Universal background checks Dems' top priority

  • Thread starter Thread starter Theo520
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Pick up that can citizen, you don’t get to decide what bad governance is.
 
Sorry, it’s a common phrase over on a gun forum. Basically the authority figure (government) kicks a can over and tells someone to pick it up and not complain or entertain thoughts of being equal to the government men.

knowyourmeme.com

Pick Up That Can

Pick Up That Can is a memorable scene form the 2004 video game Half-Life 2 in which a Combine officer drops an aluminum can onto the floor and forces the p
knowyourmeme.com knowyourmeme.com
 
Theo520 said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
Stockpiling guns to oppose the police is not one we should be talking about.
Click to expand...
why?
Has free speech been revoked, or are you afraid they are monitoring your communications?
Click to expand...
I said we should not be talking about stockpiling guns against the government. I did not say we are not allowed to do so.
After WW2 there actually was an uprising in one county against a corrupt local government. I wish I could recall the name. The rebellion in that case was greately aided by experienced WW2 vets.
Click to expand...
The rebellion you mentioned would not have turned out any different if guns were registered. And that rebellion certainly did not meet the conditions of CCC 2243 which states when an armed rebellion is morally justified.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
That proves my point. Stockpiling weapons and keeping them unregistered is not necessary.
Click to expand...
Maybe the armory will be better guarded next time, why take that risk when you have the right to arm yourself?

And a corrupt local governance could easily trump up justification to collect your registered weapons, if they felt you were a threat or a leader in dissent.
 
Theo520 said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
That proves my point. Stockpiling weapons and keeping them unregistered is not necessary.
Click to expand...
Maybe the armory will be better guarded next time, why take that risk when you have the right to arm yourself?

And a corrupt local governance could easily trump up justification to collect your registered weapons, if they felt you were a threat or a leader in dissent.
Click to expand...
Maybe, maybe, maybe. Maybe this could have all been avoided by reporting them to the feds.
 
Well the good news is, I highly doubt any gun control is going to be passed. They might get the ATF to ban bumpstocks, but that’s probably it. Nothing is coming out of congress.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Regardless of the proportion of the military that joined in the rebellion, the chances that an unorganized bunch of gun-worshippers making a difference in the outcome is nearly zero. Also the chance of an armed rebellion arising in your lifetime is nearly zero. Also also, the chance that such a rebellion would be justified by the Catechism paragraph 2243 is nearly zero. So all told, your have zero x zero x zero chance that having a gun in case of a rebellion is a good thing.
Click to expand...
In your mind perhaps, but those who study military (and therefore world) history know better.

Armed rebellions are occuring every day as people fight to throw off oppressive regimes. I assume you mean the chance of armed rebellion within the United States in our lifetimes is nearly zero…I disagree on that as well. Our society is coming apart, just look at the hatred, condemnation, and disrespect that many of us Catholics have for each other here on these boards. These sentiments are prevalent in many parts of our country and is reflected in our elected officials attitudes as well (“You Lie!”, “Bitter gun and bible clingers”, “deplorables”, “Obama is a muslim”, etc). When our society/culture/federalism comes apart, and it will some day…what will that look like? Best example we can look to is the recent fall of another super-power: The Soviet Union. In 1986 NOBODY, and I mean NOBODY thought the Soviet Union was going to fail. Yet by 1989 the wall was coming down and the Soviet Union was falling apart. The military broke into factions and the world held its breath hoping that the residual federal government would maintain control of it’s nukes (they barely did, with the brand-new yet ill-defined nation of Ukraine almost getting a LOT of tactical nukes). Suddenly the all-powerful federal government was virtually gone, replaced with a power-structure that was tribal.

What would happen if the United States Government failed? What if our debtors suddenly realized that there is absolutely no way we will ever pay off $20 TRILLION of debt? Do we print more money and devalue our currrency like Venezuela? Do we just fold up and “restructure” our debts? Nobody knows exactly what it looks like, but looking back at the fall off the Soviet Union it will certainly be chaotic with a LOT of intersectional violence.

What are the chances of this happening in our lifetime? I don’t know, but it’s nowhere NEAR zero like you presume.
 
niceatheist said:
Assuming the US military stayed loyal to the President, all the gun owners in America would still end up being little more than a very large insurrection, and while it might be able to fight some sort of guerrilla campaign like the Spanish partisans did in the Peninsular War, it would have no hope of any real victory.
Click to expand...
Guerrilla warfare is not aimed at military victory, it’s aimed at political victory (which is the actual aim of all military endeavors) through the influence on the population, including the military.

Yes, if a few extreme right or left winters decided to revolt, they would be quickly put down. There are many examples of this, from Berkeley to Ruby Ridge.

But what if it grew? What if California seceded? The Feds might ignore that for a while like we did during the beginning of the Civil War…but what if then eastern CA seceeded from coastal CA, and Sacramento devolved into rioting/sectional warfare between the two parties? Who would the California National Guard work for? Would we send in federal troops? Would federal troops fire on California National Guardsmen??

We can descend into chaos relatively quickly.
 
Boatswain2PA said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
Regardless of the proportion of the military that joined in the rebellion, the chances that an unorganized bunch of gun-worshippers making a difference in the outcome is nearly zero. Also the chance of an armed rebellion arising in your lifetime is nearly zero. Also also, the chance that such a rebellion would be justified by the Catechism paragraph 2243 is nearly zero. So all told, your have zero x zero x zero chance that having a gun in case of a rebellion is a good thing.
Click to expand...
In your mind perhaps, but those who study military (and therefore world) history know better.

Armed rebellions are occuring every day as people fight to throw off oppressive regimes. I assume you mean the chance of armed rebellion within the United States in our lifetimes is nearly zero…I disagree on that as well. Our society is coming apart, just look at the hatred, condemnation, and disrespect that many of us Catholics have for each other here on these boards. These sentiments are prevalent in many parts of our country and is reflected in our elected officials attitudes as well (“You Lie!”, “Bitter gun and bible clingers”, “deplorables”, “Obama is a muslim”, etc). When our society/culture/federalism comes apart, and it will some day…what will that look like? Best example we can look to is the recent fall of another super-power: The Soviet Union. In 1986 NOBODY, and I mean NOBODY thought the Soviet Union was going to fail. Yet by 1989 the wall was coming down and the Soviet Union was falling apart. The military broke into factions and the world held its breath hoping that the residual federal government would maintain control of it’s nukes (they barely did, with the brand-new yet ill-defined nation of Ukraine almost getting a LOT of tactical nukes). Suddenly the all-powerful federal government was virtually gone, replaced with a power-structure that was tribal.

What would happen if the United States Government failed? What if our debtors suddenly realized that there is absolutely no way we will ever pay off $20 TRILLION of debt? Do we print more money and devalue our currrency like Venezuela? Do we just fold up and “restructure” our debts? Nobody knows exactly what it looks like, but looking back at the fall off the Soviet Union it will certainly be chaotic with a LOT of intersectional violence.

What are the chances of this happening in our lifetime? I don’t know, but it’s nowhere NEAR zero like you presume.
Click to expand...
The outcome you describe is so horrific that one would think it in everyone’s interest to prevent such a conflict rather than to ensure that one triumphs in such a conflict. But I would be interested in hearing what you have to say about how CCC 2243 applies to this situation.
 
ChunkMonk:
It’s all leading up to a blanket ban.
Click to expand...
.

Imachine:
I’m praying every day for this.
Click to expand...
.

Thank you Imachine for admitting this.

For others, this is what I have been saying.

Another rule here, or yet another law there, are all just portions of incrementalism.

It is an incremental approach to a total disarmament of our law-abiding citizenry.

And to our law enforcement friends here . . . these gun-grabbing people want to disarm you too.

Unless you guard one of their demi-gods YOU TOO will be unarmed. (Obama’s “Security Detail” will never be disarmed. Nor should it be.)

Then when you retire, sooner or later they will disarm YOU TOO. Yes the perps will still be a risk to you guys and a risk to our good retired judges, and our good retired attorneys.

Robert J. O’Neill killed Bin Laden. Do you think O’Neill is allowed to carry if he goes into New York City? No! But its been reported that the bad guys still have a “contract” out on Mr. O’Neill.

Defenseless.

The PRINCIPLES used here, sooner or later will call for disarming YOU guys too.

After you spend a career-of-great-risk (risk for you AND your loved ones–just look at Mexico) putting the bad guys away, and then you retire, they will insist upon disarming you too.

Good guys are not going to want to go into law enforcement (because the risk will be greater and greater to you and your family with kidnappings, and retribution).

And everyone will sit around wondering why our law enforcement community has turned into “Mexico”.

Everyone will sit around trying to figure out why our law enforcement community has fallen into rampant corruption (because we will be missing so many of the good guys).

Disarming you, even though MUCH of the risks in law enforcement from these same bad guys REMAIN even AFTER you retire.

Sooner or later they’ll find a pretext to overturn the LEOSA.
 
Last edited:
Yep. Which is why I oppose all measures. It’s never an end game. It’s always another step towards full illegality and confiscation.
 
Sooner or later they’ll find a pretext to overturn the LEOSA.

From Wkipedia . . .
Some officials, such as in New Jersey, believe that a retired officer residing in NJ must still obtain a state issued permit[6] in order to be eligible to carry a firearm under LEOSA, in effect nullifying LEOSA.
Click to expand...
en.m.wikipedia.org

Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org en.m.wikipedia.org

Also. . . .

www.foxnews.com

Arcane NJ law prevents retired cops from carrying concealed weapon

New Jersey’s arcane gun law is preventing some retired cops from getting a permit to carry concealed weapons, according to a published report.
www.foxnews.com www.foxnews.com

This could be challenged in court (so long as the LEOSA is still in effect), but at great expense to YOU officers that it may effect.

This will add to law enforcement corruption.

The GOOD guys who want to pusue law-enforcement are not going to be willing to subject not only themselves, but their families to these extra risks (so they will proverbially stay home. These good people will forego a law enforcement career due to continuing unreasonable risks to their loved-ones and themselves. Less good judges and attorneys too.).

The BAD guys who want to pusue law-enforcement are not going to be willing to subject not only themselves, but their families to these extra risks either (so they will GAME the system).

And the USA will wonder how we ended up with a corrupt Mexican criminal justice system of haves and have-nots, special payouts, people using their power to kill their personal enemies, an alliance-involvement of law enforcement with crime syndicates, etc. etc.
 
Last edited:
JanSobieskiIII said:
Yep. Which is why I oppose all measures. It’s never an end game. It’s always another step towards full illegality and confiscation.
Click to expand...
What I find disturbing is the blatant dishonesty when they claim confiscation isn’t their end goal.
One month the person admits it and then later they flop tactics and claim that was never the goal.
They keep flopping back and forth, like we have no memory of what they’ve already said.

It’s the lack of integrity on their part, indicating you can’t really trust the other party, in likely any situation or discussion.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
The outcome you describe is so horrific that one would think it in everyone’s interest to prevent such a conflict rather than to ensure that one triumphs in such a conflict. But I would be interested in hearing what you have to say about how CCC 2243 applies to this situation.
Click to expand...
Nobody wants to prevent war more than someone whose studied it and lived it. However we also know there are things worse than war, such as enslavement under tyranny. 2243 sounds right to me, and doesn’t preclude anything I have said.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
And that rebellion certainly did not meet the conditions of CCC 2243 which states when an armed rebellion is morally justified.
Click to expand...
Again, your understanding of rebellion/revolution/and guerrilla warfare is severely lacking.

Revolutions start slow. Our revolution didn’t start in 1776, it started decades earlier. CC 2243 certainly wasn’t met in 1750s, and likely wasn’t in 1776…but probably was by 1777 or so. Why? Because the guerilla war made the government impose more tyranny, which caused more revolution, which caused more tyranny.

Millions of Americans won’t give up our guns. If Imachine got his way and we suddenly became criminals, then the government would have to come for us. How draconian would that look like? Are we going to have a Waco style assault on every block? Few of those assaults suddenly the middle-of-the roaders are gonna decide the governments gone too far.

I’m not sure what you teach, but I hope it’s not history.
 
Last edited:
Lev said:
But that is not what the 2nd amendment specifies. It specifically specifies identity as a ‘militia’ in service to the security of the free state.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’
Click to expand...
No where does it say that the “militia” is a part of the State or a state. That’s something you’re inferring that is largely contradicted by the authors of the Constitution.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top