When they come for your guns . . . You will turn them over

[32valves_of_pleasure]

I know plenty of Rhodesians who are glad to have escaped to other places when their country started going to shit. Same goes for the Vietnamese, Cambodians, Iranians, massive populations of Jews, etc.

Sometimes jumping ship is your best option.

very different circumstances for all those countries, most of which revolved around civil war or genocide.

[Moose242]

very different circumstances for all those countries, most of which revolved around civil war or genocide.

The Rhodies (with foresight) bailed the second they saw the rise in strife. Those that made it abroad early on were wise to do so.

[32valves_of_pleasure]

I have. I believe that the middle class, which is already diminishing at an astonishing rate, will result in a society so polarized (as far as haves and have nots) that we will resemble a place like Mexico. A war on the haves will be declared just like it had in France, and the people who produce, invest, and cultivate the country's economics are fed the fuck up-

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/313410/les-riches-are-thinking-leaving-france-and-recession-moving-veronique-de-rugy

http://caps.fool.com/Blogs/300000-french-expected-to/746790

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19626188

Are they to be called cowards for fleeing to protect their assets?

france has been like that for centuries, i have a hard time drawing similarties between the french and an americans. if you really are going to live in australia i'd suggest looking at the tax rates, they're worse and it's considered a worse welfare state (albeit a smaller population).

http://www.ato.gov.au/individuals/content.aspx?doc=/content/12333.htm

[dville_gt]

not saying that you would or wouldn't but from what i have seen you post it's like you have already given up

first of all, i didn't write the article. obviously i agree with it for the most part, but i haven't "given up". calling a spade a spade does not indicate i'm happy about it or that it is what i would do.

second, it might be to our advantage to realize that we are not some type of finely tuned, well organized group that would band together and easily overtake the powers that be. at least if everyone has a realistic expectation of how other will or might act it could lend itself advantageous for those who actually will fight back. they won't come out tomorrow and say turn in your guns or else, they will slowly villainize guns and erode gun rights. they will do it in a way that not everyone is affected, so most folks will be "okay" with it since it doesn't pertain to them directly, then eventually once they've got everyone fairly conditioned to the idea of limiting gun ownership, and they've disarmed a % of the population, then i could see them moving in for the rest. at that point the % of the population that could or would be willing to fight back would be lowered to a more manageable number. this is why i think being open to the idea that we could very possibly not be able to fight back at some point highlights the importance of preventing the gov from continually chipping away at our civil liberties (both related to and not related to gun ownership)

[Moose242]

france has been like that for centuries, i have a hard time drawing similarties between the french and an americans. if you really are going to live in australia i'd suggest looking at the tax rates, they're worse and it's considered a worse welfare state (albeit a smaller population).

http://www.ato.gov.au/individuals/co...tent/12333.htm

Their HDI is higher-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index

As is their economic freedom-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Economic_Freedom

[91cavgt]

The military will never come door to door taking your guns. The government knows it would be a death sentence for them. Instead, most of the population will come to them, begging for help. Something is going to happen which will shut down the infrastructure and so there will be no electricity, running water, gas at the gas stations, or food at the grocery stores. When people get hungry enough, they will gladly go to the FEMA refugee camps that have power, food, and running water, but you will not be allowed to bring weapons in "In order to maintain law and order". After this, then the military will be called in to do door to door searches to remove weapons from abandoned houses in an attempt to keep weapons out of the hands of "roaming gangs". At this time, the military will gladly disarm citizens. The propaganda will be told to the military that in order to protect your family, these gangs MUST be disarmed. The military will be told that all freedom loving Americans have already been transferred to FEMA camps, and all that remains are those that wish to do harm to America and to their families.


It's not going to happen overnight, but if and/or when it does happen this is how they will do it.

[dville_gt]

just saw this on the front of cnn

http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/14/opinion/webster-giffords-guns/index.html?hpt=hp_c3

Under federal law and most states' law, only individuals who attempt to purchase firearms from licensed gun dealers must present a government-issued ID, sign a form stating that they do not fit any of the firearm prohibition categories and pass a criminal background check. But criminals and gun traffickers are given an easy alternative. They can simply purchase firearms from private sellers who do not require any of these checks

Closing this absurd loophole would not be political suicide for politicians who fear losing the support of gun owners. A recent survey found that more than 80% of gun owners and 74% of NRA members want this loophole fixed. It seems likely that Giffords and Kelly, both gun owners, would be among this large majority favoring this reform.

Politicians could also strengthen our gun laws so that, for example, individuals convicted of misdemeanor crimes of violence (often pleaded down from felony charges) or those who have been convicted of multiple alcohol-related crimes are prohibited from possessing firearms. Studies have shown that these groups commit violent crimes at rates many times higher than population averages. Keeping guns from criminals and alcoholics isn't anti-gun -- it's pro-safety.

[CJ]

I find it humorous how 99% of people who use the term "neo-cons" have no fucking idea what it means.

[CJ]

just saw this on the front of cnn

http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/14/opinion/webster-giffords-guns/index.html?hpt=hp_c3

Under federal law and most states' law, only individuals who attempt to purchase firearms from licensed gun dealers must present a government-issued ID, sign a form stating that they do not fit any of the firearm prohibition categories and pass a criminal background check. But criminals and gun traffickers are given an easy alternative. They can simply purchase firearms from private sellers who do not require any of these checks

Closing this absurd loophole would not be political suicide for politicians who fear losing the support of gun owners. A recent survey found that more than 80% of gun owners and 74% of NRA members want this loophole fixed. It seems likely that Giffords and Kelly, both gun owners, would be among this large majority favoring this reform.

Politicians could also strengthen our gun laws so that, for example, individuals convicted of misdemeanor crimes of violence (often pleaded down from felony charges) or those who have been convicted of multiple alcohol-related crimes are prohibited from possessing firearms. Studies have shown that these groups commit violent crimes at rates many times higher than population averages. Keeping guns from criminals and alcoholics isn't anti-gun -- it's pro-safety.

LOL 80% of gun owners want to ban face to face transfers? LOL at this bullshit.

[grove rat]

first of all, i didn't write the article. obviously i agree with it for the most part, but i haven't "given up". calling a spade a spade does not indicate i'm happy about it or that it is what i would do.

second, it might be to our advantage to realize that we are not some type of finely tuned, well organized group that would band together and easily overtake the powers that be. at least if everyone has a realistic expectation of how other will or might act it could lend itself advantageous for those who actually will fight back. they won't come out tomorrow and say turn in your guns or else, they will slowly villainize guns and erode gun rights. they will do it in a way that not everyone is affected, so most folks will be "okay" with it since it doesn't pertain to them directly, then eventually once they've got everyone fairly conditioned to the idea of limiting gun ownership, and they've disarmed a % of the population, then i could see them moving in for the rest. at that point the % of the population that could or would be willing to fight back would be lowered to a more manageable number. this is why i think being open to the idea that we could very possibly not be able to fight back at some point highlights the importance of preventing the gov from continually chipping away at our civil liberties (both related to and not related to gun ownership)

i fully read your post and understand your point of view better now


but i still don't think that it can happen the way you think. i remember reading a statistic that for every 100 american there are 75-80 guns in the US. that's a lot of fucking guns. plus most of them are spread out in the country, not all in major cities. even the most democrat farmer is not gonna just hand over his double barrel or hunting rifle just cause the prez says so. sure the super liberal people in the city will be dumb enough to hand over what they have. but good luck going to every house/farm/trailer that is out in the middle of nowhere and expecting them to just hand over guns. it just won't happen


hopefully it will never come to this and we are just practicing what we do best on dfwm... blowing smoke up each others asses haha

/nh

[dville_gt]

i fully read your post and understand your point of view better now


but i still don't think that it can happen the way you think. i remember reading a statistic that for every 100 american there are 75-80 guns in the US. that's a lot of fucking guns. plus most of them are spread out in the country, not all in major cities. even the most democrat farmer is not gonna just hand over his double barrel or hunting rifle just cause the prez says so. sure the super liberal people in the city will be dumb enough to hand over what they have. but good luck going to every house/farm/trailer that is out in the middle of nowhere and expecting them to just hand over guns. it just won't happen


hopefully it will never come to this and we are just practicing what we do best on dfwm... blowing smoke up each others asses haha

/nh

i will hope for the best and prepare for the worst

[LS WHAT ??]

just fyi, this site is not exactly a great sample of the general population of the us. sure, if everyone in the country were gun lovers who like to hot rod their cars, plan for dooms day scenarios, and wear american flag sweat pants i'd say the outcome would be very favorable for the masses. instead we live in a country that a huge % of the population relies on the gov. for their basic needs (food, shelter, etc.), those folks would be easy to win over once you cut them off, then you have the folks who just want to survive and will roll over to stay alive, then you'd have the folks who actually support the effort and think guns are the root of all evil, and the list goes on and on. finally you have the dfwmustangs crowd, and even some of these folks would flee the country (dohctr), turn them over, or bunker down and not help the "uprising". so that leaves you with what i'd consider a VERY small % of people who would do jack about it.

Win or no win I would join the uprising and fight for what I believe in, and will die for it. And I rather be remembered as part of the brave men that fought for their rights and not live like a coward.

[big_tiger]

LOL 80% of gun owners want to ban face to face transfers? LOL at this bullshit.

Where did they do the survey, Online? lol

[CJ]

Where did they do the survey, Online? lol

They never did it. He's referencing a study regarding changing the NCIS background check to include mental illnesses to avoid crazy ass mofos getting guns. It had nothing to do with face to face transfers.

[big_tiger]

Ahh ok. I bought my XD at a gun show; they still did a quick background check (30 mins). Just people thinking that writing laws fixes everything.