Ron Paul is the nice guy version of Alex Jones. You can compare and contrast how the two different approaches benefit/detract by looking at those two.
I'd like to see a mix of Jones and Paul. Be willing to take it to the next level when needed.
What do you think of the "Civil War if you try to take our guns" angle Duck, Babe, One Brow, Gyp, Candrew...
Thing about the civil war angle...we don't need to go there. My guess is and has been that very little will be accomplished in regard to gun control. Every day that goes by people get that much less enthusiastic about passing gun control legislation and the pro-2nd Amendment crowd isn't getting any less energized about protecting gun rights. The moment of opportunity fro gun control is quickly fading. We (pro-gun rights folks) can really just sit back and not give in to any silly new regulations and eventually this will go away.
However I could get on board with attaching mental health records to background checks if done right. I also could get on board with a limit/control on the size of clips. That second one I think would mostly be to make people feel better as it does not really change anything as you yourself have argued GF.
I agree that the whole "This means Civil War" crowd is jumping the gun. They have not even heard what the proposals are yet. Not only that but I cannot see police going into homes in their local towns and removing weapons. There are plenty of towns here in southern Utah where the police force would refuse to do so.
Edit: Reason I bring it up is that I have heard it quite a few times in very public places lately. It seems much louder than usual.
Well confiscation would certainly lead to confrontations. There are just too many people with thousands if not tens of thousands of dollars worth of guns that they love almost as much as their own families. I can tell you that if I was told the guns I own were now banned and I had to give them up I wouldn't. Not willingly, anyway. If the cops knocked on the door with a list of the guns the believed I owned and said hand 'em over or we're coming in I'd go ahead and hand them over. But short something like that I just wouldn't turn them in and claim that I had sold them all. I have actually sold more of my guns than I currently own, mostly through KSL so I don't have any information on who I sold them to. With the exception of my AR-15, which I made a receipt for and took down the guys CCL#. Anyway, if there was a ban that was retroactive I expect they'd just ask for voluntary forfeiture and might even have enough sense to offer some degree of compensation. Then they'd just confiscate them as they came across them and charge whoever owned them with an assault weapons crime on top of anything else they might be charging them with.
The Ammo magazine cap bugs me a lot. It's not an anti-crime measure, it's a reduce the effectiveness of firearms measure. Very few crimes hinge on access to large capacity magazines. VERY VERY few. In the cases where someone does use them it might at the most make the difference between them killing 10 people or 11. without the higher capacity magazine they could still go on a rampage and kill several people, and they can change magazines or weapons and continue their rampage. Larger magazines aren't what makes killing sprees a problem. It's just not. It's a red herring that anti-gun folks have latched onto and it's a fight they think they might be able to win so they're making a full court press on it. So that's an issue I personally don't support at all.
A more effective and robust background check I'm all for. However, I have one big concern. I've said all along that the I believe the right to own firearms is tired directly to our right as individuals to defend our own lives. That's based on my larger belief that each individual owns their own existence, for better or worse. These ideas for me are separate and superior to any concern for public welfare. So, an individual who has not violated the law or made direct threats to others should not have their freedom to defend them self denied. I worry that this push could cause a whole bunch of people who have a marginally greater statistical chance of being a mass shooter to have their right to firearms denied. That is unacceptable to me as I think the standard needs to be pretty high before we deny people that right. So I have concerns.
Like I say, the anti-gun folks need to strike while the iron is hot and find something at least some gun rights supporters agree with, otherwise nothing is going to get passed. I'm all for gun supporters dragging thier feet until the support dies down and it's impractical once again to even broach the subject.
Gun laws get passed that make owning an "assault rifle" or handgun illegal. Cops are dispatched to round up the guns in their area based on registrations. The cops in places like Parowan UT refuse to confiscate the guns. Then the federal government has a problem. They can either make their law worthless or send in the military. That gives them the problem of do they send in local units or units from other states.
So now you have the 222 Utah Guard Unit (from osuthern Utah) going into Parowan to confiscate guns. Well some people in that unit are from Parowan! So you are right back to square one. Let's say that some in that unit want to do it anyways. Will the whole unit go along, will the whole unit go "rogue" or will they split? Let's say they split. Well now you have militarily equipped people on both sides.
Let's say that they use army units and send them to places that they have no association with. Such as sending the 222 to the small towns in Michigan. Do they still do it or do they refuse. I still see enough people associating those small towns with their own to either split the unit or have it go rogue.
Once they go rogue do they raid their base/armory for arms? The 222 has a wide range of military vehicle. Such humvees with .50s to smaller tanks to military helicopters. That suddenly changes everything.
Door to door confiscation is so over the top even from the most extreme steps that are currently being suggested. That's just not where we're headed. Even if "assault weapons" were banned and there was no grandfather clause I assume there would be a voluntary forfeiture period and I'd hope at least some form of compensation. After the voluntary forfeiture period expires it'd be a felony to be found in possession of anything classified as an assault weapon. That way they just slowly pull the rest out of circulation as they stumble across them. Of course, if you're pretty much a peaceful, law-abiding citizen you could probably keep a stash under your floor-boards and no one would be the wiser. But you wouldn't dare go out to the west desert and actually get proficient with your semi-auto rifles. It'd be your own private symbol of defiance and not much more, since in reality all we're talking about are semi-auto rifles that accept detachable large capacity magazines. Many hunting rifles are semi-auto rifles that have internal magazines. I doubt they are going to go there as these rifles have wooden stocks and don't look nearly as threatening, although they almost always use much higher powered ammo than an AR-15. It's the EBR effect. Get rid of the scary black rifles and all will be well in the world.
Anybody catch the gun rant on CNN last night?
^check page 36.
First of all, I've got a book called "Treason in America" authored by one of Lyndon LaRouche's world management cadets that explored the activities of British agents, and others in obvious ways sporting British views and aims, in promoting the causes of Abolitionists in the North as well as Secessionists in the South in the run up to our 1861-1865 "civil war".
That war was a classic Machiavellian maneuver intended to balkanize the Union and allow British international cartels to again control the colonies. . . . Abraham Lincoln was the choice of the New York bankers under the mesmerization of sophisticated English aristocrats in various high and holy social circles. . . . and they expected that his election would precipitate the secession of Southern States. . .. but he turned out to be a huge disappointment in that he refused to anybody else's man. He had his own star to guide him, and he believed in human freedom at least in the freedom of the United States from England.
But the British were willing to bide their time, and after the war their financial tycoons moved into the United States like the carpetbaggers moved into the South, and took effective control through their financial dealings which has persisted to this day.
The ideals of the American Revolution have indeed suffered in the extreme under the influence of neo-colonialist sophisitry.
If we have to fight for our liberty, as we in fact must, the age of the gun is over. We will have to get smarter than the British, that's all it will take. And maybe impeach Obama whose chief intellectual deficit is his love of power and his willingness to subordinate all of his ideological hinge points to pleasing his puppet-masters.
I know some folks who expect to fight for their constitutional government. Like Alex Jones, they all suffer from a lack of actual understanding, and wouldn't know who to shoot at if the shooting starts.
I grew up studying LDS doctrine and prophecy, and understood that there would be a time of great civil strife, and even the Bible prophesies people in the last days being in unprecedented horrific times of trouble. I was disappointed many years ago when I knew the leaders of the LDS church, and knew their proclivities for playing a part in the last great evil government man would create. I hardly expect the likes of Romney, Huntsman, Hatch, or Reid to be in the fight to save the US Constitution.
But if anyone wants to sit out of the shooting and mayhem, it is time to find some place to gather and choose peace and refuse to be a part of the killing. So here's a hint. Don't think Chicago or any gun-free zone is going to be a place of peace.
"The New World Order" will make earlier horrors of unrestrained government in the hands of evil ambitious and paranoid men look pretty tame. But there is no place on earth where there is sufficient cognizance of the either the problem or the solution, and so it is time to vote with your feet. Come to Utah.