"Pause for Safety" gun confiscation act

[K.Mooneyham]

I've said this before and I'll say it again. When I was a kid, one of the things that impacted me most deeply was the episode of the BBC series "The World At War" about the mass extermination of the Jews by the Nazis. I vowed to myself, as a kid, that I would never willingly let that happen to me. I'm not a "tough guy", I have no particular fighting skills, but I will NOT be placed into a camp to starve to death, or allow myself to be tied up and shot into a mass grave. I despise ALL collectivist ideologies, including so-called "progressives" because they have zero compunction about doing those horrific things to incredible numbers of people. Nothing matters to them except their twisted dreams of "utopia" and they have an utter commitment to what they have to do in pursuit of said nightmare. History is my guidebook as to what they will do, if we let them.

[mamabearCali]

At which point they will violated the social contract they have with their people and can be removed by any means. If they don't get that pursuing this in the manner they are is setting this nation up for bloodshed then they are fools. If they do get it and think that yet again the ends justify the means....then they are simply evil.

What makes you think they're opposed to bloodshed? Have you seen their foreign policy in action?

Besides... look around. The majority want a Unified Soviet Socialist America and the scale tips further every day.

I would not be surprised....look at their actions not their words.

As for the majority wanting USSA. I think that the socialists in power have told various groups convenient lies. If you are a single mom they promise x to you. If you are black they promise y to you. If you are Hispanic they promise z. None of which do they promise to keep unless it is convenient to their ultimate goals of total control. I think very few want USSA, but they do want the goodies promised them by the socialists. That is a a danger to be sure.

[baldeagle]

If you wanted to say that we're moving toward socialism, I buy it... and agree... That's different than seeking a socialist agenda through triggering domestic blood letting within our federal government.

If you wanted to say that extreme groups call for extermination of the other side, I buy that too. I don't buy it within rational government leadership. It's the nature of "extreme". It happens on both sides of the issues if you look at the fringes. It's largely noise, until some lone wolf decides to act out.

Basically I have more realistic fears than short term mass re-education centers and a government that is actively seeking domestic blood shed. I'm much more concerned about legislation that would allow confiscation of weapons based on nothing more than heresay from an angry neighbor, for instance... Keep it at least semi-real, people...

In the interest of keeping this civil, I'll just ask you one question.

Can you name one socialist country that hasn't slaughtered hundreds of thousands or millions of its own people?

[BigGuy]

As for the majority wanting USSA. I think that the socialists in power have told various groups convenient lies. If you are a single mom they promise x to you. If you are black they promise y to you. If you are Hispanic they promise z. None of which do they promise to keep unless it is convenient to their ultimate goals of total control. I think very few want USSA, but they do want the goodies promised them by the socialists. That is a a danger to be sure.

While your postulate sounds reasonable, it seems to me that it is missing a salient point. And that is simply that more and more Americans come from a paradigm that is so alien to most of us on this board that we simply don't recognize it. In order to shorten this post, I'm going to greatly simplify my hypothesis. And that is that an increasingly urban citizenry see themselves as part of an organic society. They live in a technological anthill where they have a narrow set of proscribed duties. Their food is supplied to them by "professional" food producers. Their electricity, gas (if they use it) and water is supplied by a state agency, or state approved utility. If their apartment building catches fire, they will rely on the "professionals" to put it out and rescue them if they get trapped. If something breaks, they will take it to a "professional" to get it fixed. If they think they are in danger, they will call the police, the professionals tasked with protecting them.
Individualism, to these people, is an academic concept. It is an intellectual idea that has no real connection with their existence. Something they associate in some philosophical way with the old west, but that has no place in a modern society. These folks won't arm themselves to protect themselves against evil because that is what we have the "professionals" for. These people will vote for the government that promises to take care of them. In their world view, that is what a government is for.
As our country becomes more urban, there will be more people raised with this paradigm. They are eventually going to outvote us.
I think we have a few decades before the eventual (inevitable) fall. The political pendulum has always swung from left to right, and I think we've pegged the stop on the left and are now swinging back to the right. But each cycle seems to drag the average a little more to the left. I think we have a few more cycles before we reach the fatal breaking point.

[Syntyr]

While your postulate sounds reasonable, it seems to me that it is missing a salient point. And that is simply that more and more Americans come from a paradigm that is so alien to most of us on this board that we simply don't recognize it. In order to shorten this post, I'm going to greatly simplify my hypothesis. And that is that an increasingly urban citizenry see themselves as part of an organic society. They live in a technological anthill where they have a narrow set of proscribed duties. Their food is supplied to them by "professional" food producers. Their electricity, gas (if they use it) and water is supplied by a state agency, or state approved utility. If their apartment building catches fire, they will rely on the "professionals" to put it out and rescue them if they get trapped. If something breaks, they will take it to a "professional" to get it fixed. If they think they are in danger, they will call the police, the professionals tasked with protecting them.

This is so true. They have moved from being citizens to being subjects. They let themselves be ruled by the government class that gives them stuff and takes care of them. If we were to have a technological breakdown on a larger scale say a power outage for a couple of weeks across the nation I truly believe the death toll and devastation would be tremendous. The sheeple can't take care of themselves!

[RoyGBiv]

If you wanted to say that we're moving toward socialism, I buy it... and agree... That's different than seeking a socialist agenda through triggering domestic blood letting within our federal government.

If you wanted to say that extreme groups call for extermination of the other side, I buy that too. I don't buy it within rational government leadership. It's the nature of "extreme". It happens on both sides of the issues if you look at the fringes. It's largely noise, until some lone wolf decides to act out.

Basically I have more realistic fears than short term mass re-education centers and a government that is actively seeking domestic blood shed. I'm much more concerned about legislation that would allow confiscation of weapons based on nothing more than heresay from an angry neighbor, for instance... Keep it at least semi-real, people...

In the interest of keeping this civil, I'll just ask you one question.

Can you name one socialist country that hasn't slaughtered hundreds of thousands or millions of its own people?

Much of Western Europe is heading in that direction, but hasn't quite fully achieved it yet.
All of Scandinavia, BENELUX, France (especially France), Greece... Not quite Socialist.
They really want to be, if it wasn't for that pesky "Can't figure out how to pay for it" thing.

Soviets, Cuba, DPRK... pretty ugly.
Czech, Hungary, Poland, the Baltic States are all recovering nicely, but Ceausescu and his ilk did make a lot of people disappear.

So.... No.. I can't

We're a looooooooong way from reeducation camps here in America.
How many military sons and daughters will have the gumption to force mom and dad into a reeducation camp?
Not in my lifetime.

But..... Through the miracle of Common Core, it could possibly be accomplished in 1-2 generations.

Semper vigilans.

[Unicorn Rancher]

How many military sons and daughters will have the gumption to force mom and dad into a reeducation camp?

Their parents or somebody else's parents?

There's a fairly (in)famous photo of a US WWI veteran wearing his old uniform as he is taken into a US internment camp in 1942.

[mojo84]

Keep in mind, some of the Jews turned against other Jews hoping it would save themselves. People will do crazy things out of fear, desperation and self preservation.

[rbwhatever1]

If passed this will be abused. One might never know who complained if anyone actually did complain. I'm sure this bill will have "protections" to keep those complainers identities unknown for their own protection. My firearms will not be confiscated. This last statement could be grounds for my firearms to be confiscated. I better hide my rattlesnake flags from my liberal neighbor. (Don't really have a liberal neighbor out here, just saying...)

This type of bill violates the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments.

One can hope Texas will soon nullify all unjust Federal Laws under the 10th before Texans are forced to use the 2nd.

[VMI77]

I think VMI77's statement is accurate. The progressive leadership is well aware that they will not be the ones who force their dictate down our throats. It will be the front line men and women who are tasked to do it. The progressive leadership are cowards and are blind to what is on the horizon if they do not stop.

Anygunanywhere

This is not the same as indicating that they're pro-bloodshed.

It just occurred to me to respond in a different way.....Fast and Furious. They, the leadership, sold guns to Mexican drug cartels. They not only knew that bloodshed would result, that was the whole point, in order to facilitate their anti-gun agenda. Meanwhile, the administration is not only refusing to enforce immigration law, it is encouraging illegal immigration. The open borders that result enable the drug cartels and facilitate their "business." Drug cartels sell drugs but they produce bloodshed. It's not rocket science....if they're not pro-bloodshed why aren't they stopping the drug cartels at the border? And they obviously don't care about these children traveling from Central America on their own....a dangerous journey from which many will die....they're encouraging them to come illegally. They're calling 2nd Amendment supporters domestic terrorists and just launched a new task force to deal with them. How come they're not devoting resources to eliminating gang violence? Gang violence isn't domestic terrorism but supporting the Constitution is? They can spy on law abiding citizens but not gang bangers? They can lock down a whole city for one murdering nut job but they can't come down on MS-13?

[cb1000rider]

In the interest of keeping this civil, I'll just ask you one question.
Can you name one socialist country that hasn't slaughtered hundreds of thousands or millions of its own people?

I appreciate the civility.

Canada. :-)
I don't think we're headed toward Stalin-like Socialism.. I think we're headed toward Canada-like Socialism.
You're right, true socialist countries have pretty much proven that Socialism is only good for the elite. There is simply too much independent wealth in the US to for us to become a real socialist country.

Internment camps and such - that only works if we pick on a minority of people. I know who the minority will be in terms of demographics in the next decades, but I also know who holds all the power, wealth, and political status.. So I think that should at least "balance" for a while.

This country is increasingly polarized by two minorities - hard core conservatives and hard core liberals (for VM, we'll call them Progressives). Both groups refuse to compromise and point the finger at the other group. The vast majority of America is in the middle. It's those two extremes that are the loudest however..

[cb1000rider]

It just occurred to me to respond in a different way.....Fast and Furious. They, the leadership, sold guns to Mexican drug cartels. They not only knew that bloodshed would result, that was the whole point, in order to facilitate their anti-gun agenda.

For me, this is conspiracy theory and I don't think the sky is falling. And I get it - you can make it fit that way. Isn't it much more likely that this was a segment of the government trying to track the flow of guns to Mexico and they seriously boon-dogged it up? In other words, to me, it's much more likely that the government is simply incompetent versus having some uber-puppet master pulling strings to intentionally create more violence and pass anti-gun legislation? Is this a pretty good summary of what you're suggesting?

Sure, it's not impossible, but I need you to show me the strings before I jump to that kind of conclusion.
And before someone asks, I can't prove that there isn't a puppet master.

Meanwhile, the administration is not only refusing to enforce immigration law, it is encouraging illegal immigration. The open borders that result enable the drug cartels and facilitate their "business." Drug cartels sell drugs but they produce bloodshed. It's not rocket science....if they're not pro-bloodshed why aren't they stopping the drug cartels at the border?

OK, tell me how these policies are a drastic shift from the Regan administration? We had less border protection then and allowed a period of "amnesty'" - which the current Democratic administration is trying to trigger again. Even if you don't like the border policy, Obama has substantially increased border security staffing... Although there seems to be some border patrol guards that are running pretty loose with the law.

I can tell you exactly why we don't secure the border. It has nothing to do with a policy trying to take firearms from Americans. It has everything to do with protecting the businesses that fund politicians. Industries survive and thrive on that labor, so that keeps us looking the other way. And pretty soon, if the Republican party doesn't adjust and our demographics keep shifting, the majority of the population will want that border to be more open... Not less.

To me, this is a very dumb issue. We're again polarized by the loud extreme sides. And that prevents a realistic discussion on how we could solve it and prop up our economy.

They're calling 2nd Amendment supporters domestic terrorists and just launched a new task force to deal with them. How come they're not devoting resources to eliminating gang violence? Gang violence isn't domestic terrorism but supporting the Constitution is? They can spy on law abiding citizens but not gang bangers? They can lock down a whole city for one murdering nut job but they can't come down on MS-13?

They've condition the "sheeple" to respond to the word "terrorist". So now any administration or political faction can use that word for their own purpose. After all, who would stand up and support a "terrorist"? You can't have a rational discussion about it. You can't debate it. It's not just gun issues, it's any polarizing issue in America that has ever been associated with any type of violence.

[mamabearCali]

I don't want to live in Canada either. It is not a utopia. I know of a lady who just got out of prison after two years. What was her crime. She walked into an abortion clinic handing a crying woman a rose and began to talk with her to find out why she was making this decision. Heinous crime I tell you.

I know of several other women living close the US when they went into labor at 26/27/29 weeks instead of going where the medical care was nearly free drove the extra half an hour over the border to one of our hospitals because they would actually try to save the child.

It is cold up there and there are dangerous animals that roam in the winters. I'd like something more than bear spray if something that big is coming at me.

[ScottDLS]

... I know of several other women living close the US when they went into labor at 26/27/29 weeks instead of going where the medical care was nearly free drove the extra half an hour over the border to one of our hospitals because they would actually try to save the child.
...

They also gave their children birthright US citizenship...which I really don't have a problem with, given that Canada apparently does the same, and presuming that they lawfully entered the US. But having temporarily lived/worked in Canada and Latin America, I will agree that I much prefer the US.

[cb1000rider]

I don't want to live in Canada either. It is not a utopia. I know of a lady who just got out of prison after two years. What was her crime. She walked into an abortion clinic handing a crying woman a rose and began to talk with her to find out why she was making this decision. Heinous crime I tell you.

I'm not saying that Canadian medicine is utopia... Well, maybe with the exclusion of the prices of medicine, that I'd like to have here. I do think we're headed toward that type of system though.

In regard to your story:
So she was charged with handing a rose to a crying woman in an abortion clinic because that is a crime in Canada? Or was she arrested for trespassing on private property?

And she got 2 years for this single incident? Or she got 2 years after being arrested and going to jail 12 other times for the same thing? A judge might think that she hasn't learned her lesson.

Respectfully, at least try to tell the whole story.

I don't disagree with her actions - she has strong moral convictions and I respect and have a great deal of sympathy for what she did.. repeatedly... Strong woman. However, she didn't get 2 years for handing off a rose.