This may be how your guns are taken

JSTyler

Well-Known Member
There is no question that liberalism is not just a cult of America-hating, racist, marxist bigots, it is also a satanic cult. It is clear from their propaganda and by what they do when they are in control that they hate the Bible at least as much as they hate the Constitution. So it is easy to see that once that cult has the absolute power it seeks, its thought police will have real police power, and it will be not only patriots but also Christians (which are often one and the same) those police will be hunting.

And this is the kind of thing the Bible tells us will come in the end times. So we can't say we weren't warned.
For starters, I agree with your entire post 100% So much so that it's practically my very thoughts and beliefs that you've presented here in black and white.

So in that light... This kind of thinking used to cause my innards to go all watery, my knees would get loose and a form of panic would set in increasing my heart rate and causing feelings of anxiety. Now, however, I get very excited, energized and thrilled that it's becoming easier and easier to represent the gospel and project it into the world that needs truth and light.

I love the reality that I have two real choices;
1 - Deny my Savior, the Gospel and Truth by laying low, living in secret and remain safe. Which is possibly/likely giving proof of not knowing the Savior to begin with. And, die in the end anyway.
Or
2 - Proclaim my Savior, preach the Gospel and shout out the Truth whenever and wherever I find myself, ignoring even the pretense of safety. Definitely being living proof that safety is found only in the arms of Jesus Christ our Lord. And by doing so, I get to die in the end anyway, only ot truly begin my real life...

I'm thinking Philippians 1:20 and onward.
 

GotGrace

Well-Known Member
There are no stupid questions (and if there were I have probably asked them).

There is no reason for Glock pistols to have a safety because they are not carried with a hammer cocked. Glocks use a striker, not a hammer, and it's only partially tensioned when the gun is carried; when the trigger is pulled the striker is tensioned the rest of the way and then released (you can feel the two stages when you pull the trigger). Since there is no hammer poised to slam into the firing pin as soon as it's released, the Glock is more like a double action revolver, and you never see safeties on them.

The Glock has passive safeties, that make certain that the pistol will only fire if the trigger is pulled. They have been drop tested many times and they do not go off.

Any pistol should be carried in a holster that covers the trigger guard, because as long as the trigger is not pulled, the gun will not go off. If the trigger guard is not covered, something might get into the trigger guard and push the trigger back, like say if it's just thrown into a purse and a bottle of fingernail polish gets pushed into the trigger guard. Carry it in a holster and it won't go off, no matter how many bumps you hit.
Thank you very much for this information.
 

Carl

Well-Known Member
One of the methods mentioned is law suits. Have you all notice the Roundup law suit. Started out as a UN statement that Roundup causes cancer. Then a court found that it did cause cancer in that case. Now we have the big law firms going for the throat. Just get a few of the big ones to cause a court action to shut down guns. However it is done it won't start as the government marching in and taking the guns.
 

Xenosjeff

Well-Known Member
No policeman I’ve ever met would follow the unconstitutional order to confiscate weapons.

The Democrat party will need their committee chairmen to start the secret building of their Gestapo. That is the natural progression of the godless wretches we are seeing posing as American progressives. Stalin didn’t get to Carnegie Hall in his first try. It took lots of practice.

Want to take bets? That’s what history teaches me.

Jeff
 

Tall Timbers

Imperfect but forgiven
No policeman I’ve ever met would follow the unconstitutional order to confiscate weapons.

The Democrat party will need their committee chairmen to start the secret building of their Gestapo. That is the natural progression of the godless wretches we are seeing posing as American progressives. Stalin didn’t get to Carnegie Hall in his first try. It took lots of practice.
Maybe members of pro-fa will be deputized and given marching orders for gun confiscation.
 

Jonathan

Well-Known Member
I'm just wondering how many people (not here, but in the entire country) would live up to their brashness and fight off (literally) an attempt to forcefully take their guns. Even if you don't care for yourself, you care for your family, your neighbors, you even probably care for the guy trying to take you guns (probably a young guy just "doing his job" as he sees it).

A better solution is LEOs everywhere, worth a salt, standing up and refusing to enforce laws that are unconstitutional and make their stance public and LOUD.

No bloodshed, Problem solved.
 

RobinMc

Well-Known Member
No policeman I’ve ever met would follow the unconstitutional order to confiscate weapons.

The Democrat party will need their committee chairmen to start the secret building of their Gestapo. That is the natural progression of the godless wretches we are seeing posing as American progressives. Stalin didn’t get to Carnegie Hall in his first try. It took lots of practice.

Want to take bets? That’s what history teaches me.

Jeff
I think not many US officers or military would take weapons from citizens, but UN soldiers would.
 

Carl

Well-Known Member
Wasn't that already done with hurricane Katrina in New Orleans that about destroyed the city and surroundings? Didn't UN troops help the police?
 

depserv

Well-Known Member
I'm sure they have a plan. UN so-called peacekeepers, as has been mentioned, are very possible. And as another member mentioned, they did confiscate guns after Hurricane Katrina; no one fought back and no one got in any trouble for it; they even beat up an old woman at one point in the process. Most of the people had left though, so the bad cops involved in the illegal disarmament went after isolated people.

As I understand it around 70% of the military voted for Trump and 30% for Hillary. That's a pretty good indication of the percentages that would take part in general disarmament and what percent would stand against them. I don't know about the police; I think a majority of them are loyal Americans but it stands to reason that at least some of them would carry out the illegal edicts, as they did in Louisiana. Those few could be bolstered by whomever the bureaucrats wanted to deputize.

I think a more likely scenario is that they will outlaw certain types of guns each in their own time. The big thing for them now is what can accurately be called 20th Century arms, referred to commonly by the slogan assault weapons. Then they can go after deer hunting rifles, which will likely be called sniper weapons (remember that JFK and MLK were killed by snipers). And of course handguns have long been a big target; maybe they'll bring back the Saturday Night Specials lie or maybe they'll cook up another one. And shotguns fire multiple projectiles with a single pull of the trigger, and they are most definitely a "weapon of war," so they have to go too.

Once they are outlawed they don't have to try to sweep all of them in at once. They just find excuses to go after a few at a time.

I think the red flag scheme is a very likely way for them to do it. This scam allows them to take all the guns away from anyone government decides might be dangerous. And who does an aspiring despot think is the most dangerous? The patriot of course. And Christians too (and usually Christians and patriots are one and the same). Even now both groups are commonly demonized as dangerous lunatics in liberal propaganda. They don't have to disarm everybody and they know it; they only need to disarm the patriots. And this will allow them to do it, a few at a time, with the liberal press providing cover as it always does.
 
Last edited:

SonSeeker

Well-Known Member
There is an old saying that goes like this: God made big men and small men; Sam Colt made them equal. It could be added now that Gaston Glock and Eugene Stoner (the designer of the AR15) made them even more equal, and made women equal too.

I have an NRA pistol instructor certification and my advice is the Glock is one of the best pistols made. I carry a 40 but the 9mm will suit your purpose very well; in fact our military and the FBI and I believe most police anymore carry the 9. Ammo for it is relatively cheap so it doesn't cost as much to develop skill in its use.

I had one Glock 9mm that I bought as a used police trade-in and I probably ran a good 30,000 rounds through it, and it still worked fine when I gave it to an old friend. But if you do shoot yours that much you will probably break a spring or pin now and then; it won't cost much for the repair, but the gun is shut down until you get it fixed, so if it happened at the wrong time it would leave you defenseless. It helps if you put in a new recoil spring every five to ten thousand rounds. Most people never shoot theirs that much though so it isn't an issue. But you should run at least a few thousand rounds through one to get comfortable with it before you carry it. And don't just spray bullets out like I see people doing at the range sometimes; fire each shot when you practice as though your life depends on that one shot hitting its target.

The AR type rifles fire a .22 caliber bullet but it's longer and heavier and is going way faster than what is called a .22, and it is said to have good stopping power. It's easy to use and there is virtually no recoil. If you get one make sure it's designed for 5.56 mm instead of .223. Some people think these are simply different names for the same thing but they really aren't. Both rounds will fit into the same chamber but the 5.56 is built for a little more pressure; you can fire either one in a rifle with 5.56 stamped on it but it is recommended that you do not fire 5.56 ammo in one with .223 stamped on it. You can probably do it, but like I said, it isn't recommended.

A big problem with the AR15, or any rifle, is that the bullet travels a long way and can penetrate multiple walls etc. So there is a chance of over-penetration and maybe hitting an innocent person, maybe even one of your own kids sleeping in a bedroom, or a neighbor. I don't know if this has ever actually happened, but the potential is there. If you use hollow points, over-penetration is reduced and stopping power is increased substantially. One of the common types of ammo for that rifle is the green tip military ammo. These are called penetrator rounds and they have a steel insert so they penetrate better. These might be fine for practice, but for defensive use, go with hollow points instead.

The grammar nazi in me wants me to correct a common misuse of language in your comment. There is a difference between a clip and a magazine, and use of the word clip to refer to a magazine, even as common as that usage is, is not idiomatic, because the difference between the two matters, so it's important that the right word be used. The magazine is the thing that holds the ammunition ready to be pushed one at a time into the chamber; a clip is a strip of metal that holds ammo together so it can be shoved quickly into a magazine. You can get clips for an AR15, but what you are referring to is a magazine. If you use the wrong terminology you might end up buying things you have no use for, instead of something you need.
I must say I agree 100% with what depserv writes.
An AR-15 is a great weapon, but not for personal self-defense, or even household defense. I took a course with our local police dept. and our SWAT team walked us through a few scenarios for those of us who carry concealed. If anyone legally carries a semi-automatic pistol, it takes way too long to fire it if a round is not already chambered. One needs to be able to fire the weapon with only one hand in the shortest time possible. Meaning, draw and fire, in about the time it takes to read, "draw and fire"! Otherwise, the attacker will have the advantage. If that is a concern for anyone, a good old-fashioned revolver might be a better choice. You won't have as many rounds available as a pistol, 5-7 rounds for a revolver versus 9-15 or so for a semi-auto pistol. But, fighting off an attacker shouldn't take more than a handful of rounds, anyway. Back when I was first qualifying for a concealed carry permit, our instructor ran us through various scenarios. The most interesting was when we were each practicing carrying a concealed weapon, and a 'bad guy' was attacking us from about 10 feet away. It's harder than you think, to draw and fire before the 'bad guy' has made physical contact with you even at that distance. I have personally carried anything from a full-size .45 down to a little .380 semi-auto. Honestly, my personal choice is now a .38 S & W Bodyguard DAO. It hides inside my waistband very well ,and weighs practically nothing! Sure, it's only 5 rounds, but for me, it's better than 7 rounds of .380.
For household protection, my choice is a pump-action shotgun loaded with 00 buckshot. Easy to shoot, easy to aim, if there ever was a weapon where "close counts", this is it.
Back to our SWAT team exercise, we were able to shoot their AR-15s. At 100 yards, I got 2 hits and 2 misses! I'm not that steady anymore, so I was happy with that. It's really a fun long gun to shoot, practically zero kick, stays on target very well. For them, it's perfect, for a homeowner like me, not so much. Primarily, because I'd go broke shooting the thing! Besides, when I go out shooting, It's fun just honing my self-defense skills.
 
Top