Preppers are crazy?

Doomsday Prepper Forums

Help Support Doomsday Prepper Forums:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Yes. Im on the outskirts of a medium size city. Still. Little too close but hopefully manageabble.
 
Not so sure. Firearms ain't exactly cheap, so really, not near as many folks have them as you think. And in 8 years, it'll be close to illegal to own them here in America too. Within 4, after that witch is elected, the manufacturers will be just about out of business (except for military contracts), and gun sellers, ammo sellers, etc. will be legislated out of existence, and a national registry will be enacted as prep for phase 2. During her second term (even easier to rig then), she'll have broken the gun lobbyists bankroll, and can then move to phase 2, having the SCOTUS reinterpret the 2nd Amendment completely, and moving towards confiscation.
 
Not so sure. Firearms ain't exactly cheap, so really, not near as many folks have them as you think. And in 8 years, it'll be close to illegal to own them here in America too. Within 4, after that witch is elected, the manufacturers will be just about out of business (except for military contracts), and gun sellers, ammo sellers, etc. will be legislated out of existence, and a national registry will be enacted as prep for phase 2. During her second term (even easier to rig then), she'll have broken the gun lobbyists bankroll, and can then move to phase 2, having the SCOTUS reinterpret the 2nd Amendment completely, and moving towards confiscation.
Guns? What guns? You mean the ones at were stolen from my house a year ago?
Seriously, I don't think she is going after the second amendant at all. I agree that there should be some more restrictions on assault type weapons, like mental health checks or the like. It's too easy for low life's and psycho nut jobs to get weapons right now, I think that's all she is trying to do here. I only hope history proves me right....
 
Guns? What guns? You mean the ones at were stolen from my house a year ago?
Seriously, I don't think she is going after the second amendant at all. I agree that there should be some more restrictions on assault type weapons, like mental health checks or the like. It's too easy for low life's and psycho nut jobs to get weapons right now, I think that's all she is trying to do here. I only hope history proves me right....

Speaking as someone who lives with tight firearms regulations, all we have found because of it is that law abiding citizens have to jump through some serious and expensive hopage to obain fireams legally, whilst the criminal element of society still have easy access. The only thing this does do is pretty much keep shootings between the gangs. Having said all that, because I have been raised in a gunless society I feel no need for me to have any firearm for protection. I would like to do more hunting, but that's a whole new subject and one that does get me fired up!
 
Not so sure. Firearms ain't exactly cheap, so really, not near as many folks have them as you think. And in 8 years, it'll be close to illegal to own them here in America too. Within 4, after that witch is elected, the manufacturers will be just about out of business (except for military contracts), and gun sellers, ammo sellers, etc. will be legislated out of existence, and a national registry will be enacted as prep for phase 2. During her second term (even easier to rig then), she'll have broken the gun lobbyists bankroll, and can then move to phase 2, having the SCOTUS reinterpret the 2nd Amendment completely, and moving towards confiscation.

We in the UK have been warning you chaps for years that it is EXACTLY the way the left operates they NEED to control every facet of your life including self defence, if Clinton gets in she WONT go head on at gun owners she will just start adding layer upon layer or burocracy and new taxes to whittle gun owners down. lefties are patient they play a long slow game.
 
Speaking as someone who lives with tight firearms regulations, all we have found because of it is that law abiding citizens have to jump through some serious and expensive hopage to obain fireams legally, whilst the criminal element of society still have easy access. The only thing this does do is pretty much keep shootings between the gangs. Having said all that, because I have been raised in a gunless society I feel no need for me to have any firearm for protection. I would like to do more hunting, but that's a whole new subject and one that does get me fired up!


Ah my homeland my England a place where the Police and State are armed to the teeth, as are the criminals and terrorists, and we honest law abiding citizens are just victims in waiting. .......... and gun crime has risen almost every year since the law gun ban in 1997. The wonderful UK where the Lefties and Ban It Brigade would rather read in their tabloid papers about a young woman being raped and strangled after a night out than read about how she shot her attacker.
 
Seriously, I don't think she is going after the second amendment at all.

Not yet.

First, it will start with legislation designed to basically put gun stores and dealers out of business, and intensive restrictions on online and mail sales.

Next, the consequence of this is the eventual death of the arms manufacturers (with the exception of military contracts).

Then, the deaths of both of these elements, will basically bankrupt the NRA (as it's members and sponsors dry up).

Only THEN, will she feel confident having the SCOTUS reinterpret the 2nd Amendment.

This will take years, but rest assured, it's already mapped out and in motion.
 
Not yet.

First, it will start with legislation designed to basically put gun stores and dealers out of business, and intensive restrictions on online and mail sales.

Next, the consequence of this is the eventual death of the arms manufacturers (with the exception of military contracts).

Then, the deaths of both of these elements, will basically bankrupt the NRA (as it's members and sponsors dry up).

Only THEN, will she feel confident having the SCOTUS reinterpret the 2nd Amendment.

This will take years, but rest assured, it's already mapped out and in motion.

I would think the Democrats would have to control both sides of the House and Senate for her to even get that through. Another thing to consider here is that I am sure the NRA is padding more than one Senator or Congressmans pockets. I personally do not think she can wield that kind of power if the Dems only control one side of the aisle....Restrictions? Well I am sure she could do that if she follows Obamas lead and uses Executive power to do it. Thats the only way Obama has gotten anything done wielding Executive power.

As far as the SCOTUS reinterpreting the 2nd Amendment I do not see any need for it. The 2nd Amendment is quite clear on this....

"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."

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/arti..._the_second_amendment_mean.html#ixzz4OPuHuTbJ
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

There is nothing to interpret the way I see it....the terms militia and people cannot be separated according to the above article....If there is a debate "militia" maybe it but even that is on thin ice because militias are not professional military personnel and cannot be classified as such.....Militias are a loose knit group that protect and defend states and etc and take no orders from any governmental authority....People can be militias and they are....

I do not think she as a leg to stand on if this goes forward as predicted....Even the SCOTUS cannot change the Constitution they can only add to it. There as been only 27 amendments to the US Constitution since it was ratified and changing it is a process of hell!

In other words Killary you lose.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top