Gun Confiscation = Civil War?

Post Reply New Topic

But with the assassinations of the Kennedy brothers, and MLK, the fingerprints of intelligence couldn't be wiped away adequately (Oswald's alleged Soviet Union defection and association with CIA connected Anti-Castro fanatics in New Orleans, James Earl Ray's apparently arranged passports and false identities, etc.). I see nothing of the sort with Holmes and Lanza.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Ladies and gentlemen, we are for getting one key factor here...James Holmes is still alive. If the Colorado shooting was some false flag conspiracy, he would have been dealt with as a "loose end".

Absolutely. A "concerned citizen" in the mold of Jack Ruby would have popped him before he could talk.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

We have some partial good news from the boston herald today about mental health,disability and gun ownership.and for those on this forum who find me anoying and take my posts out of context.i emphasize "partial good news"


massachustts law enforcement wants access to mental health records for processing gun lisences.
but here is the good news.

if someone with autism,depresion or whatever is working with a doctor and taking there medication,disability is no bar to gun ownership

i know this is only massachusetts but mass has just about the toughest gun laws in the nation.if this is the most mass will do i would imagine other states would be more lenient.to clarify im not saying i support more guns but if this is the worst even the" people's republic" (as they say in mass) will do,that isnt to to bad

If that turns out to be the case, I wonder would there be retroactive legislation on the weapons that originally fell under the "grandfather clause?" I could see a legal nightmare ensuing with all the new forms, notifications to people to forfeit possession under penalty of law and the beat cops that would have to locate everyone and confiscate the firearms. I personally don't see it working smoothly. In the end, I don't care one way or another. If I have to surrender them, I will. I like the idea of not having to be in a cage deprived of Internet access, industrial music and most importantly TACOS too much. Hopefully, they'd be nice enough to give you a voucher for turning them in, so as to at least recoup some of the money (an M2 from prior to 1986, a Soviet-era AK-47 and a FlaK are quite expensive). Frankly, I'm tired of hearing people drone on about how our President is so evil and how he wants to run the country like a dictatorship...

i dont think it will come to that.the talk in boston is only an semi auto ban on people with a mental heath history who are not involved with a good doctor.i doubt with a republican house obama will go left of massachusetts

The answer is no. Gun crime has actually gone down across the board. "Assault weapons" are pretty irrelevant as far crime goes, even if there was a rise in some places it would probably be more related to the recession. Random shootings are such aberrations, it's hard to measure but the most notable school shooting of all time happened during the AWB.

As for Al Qaeda, if we want to prevent Al Qaeda from receiving guns then we probably should stop directly arming them.

Allowing the riots to largely burn out was a good idea (for police) given the alternative was to send in troops and crush it, which would play into their hands and ignite more resistance....

Last edited by Warsie on 20 Dec 2012, 5:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

LOL. The average dude in USSR had a weapon and knew how to use it due to the civil war. Hell, there's a bunch of WWII era weapons in a bunch of Soviet bloc countries I believe that the USSR & allied government didnt really care to put up.

Hell, Hitler came out of a bunch of right-wing militias and revived the concept later on in WWII.

China Cambodia did not have as many weapons anyway, lol

That will probably meet resistance in court from the mental health community, both advocates and professionals alike.

resiatence in what direction resistence to new gun laws or mental health profesionals not wanting patience to have guns

So what you're saying is, mental health professionals would challenge a law allowing people on meds to buy guns. That's reasonable. They can buy guns after passing through withdrawal. Yes, the recent killer
has AS, but he was on meds, and had a personality disorder. At least half of mass shootings are caused by people on meds, not simply by "assault weapons" with high capacity magazines.

Now, challenging a law allowing for the arming of unmedicated aspies would be a different story.

in massachusetts your towns police chief decides who get a mass FID card.the second amendment forces the chief of police to give a class c and class b fid to anyone who isnt a felon.the class A fid is at the chief of police and investigating detetives discretion.the second amendment doesnt give you the right to conceal the weapon.if new law takes affect the 2nd amendment would force the chief to give the class C and class B to anyone taking needed responability for there mental health.doctors would have no say ones gun eligability.the cheif would asign a detective to investigate if person is taken responablity for there mental health.

detectives would investigate if one was seeing a doctor and taking meds if needed and then simply reporting the facts back the the chief of police.the doctors would have no say unless one was imediatley homocidal or suicidal.the doctor cant lie because then the police would wonder why they wernt commited

what is a massachusetts firearms inentification card.

class C to own a long gun with a magazine of 6 or less rounds.to keep a pistol in you house but it must be transported to shooting range in a locked case.

class B to carry a visable hostered pistol

class A to conceal a pistol or own a semi auto rifle or shotgun with a magazine capasity of more then 6 round.like a AR15.mass doesnt consider a class A fid a second amendment right