jump to last post 1-15 of 15 discussions (86 posts)

Would you turn in your arms if big brother came knocking?

  1. cwoodman207 profile image60
    cwoodman207posted 6 years ago

    Say we no longer have the right to bare arms. The government is doing a sweep collecting all registered firearms. Would you allow your right to go down the river or would you stand up to the regime and refuse? Either way give me some opinions please be honest.

    1. Froggy213 profile image35
      Froggy213posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      It is very simple--give everyone a felony of one type or another and you already are not legally able to "pack heat"
      How easy it would be to start making laws that would create felonies out of something you said or published on facebook or another social site--it is coming

      1. profile image0
        Travis_S_Musicposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        It's not that simple :\ some one needs to re take U.S. History

      2. Smkmdb11 profile image60
        Smkmdb11posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        You know the main problem with all of this is the people who commit these violent crimes and break-ins and armed robberies, already have felonies. They get the guns illegaly. If you ban the right to own a gun, you take it out of the hands of the law abiding honest citizens of the country and the felons will continue to get them illegaly as they always have.

        Does that sound safe to anyone? Besides, every country that has instituted a law like this nation wide has seen crime rates skyrocket. Look back on our world history. People are so quick to forget what has happened in the past.

        Correction, most liberals who support this have an agenda, or else blindly follow liberals who have an agenda.

    2. lady_love158 profile image60
      lady_love158posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I don't own a gun but if I suspected the government was going to outlaw my right to bear arms I would buy all the guns and ammo I could afford and resist!

      1. profile image0
        Sierra Mackenzieposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Good for you!  I would do the same.

    3. Paraglider profile image88
      Paragliderposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      No problem. Wear long sleeves.

    4. Ralph Deeds profile image70
      Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I prefer bared breasts to bared arms.

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image82
        Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        why not both?

        http://s2.hubimg.com/u/4574029_f248.jpg

        1. habee profile image91
          habeeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Good one! "Liberty Leading the People," by Delacroix - July Revolution of 1830.

          1. Evan G Rogers profile image82
            Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I would argue that the populace can only enjoy bare breasts if they have the right to bear arms. Otherwise, only the tyrants will enjoy promiscuity.

            *smack*

            (That was my fiance smacking me)

      2. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image92
        Wesman Todd Shawposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        LOL!!!!!!!!!  Well. . .. . .now I'm speechless. . . .

    5. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image92
      Wesman Todd Shawposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      The right to bare arms can not be taken away from you.  You have rights, the same rights, regardless of whether or not some fucking government agrees with that or not.

      Rights are not given to you by government!

      My firearms can safely be pried from my cold dead hands.

      1. Smkmdb11 profile image60
        Smkmdb11posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Best response on here!

        Your absolutely correct. A right cannot be taken from you by any man or form of government. It also cannot be given away by you.

        Good comment.

    6. tritrain profile image75
      tritrainposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I will defend my right to bear arms! 

      smile

    7. gr82bme profile image61
      gr82bmeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I will defend my RIGHT to bear arms also. I am a hunter. Pretty soon we will not be able to afford getting to the store to buy food

    8. Pcunix profile image88
      Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      You "bear" arms.

      No.  I own no guns now. If gun ownership were made illegal, I would definitely find a way to buy guns.

    9. Mrs. J. B. profile image59
      Mrs. J. B.posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I would say Guns? What guns? I have no idea what you are talking about

  2. Ralph Deeds profile image70
    Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago

    Big brother isn't likely to come knocking. Second Amendment rights are well established. The only issues remaining are: 1. A clear definition of "arms," i.e., assault type weapons, large magazine semi-automatic weapons, machine guns, hand grenades, etc. 2. Who is allowed to bear arms--everybody, non-felons, non-mentally ill, etc. 3. Where and under what circumstances do we have a right to bear arms--everywhere or everywhere except courthouses and other government buildings, schools, churches, bars, at political events, rock concerts, in the workplace, etc. and 4. better enforcement of the rules.

    1. lady_love158 profile image60
      lady_love158posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Under the commerce clause and general welfare provisions, the government can do anything including restricting the sale if arms.

      1. Smkmdb11 profile image60
        Smkmdb11posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        whatever the source, your completely wrong. The constitution has the authority over them. Unfortunately most liberals don't acknowledge it these days, lol.

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
          Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          "Unfortunately most liberals don't acknowledge it these days, lol."

          What's the basis for this ridiculous statement. And what do you mean by "lol"? Did I miss some hidden joke or bit of humor in your comment?

    2. cwoodman207 profile image60
      cwoodman207posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      what do you mean big brother won't come knocking come on man. There are people on the terrorist watch list who haven't even reached the age of 5. The government obviously wouldn't suddenly do it. It would gradually happen for sure. If you give a mouse a muffin they'll take everything you own. Seriously the patriot act. enable government in way more areas than it should of. The government is a infectious disease and weak left winged democrats are like germ warfare scientist aiding this enveloping sickness.

  3. profile image70
    logic,commonsenseposted 6 years ago

    Big brother is knocking.  It just isn't easily apparent to those who will not see.
    It is not an overt thing, rather it is a subtle effort, an end around if you will.  Done by instituting laws and regulations that have the same effect but not the direct wording.  This is happening with many things, not just guns.
    Step back, take a look around, it's not a conspiracy just  misguided idealists and elitists.

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
      Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Try to be more specific if you can. Are you referring to the House bill proposing to ban 33 round clips for Glocks, by any chance? Are you opposed to banning such clips? Seems like a no brainer to me after some of the recent incidents.

      1. Jim Hunter profile image60
        Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Clips?

        Glocks don't use clips.

        Magazines.

      2. profile image0
        Sierra Mackenzieposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I don't know what Glocks are, but as far are recent incidents go, we should have raised our children better.  We need better schools and respect for authority.  That includes respecting teachers.  I don't know where kids get guns these days, but they should not be allowed to watch tv or play video games where guns are seen.

        1. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image92
          Wesman Todd Shawposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Glocks:  Very reliable Austrian made pistols.  I'd recommend a Glock to anyone; they almost never misfire, and they hold their resale value very well.

          The rest of your statement is awesome.  Outside of the home though, and assuming that a good parent has done everything in their power to raise a child to be respectful, etc; who's to blame?????

          The media.  all day, every day, and 365 days a year the media spews garbage, lies, and horrific "values" and value judgement on our citizens.

          1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
            Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            How do you feel about 33-round Glock magazines? What legitimate purpose do they serve?

  4. barranca profile image72
    barrancaposted 6 years ago

    For me it would depend a bit on just how tyrannical the government was that was "sweeping up the registered firearms" and what type of arms they were sweeping up.  Notice that the "right" to bear arms is a political/legal right, NOT a human right.  Big brother will have arrived long before he bothers to take away your right to bear arms.  He will first have taken away your right to privacy, your right to habeas corpus, your right to freedom from unreasonable search, your right to free speech and assembly your right to be tried by a jury of your peers.  He will be torturing people in back rooms or sending them to Egypt to be tortured by our "friends" because we are to "clean" to do our own dirty work.

    1. Jim Hunter profile image60
      Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Hmmmm, I bet that government would be a little more tyrannical after they snagged the guns.

      1. junko profile image78
        junkoposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        No jim  nothing would change,it will be just as it is today except, no guns for the people. O'k I'll throw another log on the fire, the goverment will beat the people every  first Monday if they need or not.

        1. profile image0
          Longhunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Junko, if the people are unarmed, the government would no longer fear them. We would no longer be a free people. You might be willing to live that way but I'm not.

          1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
            Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            The individual members of the government have good reason to fear wingnuts and mental cases with guns like the guy who shot Giffords and several other people. The government is afraid of the New York banksters, the Koch brothers, the pharmaceutical companies, coal companies, coal power plant companies and the like. They aren't "afraid" of the militias running around in the woods playing soldier or the guys who have a shotgun or rifle in their basement. That's a silly idea in my opinion.

            1. profile image0
              Longhunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I hope you're not putting law-abiding handgun permit holders in the same category as the nutcase that shot Giffords. My point is if the people have no guns, the government will feel it has free rein to rule over us rather work for us. It's heading too far in that direction now as it is.

              1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
                Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                I don't think the number of people who have guns affects the government one way or the other. The government dances to the tune of the oil companies, NY banks, coal companies, military weapons manufacturers, drug companies, insurance companies, etc.

                1. profile image0
                  Longhunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  In a lot of ways, you're right, Mr. Deeds. We don't always agree on everything but, in this case, we're very close in our opinions. It's time to vote out the long-timers and old-timers. It's time to bring in a whole new bunch that realizes they work for us, not the special interests groups.

              2. junko profile image78
                junkoposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Longhunter: The last  president before this one said "He was the decider" and he didn't care how anybody but Dick felt about his decisions. Remember?

                1. profile image0
                  Longhunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Please don't tell me you're going to start blaming everything on Bush and Cheney. If so, you're beating a dead horse, Junko.

                  1. junko profile image78
                    junkoposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Not everything Longhunter, I'm just trying to help you with your short term memory. Why beat the only horse thats pulling the dead weight of the dead horse?

            2. profile image0
              Longhunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Oh, by the way, I prefer bare breasted as well.

          2. junko profile image78
            junkoposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Longhunter:  The goverment don't fear the people, and I don't believe the goverment want a nationwide Waco. You can discuss what if's, but the discussion should rational to avoid illrational fears.

            1. junko profile image78
              junkoposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              put be before rational

            2. profile image0
              Longhunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              My arguments have been rational. If you give the government an inch, they'll just want more and more until we have no rights at all. I'm not willing to just roll over and give them my guns.

              1. junko profile image78
                junkoposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Longhunter: Has a bill or law been introduced or are you training your mind for a reaction if the goverment try something like that.

                1. profile image0
                  Longhunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  No, not to my knowledge on the first and not at all on the second, Junko. I am old enough to know if you give this government just a little, they want more and more.

            3. Evan G Rogers profile image82
              Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              "Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition."

              -Thomas Jefferson.

  5. barranca profile image72
    barrancaposted 6 years ago

    In opposing tyranny, non-violence, sheer guts and willingness to stand for your freedom even to the point of being jailed is a far better and more effective method of social change.  Image the slaughter that would have ensued had the demonstrators in Egypt all been "carrying".  What I see in America today is fear, inertia, and bored people amusing themselves to death.

    1. junko profile image78
      junkoposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      barranca: you have very good sight.

    2. Paraglider profile image88
      Paragliderposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Yes.

  6. Disturbia profile image60
    Disturbiaposted 6 years ago

    Would I turn in my arms if big brother came knocking?  HELL NO!   And he better duck if he's going to set an uninvited foot onto my property.   

    We're three women and a toddler living alone in a rural, secluded, wooded area. Anybody, or anything including bears could be coming out of those woods at anytime. 

    My girls and I have all had shooting as well as hunter safety and home firearm safety classes, and we've been shooting for years.  We hunt as well as practice at the local shooting range.

    Why should responsible firearms owners be forced to give them up because of the actions of the nut cases that are always used as examples in the argument for gun control?

  7. Ron Montgomery profile image62
    Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago

    Of course not.  I would barricade myself inside my isolated shack, grab some small children to use as human shields, then turn on FoxNews for further instructions.

    1. Disturbia profile image60
      Disturbiaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Sounds a little bit like Ruby Ridge.

    2. Hugh Williamson profile image88
      Hugh Williamsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      This is crazy talk!  What if there were no children around?

      You'd be screwed. lol

    3. barranca profile image72
      barrancaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      very funny!  lol.

  8. profile image0
    Longhunterposted 6 years ago

    When the government arrived, they would only find 1 or 2 to satisfy them so they would go away.

  9. cwoodman207 profile image60
    cwoodman207posted 6 years ago

    All I'm getting at is you give up right, the man now has more power to take over your other rights. The right to bare arms was created so we could overthrow greedy money hungry dishonest politicians.

    1. WoodsmensPost profile image67
      WoodsmensPostposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Really... this is why it was created?

    2. Ralph Deeds profile image70
      Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I haven't heard very many in the government suggesting that people give up their Second Amendment rights. They are asking for more sensible rules and more effective enforcement. Who could be against that?  The NRA and gun dealers who have a financial interest in selling a variety of high powered large magazine military type weapons which have no use other than killing large groups of people in a short period of time.

      1. profile image0
        Longhunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        The problem with the government regulating any part of gun ownership is that if they can regulate one part they'll try to regulate it across the board one piece at a time. Do I agree with 33 round mags? Not necessarily. A person using that kind of mag tells me they're a piss poor shot. However, I don't agree with the government having even the smallest say in what I can or can not carry or use to protect myself.

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
          Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Do you agree with gun dealers selling thousands of military type weapons to Mexican drug lords who are taking over the country (Mexico)? The Second Amendment has widespread support in the government and the public. There is no danger that anybody is going to take your guns away, unless they are military type weapons, and even that is unlikely. There is a need for more sensible and better enforced laws governing the manufacture, sale and use of weapons, not unlike the need for speed limits on our roads and highways and enforcement of those rules in the public interest.

          1. profile image0
            Longhunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            No, I don't agree. When discovered, those dealers should be shut down and jailed. I'm all for the LEGAL selling, ownership, possession, and use of guns.

            Unfortunately, we both know that if the government gets a toe-hold in gun control, they'll always want more and more. That is something I'll fight against because I simply don't believe in it.

          2. profile image61
            rlendowposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Does everyone realize that legal US gun dealers are licensed thru the ATF? If the ATF isn't keeping track of the sales of thousands of weapons (which they are) than how about US Customs. Weapons by the thousands are heavy and are hard to ship. I guess we should check more @ our borders. What a novel idea.

            Oh and why are there Mexican drug lords? Because people in the US are buying their products which in turn allows the drug lords to buy guns, the people to use them and the ability to intimidate honest Mexicans.

            And maybe alot of the gun dealers who are selling guns to the Mexican drug lords might happen to be Illegal Immigrants who were sent here to do so.

            If we would only enforce the laws we have in place we wouldn't have so many problems. Not only the laws on guns but illegal immigration (I mean undocumented democrats).

      2. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        That simply isn't true.  The modern method of destroying rights is to chip away a little at a time.  With each small victory comes not satisfaction but renewed effort to take some more.

        The effort to completely ban guns has been going on for many years and will continue until it is completely successful.  The Gifford incident will be used to stir fear and pass a couple more laws to limit the right to bear arms while providing absolutely no additional benefits.  For example, the talk to limit magazine size took only hours to materialize and will probably come to pass.  The result will be another law that provides absolutely nothing for the people except one more small step to remove the right to bear arms.  (The time to change clips in most guns is under 2 seconds.  So carry more clips instead of larger ones.  Or more guns.  Either way is probably less visible to cops anyway.)

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
          Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          "The effort to completely ban guns has been going on for many years and will continue until it is completely successful. "

          This is a figment of your imagination. There have been no efforts to completely ban guns.

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            That is possible.  Nevertheless, I look at the continual efforts to limit gun ownership and can only feel that the ultimate goal to many people is to ban them completely.  (Doesn't New York City do that now?).

            Over the years I have seen:
            A ban on automatic weapons
            Limitations on gun barrel length
            Registration
            Limits on how and where guns may be carried
            Limits on who may buy or own guns

            The list just goes on and on, and I for one do not believe that any of them have done anything to make the population safer.  To me, the ultimate goal is all to obviously to ban them completely; for many people this is the only answer to "Guns kill people!"

            1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
              Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I'm not aware of a single proposal that would interfere with the use of guns for hunting or target shooting. Military type weapons are not necessary for these purposes nor for self protection. I'm not aware of any proposals to ban all handguns. There have been proposals to ban large magazines like the one used in the Giffords shooting and several others. These magazines have no hunting, target shooting or self protection purpose and do not fall within the protection of the Second Amendment. The current gun laws are filled with all kinds of loop holes and they are not effectively enforced.

              "Over the years I have seen:
              A ban on automatic weapons      Automatic weapons have been 
                                              banned and for good reason.

              Limitations on gun barrel length  Sawed off shotguns are banned
                                                because they can be easily
                                                concealed and are used by
                                                criminals.

              Registration                      There are obvious reasons for
                                                requiring handguns to be
                                                registered, for example, to
                                                prevent their sale to felons
                                                people with serious mental
                                                health problems.


              Limits on how and where guns may be carried  Do you think
                                                           guns should be
                                                           permitted in
                                                           schools, churches
                                                           courtrooms, bars,
                                                           and work places.



              Limits on who may buy or own guns"   Do you advocate allowing
                                                   felons convicted of violent
                                                   crimes to carry guns?


              All of the regulations you have named are permissible under the Second Amendment so far as I know.

              1. Evan G Rogers profile image82
                Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                no matter what anyone says, gasoline is still legal. That releases more energy per mass than dynamite

                1. profile image59
                  C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  yep, one gallon = ten full sticks.

              2. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                I do not recall the second amendment saying anything about guns being used only for hunting and target shooting.  On the contrary, wording to the effect (a well armed militia) that the guns are expected to be used to kill people is there.

                "Sawed off shotguns are banned because they are easily concealed and are used by criminals"  An excellent reason to ban all short guns!  Is that next on the agenda?

                Registration is required to trace guns used in a crime - am I then presumed guilty before committing a crime?  If not, why register it?  When guns were required to be registered they were already owned, not being purchased.

                Current talk is to ban guns within 100' (or 1000' or whatever the speaker wants) of any govt. official.  If you have one and a senator drives past, you're in trouble.  Best not carry at all.  A good way to stop people from carrying guns.

                I fully agree with some gun laws (automatic weapons ban, for example) but they just keep coming!  Your comment about criminals using shotguns is a perfect example of exactly what I am talking about.  Nothing but an excuse to limit them.  Criminals using anything at all is no reason to ban it from other people as it will make no difference to the criminal.

              3. tritrain profile image75
                tritrainposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Interestingly, the wife of an Army Colonel that killed her children complained that the 3 day wait for a handgun in Floridy "delayed the massacre" of her children.

                1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
                  Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Sounds like she may have been mentally ill and shouldn't have been able to buy a gun.

          2. profile image61
            rlendowposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Your comment is incorrect; "This is a figment of your imagination. There have been no efforts to completely ban guns"

            There have been many attempts to ban types of guns with intentions of banning them all. Please read on;

            Don't forget the Clinton 1994 Assault Weapons Ban;
            Anti-gun Sen. Howard Metzenbaum complained that the Clinton ban didn't go far enough, saying, "until you ban them all, you might as well ban none." But, it "will be a major step in achieving the objective that we have in mind," he said.47 The ban's sponsor, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, later said, "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America turn them all in, I would have done it."48 Today, her bill, S.1034, would extend and expand the ban. The McCarthy/Lautenberg bill, H.R. 2038/S.1431, would also extend the ban and expand it to prohibit all semi-automatic shotguns and detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifles, and all defensive semi-automatic rifles and shotguns. Another plan would extend the ban to millions of pump-action rifles and shotguns, and require all gun owners to be subjected to psychological exams.49

            1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
              Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Of course there have been efforts and successful efforts to ban certain types of guns. But that's not the same as efforts to "completely ban guns." I don't believe they were talking about hunting rifles or shotguns or target rifles or handguns. Any effort to ban these guns would be completely futile. It's doubtful that the bill to ban 33-round Glock magazines will pass although anyone in their right mind can see that it makes sense. I hope that includes you!

        2. Ralph Deeds profile image70
          Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          That's paranoia.

  10. K9keystrokes profile image91
    K9keystrokesposted 6 years ago

    I would not give up my weapons. It is my duty as an American to retain my right to bear arms in defense of my family, friends and country. Nothing short of anarchy would ensue without armed citizens to protect those rights; even if that means standing up to our government. If law abiding citizens are not allowed to carry/have weapons, then only criminals will have them. I might be turning to crime if this is the future. I won't be held hostage by an insane gun-totin' government that would allow such very sane right, like our 2ND Amendment to be revoked. It's like a slap in the face to our countries forefathers... "Cold dead Hand" man...

  11. 2besure profile image82
    2besureposted 6 years ago

    Nope!  As a matter of fact, I have never owned a gum, but am about to get one.  I kind of see the hand writing on the wall!  People get ready...

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
      Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      "People get ready" for what?

  12. Phil The Gain profile image74
    Phil The Gainposted 6 years ago

    I would send the kids to the underground armory to activate the home defense system and get in their battle stations.  At the same time wifey gets the high powered stuff that we only use for emergencies.  Then it's on.

    Just Kidding, I'm not capable of all that.

  13. profile image58
    PcDoc11posted 6 years ago

    The government has not been able to stop the drug trade, what makes you think they could do any better at controlling the gun trade???

    If I have to register my guns, fine, if I need to get a permit, done, if they knock on my door to take my guns, sorry, that one was stolen.  Search???  Warrant!!!

    Guns, searches and seizure, private property, these are all constitutional issues they would have to eliminate before they come knocking on my door.  I think Constitutional Law superceedes personal rights... anyway... they'd have to jump thru so many hoops that I'd be old, gray, or dead for twenty years before they get my guns.

  14. manlypoetryman profile image72
    manlypoetrymanposted 6 years ago

    First...I'd turn in all my ammo!

  15. profile image59
    C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago

    This is NEVER going to happen in the US. WAY TOO DANGEROUS!LOL Not sure what the point of this post....My guess is to spin up the NRA crowd. If so, well done, I'm sure.

 
working