Obama wants to take away our guns. These are the Bills
Options
Comments
-
look, i get more emotional about firearms than anyone else on this forum, but here's the thing:
...this is scaremongering exaggeration. these bills were and are garbage, but they neither passed or are in immediate danger of passing.
if you want to seriously address gun control legislation, you need to NOT freak out about bills that are not in danger of passing, because it'll make people not listen to you when there's a pertinent bill to address.
I didn't bother reading a single post in this whole thread, and instead just did a search on each page for "Janklow". It turns out this strategy has served me well, and I can happily leave this thread without reading other posts. Of course, if Janklow had agreed with the threadstarter, I WOULD have gone back and read because I still consider him paranoid.. So threadstarter, the person on this forum who is specifically known for being paranoid in the belief that everyone everywhere is always trying to take away his guns, that guy, told you that your thread is a scaremongering exaggeration. Fall back. -
But one more thing I would still like to say. A lot of law-abiding American citizens have guns that they'd like to keep for various reasons. Some like to hunt. Some like to collect guns. Some sleep better at night knowing that they have a firearm nearby and know how to use it, should some predator invade their home and attempt to cause them harm. And others might just like to have a gun and know how to use because you never know how much that type of skill and experience might come in useful at some point.
This is all fine, but then there are another set of motivations that some gun owners seem to have, and I don't think much of it. I've been told by some, that gun ownership is a sacred right for the simple fact that tyranny, oppression, and totalitarianism is prevented in a society where the government fears the people, and not the other way around. This actually made some sense when the Constitution was written. Local militias were a real thing, and at that time, if a tyrannical government oppressed the public and prevented the possibility of a peaceful transfer of power, the people could gather their muskets and take matters into their own hands. This outcome isn't desirable in a civilized society, but the hope should have been that the threat of such a thing would keep the ruling class from going too far in the first place.
Now, skip forward to 2010, and this is just lunacy. Private citizens and rogue militias simply cannot ever hope to possess an arsenal that could come anywhere near making the government fear the prospect of being overthrown, and they certainly couldn't have the necessary resources to actually go through with a revolution. Since law enforcement and the government military have a gigantic personnel, top of the line weapons (and more of them than they'll ever be able to use), tanks, bombs, rockets, and a bunch of other ? that a weaponry layman knows nothing about, this idea of forming militias to keep the government on its toes is ridiculous. But more disturbing is the fact that these militias are typically aligned with fringe-extremist political causes, and they CAN terrorize people in their own communities and they CAN intimidate those around them, which completely goes against the spirit of the original argument that is made for keeping the public armed.
Thanks for letting me share folks. -
Executive Order 11110
On June 4, 1963, a virtually unknown Presidential decree, Executive Order 11110, was signed with the authority to basically strip the Federal Reserve Bank of its power to loan money to the United States Federal Government at interest. With the stroke of a pen, President Kennedy declared that the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank would soon be out of business. The Christian Law Fellowship has exhaustively researched this matter through the Federal Register and Library of Congress. We can now safely conclude that this Executive Order has never been repealed, amended, or superceded by any subsequent Executive Order. In simple terms, it is still valid.
When President John Fitzgerald Kennedy - the author of Profiles in Courage -signed this Order, it returned to the federal government, specifically the Treasury Department, the Constitutional power to create and issue currency -money - without going through the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank. President Kennedy's Executive Order 11110 [the full text is displayed further below] gave the Treasury Department the explicit authority: "to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury." This means that for every ounce of silver in the U.S. Treasury's vault, the government could introduce new money into circulation based on the silver bullion physically held there. As a result, more than $4 billion in United States Notes were brought into circulation in $2 and $5 denominations. $10 and $20 United States Notes were never circulated but were being printed by the Treasury Department when Kennedy was assassinated. It appears obvious that President Kennedy knew the Federal Reserve Notes being used as the purported legal currency were contrary to the Constitution of the United States of America.
"United States Notes" were issued as an interest-free and debt-free currency backed by silver reserves in the U.S. Treasury. We compared a "Federal Reserve Note" issued from the private central bank of the United States (the Federal Reserve Bank a/k/a Federal Reserve System), with a "United States Note" from the U.S. Treasury issued by President Kennedy's Executive Order. They almost look alike, except one says "Federal Reserve Note" on the top while the other says "United States Note". Also, the Federal Reserve Note has a green seal and serial number while the United States Note has a red seal and serial number.
President Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963 and the United States Notes he had issued were immediately taken out of circulation. Federal Reserve Notes continued to serve as the legal currency of the nation. According to the United States Secret Service, 99% of all U.S. paper "currency" circulating in 1999 are Federal Reserve Notes.
Kennedy knew that if the silver-backed United States Notes were widely circulated, they would have eliminated the demand for Federal Reserve Notes. This is a very simple matter of economics. The USN was backed by silver and the FRN was not backed by anything of intrinsic value. Executive Order 11110 should have prevented the national debt from reaching its current level (virtually all of the nearly $9 trillion in federal debt has been created since 1963) if LBJ or any subsequent President were to enforce it. It would have almost immediately given the U.S. Government the ability to repay its debt without going to the private Federal Reserve Banks and being charged interest to create new "money". Executive Order 11110 gave the U.S.A. the ability to, once again, create its own money backed by silver and realm value worth something.
where are u gettin all ur info from??? Im curious... -
-
ThaChozenWun wrote: »Youtube videos and this guy
LMAOOOOO i figured but I wanted him to tell me his sources -
well, you know i live in a state where some ? idiot is always trying to push some ridiculous ban, right? i can't help it. CLINGING TO MY GUNS AND RELIGION HEREshootemwon wrote: »Of course, if Janklow had agreed with the threadstarter, I WOULD have gone back and read because I still consider him paranoid.
that said:
basically. i would never tell anyone to NOT worry about anti-gun legislation (especially on a state level), but i think it's completely counterproductive to worry about this stuff. i mean, you can complain about guys like Holder who clearly appear to be anti-gun and have made anti-gun statements without having to claiming that H.R. 45 is OH MY ? ABOUT TO HAPPEN RIGHT NOWshootemwon wrote: »So threadstarter, the person on this forum who is specifically known for being paranoid in the belief that everyone everywhere is always trying to take away his guns, that guy, told you that your thread is a scaremongering exaggeration. Fall back.
well, you basically have two arguments in this vein:shootemwon wrote: »Now, skip forward to 2010, and this is just lunacy. Private citizens and rogue militias simply cannot ever hope to possess an arsenal that could come anywhere near making the government fear the prospect of being overthrown, and they certainly couldn't have the necessary resources to actually go through with a revolution.
01. the arms of the US population can be used to overthrow a government said population detests (unlikely);
02. the arms of the US population force the government to show its citizens more respect than it would an unarmed one (probably still accurate)
the former seems more popular with the dudes that seem to WANT to have the UN roll in so they can have a fantasy battle with them. this is not my argument, as i don't have time for that nonsense; i spend my time worrying about seriously gun-related issues, like a zombie apocalypse.
and i guess 03. an armed population makes foreign governments more wary of attempting to attack the US. this was a legitimate sentiment back in the day (say, World War II), but is in fairness not a major reason why the US doesn't get randomly attacked by other countries. -
Well we agree about #1.01. the arms of the US population can be used to overthrow a government said population detests (unlikely);
02. the arms of the US population force the government to show its citizens more respect than it would an unarmed one (probably still accurate)
the former seems more popular with the dudes that seem to WANT to have the UN roll in so they can have a fantasy battle with them. this is not my argument, as i don't have time for that nonsense; i spend my time worrying about seriously gun-related issues, like a zombie apocalypse.
and i guess 03. an armed population makes foreign governments more wary of attempting to attack the US. this was a legitimate sentiment back in the day (say, World War II), but is in fairness not a major reason why the US doesn't get randomly attacked by other countries.
As for #2, I don't know if I fully understand. As I see it, in modern history, people seem to use guns as a means of keeping the government in check by trying to assassinate presidents and other big political figures. More recently, people have also been shooting at laid off truck drivers and substitute teachers who took temp jobs with the Census Bureau. The reactions to this is a not a government more respectful of its citizens, but increased security. And when the only anti-government gun news you hear about is one guy shooting another guy, it doesn't really seem like a cause for the government to rethink its relationship with the general public.
I've seen some people talking about the idea of fighting back against police brutality. The controversial idea was pitched that since cops tend to get a slap on the wrist for horrible abuses, that maybe a cop or two turning up dead in response to a brutality incident would get them to take it more seriously. While I really do sympathize here, the vast majority of Americans won't be receptive to this type of thing, and would instead probably react by supporting less accountability for police when they're overly aggressive.
I still don't see how #2 works unless theres a collective will and at least some concern about #1.
Also, I agree that #3 was once relevant, but is now outdated. -
That will never happen.
-
well, if you look at #1 more like resisting a government, not overthrowing it, it's more plausible; you're not going to fight the military might of the US will small arms, but you CAN raise difficulties with them. i'm sticking to my "unlikely" because ultimately Americans don't want to do such things and really have no reason to, even if some random handfuls of people think otherwise.shootemwon wrote: »I still don't see how #2 works unless theres a collective will and at least some concern about #1.
#2 is more about the concept that the government should, theoretically, know that they can't just round up/otherwise theatrically oppress the population because the population COULD start shooting back if that was the case. in the US, you could reasonably have a circumstance where a corrupt/criminal cop gets shot in legitimate self-defense; in a country where you cannot own small arms, this just wouldn't happen.
as for guys assassinating presidents, i don't even think that's always under #2, because a lot of these guys are just ? nuts.
see, i wouldn't say it's outdated (or maybe not "completely outdated") because, what the hell, you never know. but it's really not the argument it was back in 1941.shootemwon wrote: »Also, I agree that #3 was once relevant, but is now outdated. -
define "assault side"Cain_Marko wrote: »Cosign banning of guns are very minor to the real issue of this country even though most guns they would ban would be more on the assault side instead of handguns. -
Crime could decrease or increase without citizen ownership of guns
-
on the point of the guns I agree the ? is ? and those bills will not get anywhere because of that, the rest of the conspiricy ? is boarder line lunacy...
I stay strapped... -
well, please do your part to vote for politicians who do not threaten our gun rightsFazeem Blackall wrote: »I stay strapped...
