# panic you best get to thinking



## rags57078 (Jun 11, 2011)

this is a cross post

This person ( lack of a word I can say here ) has got this all figured out

Senator Feinstein looking to introduce new assault weapons ban - National Government | Examiner.com


----------



## TheThamesman (Oct 16, 2012)

"I don&#8217;t have the minutes of the meeting (yet), but sources tell me California Senator and longtime gun-hater Dianne Feinstein&#8217;s legal staff held meetings on Friday with FTB/ATF legal staff to discuss a new &#8220;Assault Weapons Ban&#8221; Madame Feinstein would be looking to push through Congress if President Obama wins reelection.

This same &#8220;pretty good intelligence&#8221; says the items that would lead to a ban would ban pistol grips and &#8220;high-capacity&#8221; magazines, eliminate any grandfathering and ban sales of &#8220;weapons in possession&#8221;."

Sounds like a whole lot of hearsay to me. Especially considering this quote was attributed to Mac Slavo. A quick google search leads me to find that he hasn't published anything in what I would consider a reputable journal. His name seems to pop up mostly on fear-mongering conspiracy websites and prepper websites. I am fine with conspiracy theorists and preppers and I love my guns. I just don't know if its time to get too worked up yet.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Sounds like a whole lot of *hearsay* to me


What if you saw it on *HER* own website?:

*



 Jul 29 2012 
Feinstein presses for assault weapons ban - San Francisco Chronicle

Click to expand...

* 
Judiciary Committee - Issues - United States Senator Dianne Feinstein


----------



## zant (Dec 1, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> What if you saw it on *HER* own website?:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Libs said it was a lie that companies were holding back on layoffs until the election-45 major companies announced layoffs TODAY.......Feinstein and the other scum tell you what they want to do.....and it's met with disbelief????:yuck:


----------



## TheThamesman (Oct 16, 2012)

I don't think that I stated that I didn't believe that Senator Fienstein doesn't want an assault weapons ban. It is pretty obvious that she does. Obama also said that he does in the town hall style debate with Romney. I was just saying that it isn't useful to get too worked up over hearsay and that the credibility of the source should be taken into account. I have heard a lot of people getting angry about the specifics of this potential bill, when I don't think we can really know those at this point. Also, I don't want a panic that will cause ammo prices to shoot through the roof.


----------



## zant (Dec 1, 2005)

TheThamesman said:


> I don't think that I stated that I didn't believe that Senator Fienstein doesn't want an assault weapons ban. It is pretty obvious that she does. Obama also said that he does in the town hall style debate with Romney. I was just saying that it isn't useful to get too worked up over hearsay and that the credibility of the source should be taken into account. I have heard a lot of people getting angry about the specifics of this potential bill, when I don't think we can really know those at this point. Also, I don't want a panic that will cause ammo prices to shoot through the roof.


You're too late..just relecting fascism has already started "panic buying"...sad but true..


----------



## TheThamesman (Oct 16, 2012)

I had to make that last post a little hastily. I don't have any edits for it, I just wanted to add that I also think that panic and hoarding may also not be the best reaction. If people disagree with the assault weapons so vehemently they should write their government representatives and let them know how they feel. A forum like this would be a great place to advertise this kind of action as well.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> have heard a lot of people getting angry about *the specifics* of this potential bill, when *I don't think we can really know those at this point*. Also, I don't want a panic that will cause ammo prices to shoot through the roof


Just what specifics do you require beyond *"ban*"?
The buying "panic" has been going on 4 years now already


> If people disagree with the assault weapons so vehemently they should write their government representatives and let them know how they feel.


75% of the people didn't want Obamacare, but they passed it anyway


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

I can't see it being real... 

Could you imagine the sheer size of the undertaking of taking all those weapons? Yes, a few people would turns theirs in, but mostly this law would turn a huge majority of people into criminals who have been law abiding citizens up to that point. I would NEVER willingly give up one of my legal weapons that was suddenly made illegal. I would bet most gun owners feel the same as I do about that.

To top it off, before they could come in your house to search for any new illegal weapons, they would have to get a warrant.. and could you imagine how big a chore that would be to get a warrant for every home in the country? Could you imagine the backlash the people of this country would put up?

I just can't see this as being real... And even if they tried, I'd LIKE to think there were politicians out there smart enough to know it wouldn't be a good thing to vote for.... However, I bet I would be disappointed in assuming even one would be smart enough to figure it out though..


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

All they have to do is make it a felony to own guns
If you are caught with one, Obamaco seizes your property, bank accounts, etc.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

simi-steading said:


> *I can't see it being real...*
> 
> *Could you imagine the sheer size of the undertaking of taking all those weapons?* Yes, a few people would turns theirs in, but mostly this law would turn a huge majority of people into criminals who have been law abiding citizens up to that point. I would NEVER willingly give up one of my legal weapons that was suddenly made illegal. I would bet most gun owners feel the same as I do about that.
> 
> ...


So tell me how Australia or the UK did it?

Most people wouldn't fight it, they would just give up.. There would only be individual backlash and no coordinated effort, because the Government would have control over any large org that might try to fight it..


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

Cornhusker said:


> All they have to do is make it a felony to own guns
> If you are caught with one, Obamaco seizes your property, bank accounts, etc.


Yeah, they could do that.. but what good would half the country becoming felons be? I know way too many gun owners that think like I do concerning making my legal weapons illegal... they won't give them up... .You just can't expect a country would agree with not grandfathering your current weapons.... It would be a suicide move for congress..... literally


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

simi-steading said:


> Yeah, they could do that.. but what good would half the country becoming felons be? I know way too many gun owners that think like I do concerning making my legal weapons illegal... they won't give them up... .You just can't expect a country would agree with not grandfathering your current weapons.... It would be a suicide move for congress..... literally


You can/may lose your Right to vote!

So as the number of folks who support the 2A dwindles, more control over guns continues..

Made to look perfectly legal by the vote..


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

It is a little naive to think if a gun ban was enacted people wouldn't meekly follow the law...it happens now,people meekly follow a stupid law because,well,it's the law.


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

could be oz.. but I also think it's pretty naive for Unkle to think so many gun owners would get in line.. 

It's not only about taking your guns, it's about taking all the money you paid for those guns, and for a lot for people out there, that could be tens of thousands of dollars... 

So if they do this, would they pay fair market value, just like they do when they take your land through eminent domain? (HA, fair value...)


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

The Australian Government paid for the guns turned in.
Same could happen here,a grace period where you get paid,then confiscation.

There is also the matter that even if you didn't turn your ''assault weapon'' in,what are you going to do with it,hide it in the closet never to shoot it in public again without the worry of being arrested?

You would own something you couldn't go to the range with,you couldn't sell legally,you couldn't buy parts for,you couldn't buy magazines for...


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

I don't go to a range, so it would be of no worry to me... I take mine to the country... and it's not for sale, and even if a gun is illegal, it doesn't mean parts are... got plenty of mags... 

Just as I would imagine most gun owners with these kinds of weapons would be able to answer above as i have.


and one other thought.. I know more than one person that has machine tools, such as lathes and mills... you can make any part you'd need... as i'm sure a lot of other gun owners could too.. 

One of my weapons, all I have to do is swap out the stock, make sure it's got a fixed mag on it, and it's no longer the definition of an assault weapon...


----------



## zant (Dec 1, 2005)

The most civilized country on earth(in the 30s) turned 6 million into ash....with only 9% of the countrys population belonging to the party in power...believe what you want but probably 40% of the people on THIS forum would turn you in to save their miserable lives.Reality sucks but it's real


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

simi-steading said:


> I don't go to a range, so it would be of no worry to me... I take mine to the country...


I live in the country,all around me you can hear gunfire at various times,I have also heard rapid fire/automatic fire on occasion(live in a semi-free state),that said,if a gun ban came about,such firing would lead to law enforcement showing up....and then you either are arrested,run away or fight.



> and it's not for sale, and even if a gun is illegal, it doesn't mean parts are... got plenty of mags...


Actually it would mean that,there would be no need for the parts for something that is illegal.



> Just as I would imagine most gun owners with these kinds of weapons would be able to answer above as i have.


I am one of those gun owners,I own nothing BUT assault weapons...



> and one other thought.. I know more than one person that has machine tools, such as lathes and mills... you can make any part you'd need... as i'm sure a lot of other gun owners could too..


Very true,and such a person would spend his life in prison if he made an illegal weapon.



> One of my weapons, all I have to do is swap out the stock, make sure it's got a fixed mag on it, and it's no longer the definition of an assault weapon...


The BATFE would most likely decide what is or isn't legal,just as they do now.

This being the same agency that ruled a shoestring can be considered an automatic weapon if used with a semi-auto firearm.


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

hhhmmm... so holding onto your beltloop and using a recoil action for fast fire would be illegal too?

I get that people are worried about this, but I think it would be VERY hard to push through. There are still a lot of politicians in congress that believe in the second amendment. 

One other thing I'm thinking of here.... Do you think Ruger would stand around quietly as Unkle made one of their best selling firearms illegal? If you look at what is being said they want to do, it would pretty much make a 10/22 illegal.. and how many millions of those are there out there?

Yeah, I worry about them coming to take my guns, but I also look at the second amendment, and why it states we can keep our weapons... To many gun owners, if that right is infringed, they are being told by the second amendment they have the right to protect that freedom of keeping their firearms.

Personally, I think this country would break out shooting at a lot of people if they came to take their guns... A country of people can only be pushed so far until they say ENOUGH! I think telling the people of the US we're coming to take your guns, most would finally grow a pair and stand up and fight. Especially if the economy is tanking like it is, and will keep doing...

I know politicians aren't very bright, but I still think they are smart enough not to tell a very heavily armed nation they are coming to take our guns.

I can easily see them outlawing sales of new "assault" weapons, and the manufacture and importation of them, but I just can't see them outlawing what is already out there... We've been here before.. and they grandfathered what was already out there.. they knew better than not to..


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

simi-steading said:


> hhhmmm... so holding onto your beltloop and using a recoil action for fast fire would be illegal too?


It would be up to the BATFE to decide.




> I get that people are worried about this, but I think it would be VERY hard to push through. There are still a lot of politicians in congress that believe in the second amendment.


Not that many,the last two Repub candidates believed in more gun control.



> One other thing I'm thinking of here.... Do you think Ruger would stand around quietly as Unkle made one of their best selling firearms illegal? If you look at what is being said they want to do, it would pretty much make a 10/22 illegal.. and how many millions of those are there out there?


Interesting you chose Ruger,ever wonder why high capacity factory magazines used to be difficult to find for the 10/22?
Because they were illegal.
Ruger actually decided on it's own to NOT sell high cap mags to the public for the Mini14/30 rifles...



> Yeah, I worry about them coming to take my guns, but I also look at the second amendment, and why it states we can keep our weapons... To many gun owners, if that right is infringed, they are being told by the second amendment they have the right to protect that freedom of keeping their firearms.


You mean like how those rights are infringed in NY,MA,CT,CA,MI,etc,etc?
And gun owners there just grumble and accept it.



> Personally, I think this country would break out shooting at a lot of people if they came to take their guns... A country of people can only be pushed so far until they say ENOUGH! I think telling the people of the US we're coming to take your guns, most would finally grow a pair and stand up and fight.


As long as TV and beer is still available,most won't care.
During the AWB years,certain gun magazines and hunting gun owners supported the ban as it wasn't THEIR guns being banned....

Divide and conquer.


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

My understanding is, they want all guns with detachable mags banned? If not, OK, cool.. I can keep all my weapons then... I just change a stock here and there, and put a non detachable on... 

Can you still keep your weapon that can use stripper clips? Those load fast... 

I'd still hate to walk up on a guy that has a 22 with a tube feed semi-auto.. he can do as much damage to a guy as someone with a glock 9.

Anyway, this back and forth isn't fixing the problem... I still personally think what is going to fix the problem of this becoming reality is for people to stand up and say we've had enough. I still personally believe this would be the tipping point.

There's millions of "assault" weapons out there, and the majority of those that own those kinds of weapons are the kind of people who highly believe in their right to own them. I don't think the majority would go quietly.

all I know is if they start coming door to door, I'm gonna keep my head down, because I really do believe there's going to be a lot of stray lead flying around.


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

Here is how it worked in Australia.

The gun ban was enacted.
People had 'x' amount of time to turn in the now illegal guns to receive compensation,after that grace period,you were a criminal.

Pump action/semi auto shotguns were illegal,but not single or double barrels.
Then an exception was made for a certain model pump action that was used in cowboy action shooting.

Semi auto rifles were banned,but you can own a lever action.

Pistols were always restricted,but have become even more difficult to own.

The gun list was arbitrary and made little sense,but then gun laws rarely if ever do make sense.


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

OK.. so reading up on this a bit, it looks to be the same as what they hid in a bill back in June I think it was.... Here's the jest of it.. 

_*....says the items that would lead to a ban would ban pistol grips and &#8220;high-capacity&#8221; magazines, eliminate any grandfathering and ban sales of &#8220;weapons in possession&#8221;. *_

So where is this saying they will be coming from them.. from the way I am reading what is out there concerning this, the grandfather part is saying weapons we own will also not be able to be sold.. Not that they can come get them.

If this is the case, I'm not worried.. I got all I need and want. I have no plans to sell any of my firearms... the only people it appears it would really effect are manufacturers, dealers, and collectors.


----------



## TNHermit (Jul 14, 2005)

zant said:


> Libs said it was a lie that companies were holding back on layoffs until the election-45 major companies announced layoffs TODAY.......Feinstein and the other scum tell you what they want to do.....and it's met with disbelief????:yuck:


It just may be we don't know how many propagandist have been left behind to dissuade you and make the regime look good


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

Maybe Feinstein needs to go read this, and ask Australia how that ban is working out for them.. 

AUSTRALIA: MORE VIOLENT CRIME DESPITE GUN BAN


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

Gun control isn't about stopping crime,it is about control.

Laws are almost always about control,not making things better or solving a problem.


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

I agree oz.. it's about teaching lockstep... 

I can almost bet you though, if China one day decided they wanted to sail a few boats across the lake and unleash some troops over there on Feinstein's front stoop, she's gonna wish she would have thought a little deeper about what it is she wants to do.. 

It's going to be those neighbors of hers that are going to be on the front lines, and if I know "assault" weapon owners like I think I do, many of them will enjoy the chance to get to put their weapons into commission.

I like how she says military style weapons have no place on the streets... She really does need to go back and read the second amendment and stop and think about it a second.. A militia would be military... and that would mean they would need military style weapons to be worthy of putting up a fight... Well regulated doesn't mean giving them BB guns... 

Eh.. it's a losing argument... you can't talk sense into a politician, but I do think most politicians have enough sense to know way too many people won't be giving up their suddenly illegal weapons without people dying..


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> but I do think most politicians have enough sense to know way too many people won't be giving up their suddenly illegal weapons without people dying..


They passed a ban before, and will try to do so again.
I predicted months ago you'd see a rash of mass shootings before the election, and they have happened every few weeks since then.

*Don't underestimate* what these people will try to do


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

Yes, they had a ban before, but they didn't come knocking trying to take guns that were suddenly illegal. Not sure they would this time either. All I'm seeing is they are saying you couldn't resell what you have that would now be considered illegal.


----------



## zant (Dec 1, 2005)

simi-steading said:


> Yes, they had a ban before, but they didn't come knocking trying to take guns that were suddenly illegal. Not sure they would this time either. All I'm seeing is they are saying you couldn't resell what you have that would now be considered illegal.


You are saying it would be illegal to sell a legally manufactured mechanical tool, because of a mental desease known as Hoplophobia , that was purchased 1-3-5-10-20 years ago??


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

I'm just stating what I read Zant.. that the bill they are looking at says "no sales of weapons in possession"

Maybe trading for gold? wouldn't be a sale...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Maybe trading for gold? wouldn't be a sale...


Any *transfer* would be a "sale"


----------



## Jim-mi (May 15, 2002)

It is also very goofy thinking that they will go for individual "warrants" . .or that they would make their knuckles sore from "knocking" on a door.


----------



## Jim-mi (May 15, 2002)

Just got a call from the nra . . .Wayne says, among other things, that the Owe wants to nullify ALL right to carry laws.............

Scary thing is he could do it with a EO................


----------



## unioncreek (Jun 18, 2002)

People get all up in the air when someone mention a ban. But to me we should be looking more at making sure they don't ban or stop selling to the public the component to make ammo. It would be far easier to stop the sale of bullets than firearms. 

Bob


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

Don't get me wrong, this isn't in any way a threat. However, knowing human nature, if any law was passed mandating the confiscation of guns the pols who voted for it would need 24/7 protection. If they haven't figured that out, good luck to them.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

Ozarks Tom said:


> Don't get me wrong, this isn't in any way a threat. However, knowing human nature, if any law was passed mandating the confiscation of guns the pols who voted for it would need 24/7 protection. If they haven't figured that out, good luck to them.


I have to ask this again in this thread..
What happened in Australia & the UK..

They didn't go around shooting the scum politicos after they passed a ban...
What makes you think it will happen here?
Remember about half of the people in this country voted for Obama..
If it is true what liberals tell us, that they own guns too, that means that half of them have already voted and technically are in favor of a ban just by supporting the Dems..

So that only leaves half of us gun owners..

So tell me again how gun owners will stand up to a gun ban?

Sorry there will only be a few of us who may stand up.. But they will be few and far between..


----------



## unioncreek (Jun 18, 2002)

Wife and I were just discussing that last night. And I totally agree. If I was in congress I would be worried.

Bob


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

Gun owners will try to hide their guns (some will anyway) but I seriously doubt very few would be willing to face a military firefight, especially when all the govt has to do is send a drone to drop a grenade on your location. I really can't say what I will do when faced with that situation. 

Sorry but IMO we're looking more and more like pre Nazi Germany every day.


----------



## zant (Dec 1, 2005)

Sure,big bad Uncle Sam can go after an isolated owner or 2 but if 100 or 1000 all break out at once??Remember our military has'nt pacified Iraq or Afghanistan yet after 11yrs.....and we have MUCH BETTER material sources in every town to create some VERY interesting objects....But I have no problem as a good citizen following the law....just the order things are given is important...


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

zant, you give me hope. Guess I'll keep on stocking.


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

Danaus29 said:


> Gun owners will try to hide their guns (some will anyway) but I seriously doubt very few would be willing to face a military firefight, especially when all the govt has to do is send a drone to drop a grenade on your location. I really can't say what I will do when faced with that situation.
> 
> Sorry but IMO we're looking more and more like pre Nazi Germany every day.


Then you might as well fight when the time comes.

In a armed revolt scenario,I would never CHOOSE to go toe to toe with a well armed enemy force.

I would disrupt power supply,cut communications,destroy soft targets and generally be a pain in the butt.


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

oz in SC V2.0 said:


> Then you might as well fight when the time comes.
> 
> In a armed revolt scenario,I would never CHOOSE to go toe to toe with a well armed enemy force.
> 
> I would disrupt power supply,cut communications,destroy soft targets and generally be a pain in the butt.


A lot of people call the French cowards, but that's pretty much what the French Resistance did, and were pretty successful at it too..


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

oz in SC V2.0 said:


> Then you might as well fight when the time comes.
> 
> and generally be a pain in the butt.


Now THAT I can do! I am great at being a pain in the backside.


----------



## Jim-mi (May 15, 2002)

Stop and think about the big difference of the Jewish people of the WW2 area and Joe *******'s of America to day. . . . . .
That difference is having fire sticks that are able to reach out great distances and do great damage........

Many coupled together = many pains in many backsides......

just sayin


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> if any law was passed mandating the confiscation of guns the pols who voted for it would need 24/7 protection.


They have that already


----------



## unioncreek (Jun 18, 2002)

I would say that if it came to military action that we wouldn't be fighting our military it would be UN soldiers. I read a book a long time ago that said this and I thought it was nonsense at the time, but now I can believe it.

Bob


----------

