Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Two-Thirds of American Gun Owners Would “Defy” a Federal Gun Ban
TownHall ^ | Jan 26, 2013 | Leah Barkoukis

Posted on 01/26/2013 3:38:11 PM PST by EXCH54FE

It’s safe to say Feinstein, Obama and the rest of the gun control gang face an uphill battle when it comes to limiting any Second Amendment rights. According to a Fox News poll, most Americans—both Republicans and Democrats—would defy any new laws that would take away their guns.

But on to Question 47, addressed to those with a gun in their home: "If the government passed a law to take your guns, would you give up your guns or defy the law and keep your guns?"

The response: 65 percent reported they would "defy the law." That incudes 70 percent of Republicans, 68 percent of conservatives, 52 percent of Democrats and 59 percent of liberals.

The good news is that it probably won’t come to this. Analysis from Bloomberg shows that if a vote were held today, Feinstein’s proposed gun control legislation, which would prohibit the sale or transfer of an estimated 158 “assault weapons,” would fail to pass the Democrat-controlled Senate.

At least six of the 55 senators in the Democratic caucus have expressed skepticism or outright opposition to a ban, the review found. That means Democrats wouldn’t have a 51-vote majority to pass the measure, let alone the 60 needed to break a Republican filibuster to bring it to a floor vote. […]

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: guncontrol; secondamendment
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-46 next last
To: stboz

I don’t get it either.

21 posted on 01/26/2013 5:38:52 PM PST by Inyo-Mono (My greatest fear is that when I'm gone my wife will sell my guns for what I told her I paid for them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


If the country wants ANY restrictive gun laws then the ONLY method to legally achieve that goal is to go through the Amendment process. Any other law, regulation, rule is a immediate and obvious violation of “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”.

There is no legal way around this but they have been infringing on the 2nd for decades and the American public, poorly educated in unionized public schools, are so completely ignorant of the Founding documents that they are easily swayed by slick talking shyster lawyers turned politicians.

How can any law, rule, regulation possibly stand up to “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” as that is an absolute. Of all the language in the Founding documents, “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” is the most unambiguous yet we have allowed the RTKBA to be rendered almost moot.

22 posted on 01/26/2013 5:39:21 PM PST by Wurlitzer (Nothing says "ignorance" like Islam!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: redpoll
The totalitarian state we’re evolving into has learned from the crude examples of Stalin and Mao.

This is not Russia or China. They both have long histories of being subjects accustomed to being told what to do. We, for the most part, are a differeant people. Gun sales should tell you that. Obama and the 'progressives' have no idea of the hell they will unleash on themselves if they try to push this. Many people are getting truly fed up with them.

23 posted on 01/26/2013 5:41:25 PM PST by tbpiper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

There are four groups of Americans that they consider dangerous. The more of these groups you belong too, the greater the focus will be on disarming you.

1. Christians
2. Southerners
3. Whites
4. Males

24 posted on 01/26/2013 5:43:34 PM PST by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

We got what you call a `failure to communicate' with some a them pointyheaded liberals out there. What them Greek old boys used to say, `Molon labe' ... you evah heard a that? Well, it don't mean `Where does we take them.' No suh.
25 posted on 01/26/2013 5:47:31 PM PST by tumblindice (America's founding fathers: All armed conservatives.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver
It will be incremental so they can slowly gain control.

First assault weapons but nobody really cares because they are military type.

"The semi-automatic weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons — anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun — can only increase that chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons." — Josh Sugarman, 1988, Violence Policy Center.

In other words, banners like Josh (formerly one of the head honchos at the "National Coalition to ban Handguns") are depending on the ignorance of the public and continued support of the ministry of propaganda, along with the government itself, to spread the ignorance.


26 posted on 01/26/2013 5:48:20 PM PST by MarkL (Do I really look like a guy with a plan?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan


27 posted on 01/26/2013 5:48:59 PM PST by eyedigress ((zOld storm chaser from the west)/?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Greysard
Nonsense. That is a defeatist attitude.

A "primary" leader is only going to be a primary target for our enemies and will have a very short tenure. Small groups are going to be the order of the day against the government at first.

Considering the tens of millions of armed citizens in this country your one by one scenario would take several hundred years to complete, if not much longer, so that doesn't seem very realistic either.

Once the federal government goes full on tyrannical and tries to start rounding up firearms, you don't sit back and wait for them to come for you, you take the fight directly to them, and asymmetrical warfare won't be a pretty sight to say the least.

I think you underestimate the resolve of many patriots in this country.

28 posted on 01/26/2013 5:52:47 PM PST by Pox (Good Night. I expect more respect tomorrow.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: stboz

Massive, chronic, ingrained ELECTION FRAUD on the part of dems.

Google “votescam”.

Its a book by the Collier brothers. They exposed it election fraud way back around the seventies/eighties. They found that a party would rig the election by messing with the voting machines and by stealing the other party’s full ballot boxes and substituting full boxes with their party’s votes in them.

So there has been a lot of skulduggery going on for a long long time.

29 posted on 01/26/2013 5:53:13 PM PST by WildHighlander57 ((WildHighlander57 returning after lurking since 2000))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Venturer

>What will McCain, Graham , and Rubio do?<

Just make them an offer — any offer.

30 posted on 01/26/2013 5:57:57 PM PST by 353FMG ( I refuse to specify whether I am serious or sarcastic -- I respect FReepers too much.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]


Luv how honest Di Fi has been in her proposal to grab our guns, all the while exempting legislators.

Whack job.

31 posted on 01/26/2013 6:00:51 PM PST by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously, you won't live through it anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 353FMG

I feel that way too.

I will never understand how so many people who run for office can sell their integrity for the perks of office.

32 posted on 01/26/2013 6:22:01 PM PST by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Venturer

Are you sure that everyone who runs for office has integrity?

If they did, why are we in such a mess?

33 posted on 01/26/2013 6:51:19 PM PST by 353FMG ( I refuse to specify whether I am serious or sarcastic -- I respect FReepers too much.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
Note that the Supreme Court has ruled that felons cannot be required to register their guns. That would violate their 5th Amendment rights against self-incrimination.
34 posted on 01/26/2013 6:55:38 PM PST by JoeFromSidney ( New book: RESISTANCE TO TYRANNY. Buy from Amazon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


(from 1999)

More from Down Under:
Government Gun Control Monumental Failure

California is about to suffer an anti-gun assault of epic proportions. Well intended elected officials are about to do fatal harm to the republic they are supposed to serve. Public safety will be endangered because of political hubris. Facts which contradict their preconceived (ill conceived) opinions will be ignored, and people will die.

I have received some interesting e-mail in the wake of my last column regarding the monumental failure of the Australian government’s gun ban. One of the most interesting follows:

Dear Sir,

I found your web site and was very interested in your reports. In particular, the latest Australian crime stats regarding firearms. You seem to be extremely well informed on events external to the United States, and as dissemination of information is critical so those of us who still remember what freedom of the 1950’s and 60’s was really like, I have attached an item below regarding the failed attempt to reduce crime by disarming this country’s law abiding citizens and patriots under the pretext of the gun buy scheme. Just in case you haven’t see this.

Ross Darben

He included an article from the Queensland The Sunday Mail, titled “Buyback blamed for illegal trade” by a Chris Grifith dated January 24, 1999. I have rewritten Grifith’s piece and added to it.

Grifith writes “THE $500 million national gun buy-back scheme has failed, Queensland’s foremost police weapons expert says. “This report mirrors the flood of communication I have received from Australia and elsewhere in support of my earlier column. He quotes an Inspector John McCoomb as saying the new government gun laws have served as a catalyst to solidify the underground market. Inspector McCoomb is quoted as saying “Once they’re on the black market, they’re there for anyone to buy.”

I have asked dozens of Australian groups to provide me with some insight into the level of non-compliance. We know from first hand observation that the Roberti-Roos assault weapon ban in California was mostly form, and very little substance. Long on perception.....short on reality. Californians did not comply. As a result, it is unknown how many law biding Californians are now state created shake and bake outlaws”. Inspector McCoomb, who heads the Australian Weapons Licensing Branch said Australians had handed in only a fraction of the weapons in the community. Gee that sounds familiar.

It was (and is) impossible to accurately calculate how many guns there were/are in Australia. Just like it is impossible to calculate the number of illegal aliens in California. However, the 643,000 (Australian guns) that were turned in, was chump change....... it “was a mere fraction of just two brands of now illegal guns in the country.”

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

So it was actually less than 20%.

Is some dark dusty corner of the Internet is a page that talks about the final results of the California SKS confiscation “demands.”

End result was about six percent compliance. Another number that comes to mind is there were about 350 SKS’s turned in for the $230.00 “buyback.”

Keep in mind that the SKS at that time was around $100.00 and with some odd modifications AR-15’s were ok to keep.

Yet about 94% of Californians “just said NO.”

Invariably, registration leads to confiscation. Why anyone falls for the “we won’t confiscate” BS is beyond me, it is worse than Charley Brown and Lucie’s football.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

BTW, if ANYONE can find that data on the FINAL results of the California SKS ban I would very much appreciate a link. I recall it was from around 2002 or so.

35 posted on 01/26/2013 7:23:57 PM PST by TLI ( ITINERIS IMPENDEO VALHALLA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pox; cripplecreek
A "primary" leader is only going to be a primary target for our enemies and will have a very short tenure. Small groups are going to be the order of the day against the government at first.

A disorganized resistance will not be as effective as an organized one. Nobody these days (or a thousand years before) would even suggest that an army doesn't need a hierarchy of leadership. Someone has to see the large picture; the opposing side will have professionals doing that.

The purpose of the leadership is not to carry the banner in the front lines. The real goal of a leader is to help the men to do what they are supposed to do. In this situation the leader would be overseeing an intelligence network because you cannot win the conflict without knowing what your opponent is up to. Small groups (say, a group of ranchers) will be simply unable to gather that information because they are not present in cities where JBTs are sent from. At the same time, hundreds of supporters in cities, who see the deployment and perhaps even overhear the destination, do not know who in this or that area might need the notice. Who is going to build up a network of people with low power HTs and with iPhones sending coded messages? Not those ranchers, certainly; however a teenager who is familiar with technology can do it easily. A system of cells, passwords, reporting has to be established; what farmer is an expert in that? They will talk to a wrong man and the whole structure goes down.

Another very important area would be the PR war. All the misdeeds of a tyrant and his henchmen must be documented and published for the whole world to see. This is important - plenty of countries will have reasons, good or bad, to apply pressure to the dictator and to deny him the freedom of maneuver. No dictator today should be given time to send millions of citizens into concentration camps. With a smartphone in every pocket, everyone is a journalist these days. However "small groups" are not capable of presenting a coherent message to the world. They may not even have servers abroad - and that is a requirement for a successful PR campaign. Only the leadership can gather enough IT and Web specialists and establish contacts abroad, in neutral countries. A common farmer does not know how to buy a web hosting account in Sweden.

I do not deny that leaders may emerge. Probably that's the only way how leaders can be found. However the core message is that leadership is required, and the sooner it is formed - the better.

Considering the tens of millions of armed citizens in this country your one by one scenario would take several hundred years to complete, if not much longer, so that doesn't seem very realistic either.

Let's count. For example, there are 50 million people who refuse. (In reality I don't think there are so many.) Also let's presume that there is 1 million of LEOs of all kind (police, sheriff, national guard, regular troops, etc.) If each arrest takes two LEOs and 2 hours of time, each pair can do four arrests per day, or two arrests per day per LEO. That is 2 million arrests per day! The whole 50 million people will be arrested in less than one month. That is very realistic, time-wise. A better question to ask would be "where they are going to be incarcerated?" - and the answer to that plugs into the discussion above, about documenting the abuse and revealing the extent of tyranny.

I think you underestimate the resolve of many patriots in this country.

Resolve and support are orthogonal. The best fighter in the world can be lost in a forest without a map. Leadership provides maps. In an ideal case, a leader can just call for a general strike - and the whole country would grind to a halt. The tyrant would be forced to quit without any hostilities whatsoever, and it will take less than a week. A small group cannot achieve that.

You can look at AQ as an example of such a leader. They aren't leading in a good direction, but you cannot deny that they are reasonably effective in PR and in recruiting and in training. They develop and publish strategic plans, they design military actions, they procure weapons and ammo, they collect donations and put them to use. They are one of our opponents; however it would be unwise to ignore their strong aspects and disregard how they got there. Gaddhafi was controlling "small groups" for several decades; and then AQ waltzed in and conquered the whole Northern Africa in less than a year. A wise man uses every learning opportunity; that includes taking lessons from the enemy.

The command structure of "every man for himself" still may win, but the victory will be highly Pyrrhic. Organization helps reduce needless losses. Need to go to a certain city? You get a word about how to do it safely. A group needs materiel? The message will propagate until the resources are sent in. A raid is about to happen? There is nobody in the house. There is an arrest warrant on a certain person? That person disappears, and a completely different person, with different appearance and papers, materializes out of thin air 1,000 miles away. The history of the last century tells us that successful resistance networks were well organized; disorganized resistance was often wiped out.

36 posted on 01/26/2013 7:42:10 PM PST by Greysard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Pox
A "primary" leader is only going to be a primary target for our enemies and will have a very short tenure.

People seem to forget, our founders spent most of the revolution staying out of reach of the British with George Washington being an exception. However Washington didn't lead all men in battle. The militias operated largely on their own in hit and run attacks with occasional coordination with the continental army.

During some of my personal genealogy research I've found letters of an ancestor who mentioned rumors of "Washington's" army headed their way and local militia members planning to join or fight with him while he was in the area.
37 posted on 01/26/2013 8:03:09 PM PST by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee

Only 2/3?


38 posted on 01/26/2013 8:32:49 PM PST by Da Coyote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


No, they don’t want to ban them. Yet.

39 posted on 01/26/2013 9:01:57 PM PST by Blood of Tyrants (There is no requirement to show need in order to exercise your rights.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

"The proposed regulations would give local law-enforcement agencies access to the gun-sale database that is maintained by the FBI.The rules would also preserve records of denied weapons sales indefinitely."

From an article in The Hill posted on Drudge tonight. This is illegal but, hey, when you're king laws don't matter..

PA state police are also keeping an illegal database. ATF is illegally going to dealers and photocopying 4473.

Every gun bought that the owner went through a background check is "registered".

40 posted on 01/26/2013 9:09:41 PM PST by Eagles6 (Valley Forge Redux)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-46 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson