule out anything.

 

Imagine a situation where congress is in recess.  All of the little tyrants have gone home to kiss babies and make promises.  But what's this?  40 or so demoncratic senators are in the senate building "doing the people's business" and amazingly enough all of them agree that the ATT is a great idea.  They quickly and quietly "concur" and being there are no non-concurring senators present, the treaty is immediately signed and the Second Amendment becomes null and void.

 

It sounds like the plot for a bad movie, but is it beyond the realm of possibility?  I believe that it is.  I hope that it is.  But given what they have done lately...

Edited by Darth Saigus
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Darth Saigus, on 30 Nov 2014 - 12:33 PM, said:

This may be stretching the tinfoil very thin but when I read this passage I can see the potential of shenanigans.  "provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur"

 

It sickens me to even think it, but after the way they "deemed to have passed" the unaffordable healthcare act I can't rule out anything.

 

Imagine a situation where congress is in recess.  All of the little tyrants have gone home to kiss babies and make promises.  But what's this?  40 or so demoncratic senators are in the senate building "doing the people's business" and amazingly enough all of them agree that the ATT is a great idea.  They quickly and quietly "concur" and being there are no non-concurring senators present, the treaty is immediately signed and the Second Amendment becomes null and void.

 

It sounds like the plot for a bad movie, but is it beyond the realm of possibility?  I believe that it is.  I hope that it is.  But given what they have done lately...

That's some scary shit Darth, given that nobody has the balls to charge these pricks with treason its not beyond the realm of possibilities, the constitution applies only to law abiding gubmit officials.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as to:

We're coming for your guns. And someday, we'll take them.

 

Contact Gerald Ensley at 599-2310 or gensley@tallahassee.com.

 

all I can say is see you when you get here and:

post-26137-0-03805600-1417445231.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

Tromix - Lead Delivery Systems
Dinzag Arms
CHAOS, Inc
Mississippi Auto Arms, Inc
Cobra's Custom
Carolina Shooters Supply
R & R Targets
LONE STAR ARMS
SGM Tactical
Mach 1 Arsenal
K-VAR
C&S Metall-Werkes
American Specialty Ammo
Csspecs Magazines
Phoenix Technology
Evlutionz LLC


  • Chatbox

    Load More
    You don't have permission to chat.
×
×
  • Create New...