Has anyone heard that the COMPLETE ban of fire arms are in effect? I heard its not a matter of if anymore but when its gonna happen!  I also heard that this ban will call for confiscation of all fire arms the you already own, they will come to your house and you will have to give it up! What da hell happen to the right to bare ARMS!!!!!!!!!!!!

Has anyone heard that the COMPLETE ban of fire arms are in effect? I heard its not a matter of if anymore but when its gonna happen!  I also heard that this ban will call for confiscation of all fire arms the you already own, they will come to your house and you will have to give it up! What da hell happen to the right to bare ARMS!!!!!!!!!!!!

Care to cite a source or are you just trolling for a response?

Yeah I heard about this - heavy stuff. I'd recommend signing all your guns over to me as soon as possible so you don't get caught red handed during the ban.

Yeah I heard about this - heavy stuff. I'd recommend signing all your guns over to me as soon as possible so you don't get caught red handed during the ban.

Hrmmm...Yeah, that's right. I'm also duly authorized to accept surrendered firearms. But be sure to bring all your ammo too. You don't want to get caught with that right?


I'll be in the HPD parking lot 7-3 tomorrow, just look for me:

April 1st was 2 months ago...

Isn't this kinda like saying the BIG EARTHQUAKE or TSUNAMI is coming. It is not a matter of if but when?

Wow. Just lost a bunch of supplies in a boating accident too this weekend. Don't got anything left to take.

If Obama gets elected and they get thier way with UN Agenda 21.

Americans and your guns...

What da hell happen to the right to bare ARMS!!!!!!!!!!!!

You will always have a right to bare arms.

Just buy a tank top and walk down the street with your bare arms.

Tada 

Wow. Just lost a bunch of supplies in a boating accident too this weekend. Don't got anything left to take.

What a coincidence! 

"I just called to report that my firearms were stolen.  Are you here to take my statement?"

Has anyone heard that the COMPLETE ban of fire arms are in effect?

They're gonna take all my fire arms? NOOO!

Thank goodness we can still keep our firearms.

Everyone thinks this is a joke but look into it deeper and you will find out how serious this really is! Also google NDAA section 1021 and you will also see this is whats kinda starting it all! Obama did his homework, and if anyone thinks he needed second term think again!

Serious? Really?

Evidence?

I fully understand the perception that Obama is the anti-gun anti-christ. As a representative of Chicago, one of the most anti-gun areas of the country, of course his record reflects an anti-gun stance. That what a representative does, folks: represents the perspectives of their constituents. I don't think that it is much of a personal issue for Obama himself.

His track record as President hasn't been overly anti-gun. Far less drastic than was predicted by the doomsday alarmists that thought he would (somehow) erase (what little is left of the) second amendment with a pen stroke the instant he got into office. In reality he has steered far clear of the issue because he has very little to gain from anti-gun posturing and actions. He doesn't have enough political capital with the Right to make any headway in a significant anti-gun direction. For that matter, he doesn't have enough political capital with the Left.

Certainly not enough to pull off a complete ban. Get real. At most he'd support incremental anti-gun legislation if there was enough support behind it already. Even if he tried to use executive orders to affect some kind of complete ban it would be challenged and struck down for the unconstitutional overreach of power that it is. There are more than enough pro-gun federal judges and more than enough NRA lobbying power to see this done quickly. And the anti-gunners, the one's with any serious strategic thinking skills, know this.

The fearmongering in this country is way off the charts.

There IS certainly a shifting battle line between the pro- and anti-gun interests in the country and Obama would certainly fall on the anti-gun side of that line if he chose to wade in. I doubt he will. He needs the cooperation of the Right too much to piss on one of their favorite subjects like that.

Is a total ban a serious possibility? Of course. Anything is possible and that would be very serious indeed. I highly, and I mean HIGHLY, doubt that it is an imminent possibility in today's political climate.

On the other hand, I'd watch out for some calamity that can be used to swing public opinion towards increased gun control at a national level. I'd also be wary of who Obama would nominate to vacancies in the Supreme Court. Just as I'd be wary of who Romney would nominate to the SC for different reasons.

Everyone thinks this is a joke but look into it deeper and you will find out how serious this really is! Also google NDAA section 1021 and you will also see this is whats kinda starting it all! Obama did his homework, and if anyone thinks he needed second term think again!

NDAA Section 1021 refers to indefinite detention without a trial, in other words no habeas corpus.............Google that.

The act is not about taking weapons it's about the Government taking and holding people whom they suspect of being terrorists.  Unfortunately in the wrong hands (read Govt) this can be abused, either willingly or unintentionally (such as the people making a mistake and holding an innocent person).

.................His track record as President hasn't been overly anti-gun. Far less drastic than was predicted by the doomsday alarmists that thought he would (somehow) erase (what little is left of the) second amendment with a pen stroke the instant he got into office. In reality he has steered far clear of the issue because he has very little to gain from anti-gun posturing and actions. He doesn't have enough political capital with the Right to make any headway in a significant anti-gun direction. For that matter, he doesn't have enough political capital with the Left........................

I do agree that he wasn't as anti-gun as many thought, however I think that reflects the problems the country was facing when he got into office, namely the recession.  Obama was doing a lot (of wrong things) to try and keep everyone's head above water.  Now this being said it has not stopped his lackeys (Eric Holder) from pursuing his anti-gun philosophy.

As the latest round of shootings (last week, the week before?)in Chicago should point out to anyone with a brain should figure out that taking guns away from the legal owners does nothing to curb illegal usage.  Unfortunately for us it is not a requirement that those in Govt actually have brains.

Everyone thinks this is a joke but look into it deeper and you will find out how serious this really is! Also google NDAA section 1021 and you will also see this is whats kinda starting it all! Obama did his homework, and if anyone thinks he needed second term think again!

Section 1021 in its entirety:

SEC. 1021. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF
THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS
PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY
FORCE.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Congress affirms that the authority of the
President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to
the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40;
50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority for the Armed Forces
of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection
(b)) pending disposition under the law of war.
(b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under this section
is any person as follows:
(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided
the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001,
or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported
al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged
in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners,
including any person who has committed a belligerent act or
has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy
forces.
(c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—The disposition of a
person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may
include the following:
(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until
the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for
Use of Military Force.
(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States
Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009
(title XVIII of Public Law 111–84)).
(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent
tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.
(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country
of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.
(d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section is intended to limit
or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the
Authorization for Use of Military Force.
(e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed
to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of
United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States,
or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United
States.
(f) REQUIREMENT FOR BRIEFINGS OF CONGRESS.—The Secretary
of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application
of the authority described in this section, including the organizations,
entities, and individuals considered to be ‘‘covered persons’’
for purposes of subsection (b)(2).

My question...did YOU read it? Do it again and pay special attention to the parts I underlined. Firearms are not mentioned in any part of 1021, so I don't see how anyone can logically conclude that it has anything to do with a "complete ban".

What da hell happen to the right to bare ARMS!!!!!!!!!!!!

I will defend our right to bare arms.

And I'll actively fight to defend the right to bare legs and bare chests (but only if the person in question is single, female, 23-38 years old, possessing Double Ds, athletic build, double jointed and of negotiable moral character  . Extra points if they like paunchy middle-aged guys).

Everyone else is on their own. 

I will defend our right to bare arms.

And I'll actively fight to defend the right to bare legs and bare chests (but only if the person in question is single, female, 23-38 years old, possessing Double Ds, athletic build, double jointed and of negotiable moral character  . Extra points if they like paunchy middle-aged guys).

Everyone else is on their own. 

You're Terrible_Ted

i heard they were gonna ban matches, lighters, and bbq's because of all the recent brush fires as well. solar powered grills only from now on.