Gun owners are a minority, but those who support the Second Amendment are still in the majority, and this isn't even a Second Amendment thing.  Everyone who's not a dues-paying member of the Brady Campaign would be able to recognize the problem with Obama ordering the confiscation of privately-held property on nothing more than his say-so.  It won't happen.

As much as I dislike the ACLU regarding other things, the ACLU will definitely be there to defend us with that too.

As was pointed out in the much-read essay on 1389blog.com, confiscation will never happen, there will ALWAYS be a grandfather clause, for one simple reason the author explains quite well:

for the sake of math, let’s say that there are only 80 million gun owners, and let’s say that the government decides to round up all those pesky guns once and for all. Let’s be generous and say that 90% of the gun owners don’t really believe in the 2nd Amendment, and their guns are just for duck hunting. Which is what politicians keep telling us, but is actually rather hilarious when you think about how the most commonly sold guns in America are the same detachable magazine semiautomatic rifles I talked about earlier.

So ten percent refuse to turn their guns in. That is 8 million instantaneous felons. Let’s say that 90% of them are not wanting to comply out of sheer stubbornness. Let’s be super generous and say that 90% of them would still just roll over and turn their guns when pressed or legally threatened.   That leaves 800,000 Americans who are not turning their guns in, no matter what. To put that in perspective there are only about 700,000 police officers in the whole country.

Let’s say that these hypothetical 10% of 10% are willing to actually fight to keep their guns. Even if my hypothetical estimate of 800,000 gun nuts willing to fight for their guns is correct, it is still 97% higher than the number of insurgents we faced at any one time in Iraq, a country about the size of Texas.

If you haven't read the linked article, I highly recommend it.  I spend more time than most reading about gun stuff, and this is the most comprehensive, best-written article I've ever seen refuting the idea of gun control.  And for those of you who roll your eyes at the Alex Jones style "1776 WILL RISE AGAIN!" crap, I assure you, the above-quoted portion is but a small portion of a 10,000-word essay.  It is not intended to incite rebellion or stir up discontent, but rather to point out the reality of what confiscation would entail to those who are undecided but leaning toward gun control.

Fuck those  guys and everyone else that is for the gun ban. Are they fucking dumb, we will definitely have the next civil war if they ban guns. There are hundreds of thousands of gun owners out there wiling to kill any government officials who try and confiscate their rights to bare arms. Feinstein, Biden, Obama can fuck themselves! I would have never voted for Obama if I knew he was going to do this, hypocrite!

He's not the one doing this. He doesn't have the power to this. It's congress. They have the power. Blame the right people.

True. It's Congress that writes the laws, however, it takes a radical nut like Obama to sign them into law.

I think the poster was just venting in general about the radical hard left turn that the Demoncrat party has taken in the last 10 years or so. When you have Constitutional illiterates like Harry Reid, Feinstein, Schumer, Pelosi, Warren, Durbin, Sheila Jackson Lee, Maxine Waters, etal., it's very easy to understand the frustrations of those not brainwashed to follow the statist agenda that the Obummer administration is carrying out.

And do you really think these liberal progressive clowns would be dealing with such a touchy subject like guns if they didn't feel confident that the Executive branch had their backs?

And do you really think these liberal progressive clowns would be dealing with such a touchy subject like guns if they didn't feel confident that the Executive branch had their backs?

yes, because feintein's being reintroducing the AWB every year since it expired and these bills constantly get brought up.

the only difference now is media coverage and more emotion in the congressional branches.

they never stop their attack, but its generally ineffective in the absence of a galvanizing event.

I would have never voted for Obama if I knew he was going to do this, hypocrite!

This is why I no longer vote. Politics is straight bullshit. A vote for ANY candidate is bad for the American citizen.

Maybe is it possible that a lot of this pro-gun control controversy might be being used as a "red herring" to distract us from the fact that our economy is on the road to ruin?

Gun control legislation can be sensationalized and exploited by the media to spike sales; discussion of how best to address our lack of control of our fiscal policies... not so much...

No, it's BECAUSE the fact that our economy is on the road to ruin that firearms legislation is being talked about on a serious level.  As society decays and the economy falters, cities and counties lose funding.  The ability for local police departments to "control" crime is slowly lost.  I left a link in another thread that displayed many cities in America in this very type of situation.  Off the top of my head, Detroit is a very good example.  Neighborhoods are forming their own militias to patrol the streets to keep their families and friends safe.  As cities start going bankrupt, the citizens lose their jobs and start getting desperate.  It's said that there are approximately 400 gang members to 1 police officer in the city of Chicago.  Imagine if one day they finally realized that.  As a result of a collapsing economy, people naturally become violent and committing crime becomes daily survival.  Uprisings begin to crop up and that's how revolutions are started.  It's not fair for the government if the citizens have weapons very similar to the ones they have.  They actually might put up a fight.  We wouldn't want that.  Sway public opinion to believe the same way Piers Morgan believes, neighbor turns in neighbor, slowly legislate stricter and stricter laws and eventually, confiscate.  Well, that's the idea, anyway.  I don't think they factored in a small idea called "patriotism."  Small word, big movement. 

BUT...It wouldn't surprise me either if the pro-gun lobby is stirring the pot because they're seeing their stock prices shoot to the moon.  What an easy way to make money.  Lobby for strict talk about gun control, put all your money in stocks like Ruger & S&W then rake in the cash.

No, it's BECAUSE the fact that our economy is on the road to ruin that firearms legislation is being talked about on a serious level.  As society decays and the economy falters, cities and counties lose funding.  The ability for local police departments to "control" crime is slowly lost.  I left a link in another thread that displayed many cities in America in this very type of situation.  Off the top of my head, Detroit is a very good example.  Neighborhoods are forming their own militias to patrol the streets to keep their families and friends safe.  As cities start going bankrupt, the citizens lose their jobs and start getting desperate.  It's said that there are approximately 400 gang members to 1 police officer in the city of Chicago.  Imagine if one day they finally realized that.  As a result of a collapsing economy, people naturally become violent and committing crime becomes daily survival.  Uprisings begin to crop up and that's how revolutions are started.  It's not fair for the government if the citizens have weapons very similar to the ones they have.  They actually might put up a fight.  We wouldn't want that.  Sway public opinion to believe the same way Piers Morgan believes, neighbor turns in neighbor, slowly legislate stricter and stricter laws and eventually, confiscate.  Well, that's the idea, anyway.  I don't think they factored in a small idea called "patriotism."  Small word, big movement. 

BUT...It wouldn't surprise me either if the pro-gun lobby is stirring the pot because they're seeing their stock prices shoot to the moon.  What an easy way to make money.  Lobby for strict talk about gun control, put all your money in stocks like Ruger & S&W then rake in the cash.

Ruger and S&W saw a 25-30% drop in their stock prices after the Newtown shooting.  Everything else in your post makes a lot of sense, though.

.

This is why I no longer vote. Politics is straight bullshit. A vote for ANY candidate is bad for the American citizen.

That is truly a shame. The reason I say this is because there are some of us who believe that about the BIG 2 political parties. But there are some VERY GOOD Independents out there that are worth voting for IMHO. And if we can get enough people voting Independent then one or both of the Big 2 parties would start listening to the voters. I believe the real problem is that it really doesn't matter which of the Big 2 parties you vote with. You will get the same government heading in the same direction. But start voting in Independents who think for themselves and I think you might see what I am getting at.

Hopefully, next election you might consider exploring the Libertarian and Independent parties. I believe the country can be saved and is worth saving but only if we can get back to basics. And I believe that this is the direction voters need to go. JMHO 

i think he's been quiet until now,  he's reelected so now he has nothing to lose.  I think on something like this he is the one pulling the strings behind the scenes getting everyone else to do the talking and agenda pushing. 

Can or no can?

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/9/biden-executive-orders-action-can-be-taken-guns/

Always can but in doing so, can/will it withstand a legal challenge, which will likely be where it ends up.

There have been successful EOs signed by a president directly related to gun control. I'll list four for anyone who believes it can't be done:

1989 - President George H.W. Bush; Banned the importation of dozens of semi-automatic assault rifles that were defined by BATF at the request of President Bush. He started the whole assault ban in the first place by EO.

1994 - President Clinton; Banned importation of ammunition from China.

1998 - President Clinton; In 1997, ordered the Secretary of Treasury to review the the importation of the modified versions of the previously banned AWS that were still being imported legally, then in 1998, the list of banned imports was extended to include more assault weapons, such as variations of the AK-47. The order targeted the importation of guns that were not subjected to the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban.

2001 - President Clinton; Banned the importation of "assault pistols" and tightened licensing rules on gun dealers.

Clinton was accused of overuse or misuse of executive power on gun control issues but the fact is executive authority can be used, and Obama has already signed out over 140 EOs and he is not afraid of being challenged legally.

What if all of you are right? What if its a huge coverup or conspiracy and the government is using gun control to hide something? What if some top secret agency planned all this? What if all those situations in the movies were actually inside details of true events?  Lol I'm just saying and curious like everyone else and want to know the truth. I'm also more curious to see how confiscation of arms or even a ban will divide this country. From all the texans I've talked to about it says they have a clause in their constitution that will allow them to act as an independent country if they want... Is that true and if so, will other states try to do the same?

 I try to look at the bigger picture and try to look at it from both sides. As a father I'd hope that this wouldn't happen in Hawaii but it has shown signs of it as we'll as violent hostile situations. I must agree with the article earlier in this thread from a Texas rep. That mentioned if the principle had access to a gun would that person be dead? Would there be as much casualties as there were? I would agree that certain school officials should have access to PROPER training and be able to access a firearm if need be in case something like this happens. I'd hope for my kids sake that it can be possible. I'd like to see strict gun control for us in Hawaii anyways... Even tho its ridiculous already just to get a gun, especially a hand gun.  anyways I'd like to say thanks for the news and info and knowledge of what's going on out there cause I don't get much info about it in the news... Too busy with trying to keep my fam feed n under a roof   

I hope so.

I hope he ruins the economy and tries a gun grab, then nobody will have anything to lose and we can fix this once and for all.

I can't speak for Texans, but Montana passed a law a few years ago stating that if a firearm is made, sold, and kept in the state of Montana, it is not part of any interstate commerce and is therefore beyond the authority of the federal government to regulate.  Wyoming has the same law, but they've apparently introduced an amendment to that law which would specifically tell the feds to pack sand in the event they ban any semi-automatic firearm, or limit the magazine capacity of any firearm, to include specifying prison terms and fines for violation.  If anyone from the BATFEIEIO is reading this, you really don't want to roll into Wyoming or Montana with grandiose plans to confiscate guns from those rednecks.  You had your hands full with the Branch Davidians; I really rather doubt you'd fare better against the Montana or Wyoming National Guard. 

Text of proposed law.  Existing law is in black, changes are one-lined and written in red.

I can't speak for Texans, but Montana passed a law a few years ago stating that if a firearm is made, sold, and kept in the state of Montana, it is not part of any interstate commerce and is therefore beyond the authority of the federal government to regulate.  Wyoming has the same law, but they've apparently introduced an amendment to that law which would specifically tell the feds to pack sand in the event they ban any semi-automatic firearm, or limit the magazine capacity of any firearm, to include specifying prison terms and fines for violation.  If anyone from the BATFEIEIO is reading this, you really don't want to roll into Wyoming or Montana with grandiose plans to confiscate guns from those rednecks.  You had your hands full with the Branch Davidians; I really rather doubt you'd fare better against the Montana or Wyoming National Guard. 

Text of proposed law.  Existing law is in black, changes are one-lined and written in red.

Wow...I'm not a lawyer but that doesn't seem legal. Just curious how a state can completely disregard a federal law. I can understand challenging a federal law in court like several states did with Obamacare but this is just complete disregard. They got balls...I like their boldness.

I can't speak for Texans, but Montana passed a law a few years ago stating that if a firearm is made, sold, and kept in the state of Montana, it is not part of any interstate commerce and is therefore beyond the authority of the federal government to regulate.  Wyoming has the same law, but they've apparently introduced an amendment to that law which would specifically tell the feds to pack sand in the event they ban any semi-automatic firearm, or limit the magazine capacity of any firearm, to include specifying prison terms and fines for violation.  If anyone from the BATFEIEIO is reading this, you really don't want to roll into Wyoming or Montana with grandiose plans to confiscate guns from those rednecks.  You had your hands full with the Branch Davidians; I really rather doubt you'd fare better against the Montana or Wyoming National Guard. 

Text of proposed law.  Existing law is in black, changes are one-lined and written in red.

Wow how fortunate their state supports them. Hawaii would rat everyone out if they thought they could get more federal funding.  So sad....

Wow...I'm not a lawyer but that doesn't seem legal. Just curious how a state can completely disregard a federal law. I can understand challenging a federal law in court like several states did with Obamacare but this is just complete disregard. They got balls...I like their boldness.

Key words are:

...that is owned or manufactured commercially or privately in Wyoming and that remains exclusively within the borders of Wyoming.

The Federal Government, Constitutionally, can regulate interstate commerce.  ("Commerce Clause" US Constitution Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause)  Theoretically, anything contained within a state is to be regulated by the state.  The Commerce Clause was stretched to the extreme in 1942 when a farmer grew more wheat than he was allowed during the Great Depression, to be used within his own farm.  (Wickard V. Filburn http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn)  To make a long story short and according to my memory, it was ruled that though he was keeping the wheat for himself, he could possibly affect wheat production within his own state which could possibly affect other states, which would then be part of interstate commerce, therefore the Federal government could tell him to stop making extra wheat for his own personal use.

Laws such as these and other Firearms Freedom Acts passed by other states aren't really just about firearms.  They're mostly about taking States' Rights back from the Federal government.

...then again, IANAL, and everything just said is worth nothing.

Seems like it would be near impossible to regulate, which doesn't seem to be something high on their priority list anyway, but if they can get away with it, more power to them.