American Conspiracy

[shaun]

Why not here in a repressed country in which we are becoming? The other thought is, having a bullet-less country will led to a anemic American population of gun owners if gun control isn't  able to be implemented. American guns owners together are probably the largest standing army in the world.

Chris I decided to start a thread over here to answer your comment.  We will never have a bullet-less society.  There are too many Americans who make their own ammo.  It is way to easy to get lead and gun powder.  The underground market that would spring up would stagger your mind.

[Robertt S]

   

[Vince G]

This all has to do with one thing that has been twisted to something different and then spun into own agendas.

The Fact: Congress is deciding on allowing branches of the government (except military) to "overspend" on unneeded ammo ending in stockpiling.

The Conspiracy:
The government is buying all the ammo.

The government is giving the ammo to other countries

The government is secretly un-arming citizens by stockpiling ammo supplies

The government is… You can add any other sited, knowledge of, congressman said, found documents or anything else some tinfoil hat wrote on the internet as a true story here. He read it on the internet so must be true.

[Vince G]

The Fact, The Conspiracy, and the Truth.

I was a NRA (NRA - National Rifle Association) member a long time ago. When the Brady bill was introduced, daily notices came from the NRA. Must read immediately, your vote is needed, To Arms, large print across the envelopes.

Inside the letters mostly read how the government was taking away all guns with this bill. Government agencies will be kicking down doors and arresting all gun owners in possession of fire arms.   

On and on about the Brady bill effects if it passes.

Brady Law: In full Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act,  an element of Pres. Bill Clinton’s 1993 crime bill. It called for a five-day waiting period for the purchase of a handgun and, after 1998, a background check of any individual purchasing a firearm from a federally licensed dealer. Before the measure became a law, it was popularly known as the Brady bill, named for James Brady, the White House press secretary who was seriously injured in the 1981 assassination attempt against Pres. Ronald Reagan.


I realized the NRA was not for me. This is not what the NRA was created for.

[shaun]

I remember the days when the NRA were worried about guns being taken away.  I agree somewhat with what you said Vince but the concern is the slow chipping away of gun owner rights.

I applaud the background checks and waiting period.  There is still work that needs to be done with backgrounds and competency.  There are too many crazies out there that have access to guns.

[JohnB]

'American Conspiracy', 'NRA' ..maybe we should change the thread to WTF!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3V0VTlrCzW8

"There's money to be made in people's misery." (Opening prayer of 104th U.S. congress & on).


 

[David E]

Surely guys, as it is actually written into your Constitution that you have the right to bear arms, is not the current hysteria more about protecting a fundamental right, rather than a totally futile arguement about how to apply those rights.

Seems to me that your Pollies dont have the balls to go to the Public with a referendum to change the Constitution...that would fix the whole problem. Either you have the right to bear arms or you dont. Does not seem to matter much HOW you get these arms if you are Constitutionally able to own them.

Contrast it with Australian Law, where we have NO rights to own firearms, if you want one you have to jump through mountains of paperwork and scrutiny. Never will we have the right to own a concealed weapon (pistol) but for those of us who can comply with the Police scrutiny, we can own firearms.

Yes despite this rigmarole, we still have many gun-related crimes in Aus from "unlicensed" weapons....banning legitimate ownership does not fix crimes with guns...period.

[shaun]

David,

As screwed up as out political system is right now I don't think they will be able to change the right to bear arms.  Believe it or not our form of government does work at times and I think on this subject it does work.  Even if they came up with a constitutional amendment to eliminate the right to bear arms I don't think it would pass.  For one it would be political suicide and two there would be a war declared against the government.

Of course our current commander in chief doesn't care for or pay much attention to the constitution I think he is smart enough to realize this.

[Vince G]

To be or not to be?… American History lesson is about to begin, Have your sits. Yes, you Americans Too. It is with some commentary as well for I'm not writing a book here.  Just plain and simple Facts.

The American Constitution works well and will not be changed for any reason. Only spinoffs of are allowed (Amendments). Focusing on the "right to bear arms" clause and why it's in the Constitution.

Of course in the mid to late 1700's an arm was a musket. Needed to hunt and protect family and property. They did not have an Army or any other military so it was the duty of the newly landowners to come together if needed to protect the newly formed country. Thus the right to bear arms.

Fast forward to 1870'S. The NRA is formed to promote firearm ownership, as well as police training, firearm, safety, marksmanship, hunting and self-defense training in the United States.

FYI: Now has grown to political activity based on the premise that firearm ownership is a civil right. The group has a nearly century long record of influencing as well as lobbying for or against proposed firearm legislation on behalf of its members.

When the Constitution was written they had no idea or dreamt that the arms would become automatic weapons able to mow down many at one time. Hiding behind the right to bear arms puts any weapon into anybodies hands. In trying to correct this to control the massacres already multiplying. Lies, brainwashing theories, concepts and exaggerations have spurned mostly from the NRA and members of.

In more recent years they have put out scenarios of terrorists, street gangs and government agents breaking down your doors and killing all inside so you should have that arsenal of weapons for protection.

Maybe they watched to many movies? or believed it will happen as in a movie? It's paranoia taken over.

There has to be some control and only the government can do this. That right to bear arms was not meant as it is projected to mean today. Yes people should be able to own guns for various reasons. AK's and the like are for killing many at one time so why does the average citizen need to have this or I should say these? I mean there cool to shoot and a little fun but where are you pointing it?

[shaun]

I don't completely disagree with you Vince.  The NRA is doing what you said but at the same time liberals are pushing just has hard in the other direction.  At some point sanity needs to set in on both sides and what I said earlier still applies.  Control is necessary when giving license to bear arms and some cases we need laws to govern bare arms. 

[Vince G]

Exactly, I've said this before. If they want an AK or other auto weapon, Register it and have a license for it also. This makes you responsible for it and selling it out of your car trunk won't happen. This is basically what Obama wants to do? BUT!!!  They have this for handguns why not Rifles? Those not knowing the key words come up with "All Guns", it's not.

[David E]

I agree....tinkering with the Constitution is not to be taken lightly...that is how it should be.
Problem is, it would appear that you have a Constitutional right to own firearms....."because I can"......not based on any criteria of need.
Whether the need is security, recreation, para-military or simply criminal, you dont seem to have to justify it to anybody, because its your Constitutional right. This puts deadly weapons in unsafe hands.

Vince is absolutely right, when the Constitution was penned, I bet they did not consider the implications of AQK 47's Glock 45"s and all the other killing machines !!!

I would imagine that a Constitutional Amendment to require "need" tests and/or character tests before gun ownership was granted would be prudent...but of course this would not suit the NRA.

And Shaun...Agreed.....I reckon even a flawed Government (like you have and WE here also have) works better than theirs does in places like Egypt, Iran, Nth Korea, Afghanistan  etc etc etc

[Robertt S]

The second amendment was added for one purpose only! That was to defend Americans from a tyrannical government and guess who is going to be the first ones trying to do away with the second amendment.  Many people say that AK-47s, Glocks, and other rapid fire weapons were not covered by the second amendment because they were not around at the time the Bill of Rights were penned, common logic could also say the same about CBS, FOX, NBC, ABC, cell-phones, computers and all other forms of media that were not in existence when the 1st Amendment was inked. Personally, anybody with common sense will follow the Aussie lead and just bury their guns if push comes to shove! I do believe in background checks for gun purchases! many people say that they need to screen for mental illness for gun purchases, well most states ask questions of that nature on their applications for gun purchases. The problem is that hospitals, health workers, and doctors are prohibited by law from disclosing the mental state of any one they treat. I believe many tragedies could have been prevented if doctors and health workers had been allowed to notify the authorities if they felt one of their patients was dangerous. The libs will scream bloody murder if you try to violate the privacy laws/rights of a lunatic by disclosing their mental state, but are more than willing to sacrifice innocent victims to protect the mentally disturbed individual's privacy. 

[Vince G]

True any health official can not reveal the mental health of a patient. BUT They can give an indication of their mental stability. The doctor can say if this person should or should not be able to handle firearms. They choose not to. They may be sued so they don't take the chance.

And David the arms criteria answer is all of the above except the criminal. But security, recreation and hunting is an all in one package. And when it comes to handguns? Yes a criteria is given (at least in the states I lived?) You are licensed to carry a pistol for? and only that reason you may. You can own one for your home but may not carry it anywhere without a license saying so. In New York you need a lic even for the home. Down here in Fl you do not. This is another loophole the federal gov. wants to close. So all the states have the same laws for firearms. 

[fivetrout]

 The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), an agency that says its main purpose now is to thwart “homegrown terrorism,” has awarded a contract to ammunition manufacturer ATK for acquiring 450 million rounds of .40 caliber hollow point ammo.

 “Hollow point” ammunition is never purchased for practice or training. This ammunition is purchased for the sole purpose of being used in active fighting. At the same time, it is a violation of the Geneva Convention to use hollow point ammunition on the battle field.


DHS does not fight wars overseas. It is a domestic agency with domestic responsibilities.

Now as an open minded individual, this needs to be researched and questioned to the validity... is all I'm saying. The U.S. government is not transparent and has been know to spin off whoppers time to time. To state the surplus are stockpiles for the government to sell seems foolish, and for what, who, and how many wars? Where's the reasoning in that?