Gun Control Amendment added to Cyber Security Bill

Earlier this week we warned that Anti-Gun legislation could be coming down the pipeline. We thought the politicians would hold off until after election time, but it seems some in Washington are trying to speed things up.

Democrat Senators have added an amendment to the Cybersecurity Act of 2012 that if passed, would restrict your right to own certain gun magazines. The Amendment, S.A. 2575, would ban the sales and transfer of any clips that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. Language in the bill also calls for penalties that include up to 10 years in jail for anyone who violates the law.

The bill would make anything deemed to be a large capacity ammunition feeding device illegal. S.A. 2575 defines this as:

The term ‘large capacity ammunition feeding device’— ‘‘means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition”

The Amendment is being sponsored by Democratic Sens. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), Barbara Boxer (D-CA.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Chuck Schumer and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA.). Next week the Senate is scheduled to debate and vote on the proposed amendments to the cyber security bill.

44 Comments

  1. paje
    July 27, 2012 at 6:01 pm

    do you find it interesting that this bill was presented july 19 and the aurora shooting occured july 20th

    • Chris
      July 27, 2012 at 8:05 pm

      No, I don’t. This is an amendment to that bill, and the amendment as far as I can tell was added days after the shooting. If anything it looks like they just grabbed whatever bill was currently being worked on and threw the amendment at it.

      It is still pathetic that they are again trying to politicize the shooting and are now trying to sneak this in under the radar rather than with actual debate on the subject.

  2. Prepping Preacher
    July 28, 2012 at 4:04 am

    tptb will use any excuse to steal our rights and restrict our liberties… this group of co-sponsors -conspirators for this attachment should be arrested for crimes against the People and conspiracy to commit such… how much more can/will We, The People take….

    • Old Prepper
      July 30, 2012 at 2:25 pm

      Also, just read an article by the Washington Times that Obama will consider a bill that would ban online ammo sales if it passes through congress…

      https://www.facebook.com/OldPrepper

  3. TjBronson
    July 28, 2012 at 6:05 am

    It doesnt matter what they think that they can or want to do.. If you are committed to defending,protecting and preserving the 2nd asmendment, then do so and nevermind all that bullshit. Either do what the second amendment has empowered us to do or stfu and go back to sleep. To hell with all of the pissing and moaning. Do something or stfu!!

  4. TjBronson
    July 28, 2012 at 6:21 am

    For starters.. How about reeducating the youth of America.. Organize and assemble a youth milita.. train them..Have weekly seminars and teach them about the tyranny that is stripping them of their freedoms,schedule paint ball events as a way to train and condition the hearts and minds of those that will resist and lead..

    The entire process to take away whats taken 236 years to establish will not be dissolved over night! Nor will it be in the next ten years..
    It will take time to dismantled what we as Americans have cherished the most,our sovereign right to be free! We need to reach out and rechart our course as Americans and it begins with you and continues with our successors.. Our youth! This is a time and age where kids just cannot be just kids. They need to realize that their choices and their freedoms are becoming limited.. It is time to show them the truth and stop sheltering them from the inevitable. I have started my quest.. When will you start yours??

    • Megakarl
      July 28, 2012 at 8:52 pm

      I hate to break this to you, but the government will be defended by the US Military. The US Military has things like predator drones, Abrams tanks, F-35 Joint strike fighters, scout snipers, special forces, vastly superior weaponry and vastly more training. If you think the right to bear arms is still about the need to be able to rise up against a tyrannical government (an amendment written when this country did not have a formal military) then you should be making a bigger deal about the growth of our military forces beyond what a militia of any size could ever hope to compete with.

      The right to bear arms, while important, is not about defending yourself against our government or giving you the ability to overthrow it. At this point, it’s about history and tradition, the ability to hunt, and the ability against stupid people that managed to get their hands on a gun and intend to do some damage with it.

      • Chris
        July 29, 2012 at 2:39 am

        Wrong Megakarl. The point is to give people the means to be able to both defend theirselves and overthrow a tyrannical government.

        I mean just look at the weaponry/training that the British had when we overthrew them. There’s also the fact that many in the current military would not stand on the side of a tyrannical government that told them to attack citizens (though there would also be several that would). There’s a reason why Ron Paul gets a lot of support from the military, and if our country were to go into a civil war our military would most likely splinter.

        Also a bunch of things that you mention are either not true for the typical soldier or wouldn’t matter as much in a guerrila warfare setting. I mean we’re still in Afghanistan and it’s been like 10+ years and they have crappy weapons.

        And just to give you a few ideas of what’s wrong with what you said. things like tanks and AtA/AtG planes help very little when fighting a guerrila army. Or how the “average” training for a lot of people means simply firing 90-125 rounds maybe once a year. Or how there’s plenty of civilians with roughly the same weaponry as the military. Sure it might not have selective fire, but really that isn’t going to stop them from being able to place accurate shots or lay down suppressive fire (though the suppressive fire might not be as effective, they also won’t blow through their ammo as quickly). And in a civil war you better believe that guerrilas will end up getting their hands on some heavy weaponry either from people they kill/capture or from deserters.

        As bloody as it might be, militia/guerrila fighters, and potentially even a regular army (depending on how the military splinters) could stand up to the federal government and neither side is gauranteed victory. I mean even in the Civil War the North (aka federal government) almost lost, so there’s no reason to believe that the feds couldn’t lose in another Civil War.

        • Megakarl
          July 29, 2012 at 10:26 am

          Thank you for proving all of my points.

          “There’s also the fact that many in the current military would not stand on the side of a tyrannical government that told them to attack citizens”

          Which proves that whatever side our military is on is the side that will win. The need for assault weapons by the average citizen is moot.

          “I mean we’re still in Afghanistan and it’s been like 10+ years and they have crappy weapons.”

          So you’re agreeing that our military has 10 years of heavy experience fighting the style of warfare you describe. As a former member of our nations military and a current DOD civilian helping teach marines these skills every day, I can promise you that we have gotten extremely good at it. And there is a vast difference between armed civilian militias and Al Qaida insurgents both in the amount of training they receive and the quality of their weaponry. Their “crappy weapons” aren’t that crappy, and their warriors are far more skilled and battle tested than most of the members of our military, let alone some fat dude in texas with an AR. The problem isn’t a lack of our military’s effectiveness, it’s that civil wars aren’t won by force or superior arms, they are won by both sides coming to an agreement. Or, in modern times, by which side the military decides to side with, forcing the other side to lay down their arms or be annihilated. And I can tell you that the majority of the leaders in our nations military are not going to side with an insurgent group. Just because you disagree with a decision made by our nation’s government doesn’t make it unjust or unconstitutional. Our military will continue to fight to defend our country, not a minority group with a dissenting opinion, regardless of what your wettest pipe dreams may suggest.

          I’ve seen first hand how effective tanks, AtG planes, helicopters and especially drones are in insurgent fighting. It’s not all house to house combat, Chris. That is certainly a dimension of what we are doing over there, and we’ve become extremely effective at that too, but we do get confirmed targets and take out large insurgencies in one sweep with advanced weapons. If you think we are just spinning our wheels over there I am sorry to inform you that we are stomping the piss out of the insurgency, but they will not surrender or come to an agreement with the rest of the civilized world, so this fight could continue indefinitely.

          Beyond all of this, you and others like you that sit and dream of the day when you and your rifle can “stand up to tyranny” need to understand that your stance is the significant minority. Not because people aren’t privy to the information that you find in your chain emails and websites with undocumented sources and loosely factual reporting, but because most people are rational rather than blindly sticking to the notion that “all gun control is bad, pry it out of my cold dead hands!” There is no one solution that works for everything, and good decision making is a product of weighing facts, evidence and logic without bias and coming to the clear conclusion.

          • TjBronson
            July 29, 2012 at 3:01 pm

            MegKarl, you are so delusional and have NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!! So go ahead and be a pathetic sheep and do what you have been doing for the last however many years.. I’ve been in the belly of the beast for 18 years as a USMC Sniper/CS..I did tours is Panama,Iraq, and Afghanistan.. I know what my brothers have vowed and what they would do and not do when the proverbial shit hits the fan.. Youre an asshole, and you will more than likely be one of the first casulties of a civilution.. especially if I have something to say about it.. so you just keep pushing your fingers on your little keyboard and stay noce and safe for now.. Its too bad that computers aren’t advanced enough so I can jump through the screen and choke the living shit out of you.

          • Mountain Prepper
            July 29, 2012 at 11:17 pm

            So shooting the golden goose will be par for the course?

            This “advanced well trained and experienced” army is doing how well against the peoples of Afghanistan? The people fight because we were stupid enough to let Bush and then Bush the retarded tell us it was good to bomb and terrorize the country.

            We have created a generation that rightly hates us – not because of our “freedoms” but because we in effect killed a (fill in the blank relative like a grandmother). You state “we’ve become extremely effective” effective at occupying a country, and terrorizing the population?

            Just how are we winning in Afghanistan again? We now are in “talks” with the Taliban and the Northern Alliance – what were we there for again? Peace and stability? Individual rights? Stop the flow of poppy based drug products?

            If even a tenth of the current military has the lack of morals to try and suppress the peoples of this country (hopefully to be many small countries in the end) I personally hope they rot in whatever hell you believe in along with the statist ninnies who worship gun control and the bully-by-proxy government we suffer with now.

          • Chris
            July 30, 2012 at 3:34 am

            I had started to type up a long reply, but realized it was pointless. So I’m going to condense it for you.

            You make the claim that the 2A is no longer about being able to defend one’s self against a tyrannical government. But last time I checked no amendment was made to change the 2A. So the only way that is possible is if the Constitution/BoA is a “living document” which it is not. It means what it says until it is changed via the process of amending it.

            You then make claims about how “at this point” it has magically changed meanings and is simply about history/tradition. Again, no amendment has been taken to change the meaning of the 2A, so the original meaning/intent still stands.

            Also I didn’t prove any of your points. I said that our military would splinter and that either side could win, much like how in the Civil War both sides stood a chance to win.

            I also doubt you are training our Marines; or if you are you have very little real exposure to our tactics/techniques/etc for heavy weaponry or to info regarding the capes of the enemy. Their weapons suck (primarily AKs, which even new aren’t known for their accuracy; only their reliability to go bang). The majority of them have very little training (why else do you think they couldn’t get a single kill on a military responder when they attacked the hotel in Kabul). You also don’t seem to understand that we almost never use tanks, and you don’t understand what makes planes/drones effective (something that I don’t feel comfortable talking about in an open setting like this).

            You then switch from how the talk was about a “tyrannical government” to suddenly trying to make the arguement be about “people with a dissenting opinion.” Nice strawman there. We aren’t talking about a “dissenting opinion,” we are talking about the intent of the 2A, which is to resist a tyrannical government.

            You also call the current war in Afghanistan a “civil war” which further shows how little you know. Most of the insurgents are foreign fighters, with the Taliban being the primary group of people actually from Afghanistan. But this is far from a civil war as the Taliban is almost nothing w/o the aid of outside help.

            Next up, you turn to ad homium attacks. I don’t “dream of the day” that I might have to defend my country from tyranny. But I do accept that it is is a possibility, and that is part of the reason for the 2A. You also attack people with your comments about bias, clear conclusions, chain emails, etc.

            But please, keep running your mouth about things you obviously don’t understand. I do find it humorous.

          • Megakarl
            July 31, 2012 at 12:34 pm

            TJ, if you are a scout sniper, I find it surprising that you lack the professionalism and composure that the rest of your brethren exhibit every day. Aside from that, open threats on my life are just poor taste and lead me to believe that you have no experience in the USMC. Chris is a better example of the type of level headed individual that is a product of Marine Corps training.

            I imagine if you are a marine, you know what CID stands for, and I’m sure they’d be very interested to know a fellow marine is making death threats on the internet. I wonder if I can find a TJ Bronson in global?

            Chris, you seem to actually be an intelligent human being, and I can see your point of view though I disagree with your opinions. While I don’t believe that the bill of rights is a living document, I do believe that if we plan to keep our right to bear arms long term (which I believe we should) that amendments should be made. The idea that the “Gubment wants to take our guns” is not benefitting anyone. The basis of my argument is that in modern times, the idea that we should have the right to bear arms to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government is too easy to refute. There are dozens of great reasons to have the right to own weapons. Protecting against our government, or some foreign invader….This isn’t one of them anymore. And democrats are going to keep coming after gun rights until we are big enough to admit this and make the compromises necessary to protect our rights long term. I find it hard to believe that someone on the far right doesn’t believe that amendments need to be made. This isn’t the 18th century. Comparing modern warfare to the warfare of the civil war is akin to comparing the war in Afghanistan to the Battle of Sparta.

            My intent of the civil war comments was not to imply that I believe Afghanistan is a civil war. Even an armchair observer would not come to that conclusion. You brought up the hypothetical of a civil war in the united states, I was simply playing further off of your hypothetical (which I don’t believe is a possibility in the modern united states, but that’s another argument altogether) For an example of a modern equivalent of a successful civil war/revolution I’d use Egypt. Most all of these protesters were unarmed. certainly there were riots and ample violence, but the revolution essentially ended when the military decided to back the revolutionaries. This was due in part to moral obligation and in other part to the sheer numbers of the revolutionaries. The freedoms we enjoy here are still ample, and things would have to take an unbelievably horrid turn over the next 5-10 years to piss enough people off to reach a majority of revolutionaries here.

            I apologize for the straw man arguments. But they seem to be par for the course in the modern gun control debate…how about straw man arguments against a president that has made no legitimate move against gun rights and has in fact called gun control arguments “bad politics”. It astonishes me how people can get so pissed off over virtually no evidence. If you don’t like a guy, great. There are plenty of things that president obama has screwed the pooch on that can be pointed out. Why create issues where there are none?

            Chris, I apologize again that we dissent in our opinions. I admit that after reading some of the ignorance in the comment section of this website that I lumped you in with the dorks rather than recognizing that you’ve made some very valid points. I considered saying precisely where I am and what I do, but with people like Bronson in the world that’s likely not a great idea. I assure you that I work for the Marine Corps in a place that if you’re around long enough, you’ve been for training if you’re a Marine or SOCOM member. I would refute the personal attacks but understand I brought a lot of them on myself, so I’ll let that go. But the basis of the argument can’t be refuted: you put the best trained militia group against the full force and tech of our modern fighting forces and they’re going to lose. And a LOT of things need to change before the military considers splintering into factions. At that point, we are going to be doing our best to get our hands on their weapons or be mowed down in a matter of days.

          • Megakarl
            July 31, 2012 at 1:27 pm

            I also apologize for my inability to edit or proofread my posts before they’re put up. Just to clarify,

            I recognize the far right doesn’t want to amend the 2nd Amendment. But there are likely other amendments they’d like to change.

            It sounded like I am claiming the US civil war was in the 18th century, which I’m not. The constitution and bill of rights were written then, that is where that point was going. Sadly, my browser doesn’t play nice with this comment window on longer posts

          • Chris
            August 1, 2012 at 3:19 am

            I will agree with you that if one was to put the best trained militia/guerrila groups up against our current military they would lose. My point is that if our government were to become a tyrannical government and turn against the people, then the military would fracture and would not be the force that it is today. That would also mean that you would have a lot of prior military people fighting against military that remains. In this situation our military would NOT be what it is today and it would be unwise to compare today’s capes with the capes of a military that has fractured.

            I also agree that amendments do need to be made, but the issue is that I don’t see any middle ground between the two sides. On one side is those that want freedom, liberty, personal responsibility, etc. On the other is those that want to basically strip power from the people and give it to the government to take care of us because they feel the government knows best. There are people in the middle, but ultimately I would say that is what the two sides boil down to and why I don’t see amendments happening (a lot of times you can even divide who is on what side based on rural/urban info, with those in the middle being more like the suburbs).

      • Matt
        July 29, 2012 at 1:53 pm

        “an amendment written when this country did not have a formal military”

        Army 1784 founded by the Congress

        Constitution adopted 1787
        Constitution went into effect 1789
        Bill of Rights Ratified in 1791

        “The right to bear arms, while important, is not about defending yourself against our government or giving you the ability to overthrow it.”

        So we can just trust any government that comes along then?

        Sorry, but self-preservation is not a right that can be given or taken away with the stroke of a pen.

        Rights are what people are willing to fight for and defend with their lives if they choose. If they choose to give up those “rights” that is their prerogative, the problem politicians have is that some people will not give up those rights that they deem necessary for themselves and their families.

        I don’t have any problem with people giving up freedoms or rights if they want…just when they want me to join in.

        • Megakarl
          July 31, 2012 at 1:20 pm

          Oh right you are.

          Heck, why not go back to 1775 to the continental army? The one that was disbanded after we beat the brits because of the American Public distrust of a standing army. Or the legion of the United states, founded in 1791 to fight native americans and then disbanded in 1796 for the same reasons. We sure did have an army. They were mostly engineers and construction workers who maintained our forts and built bridges. During times of war, they had to be augmented by the United States Volunteers and state militias because their numbers were not adequate to actually repel any attackers. These volunteers and militia members had comparable if not superior weaponry to the “US Army” of the time.

          It wasn’t until 1941 that the Army of the United States, the army as we presently understand it with a full time fighting force, was founded to fight world war two.

          So my apologies for the semantics. When I said “formal military” I didn’t mean something founded by congress and called the US army. I meant, in modern terms, a formal military fighting force where a large group of people practice warfare for a full time job.

          • Chris
            August 1, 2012 at 2:39 am

            So you went on Wikipedia, pulled some choice blurbs about the Army, ad then expect us to buy it?

            By the War of 1812 we had a “Regular Army” and have had one ever since (had you of read further in the wiki article you would know that). The size has varied greatly, but there has been a regular standing army of some size since the early 1800s. So to try and say that we didn’t have “a formal military fighting force where a large group of people practice warfare for a full time job” is just wrong and is twisting facts to support your conclusion.

            Now I won’t even attempt to go into everything as one could probably write a book on the subject, but just a few things that did change or were changing around/after WWII were the size of our Federal government, the Cold War (oh look, the size of the Regular Army has always increased during a conflict and here’s a looooong lasting one), and laws regarding the arms that citizens can own/obtain.

          • Chris
            August 1, 2012 at 3:25 am

            I didn’t see your last post or I would have toned my post down a bit to not be quite so inflamatory. But the point still stands that we have had a standing army since the early 1800s and that there were many things that changed after WWII to cause our military to get to where it is. And playing the world police (something that I HATE and is horrible for our country) really doesn’t help.

          • Megakarl
            August 1, 2012 at 1:02 pm

            We certainly agree there. The amount of US tax dollars and resources that are being used to police the rest of the world is ridiculous and in many cases is making us new enemies. It’s poor foreign policy, and our involvement in our current conflicts is misguided at best

          • Megakarl
            August 1, 2012 at 1:24 pm

            And come now…it’s pretty difficult to argue that fact that the face of warfare changed after WWI. What an army meant, the people that it consisted of, its consistent size and the difference in weapons technology changed drastically in this period. Prior to the world wars, the military was DRASTICALLY shrunk in numbers during peacetime. The weapons that the military used were often the exact same weapons civilians were using for hunting, in fact many times they were the exact weapon. The army would be stood up, americans would grab their hunting rifles and show up for duty. That’s simply not the case anymore.

          • Chris R
            August 2, 2012 at 3:18 am

            After WWI the size of our military did shrink. It was after WWII that it didn’t, but I can see several reasons. One is that the Cold War started, and we went into a higher readiness position. Then the Korean War happened, followed by Vietnam, followed by…well we have practically been at war ever since WWII. And when not engaged in an active war there was still the Cold War. And now that the Cold War is over there have been countless “conflicts” that have kept our military engaged and basically unable to shrink (though they are cutting people even now). I know that the AF has shrunk drastically since the Cold War ended and they are still trying to cut people.

            As for the comment about weaponry. This gets back to the unconstitutional laws. It’s hard to use the citizens like they had before when you ban them from owning such weapons. Now yes for planes, artillary, tanks, etc you would need dedicated people, but the numbers could be lower than they currently are…if we weren’t always at war/conflict.

            Another issue with people using their “hunting” rifles is the logistics of it given just how much variety there is out there now. They could easily of allowed citizens to use sbr/sbs/etc and then they could potentially use their hunting rifles. I mean with select fire you could have an auto/3rd burst/semi-auto gun that could very easily be used for both military use and hunting. I mean we’re already starting to see people use AR frame and other military looking weapons for hunting. And I know that if I could use my own gear I would take a lot better care of it than the military gear I’m issued (not to mention I would have spare mags to rotate between to prevent spring fatigue). All they would have to do is standardize the weapon choice or say you must supply X many spare parts (or have your parts be compatible with the GI standard; like how my AUG uses an AR15 extractor).

            But our current laws flat out don’t allow citizens to reasonably use their weapons in military use.

            And note that I’m the original “Chris” in these posts, but am now using Chris R as another person is now posting as Chris.

          • Megakarl
            August 6, 2012 at 9:30 pm

            True that, I’ve been looking at the Remington AR based hunting rifle, the R-25, for some time. .308 that kicks like a 22? Yes please. Black Rain Ordinance makes some long barrel ARs that aren’t to heavy to be useful as hunting rifles.

            I appreciate the debate took a more cordial turn. I haven’t really changed my position, but recognize that it’s not going to be a popular one at this website.

            As a point of interest, there was a revolution in Iceland a few months ago that the media didn’t really cover. No shots fired, completely nonviolent uprising of the populace there. Government taken out of power, banks restructured and a new constitution drafted by the people.

            http://cac.ophony.org/2012/04/16/the-icelandic-revolution-why-didnt-i-hear-about-it/

            Time will tell how their policies pan out, and iceland is a very different country than America, but it’s nice to know it’s possible to change the course of the world without firing a round.

            So much anger and polarization in America. Hopefully people can start trying to understand the other point of view and start working towards solutions, compromise, and getting us back on top of the world again.

        • jerry m
          September 11, 2012 at 6:25 pm

          To Megakarl:
          I have serious doubts about your experience in the USMC by your words alone. Departments of the Navy and USMC have a federal agency who oversee criminal activity. NCIS, or back in the day, NIS. The Army has CID…

      • Chris
        August 1, 2012 at 8:42 am

        No your answer is the reason these bills get put in place. The 2nd amendment is not about hunting or shooting. How dare you comit such act of treason against our constitution.. and you assume military and police would follow orders when nearly all polls show military and police would not open fire on its own people..oh you of little faith…I hate theyve beaten you but the 2nd amendment is NOT about a duck hunt.. they may have all that crap…good for them.. but it is NOT going to stop me or any one else I know from excercising our constitutional right to keep government in check and in their place and out of our houses…you must be weak..you sound defeated…get off your ass sir! (not bein rude here)

        • Chris R
          August 2, 2012 at 3:19 am

          Note this is not the same “Chris” as all the previous posts by “Chris”

      • Dboy
        August 5, 2012 at 7:47 pm

        The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting. You need to educate yourself. And as far as dealing with a superior force, it can definitely be managed, as many opponents to US forces have demonstrated. Much of the hardware you listed will very likely be left unused in the coming unpleasantness, simply because using tanks and jets against “fellow Americans” will mean the complete loss of legitimacy for this government. Many of the current Army field manuals go into great detail about appearances (how an action plays in the media, propaganda value of US war crimes, etc). The perception war will be extremely important in any domestic “situation”.

  5. LINDA E AUGUSTINE
    July 28, 2012 at 5:21 pm

    I WILL SAY THIS YOU WILL NOT TAKE MY GUNS I LIVE ALONE AND A SENIOR CITIZEN LAW ENFORCEMENTS CANNOT GET TO ME IF SOMEONE BREAKS IN ON ME YOU WILL NOT TAKE MY GUNS !!!!

  6. Skorch
    July 28, 2012 at 6:39 pm

    The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. Thomas Jefferson 3RD Persident.

    “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” (Quoting Cesare Beccaria)

    When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. Thomas Jefferson

  7. Tj Bronson
    July 29, 2012 at 4:32 pm

    It will be U.N. Troops killing Americans when the shit hits the fan.. It wont be the US Military.. So for those like MegaKarl,get it right before you go off on a soap box disertation about how the Militia wont stand a chance.

    • Niko4Liberty
      July 29, 2012 at 8:31 pm

      Exactly…the UN arms trade treaty that was just temporarily stopped even says it. “UN peace keepers” Ha! And maybe MegaKarl should think about that oath he took instead of sounding like he sold out to the globalist agenda.

      • Stephanie
        July 30, 2012 at 6:37 am

        I believe UN troops are already here Niko4Liberty….they just aren’t wearing blue helmets.

        The UN arms trade treaty, like you said, is only temporarily “in the air”…..I was reading an article where it said by the end of the year, there will be a UN Delegation Committee vote which only needs a “majority” of nations agreeing to it.

        America doesn’t even NEED to sign it if you think about it…the rest of the world will decide.

        This should infuriate EVERYONE, but most right now have been lulled back to sleep because it wasn’t signed on the 27th.

        • Niko4Liberty
          July 30, 2012 at 2:58 pm

          I totally agree with you about them already being here Stephanie. And you are right, people think we won but sadly thats not the case at all. They will just come at us harder and from another angle. The treaty will be signed I’m sure.

      • Megakarl
        July 31, 2012 at 12:58 pm

        you mean this oath?

        I, (NAME), do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

        Your opinion that something is unconstitutional is what’s called a dissenting opinion. You do not make, enforce or interpret the laws of this country. A dissenting opinion does not give you the right to revolt against the nation, which would make you a domestic enemy.

        Until someone breaks the rules, we defend our country and maintain faith in the checks and balances it has in place. Disagreement with a policy does not make it unconstitutional. This is reality. If you don’t like the system that’s in place, vote against it or leave. If your votes don’t add up to a majority, recognize that your opinion is the minority and don’t lose your cool over this fact. Review your stance with logic and reasoning and ask yourself if it really is that bad. If you still believe it is, find a rational way to argue you points. Progress is made in our democratic system through compromise, not obstructionism.

        • Megakarl
          July 31, 2012 at 1:04 pm

          For a real mind hump…you all think I’m a liberal asshole. I’m really not, I’m a rational human being. In fact I voted for Ron Paul in 2008. I believe that many of the ideals that he stood for have been hijacked by this pseudo “tea party” movement and all semblance of rational thought has left the right, due in large part to Fox news and biased media outlets. That’s not to say that MSNBC is any better, but Man…the people getting involved in politics now are just insane. I don’t like the direction the extremism is going in this country, and so few people are willing to even think about anything that doesn’t jive with their own jaded world view.

        • Chris
          August 1, 2012 at 3:40 am

          Exactly, it says ALL enemies. And it is completely possible for the government to become an enemy to the document that founded this country. The conundrum is, when this happens what do you do? There are things that are clearly unconstitutional, and the SCOTUS has ruled so. There are also things that are unconstitutional that are reaffirmed by the SCOTUS. Two examples would be the healthcare ruling (that ruling is so jacked up, unconstitutional via commerce clause, but constitutional because it “could” be construed as a tax and they can’t comment on taxes, but yet both the legislative and executive branches have stated that it isn’t a tax; so it should be unconstutional because those that wrote the law have clarified it isn’t a tax…) and the SCOTUS ruling about the 1934 NFA where the “defendent” was dead and unable to submit any evidence, so they only took the word of the gov in the case and in their ruling they even said that if the (dead) defendent could have shown that items of the NFA had reasonable military use than the law would be unconstitutional (it’s not hard to find sbr/sbs/suppressors in military use; and in fact I carry an sbr to my aircraft every day while deployed).

          So as I said, what does one who took the oath do when their very government starts to violate the oath? The first thing is to try working within the system to fix such issues, but one has to realize that their might be a time that things get so bad that you need to do more than that. But where is that line and how do you make that fight if it comes long after you have been disarmed?

    • Megakarl
      July 31, 2012 at 12:48 pm

      So are you suggesting that “UN troops” (revealing a fundamental misunderstanding of what the UN is or does) will defeat the american military? And then after they accomplish that impossible task, our militias will hold them off? I’m confused exactly what you think is going to happen here.

      If you’re referring to the proposal that’s likely never going to happen for a standing regimen of UN troops, first off that would be a collection of police, military and civilians totalling about 15,000 people, including (ideally) a decent chunk of Americans for things like preventing genocide in war torn corners of the globe where 15,000 people would constitute an overwhelming force. And if you’re about to make an asinine slippery slope argument, skip it. There is no factual basis to make a claim that this force will eventually grow to a size suitable to topple the worlds largest superpower.

      Legit threats? China. Ok. I’ll buy that one. But either way….if a force rises thats strong enough to take down our military….No number of weapons in your gun safe are going to help you.

  8. Mountain Prepper
    July 29, 2012 at 11:28 pm

    “Our military will continue to fight to defend our country, not a minority group with a dissenting opinion, regardless of what your wettest pipe dreams may suggest.”

    They are in effect a paid body of mercenaries (even if they don”t have the brains to understand that fact) securing the primacy of the “petro dollar” the security of fractional reserve based international banking and of course a select batch of elitists that make up our ruling oligarchy.

    The moment any “freedom-fighting-for-patriotic-soldier” uses any weapon against a citizen he or she deserves all the time in hell they get – the quicker the better!

    “They fight for our freedom” is the biggest bunch of propaganda BS we are forced to listen to spewing from the maws of the ignorant…

    How much “freedom” did we get from the war of the States?, How about WWI or for the bankers in WWII, how about Korea, Vietnam sure won us a bunch of freedom didn’t it? Please people wake up!

  9. Xenolith
    July 30, 2012 at 2:59 pm

    The mere flavor of “sheeple” versus “prepared realist” rhetoric shows that our country is ALREADY divided between those who are ready to stand for Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness and those who trust our Government will prevail against an America enraged.

    • Niko4Liberty
      July 30, 2012 at 5:08 pm

      very well put…we are divided in so many ways but that specific divide is going to be what matters when it all comes down to it. that will determine who is going to survive stand up for themselves and their families and who will give in or settle for enslavement.

    • Megakarl
      July 31, 2012 at 1:07 pm

      It’s amazing to me that the people who don’t trust our government and legitimately think that they intend to take away your liberties to turn us into a communist country also maintain the belief that we are the best country by every metric in the entire world.

      • Niko4Liberty
        July 31, 2012 at 5:10 pm

        This country is the best country in the world. HOWEVER, we are being stripped of our freedoms and constitutional rights more and more every day. NOT just when it comes to the second amendment. What about all of the Agenda 21 BS? The government says now that its illegal to collect rain that falls on your roof because the water does not belong to you? Its illegal to grow a food and medicinal herb producing garden? Wake up! And yes, that oath! I took the same one! Above all I swore to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against ALL enemies. The constitution as it sits, unchanged. Not someones jaded interpretation of what they think it is or should be. Our country was founded on the Constitution and Bill of rights and the erosion of these needs to stop! We are already well on our way to becoming a socialist country with no rights. If not agreeing with that is dissent then there are quite a few dissidents. Our founding documents are not meant to be upheld some of the time or whatever parts certain people like and forget the rest. It doesn’t work like that.

        And as far as UN troops nobody was suggesting they were going to defeat the US military and then be held off by citizens. Read the UN Arms Treaty. “UN Peace keepers” will be disarming people, along with whatever members of the US Military that goes along with it, however unconstitutional.

        • Megakarl
          August 1, 2012 at 1:18 pm

          Niko,

          This is exactly what I’m talking about. By what metric are we the best country in the world? I love this country, but we suck in a lot of areas. If there is something to be proud of, it’s the American spirit and our ability to claw our way back on top again. But for that to happen, we have to admit that we aren’t the best anymore, and commit to working together to get better.

          The reference to the rain water article is EXACTLY the friggin problem. You read sensationalist reporting on a case that was poorly quoted. What the author of that article failed to mention was that the guy WASN’t collcting rain that fell on his roof. That is absolutely NOT illegal, there is an injunction in oregon law that allows collection of all water that falls on your roof and driveway. The issue with the gentleman that got arrested is that he was damming and diverting a small creek and a natural tributary to that creek that flowed across his property, along with containing snow and rain runoff. It is standard law in all states and common sense that you cannot dam or divert water that flows across your property, or impede the flow of water that would otherwise run off of your property. This gentleman knew the rules, applied for water use permits twice, was denied twice, and did it anyway. He was warned and given probation after the first time he broke the law, and then broke it a second time.

          First off, building a 15 foot dam to divert public water is bull. Second off, he knowingly broke the law twice. Disagreeing with the law of our land does not give you the right to break them. Our founding fathers did not agree across the board on the contents of our constitution, but do you think those that disagreed picked and chose which parts they would honor?

          You can’t maintain the belief that you are privy to the “real truth” and that the media and reality have a clear liberal bias. If you’re getting your news from one source, you’re not getting the full story. You can either weigh ALL the facts and make a rational decision, or you can continue to begin with a belief and then search for evidence to support it.

  10. In Exile from Gun grabbers
    August 3, 2012 at 6:40 am

    Megakarl has really spent way too much time arguing his point to the contrary of the 2nd amendment and basically imposing his interpretation of it to the world here. That basically leaves me questioning where he is coming from, his real and who his real masters are. As a former anticommunist insurgent, I can tell you that guerilla action works very well as long as you have the will, the leadership and you make them bleed a lot more than they are making you bleed. 10 of them for everyone of us and you hit them all over so they never know who or from where it is coming from, it could be the kid next door, the grandma in the food market, the latrine they are pissing in, or the local real cute gal that smiles at them every morning, the water and food they drink and even have their own fancy weapons betray them. It is also about getting in their head , making them miss home and not knowing where the round or chunk of shrapnel with their name on it is coming from. It may take months or years but you wear them down, kill their friends and morale, extract a high price in both blood and mental fatigue and you will win regardless of all the new high tech toys they have. You guys should just worry about waking up every morning and kissing the American soil you stand on while praising God you live here and become mentally ready to defend it to the death. Death is a much better fate than being a vassal under someone who dictates every aspect of your life.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*