PDA

View Full Version : What would you do?


mrbalbowski
07-24-2012, 2:42 PM
With all the talk about constitutional rights and the 2nd amendment and the thread about what the big deal about registering your guns is, what would you do if it actually happened and the government came knocking on your door and demanded all your registered weapons? Would you hide them? Say they are lost/stolen? Hand them over because it's the law? Hand them over because you have unregistered weapons anyway? It'd be interesting to hear your responses.

wazdat
07-24-2012, 2:46 PM
Here come the stories of entire collections of firearms lost in horrible boating accidents... :cool:

CSACANNONEER
07-24-2012, 2:47 PM
Responses here are nothing more than chest puffing. Those who will act, won't talk about it. Those on the fence, might or might not. Those who know how to make new ones (I'm not talking about 80%s, parts kits, etc. I'm talking about 100% starting from scratch), might or might not. Those who will instantly cave will be the first to post that they plan to fight 'till the death. Personally, I have no idea what I will or won't do. There are too many veriables that you haven't nailed down yet.

mrbalbowski
07-24-2012, 2:49 PM
Also, what do you think would happen in the end? The majority handing them over peacefully? Surely the government wont believe everyone lost their weapons, what will they do? I know I can easily open a history book to see what happens, but I'd like to hear your thoughts on what you think would result if it happened to us tomorrow.

Ctwo
07-24-2012, 3:13 PM
The government would issue an open submission period where law abiding citizens can turn over their guns to the melting pot, no questions asked. I wildly guess that 20% will comply.

Then the government will start raiding a few known inventories to make examples, and then issue a grace period to submit. Another 20% will comply.

Then the government will silently go door-to-door over a period of years collecting the remaining arms. And this will not be a knock-knock, please hand them over. It will be through intense surveillance, eves-dropping, and networking.

Significant fines will be issued to those that resisted and lives will be gravely affected. The people will do nothing out of fear.

But that is just my wild guess...

DannyInSoCal
07-24-2012, 3:24 PM
Those in charge/taking credit for this confiscation legislation will have very respectful funerals...

Riksk
07-24-2012, 3:32 PM
I think it'll start as CTWO illustrated, however crap will hit the fan as a series of Waco's take place. Some people will fight back. They will be slaughtered. After that who knows. The gov will take over the media and most of us will never hear any of these accounts, or they will be severely twisted to make us all think they were terrorist radicals. The Iron fist of communism or socialism is already suffocating the fight out of us. Free press is already mostly a lie. There is no truth, only adjendas.

Freedom will not die in battle; it will be murdered while we sleep.

stix213
07-24-2012, 3:43 PM
I predict sales in shovels and airtight containers will jump, with a previously unknown phenomena of the dangers of property loss during boating accidents becoming quite common.

HBrebel
07-24-2012, 3:47 PM
Another reason to refrain from posting your collection online eh? I lost all my guns in a burglary that I forgot to report.

spareparts
07-24-2012, 3:56 PM
First they have to get you to register them before they can do a round up. The time to take care of how you want to handle your business would be at that point. They can't round up what they don't know about.

Librarian
07-24-2012, 4:23 PM
FROM “THE GULAG ARCHIPELAGO” (1973 by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn) ON HOW TO RESIST MASS ARREST.

“During an arrest, you think since you aren’t guilty, how can they arrest you? Why should you run away? And how can you resist right then? After all, you’ll only make your situation worse; you’ll make it more difficult for them to sort out the mistake.

“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say goodbye to his family?

“Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?

The Organs [government agencies] would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! We didn’t love freedom enough. Every man always has handy a dozen glib little reasons why he is right not to sacrifice himself.”

Could I do that? Darned if I know.

SilverTauron
07-24-2012, 4:32 PM
With all the talk about constitutional rights and the 2nd amendment and the thread about what the big deal about registering your guns is, what would you do if it actually happened and the government came knocking on your door and demanded all your registered weapons? Would you hide them? Say they are lost/stolen? Hand them over because it's the law? Hand them over because you have unregistered weapons anyway? It'd be interesting to hear your responses.

Using the UK as an example, it should be noted that the gun grabber's didn't start with outlawing the guns themselves. That step came last.

The first thing they did was jack up the paperwork and expense to become a legal owner,thus preventing new people from becoming gun owners.

Once the ownership regulations were accepted as cultural norm, then they started with regulating USE. You could own whatever non-full auto handgun or long arm you wished in the UK at one point, but using it required gun club membership. The owner better not use it to shoot a crook either, as self defense was outlawed for citizens at this point. Again, the guns themselves were not regulated yet.

Once it became illegal to do anything with your weapons instead of staring at them and taking them to a static range, then the registration comes into play. After this, the government started dropping the hammer on FFLs and gunsmiths.

A few years go by, another criminal spree shooting takes place, and now the endgame of banning the guns themselves has taken place. By now, self defense has been criminalized, ammunition and parts are hard to get or impossible due to standing regulations on sales and service, gunsmiths have closed or are treading water, and the shooting sports are an isolated niche in the population because newcomers don't have patience & money for a Governmental rectal exam just to shoot at a range.

At this point in things the argument could be legitimately made that for the law abiding citizen there's no point in keeping arms. Without maintenance, care, service, or a place to shoot all a gun becomes is a paperweight.

How effective is someone going to be with a pistol if they haven't seen a firing range in 20 years due to them being closed?

How can you maintain a gun collection if Hoppe's Number 9 is contraband?

What if a fire hits your home? Good luck explaining to the Secret Police about that burnt slag in the shape of an AR15 the FD found inside your floorboards.

Bottom line, you should think long and hard about violating a confiscation order. 30 years in Leavenworth is nothing to play with.

Perhaps more serious than all those details, you face a devils bargain using an illegal gun under such circumstances. A farmer in England used an illegal shotgun to kill a burglar raiding his farm at night. The farmer got hit with a life sentence initally, which was pleaded down to "only 20 years" due to citizen outcry.

After The Ban, should people choose to defy the law they should understand what they're getting into before typing "I HAVE THE RIGHT". This is true, but we can argue that buried guns under the tool shed ain't exercising much of anything.

mag360
07-24-2012, 4:55 PM
one thing someone said on here was "if it comes time to bury them, it is time to use them".

and on the registration regard, ask them if they can even think how registration reduces crime.

dbo
07-24-2012, 5:09 PM
FROM “THE GULAG ARCHIPELAGO” (1973 by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn) ON HOW TO RESIST MASS ARREST.



Could I do that? Darned if I know.

Man I can't believe someone else has read that!

HowardW56
07-24-2012, 5:10 PM
Responses here are nothing more than chest puffing. Those who will act, won't talk about it. Those on the fence, might or might not. Those who know how to make new ones (I'm not talking about 80%s, parts kits, etc. I'm talking about 100% starting from scratch), might or might not. Those who will instantly cave will be the first to post that they plan to fight 'till the death. Personally, I have no idea what I will or won't do. There are too many veriables that you haven't nailed down yet.

:iagree:

mrbalbowski
07-24-2012, 7:18 PM
[QUOTE=mag360;8993850]one thing someone said on here was "if it comes time to bury them, it is time to use them".QUOTE]

That's probably what most of the people who frequent this forum think, right? But would they ever really do it? If it ever came to the point where guns were outlawed and it was a "normal" thing, would the resisters then be considered terrorists? They'd think they are defending the constitution and the rest of society would probably see them as terrorist nuts or something since big brother says no. Even if some sort of organized militia were created, what kind chance would they have in accomplishing anything close to what they would consider success? I guess it's just kinda interesting to think about, but once I start thinking deeper about it, it's a bit concerning.

erik_26
07-24-2012, 8:31 PM
Strength in numbers. They will only take what we let them take.

We could repeal all gun laws almost overnight if everyone came together and said enough was enough and laid it all on the line.

And that just wont happen....

Gun ownership will become a history lesson.

SilverTauron
07-24-2012, 8:37 PM
[QUOTE=mag360;8993850]one thing someone said on here was "if it comes time to bury them, it is time to use them".QUOTE]

That's probably what most of the people who frequent this forum think, right? But would they ever really do it? If it ever came to the point where guns were outlawed and it was a "normal" thing, would the resisters then be considered terrorists? They'd think they are defending the constitution and the rest of society would probably see them as terrorist nuts or something since big brother says no. Even if some sort of organized militia were created, what kind chance would they have in accomplishing anything close to what they would consider success? I guess it's just kinda interesting to think about, but once I start thinking deeper about it, it's a bit concerning.

I will not go so far as to say any attempt to resist the current government would fail;that said the biggest obstackle we face no matter how we fight the Disarmament Lobby is information.


The saying used to be that the pen is mightier than the sword. I submit now that its the TV station which is more powerful than the gun. A dictator with good PR can conquer nations without firing a shot. You can have the strongest military on Earth and still lose a war if you lose the media . Vietnam stands as one example of this effect.

With regard to an armed resistance of a confiscation order, any movement of that nature would forever fight in obscurity. Think for a minute about how slanted the media was against the RKBA after the Aurora CO. tragedy. If that's all anyone ever saw, then most of the nation would be laboring under the mistaken idea that this guy had bought a full auto machine gun over the counter. Note that if the media can't even get that right, how exactly will MSNBC report a live rebellion in progress?

The answer is simple:they won't. A government vs citizen civil war would be blacked out like Fast and Furious was;even if the government lost the physical fight, the only thing Joe and Jane America would see is camera footage of "a criminal gang armed with machine guns shooting police". As patriots are fighting a live shooting war, 99% of the nation would be unaware its even happening. Unlike the Revolutionary War , today its very possible we could be in an insurgency right this second.......and none of us would know the wiser.

Scared yet? ;)

Carnivore
07-24-2012, 9:25 PM
Call me a chest puffer...

nicki
07-25-2012, 10:04 AM
With 3d printers and other machinery costs coming down, it will be a moot issue.

Some people might consider making "clones" of registered guns, you name, same markings, serial numbers and when the confiscation comes, well that will be a hard choice.

Do you hand in your original or do you hand in the clone.:p

The gun confiscation will open up a massive black market in arms and something tells me that these underground guns will be "full feature". In other words, the ARs, Mac 10s, AKs and military style rifles will probably have the happy switch(select fire).

The targets we shoot at would change too, they would go from 2D paper to 3D traitors.

Most Americans would comply with the law if their guns were registered although I know that we probably will have a record number of "boating accidents".:43:

Gun confiscation was the final act of the British that sparked the American Revolution.

Another American Revolution would be ugly and we would have problems with false "Liberators". See the "the Dark Knight Rises" for reference.;)

Nicki

AfghanVetOrcutt
07-25-2012, 10:12 AM
Guess I'm just a chest puffer also, I'm glad people who have never met me know me so well :rolleyes:. If they take our guns that means that we are no longer free or we are on the verge of losing all freedoms and I would rather die fighting for freedom than die an old man having tasted freedom and then stood idly by as we lost it. The 2nd Amendment was written for exactly this reason. The "militia" would be us as gun owners and it would have to be us, as gun owners, to stand up against oppression. That being said, the US military, or who is left after the defector join our side, will crush us because they have better weapons and training than civilians. Abrams vs. AR15 anyone? A-10, Javelin, Ma-Deuce etc etc...

edit: flame suit on, bring it on.

huntercf
07-25-2012, 10:28 AM
^^^+1
I look at a little different than some...many have come before me that answered the call to serve and they paid for my freedom with their blood, if that time comes will I not be willing to pay for my childrens' freedom with mine. This is only speculation and none of us can give a 100% answer; however, the 2A was written with this type of scenario in mind, draw your own conclusions.

12voltguy
07-25-2012, 10:29 AM
Responses here are nothing more than chest puffing. Those who will act, won't talk about it.t.

:whistling: :whistling: :whistling: :whistling: :whistling:

JON KARGATHALON
07-25-2012, 10:40 AM
We could just steal their technology :D Have some abrams of our own :) Heres the thing about "chest puffers" you never know which ones are dead serious. And thats.....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWILhrSzw5o


HAHAHAHA!

creekside
07-25-2012, 7:46 PM
With all the talk about constitutional rights and the 2nd amendment and the thread about what the big deal about registering your guns is, what would you do if it actually happened and the government came knocking on your door and demanded all your registered weapons? Would you hide them? Say they are lost/stolen? Hand them over because it's the law? Hand them over because you have unregistered weapons anyway? It'd be interesting to hear your responses.

Turn them over, get a receipt, sue their asses. I actually believe in the rule of law. If that is overturned, guns don't mean much.

-KZntE2u6kE

vantec08
07-25-2012, 8:04 PM
http://i571.photobucket.com/albums/ss152/vantec08/FunnyDoorMat00.jpg

southernsnowshoe
07-25-2012, 8:09 PM
Responses here are nothing more than chest puffing. Those who will act, won't talk about it. Those on the fence, might or might not. Those who know how to make new ones (I'm not talking about 80%s, parts kits, etc. I'm talking about 100% starting from scratch), might or might not. Those who will instantly cave will be the first to post that they plan to fight 'till the death. Personally, I have no idea what I will or won't do. There are too many veriables that you haven't nailed down yet.



"nothing more than chest puffing" well mister 25,000 posts you should try going outside once in a while. I for one will be rejoicing when this day finally comes because it will bring out the gun nuts, the crazies, the right wing extremists, in other words, my people.

A simular group was provoked into action April 19th 1775. We could not ask for any more than the opportunity to be directly involved in an action that would ensure our future freedoms.

You keep nailing down those "variables" my friend. For me there are no "variables" when it comes to forced confiscation. Nobody is taking my guns from me while I am still alive.

Lone_Gunman
07-25-2012, 8:17 PM
Responses here are nothing more than chest puffing. Those who will act, won't talk about it. Those on the fence, might or might not. Those who know how to make new ones (I'm not talking about 80%s, parts kits, etc. I'm talking about 100% starting from scratch), might or might not. Those who will instantly cave will be the first to post that they plan to fight 'till the death. Personally, I have no idea what I will or won't do. There are too many veriables that you haven't nailed down yet.

We live quite a few miles from each other, but if I'm ever in your neck of the woods, or you're ever up in the Sacramento area I'd like to buy you a cup of coffee. You seem to see things for what they are, and thats a rare characteristic these days.

SilverTauron
07-25-2012, 11:27 PM
...... Nobody is taking my guns from me while I am still alive.


That's absolutely correct. You'll be willingly handing them in at the amnesty line like everyone else. ;)


Not to far from where I live there happens to be little place called Wounded Knee. In the late 70s some people who never posted a day in their lives on an internet forum took the Molon Laabe creed to its apex against the U.S. Marshalls service.

72 days of siege later, the combatants surrendered. Turned out after they kicked out the US Government, there was still the minor problem of getting international recognition,consistent medical care and some form of stable government and economy started up.

People like to talk a good game around here regarding an armed stand;but I warn you "chest puffers" with utmost respect that revolutions usually go bad more often than they go well. Modern America stands as a statistical exception to the rule regarding coups and resistance to the government.

With nearly every major revolution one can think of in the 20th and 21st Century, the end result of years of civil war & and death is a new government just as crooked and abusive as the one you started all the trouble to get rid of. In most revolts all that happens is that the population trades one form of subjugation for another.

southernsnowshoe
07-26-2012, 1:59 PM
That's absolutely correct. You'll be willingly handing them in at the amnesty line like everyone else. ;)



You must be smoking crack.

I don't know what that little wink is supposed to mean, maybe that statement is your attempt at humor.

Bottom line as I see it, my guns are the only thing that seperates me from citizen or slave. I am sure that there is a percentage of people that will bend over in any type of conflict, the kind of people that would stand by and allow their women to be raped or their land to be stolen. If that is you then that's just you brother. Don't for a minute act like you know me.

And if you would just hand over your guns, hell just go and do it right now. I'm sure Kamala Harris would appreciate you saving her the effort.

Untamed1972
07-26-2012, 2:20 PM
Turn them over, get a receipt, sue their asses. I actually believe in the rule of law. If that is overturned, guns don't mean much.

-KZntE2u6kE

:rofl2:

Rule of law only means something if those who wish to ignore it have something more meaningful to fear.

Brown Rock
07-26-2012, 2:27 PM
Personally, I have no idea what I will or won't do. There are too many veriables that you haven't nailed down yet.

This is my answer as well.

SilverTauron
07-26-2012, 2:29 PM
You must be smoking crack.

I don't know what that little wink is supposed to mean, maybe that statement is your attempt at humor.


It seems you have no sense of humor when it comes to the realities of this topic. More's the pity.

Ill ask you an even more offensive quiry;are you prepared to see your family bury you because you resisted a gun ban? Its easy to say "over my dead hiney" when you're the only one suffering. How about your kids? Are they prepared to lose a parent over the RKBA? Its a relevant question you should know the answer to before you state any ambitious plans to join the Wolverines in the Colorado mountains.



Bottom line as I see it, my guns are the only thing that seperates me from citizen or slave. I am sure that there is a percentage of people that will bend over in any type of conflict, the kind of people that would stand by and allow their women to be raped or their land to be stolen. If that is you then that's just you brother. Don't for a minute act like you know me.


Then do not make your own mistake.Unlike a lot of blowhards I actually have reached for my piece in self defense before. Not at a training seminar or at a fancy range, but in real life. There is not a thing you have to tell me that I do not already know about that kind of conflict. That statement has NOTHING to do with the topic at hand.



And if you would just hand over your guns, hell just go and do it right now. I'm sure Kamala Harris would appreciate you saving her the effort.

Lets cut the macho BS, shall we?

Did I accuse you of being a sheep or some kind of wimp? Hardly. As you said so eloquently above, I don't know you. But we live on Planet Earth, not the Promised Land. If you get a shiny letter that looks similar to this...

http://rkba.org/ca/lockyer-sks-confiscation/lockyer1.gif

..saying to hand over every gun you own by X date, or face arrest, are you seriously going to tell me you would rather spend the rest of your life in prison-or be shot dead- than hand them over ?

Before you say "Id rather die on my feet than live on my knees", lets remember that whether you comply or not you still lose your guns.

Outcome 1:
You get the letter. You defy it. Cops come to take you into custody.You yell "Molon Laabe" and drag out the 12 gauge. SWAT shoots you dead and puts two in your dog for making them waste ammo. Guns are melted down, and southernsnowshoe is laid to rest.

Outcome 2:
You get the letter. You obey. Cops take guns away. southernshowshoe gets to live the rest of his life with his family , albeit defenseless against armed criminal incursion.

Outcome 3:

You get the letter. You lie. Guns are buried, you submit evidence your new boat sank with all property on board, and your gun collection rots beneath the floorboards of the tool shed. Can't take them to the range, because they've all been closed. Can't shoot them without attracting police attention, and you dare not be seen in public with a firearm sans police credentials. Carry a gun for personal defense at home or in the street, and you'll be locked up longer than the perp will. That's better than being dead- but you still loose your gun collection when the cops get a warrant to raid the tool shed. southernsnowshoe gets sentenced 25-to life at Shawshank for illegal gun possession.

Scenario 4
You pack a go bag and head to the hills to join a militia which will be hunted by the most powerful and technologically advanced military to ever walk the Earth. southernsnowshoe becomes a wanted terrorist, ....and the gun collection is seized by military intelligence.

The best way to prevent this nightmare from happening? Don't fall asleep at the ballot box.

End thread.

FalconLair
07-26-2012, 2:41 PM
i dont think anyone could really say what they would do...im sure in the back of everyones minds you're wishing that time never comes...i believe that at some time in the future we could see some type of futher restriction on some of the larger rifles, AR's, stuff like that, but I dont think hand guns are in any immediate danger, although you never know

most people seem to have an agenda with the "assault weapons", they're scary and intimidating looking and for some reason people still haven't been able to get it into their thick heads the difference between "automatic" and "semi-automatic"...in their minds they think of all weapons as mass rapid firing weapons

our best bet is through educating people to the difference...sometimes I don't think its really just an issue about "bearing arms" I think the issue is the "type of arms" people want to have and the lack of knowledge society has about those arms. The absolute sure fire way of keeping our gun rights is having more people fighting for them

Ripon83
07-26-2012, 2:42 PM
Those few meaningless old things that didn't get lost in the boating accident.


With all the talk about constitutional rights and the 2nd amendment and the thread about what the big deal about registering your guns is, what would you do if it actually happened and the government came knocking on your door and demanded all your registered weapons? Would you hide them? Say they are lost/stolen? Hand them over because it's the law? Hand them over because you have unregistered weapons anyway? It'd be interesting to hear your responses.

Blackcrow
07-26-2012, 2:46 PM
Outcome 2:
You get the letter. You obey. Cops take guns away. southernshowshoe gets to live the rest of his life with his family , albeit defenseless against armed criminal incursion.



Yup, because that is what the 2nd is all about there. Criminals and protections from them. :rolleyes:

im2ninja4u
07-26-2012, 2:54 PM
I'd let them take it then buy the good ones from Eric Holder.

OlderThanDirt
07-26-2012, 3:14 PM
Unless under extremely unusual circumstances, door-to-door gun confiscation will not occur. There are too many gun owners and too much risk to LE.

In the end, you will gladly turn your firearms over to the Internal Revenue Service. After all of your bank accounts are frozen and assets seized, you will have a choice of complying or starving to death.

The government will accept that large numbers of unregistered firearms will remain with the public, and increase the penalties of being caught in possession of a firearm, and even worse if you use one in self defense.

Gun control advocates recognize that over 200 years of gun ownership cannot be changed overnight. Those that advocate the end of personal firearm ownership can live with a process that can take a generation or more, especially when there would be a significant reduction in firearm ownership and non-compliance penalties in the initial stages. Eventually the passing of the gun owner and rust will finish the job.

Jason_2111
07-26-2012, 3:59 PM
@SilverTauron - Normally I disagree with you from time to time, but your post hits the nail right on the head. There is a scenario you didn't cover though:

Outcome 6: You say "That's the last straw!", and move out of state, taking all of your guns with you. (The OP didn't state whether this was national, or at the State level, which is a lot more likely IMHO.)

:lurk5:

Wherryj
07-26-2012, 5:29 PM
FROM “THE GULAG ARCHIPELAGO” (1973 by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn) ON HOW TO RESIST MASS ARREST.



Could I do that? Darned if I know.

You do if you get to the point where you realize that you really have nothing left to lose. The real question is just how many people can continue to live in denial should such an incident happen again.

mrbalbowski
07-26-2012, 7:32 PM
@SilverTauron - Normally I disagree with you from time to time, but your post hits the nail right on the head. There is a scenario you didn't cover though:

Outcome 6: You say "That's the last straw!", and move out of state, taking all of your guns with you. (The OP didn't state whether this was national, or at the State level, which is a lot more likely IMHO.)

:lurk5:

Well in my scenario it would be at the national level. If it were to occur at the national level, do you think pro gun states...let's say Texas or something for example, would try to secede? Even if they try, would it be possible?

southernsnowshoe
07-26-2012, 9:10 PM
It seems you have no sense of humor when it comes to the realities of this topic. More's the pity.

Ill ask you an even more offensive quiry;are you prepared to see your family bury you because you resisted a gun ban? Its easy to say "over my dead hiney" when you're the only one suffering. How about your kids? Are they prepared to lose a parent over the RKBA? Its a relevant question you should know the answer to before you state any ambitious plans to join the Wolverines in the Colorado mountains.





Then do not make your own mistake.Unlike a lot of blowhards I actually have reached for my piece in self defense before. Not at a training seminar or at a fancy range, but in real life. There is not a thing you have to tell me that I do not already know about that kind of conflict. That statement has NOTHING to do with the topic at hand.




Lets cut the macho BS, shall we?

Did I accuse you of being a sheep or some kind of wimp? Hardly. As you said so eloquently above, I don't know you. But we live on Planet Earth, not the Promised Land. If you get a shiny letter that looks similar to this...

http://rkba.org/ca/lockyer-sks-confiscation/lockyer1.gif

..saying to hand over every gun you own by X date, or face arrest, are you seriously going to tell me you would rather spend the rest of your life in prison-or be shot dead- than hand them over ?

Before you say "Id rather die on my feet than live on my knees", lets remember that whether you comply or not you still lose your guns.

Outcome 1:
You get the letter. You defy it. Cops come to take you into custody.You yell "Molon Laabe" and drag out the 12 gauge. SWAT shoots you dead and puts two in your dog for making them waste ammo. Guns are melted down, and southernsnowshoe is laid to rest.

Outcome 2:
You get the letter. You obey. Cops take guns away. southernshowshoe gets to live the rest of his life with his family , albeit defenseless against armed criminal incursion.

Outcome 3:

You get the letter. You lie. Guns are buried, you submit evidence your new boat sank with all property on board, and your gun collection rots beneath the floorboards of the tool shed. Can't take them to the range, because they've all been closed. Can't shoot them without attracting police attention, and you dare not be seen in public with a firearm sans police credentials. Carry a gun for personal defense at home or in the street, and you'll be locked up longer than the perp will. That's better than being dead- but you still loose your gun collection when the cops get a warrant to raid the tool shed. southernsnowshoe gets sentenced 25-to life at Shawshank for illegal gun possession.

Scenario 4
You pack a go bag and head to the hills to join a militia which will be hunted by the most powerful and technologically advanced military to ever walk the Earth. southernsnowshoe becomes a wanted terrorist, ....and the gun collection is seized by military intelligence.

The best way to prevent this nightmare from happening? Don't fall asleep at the ballot box.

End thread.


End thread.

Yeah. sure. I guess we can end this thread now with all of that wisdom.

You know what folks, read the posts on here for what they really are. Brady is alive and well and active on this forum. Do not drink the kool-aid folks, when someone is going out of their way to prove their point on how you should lay down and turn over your guns to the government, you are the target of systematic desensitization.

The strategy of the left is to continue to raise doubt in the minds of americans as to the true validity of every right that makes this country free. If they can create doubt and confusion, their vision of a disarmed, pacifist, overtaxed and politically correct america can move closer to reality.

I am just thankful for the founders of this country, who thank god, did not think like Silver. Who ideals and sacrifice made this country, and who would not stand for their guns to be confiscated. Molon Laabe.

SonoftheRepublic
07-26-2012, 9:53 PM
End thread.

Yeah. sure. I guess we can end this thread now with all of that wisdom.

You know what folks, read the posts on here for what they really are. Brady is alive and well and active on this forum. Do not drink the kool-aid folks, when someone is going out of their way to prove their point on how you should lay down and turn over your guns to the government, you are the target of systematic desensitization.

The strategy of the left is to continue to raise doubt in the minds of americans as to the true validity of every right that makes this country free. If they can create doubt and confusion, their vision of a disarmed, pacifist, overtaxed and politically correct america can move closer to reality.

I am just thankful for the founders of this country, who thank god, did not think like Silver. Who ideals and sacrifice made this country, and who would not stand for their guns to be confiscated. Molon Laabe.

Beautifully put! Could not have said it better myself!

What in the hell has become of Americans, once so fiercely proud of their hard-fought freedoms, Constitution, Bill of Rights and heritage, but to let it all slowly slip from their fingers with nary a whimper. I shake my head in absolute disgust . . .

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who
approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but
downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably
ruined.” — Patrick Henry

Deadbolt
07-26-2012, 9:58 PM
Here come the stories of entire collections of firearms lost in horrible boating accidents... :cool:

i was fishing for halibut 27miles off Pismo and ....

all gone.

all.

gone.


except this one shotgun that kinda works but not really well , i left it at home for my wife to use in case something happened while i was gone :chris: :(

nicki
07-27-2012, 12:28 AM
[QUOTE=mag360;8993850]one thing someone said on here was "if it comes time to bury them, it is time to use them".QUOTE]

That's probably what most of the people who frequent this forum think, right? But would they ever really do it? If it ever came to the point where guns were outlawed and it was a "normal" thing, would the resisters then be considered terrorists? They'd think they are defending the constitution and the rest of society would probably see them as terrorist nuts or something since big brother says no. Even if some sort of organized militia were created, what kind chance would they have in accomplishing anything close to what they would consider success? I guess it's just kinda interesting to think about, but once I start thinking deeper about it, it's a bit concerning.

If we get this level of gun regulation in our country it is because too many Americans volunteered for this to happen by their non-action.

That being said, things could get ugly real fast, it wouldn't take much.

History showed what happened in Lexington and Concord, while I don't see the government trying to confiscate our "militias", I do see problems.

Nicki

mikestesting
07-27-2012, 9:09 AM
I'd pack up my family and move to a territory of the US that is still gun-friendly, like Texas or another area where there is a lot of resistance to the movement. Like most, I live in CA. There isn't a lot of people out here who would band together on this and make a fight. If I stayed, there would be no way I could resist on my own. I'd want to be in an area where a majority of the population would fight and make a stand. There is strength in numbers, after all.

Police will not all of a sudden be knocking on our doors one day asking for our weapons. There's going to be a lead-up to it happening (like others posted), and most of us will see it coming. I'll pack up and leave before the door knocking/smashing begins.

adampolo13
07-27-2012, 9:29 AM
I personally believe that an attack on the gun ownership would be viewed by the majority of the population as an attack on the constitution. Why do you think the government has UN troops training and stationed on U.S. soil? There are many who believe that if this "gun grabbing" situtation were to occur the U.S. Military wouldn't fully comply. I.E. rebel groups loyal to the constitution. I think at the end of the day most people, gun owners or not, would stand against that type of attack on the constitution. Look how many people are starting to abandon democrates and republicans and join indepedent "constitutionalist" type parties?

I think if a real gun grab were to happen it would mean the end of the United States as we know it...

SPaikmos
07-27-2012, 10:04 AM
End thread.

Yeah. sure. I guess we can end this thread now with all of that wisdom.

You know what folks, read the posts on here for what they really are. Brady is alive and well and active on this forum. Do not drink the kool-aid folks, when someone is going out of their way to prove their point on how you should lay down and turn over your guns to the government, you are the target of systematic desensitization.

The strategy of the left is to continue to raise doubt in the minds of americans as to the true validity of every right that makes this country free. If they can create doubt and confusion, their vision of a disarmed, pacifist, overtaxed and politically correct america can move closer to reality.

I am just thankful for the founders of this country, who thank god, did not think like Silver. Who ideals and sacrifice made this country, and who would not stand for their guns to be confiscated. Molon Laabe.

Unfortunately, I think you are both right. Southernsnowshoe has the "correct" (ideal) response, and SilverTauron lays it out like most people would do it. I would wish there are more Southernsnowshoes than SilverTaurons, but the reality is that most will roll over.

It comes down to what's best for the individual vs the collective whole. As a whole, we want to secure our rights for everyone. However, to do that, some individuals will have to sacrifice themselves to make it happen. Nobody wants to be the first to give their life, yet they all want to share the benefits that such a sacrifice would bring.

Why I think SilverTauron's scenario is more likely? Because every day, I see many examples of people acting to maximize their individual benefit vs the collective whole. When TSA started using their new tech, how many people actively resisted it? When you get questioned by BP or police on the street, how many of you clam up and refuse to talk? When the guy at Costco asks to see the receipt for YOUR items that you now own, how many refuse to comply? Sure, you can tell them where you were and what you were doing and be on your way in 30 seconds, or you can fight tooth and nail for your right to privacy and be detained for an hour or so.

I see a lot of chest puffing online, but very few times do I see people actually doing what's right.

My personal pet peeve - people throwing cigarette butts or littering. I've watched people do it in front of others, and nobody steps in to have a word with them. We decide it's better to avoid confrontation (you never know if the guy is crazy and/or armed) instead of keeping a clean environment.

creekside
07-27-2012, 5:04 PM
:rofl2:

Rule of law only means something if those who wish to ignore it have something more meaningful to fear.

I'm guessing that you did not watch the video.

I would expect a lot of different responses to a door-to-door confiscation effort. I do not think my response -- to turn in my guns, get a receipt, and then sue -- would be the most common. But this IS what happened after Hurricane Katrina's confiscations, some of which were committed by the California Highway Patrol as seen on video. So this is not a hypothetical, is it?

If you obey the law even if the law is wrong, you're a subject. If you obey the unjust law and then sue or take other lawful actions (media, demonstrations, etc.) to uphold your rights, you're a citizen. If you challenge an unjust law by breaking it, take the arrest, go to court and prove your innocence, you're engaged in civil disobedience -- and damn heroic to boot. But once you break the law and try to evade the consequences, whether or not you get caught, you're a common criminal. If you use force to interfere with the civil rights of others, your criminality is no longer "common" -- you are a terrorist by the most classic definition: one that encompasses the Ku Klux Klan, the NOPD officers at Danziger Bridge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danziger_Bridge_shootings) who shot fleeing evacuees, and all the other criminal thugs in between.

Read the last paragraph without a "brass pass" -- because exactly the same logic applies to anyone who uses force unlawfully under color of authority, with or without shiny metal, uniforms and/or action figure accessories.

If the rule of law by which we run our civilization is broken, whether or not you have a gun under the floorboards won't matter worth a hill of beans.

Some of the techniques the Nazis used against the French resistance included:

-- mass drafts of working-age men to work on war projects in Germany
-- mass deportations to concentration camps of undesirable elements including Jews and Romani ("Gypsies") marked for priority execution, very few of whom survived the war
-- the taking of hostages as insurance against Resistance attacks
-- execution of hostages (an estimated 30,000 were murdered in France alone), many by hanging
-- massacre of an entire village (Oradour-sur-Glane (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oradour-sur-Glane)) and large scale atrocities in at least four other towns
-- "For every German wounded or killed, we will kill ten terrorists." - Gruppenführer Heinz Lammerding, June 6, 1944
-- execution of British and Canadian soldiers under arms who had surrendered in France on terms, both in the initial invasion and after D-Day
-- under the infamous Commando Order (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commando_Order) of 18 October 1942, Hitler ordered that Allied commandos in Europe were to be executed on capture, and that any who "fall into custody" would be immediately transferred to the Security Directorate and never to be treated as prisoners of war; this explicitly included military advisors to the French Resistance whether in uniform or not
-- torture followed by execution of suspected French Resistance fighters ("maquis" or francs tireurs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francs_tireurs)) without regard to legalities of any sort
-- the burning of any house, regardless of the owner, used by the Resistance in any way

Anti-partisan operations on the Eastern Front, while less well documented, were orders of magnitude more frightful.

NOTE WHO LOST. Some of these crimes -- but not enough -- were later punished by trial, imprisonment and execution. Others were glossed over as "legitimate" operations of war.

Anyone who beats their chest about "I won't turn in my guns" should take a good hard look at this photo.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/de/Bundesarchiv_Bild_146-1976-127-15A%2C_Minsk%2C_erh%C3%A4ngte_Widerstandsk%C3%A4mp fer.jpg

It's you, bro.

creekside
07-27-2012, 5:40 PM
You know what folks, read the posts on here for what they really are.

Absolutely. Read carefully. I mean it. Read carefully.

Brady is alive and well and active on this forum.

As is Federal, state and local law enforcement. People who write the laws, people who obey the laws, people who don't, people who lobby, people who just want to own a gun for fun, preppers, soldiers, supporters of freedom, history buffs and even Kool Aid drinkers!

Do not drink the kool-aid folks, when someone is going out of their way to prove their point on how you should lay down and turn over your guns to the government, you are the target of systematic desensitization.

Here is where I disagree. Benjamin Franklin in 1776 said in all seriousness (http://www.ushistory.org/valleyforge/history/franklin.html), "We must, indeed, all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately."

Here's a recommended movie viewing list (http://kingsofwar.org.uk/2010/02/films/) for additional Kool Aid goodness. Three favorites which receive honorable mentions: "The Beast (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0094716/)" (frolic of a Russian tank crew in 'Stan) | "Defiance (www.imdb.com/title/tt1034303/)" (Jews camp in forest to escape Holocaust) | "Red Dawn (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087985/)" (star vehicle turned invasion fantasy) and the 2012 remake (http://www.reddawnmovienews.com/) keeps getting pushed back.

The strategy of the left is to continue to raise doubt in the minds of americans as to the true validity of every right that makes this country free. If they can create doubt and confusion, their vision of a disarmed, pacifist, overtaxed and politically correct america can move closer to reality.

I'm blind in that wavelength. There is a creeping tide of tyranny that has nothing to do with Left or Right and everything to do with encouraging people to give up their rights, fail to respect the rights of others, and generally act like an asshat instead of remembering that we are all Americans.

I am just thankful for the founders of this country, who thank god, did not think like Silver. Who ideals and sacrifice made this country, and who would not stand for their guns to be confiscated. Molon Laabe.

If SilverTauron and I -- or anyone else with a sense of history posting on a message board -- can scare someone into giving up their guns, they probably should.

You did not ask what we would do if we had been at Lexington or Concord (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Lexington_and_Concord). But then again, that's a tough one to answer too -- and if you'd asked over a rum in a bar in Boston in early 1775, only a fool would have answered you.

hornswaggled
07-27-2012, 7:30 PM
Hook up dozens of hidden cameras around my house, and when the confiscation crew comes by, stand at my front door arms folded and say, "No thanks." Then close my eyes and wait to get beaten or tazed or worse, and inside my wife presses the button to upload the video to LiveLeak.

JON KARGATHALON
07-27-2012, 8:57 PM
Can we not form a failsafe? I mean, surely for every serious organization or movement there is allways a "failsafe contingency" should the worst happen. Yes it would be easy for the Govt to take down single citizens and grab their guns, but what if there was a failsafe in which an organization such as ours here at CG "Banded together" yes theres that wording again.

What i mean by this, and by all means this is all hypothetical, is if we were to band with the NRA and 2Afoundations members, and make a formal writ of opposition to the Govt on their gun grabbing scheme How many people would we have? A couple million at least? Thats a lot better odds than if we all stay home, hmm? I mean if it really came down to it fully knowing what comes after the govt disarms the people, would people really just sit in their armchairs and accept their fate? I thought America had more cahones than that my friends! Hell, we bombed the holy **** out of two countries in 10 years. I also believe there will be a split in the military, a left and right division so to speak. There will be high ranking officers of all of our armed forces that would see all this as a violation of the constitution. Will some of them not tell their troops " This isn't constitutional" "We are not going to participate in this tyranny" ??

Has the Govt really molded us into such fearful individuals that we have forgotten what horrable atrocities, and martydom had to be comitted, for us to enjoy all of the liberties and rights that we have today?

If anyone answers yes to the last two questions, then maybe the time is long overdue for a government reform. Not a Tax reform, or a healthcare reform.

Sorry guys, but i Try to keep the government out of my life as much as i can. But when it starts poking its dirty nose into my personal rights and affairs, it Jolly well pisses me off.

How about you?

JON KARGATHALON
07-27-2012, 9:10 PM
History has shown repeatedly that when two sides cannot come to a compromise on a situation, it often resorts to one side eliminating the opposition, am i wrong? Now in sophisticated America there are many ways to eliminate the opposition without violence, the easiest way is FUD.. And it appears it is working here at Calguns on some of us. Its sad..

OldShooter32
07-27-2012, 9:16 PM
What guns?

southernsnowshoe
07-27-2012, 9:21 PM
Hook up dozens of hidden cameras around my house, and when the confiscation crew comes by, stand at my front door arms folded and say, "No thanks." Then close my eyes and wait to get beaten or tazed or worse, and inside my wife presses the button to upload the video to LiveLeak.


Exactly. You have the proper mindset, someone is going to have to be willing to take one for the team. And with the internet, facebook, twitter, etc. word will spread quick.

That scene will have to repeat itself maybe a half dozen times, and it's my belief that even the most hesitant among us will know what they have to do.

southernsnowshoe
07-27-2012, 10:03 PM
As is Federal, state and local law enforcement.


And this is a critical piece of the puzzle. I have friends in law enforcement, and around the campfire having a few beers I have asked them what they would do if ordered to disarm citizens whos only crime is firearm ownership/possession.

They all said hell no they would not. I know one retired Imperial county sheriff deputy who said in 25 years he had encountered many people carrying guns and had never taken one away from an american citizen, unless they were under arrest for some other offense.

Alot of LEO's are patriots as well. They will, i believe, become allies in this scenario. Of course there are many in law enforcement who think ordinary citizens have no business having guns, and would relish knocking down your door to take yours.

For this reason we should stand together or hang separately ( did I get that right?) we need to send the message that we will make widows of the wives of anyone, foreign or domestic, who sets out to seize our guns.

All of these folks, from the politicians to the cop on the street, have at some point taken an oath to uphold the constitution. When they violate that oath, all bets are off.

BradleyAbrams
07-27-2012, 10:33 PM
< snip >
All of these folks, from the politicians to the cop on the street, have at some point taken an oath to uphold the constitution. When they violate that oath, all bets are off.

^^^^^ This ^^^^^.

-

12voltguy
07-28-2012, 8:28 AM
I'm guessing that you did not watch the video.

I would expect a lot of different responses to a door-to-door confiscation effort. I do not think my response -- to turn in my guns, get a receipt, and then sue -- would be the most common. But this IS what happened after Hurricane Katrina's confiscations, some of which were committed by the California Highway Patrol as seen on video. So this is not a hypothetical, is it?

.

lots never got a receipt, had no way to get guns back.
many were damaged being tossed around to.:mad:

12voltguy
07-28-2012, 8:46 AM
Anyone who beats their chest about "I won't turn in my guns" should take a good hard look at this photo.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/de/Bundesarchiv_Bild_146-1976-127-15A%2C_Minsk%2C_erh%C3%A4ngte_Widerstandsk%C3%A4mp fer.jpg

.

these people turned in there guns, worked out about the same.....

http://www.thehotjoints.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/holocaustremnants2.gif

http://avideditor.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/holocaust.jpeg

OleCuss
07-28-2012, 8:58 AM
A sudden gun ban won't work. That would trigger an armed response.

As others have suggested, it would be incremental. With creeping restrictions one small step at a time you don't tend to trigger the big response.

You don't even need to ever ban gun ownership. You just tax the ownership and make it exceedingly expensive to maintain the firearms - and make the firearms useless anyway. You gradually turn the firearms into useless scrap for which you can't get ammo anyway - and people will start to dispose of them voluntarily.

Such is the problem with big government.

I think Ron Paul is a nut, but he also has a lot of very good points. We need someone similar who is a bit more balanced - maybe Rand Paul is sufficiently balanced?

creekside
07-28-2012, 9:07 AM
lots never got a receipt, had no way to get guns back.
many were damaged being tossed around to.:mad:

With a receipt is confiscation.

Without a receipt is armed robbery. Thugs will be thugs, and scariest of all is thugs immune to the police for whatever reason.

Edited To Add: I'm not a lawyer, but signing a property receipt or inventory prior to legal advice may be a bad idea. They have to give you a receipt, you don't have to sign it.

12voltguy
07-28-2012, 9:10 AM
A sudden gun ban won't work. That would trigger an armed response.

As others have suggested, it would be incremental. With creeping restrictions one small step at a time you don't tend to trigger the big response.

You don't even need to ever ban gun ownership. You just tax the ownership and make it exceedingly expensive to maintain the firearms - and make the firearms useless anyway. You gradually turn the firearms into useless scrap for which you can't get ammo anyway - and people will start to dispose of them voluntarily.

Such is the problem with big government.

I think Ron Paul is a nut, but he also has a lot of very good points. We need someone similar who is a bit more balanced - maybe Rand Paul is sufficiently balanced?

started in 1934
NFA
prez wanted to ban handguns, couldn't
they put in SBS SBR cause if you ban handguns people will mae SBS SBR
also wanted to tax bullets & shotgun shells real high, around $500 per shot shell $1000 per bullet......but sense took over & the prez at the time ROOSEVELT didn't do it even though he wanted to.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act

welchy
07-28-2012, 9:16 AM
Why is it that almost every thread about gun confiscation and "reasonable" gun laws are started by some junior member that has only been around for 6 months or less?

I will not play your game.

hornswaggled
07-28-2012, 10:56 AM
Maybe too at this level, the ACLU would finally get off their duffs and come to the 2A's defense.

OleCuss
07-28-2012, 12:06 PM
started in 1934
NFA
prez wanted to ban handguns, couldn't
they put in SBS SBR cause if you ban handguns people will mae SBS SBR
also wanted to tax bullets & shotgun shells real high, around $500 per shot shell $1000 per bullet......but sense took over & the prez at the time ROOSEVELT didn't do it even though he wanted to.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act

You nailed the exact example I was thinking of.

Agent Orange
07-28-2012, 12:09 PM
Crack me up. Even in countries where there is no 2A, in countries where most of the guns have been taken or never were in the hands of the people, there are always plenty to be found. I thought everyone here knew that.

Why is it that almost every thread about gun confiscation and "reasonable" gun laws are started by some junior member that has only been around for 6 months or less?


This. Why is this? I'll give you two guesses.

Smokeybehr
07-28-2012, 12:20 PM
Crack me up. Even in countries where there is no 2A, in countries where most of the guns have been taken or never were in the hands of the people, there are always plenty to be found. I thought everyone here knew that.


One word: Jamaica. Look it up re: firearms.

Agent Orange
07-28-2012, 1:17 PM
^ Indeed:

"So there we all were — government-disarmed, sitting-duck, law abiding citizens and expatriates. Anyone can guess what happened
next: the rampant and unfettered carnage began in earnest....all committed by the vast populace of still-armed criminals."

http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/persp/persp012.pdf

Danz la Nuit
07-28-2012, 9:25 PM
With all the talk about constitutional rights and the 2nd amendment and the thread about what the big deal about registering your guns is, what would you do if it actually happened and the government came knocking on your door and demanded all your registered weapons? Would you hide them? Say they are lost/stolen? Hand them over because it's the law? Hand them over because you have unregistered weapons anyway? It'd be interesting to hear your responses.

mrbalbowski (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/member.php?u=113049)
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 26
" What would you do?"

kcbrown
07-28-2012, 9:48 PM
I will not go so far as to say any attempt to resist the current government would fail;


You might not, but I will. It would take a freaking miracle to win a revolutionary effort against the current sitting government. There's simply too much force disparity involved, and that's before confiscation efforts are underway. Such efforts will only weaken our side of things.

And then you have the problem of most revolutionary actions resulting in a government at least as bad (if not much, much worse) than what preceded it. There is plenty of reason to believe, just based on historical data, that a revolution attempt here in the U.S. would result in a dictatorship regardless of which side "wins".



The answer is simple:they won't. A government vs citizen civil war would be blacked out like Fast and Furious was;even if the government lost the physical fight, the only thing Joe and Jane America would see is camera footage of "a criminal gang armed with machine guns shooting police". As patriots are fighting a live shooting war, 99% of the nation would be unaware its even happening. Unlike the Revolutionary War , today its very possible we could be in an insurgency right this second.......and none of us would know the wiser.


Oh, it's much worse than that. The media is already a fully-vested player in the political process, not the disinterested third party it pretends to be. That's why Fast and Furious is getting no coverage. So it should be taken as a given that the media will side with the government in the event an insurgency arises. The only kind of coverage said media will give the insurgency is that which will make said insurgency look like a bunch of lunatics trying to tear the country apart. The majority of the population will turn against the insurgency no matter how unjust the sitting government actually is. The whole thing will be over almost before it began. Anyone who thinks the U.S. military will side with the insurgency simply doesn't understand the sheer power that control over information gives the wielder. The U.S. military will side with the government because people within it will be fooled into thinking that the insurgency is a bunch of terrorists. And there's simply no way on this earth the insurgency will be able to win against that.


So I will strongly say that which you will not: there is no way a revolutionary effort against the U.S. government can possibly succeed without a miracle of Biblical proportions occurring. And I don't believe in miracles.


And lest anyone claim that "we did it in 1775, we can do it again!", let me remind you that in 1775:


The enemy was 2000 miles away across a vast and perilous ocean.
The enemy had to win against us in order to succeed. We merely needed to keep them from taking over.
The firepower of the average soldier and the firepower of the average civilian were about the same.
Information to influence the general population was disseminated primarily by large numbers of widely distributed newspaper outlets, as well as through word of mouth, pamphlet distribution, etc., and so the revolutionaries were able to gain a reasonably large following.

While today:


The government will be occupying the same land and will have the "home field" advantage.
The insurrection will have to win against the government, not merely succeed in holding it off, since the objective would be to overthrow the sitting government.
The firepower of the average soldier is thousands of times greater than the firepower of the average civilian, thanks to modern weaponry available to the military and not to the civilians.
Information to influence the general population is disseminated primarily by an easily-controlled mass media which even now is working to strip the population of its rights, and which will be spreading the government's message, not the revolutionaries'.



Which is to say, everything that was an advantage in 1775 is now a disadvantage.

When the circumstances are so hugely different, the likely outcome is also different.

kcbrown
07-28-2012, 10:04 PM
Well in my scenario it would be at the national level. If it were to occur at the national level, do you think pro gun states...let's say Texas or something for example, would try to secede? Even if they try, would it be possible?

No, it wouldn't be possible.

There was a war fought 150 years ago that answered that question rather definitively.

If a large number of states can't successfully secede as a group, there's no way a single state can.

kcbrown
07-28-2012, 10:29 PM
And this is a critical piece of the puzzle. I have friends in law enforcement, and around the campfire having a few beers I have asked them what they would do if ordered to disarm citizens whos only crime is firearm ownership/possession.

They all said hell no they would not. I know one retired Imperial county sheriff deputy who said in 25 years he had encountered many people carrying guns and had never taken one away from an american citizen, unless they were under arrest for some other offense.



And I claim they are in the minority amongst their brethren.

Let me put it this way: who do you think enforced the ban on public carry of firearms during the 80s and 90s? Who do you think enforced the ban on ownership in the areas that prohibited it prior to Heller and McDonald? Who do you think confiscated lawfully owned firearms during Katrina?

The answer is: the people in the very same law enforcement organizations that the people you speak of belong to.


No, when the confiscation order comes, the specific people you spoke to may refuse to enforce it, but the majority of their brethren will not, because they will be choosing between enforcing such an order and feeding their family.


You have exactly the right idea. It is the kind of thinking you show here that will be needed. But that kind of thinking only works when a sufficient number of people engage in it and when those same people manage to avoid being hoodwinked by someone with the leadership skills and charisma to successfully rally such people but who is, deep down, a power hungry tyrant. I submit to you that there are far more power hungry tyrants than there are true statesmen and men of honor, and that is why the vast majority of revolutions fail to make things better.


So I applaud you, sir, for your convictions, but I remain bitterly skeptical that the next batch of revolutionaries will be nearly as lucky as the ones in 1775 were (and they barely won as it was, and then only with the help of the French and a couple of thousand miles of perilous ocean that the English had to cross!).

SonoftheRepublic
07-29-2012, 6:33 AM
So I will strongly say that which you will not: there is no way a revolutionary effort against the U.S. government can possibly succeed without a miracle of Biblical proportions occurring. And I don't believe in miracles.

George Washington faced terrible odds and actually lost the majority of his battles . . . Yet there was one thing he and his country-men had that many today have lost . . . a righteous faith in God and the subsequent iron-will to persevere and do the impossible. This has always been the underlying reason for America's un-paralleled success, and will be the determining factor in our survival of coming perils.

southernsnowshoe
07-29-2012, 8:31 AM
No, when the confiscation order comes, the specific people you spoke to may refuse to enforce it, but the majority of their brethren will not, because they will be choosing between enforcing such an order and feeding their family.




So I applaud you, sir, for your convictions, but I remain bitterly skeptical that the next batch of revolutionaries will be nearly as lucky as the ones in 1775 were (and they barely won as it was, and then only with the help of the French and a couple of thousand miles of perilous ocean that the English had to cross!).



I agree that my polling was a bit skewed, as I am in a somewhat rural area, big city police departments are probably much more anti gun. But I disagree with the notion that we would have a tougher time than in 1775.
The police/military would be fighting fellow americans, not colonists from a land thousands of miles away. I seriously doubt their lack of commitment for anything large scale or protracted.

But the manner in which something like this is going to occur, I believe, is much less important than the realization that it is going to happen at some point, at least to some degree.

All we have to do is follow the bouncing ball along the time line of gun laws and their progression.

We need to form another group like was formed in 1775, only this one would be more organized and nationwide. It needs to have a very defined mission statement that we own guns and shoot guns legally and when and if necessary, will use those guns to defend our basic rights, exactly the way our founders did, and intended us to do as well.

If there was a clearly defined response to the actions of these fascist politicians, we would be in the drivers seat. Something more than " you will be hearing from my lawyer" 1775 was not a time for lawyers. Look at this country and think about how different it is from even 7-10 years ago. History does, can, and must repeat itself.

MigNoche
07-29-2012, 9:19 AM
Once they take away our rights to own firearms we will NEVER EVER get that right back!!! So if you value your rights you will do whatever it takes to retain them.

See quote below

kcbrown
07-29-2012, 5:58 PM
I agree that my polling was a bit skewed, as I am in a somewhat rural area, big city police departments are probably much more anti gun. But I disagree with the notion that we would have a tougher time than in 1775.


Most certainly that is something that reasonable people can disagree on. Allow me to lay out the factors as I see them, and we can proceed from there. Some of this will come from prior messages.


The government will be occupying the same land and will have the "home field" advantage, because:
The revolutionaries will have to win against the government, not merely succeed in holding it off, since the objective would be to overthrow the sitting government.
The firepower of the average soldier is thousands of times greater than the firepower of the average civilian, thanks to modern weaponry available to the military and not to the civilians. This means the revolutionaries will be at a huge disadvantage in arms. The government will control the skies and will be able to bombard the revolutionaries at will. The government will control the surveillance satellites and will be able to track the movements of the revolutionaries without the revolutionaries being able to do so in return. The list of capabilities that the government will have and that the revolutionaries will lack is enormous.
Police already regard any citizen who does not obey the law as the "enemy", and will have no reservation about engaging the revolutionaries as a result, precisely because the revolutionaries will be violating the law in their efforts to retake the country. We already know that police are willing to enforce any law on the books no matter how Unconstitutional, because they have essentially said as much here on this very forum. To them, all that matters is that the law was passed and has not been struck down by the courts.
Information to influence the general population is disseminated primarily by an easily-controlled mass media which even now is working to strip the population of its rights, and which will be spreading the government's message, not the revolutionaries'.
The government will declare war against the revolutionaries. This is no longer unprecedented: the government has declared war on Al Queda, which is an organization and not a country. The government's public message will be that the revolutionaries are "enemy combatants" and thus have forfeited the protections of U.S. citizenship.
The U.S. military will engage the "enemy" (the revolutionaries) because it will view the revolutionaries as "enemy combatants" and, therefore, undeserving of the normal protections of citizenship. Which is to say, they will buy into the story told by the U.S. government because it is the only one that will get any real traction in public. This is no longer unprecedented. The military was used to assassinate a U.S. citizen abroad (http://townhall.com/columnists/judgeandrewnapolitano/2012/03/08/can_the_president_kill_you/page/full/). Said citizen was declared an "enemy combatant" because of his alleged ties with an organization the U.S. had "declared war" on. If the U.S. military is willing to kill a U.S. citizen on foreign soil who is not a proven material and substantial threat to the citizenry of the U.S., merely on the orders of the President, what do you think it will do to people who are proven to be such a threat? No, there will be no hesitation there whatsoever.
The government's message will be the only one to gain real traction because the government will attempt (and will largely succeed) to shut down all other forms of communication that cannot be strictly monitored in order to maintain control.
Anyone who even looks like he might be a potential collaborator with the revolutionaries will be rounded up and placed into concentration camps, just as the U.S. did with U.S. citizens of Japanese descent back during World War 2.
The U.S. government will use the opportunity to declare martial law in the event it can't snuff out the revolutionaries' efforts early on.



History is an excellent guide here. There are reasons the French were unable to throw off their German oppressors during World War II (it took a military victory from outside to make that happen), and that was a situation in which the population was much more unified against the Germans, the Germans' center of power was elsewhere, and the German government's very existence wasn't in jeopardy the way the U.S. government's would be in the scenario we're talking about.


To make my point plain about the military's response to the scenario we're discussing, do you think anyone in the military would have any hesitation whatsoever in putting a bullet in the head of Timothy McVeigh, if they had been given the order to do so? No, they'd have happily done so. And so it will be with respect to the revolutionaries, who will have to do the same kind of thing as McVeigh (but on a much more massive scale) in order to retake the country.

The bottom line is this: revolution means killing people. It is never clean. It means taking the lives of the sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, and dear friends of other people. It is a business which fosters hate on the part of those whose lives have been shattered. Innocent people will die at the hands of the revolutionaries, and that's a fact. It will be hard -- very, very hard -- to convince people that their sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, and dear friends needed to die at the hands of the revolutionaries in order for liberty to be regained. And that is why the military will fight for the government by default and why the population will side with the government by default, even in the absence of all the other factors I described above.



The police/military would be fighting fellow americans, not colonists from a land thousands of miles away. I seriously doubt their lack of commitment for anything large scale or protracted.


The commitment of the U.S. military is as strong as the commitment of the government it serves. And since the situation we're speaking of is one where the very existence of the government it serves is in jeopardy due to the efforts of the revolutionaries, it follows that the commitment of the government will be stronger than we've ever seen before. Those in power fight to the bitter end to retain it, and give up only when there is no hope left for them.



But the manner in which something like this is going to occur, I believe, is much less important than the realization that it is going to happen at some point, at least to some degree.

All we have to do is follow the bouncing ball along the time line of gun laws and their progression.

We need to form another group like was formed in 1775, only this one would be more organized and nationwide. It needs to have a very defined mission statement that we own guns and shoot guns legally and when and if necessary, will use those guns to defend our basic rights, exactly the way our founders did, and intended us to do as well.


That seems like a reasonable thing to do. However, there is one problem with it: it makes it trivial for the government to know exactly who to go after should its power be challenged in the way we foresee.



If there was a clearly defined response to the actions of these fascist politicians, we would be in the drivers seat. Something more than " you will be hearing from my lawyer" 1775 was not a time for lawyers. Look at this country and think about how different it is from even 7-10 years ago. History does, can, and must repeat itself.

You must remember that by 1775, all these things you're talking about here, and efforts like the ones that are currently underway, had already been tried. The founders tried diplomacy. They tried working within the system. It was only after those efforts proved fruitless that they took it to the next level, and then only because the other side actually responded to the diplomatic efforts with ever greater restrictions.

No, what makes now (or, rather, the envisioned future) different from 1775 isn't the set of actions involved, it's the circumstances. While the circumstances were greatly in favor of the founders in 1775 (and yet, despite that, they still barely won and then only with help from a powerful outside nation), they are greatly against the revolutionaries in the future scenario we're thinking of.

And that makes all the difference in the world.


No, with the intelligence capability alone of the modern U.S. government, an insurrection such as the one we're discussing here would be lucky to get off the ground at all. It would take a miracle of Biblical proportions for the insurrection to achieve victory at all.

Jason P
07-29-2012, 9:23 PM
IBTL - Nope, not gonna post. I want to, and I believe that death is preferable to this:

http://earthhopenetwork.net/holocaust_stacked_bodies.jpg

I don't have a hard time believing that can happen here, look at the Japanese Americans held in WW2.

But I do have a hard time believing that any benefit will come from my posting on this. I'm having a hard time believing most people even care anymore about anything other than themselves. America is not a country so much as it is a beacon of hope.

To quote someone smarter than me - "When money is lost, nothing is lost. When love is lost, something is lost. When hope is lost, all is lost."

Better I start sitting back and watching, planning my contingencies, and stay out of discussions like this one. Too many morons have internet access...

southernsnowshoe
07-30-2012, 8:51 PM
Most certainly that is something that reasonable people can disagree on. Allow me to lay out the factors as I see them, and we can proceed from there. Some of this will come from prior messages.


The government will be occupying the same land and will have the "home field" advantage, because:
The revolutionaries will have to win against the government, not merely succeed in holding it off, since the objective would be to overthrow the sitting government.
The firepower of the average soldier is thousands of times greater than the firepower of the average civilian, thanks to modern weaponry available to the military and not to the civilians. This means the revolutionaries will be at a huge disadvantage in arms. The government will control the skies and will be able to bombard the revolutionaries at will. The government will control the surveillance satellites and will be able to track the movements of the revolutionaries without the revolutionaries being able to do so in return. The list of capabilities that the government will have and that the revolutionaries will lack is enormous.
Police already regard any citizen who does not obey the law as the "enemy", and will have no reservation about engaging the revolutionaries as a result, precisely because the revolutionaries will be violating the law in their efforts to retake the country. We already know that police are willing to enforce any law on the books no matter how Unconstitutional, because they have essentially said as much here on this very forum. To them, all that matters is that the law was passed and has not been struck down by the courts.
Information to influence the general population is disseminated primarily by an easily-controlled mass media which even now is working to strip the population of its rights, and which will be spreading the government's message, not the revolutionaries'.
The government will declare war against the revolutionaries. This is no longer unprecedented: the government has declared war on Al Queda, which is an organization and not a country. The government's public message will be that the revolutionaries are "enemy combatants" and thus have forfeited the protections of U.S. citizenship.
The U.S. military will engage the "enemy" (the revolutionaries) because it will view the revolutionaries as "enemy combatants" and, therefore, undeserving of the normal protections of citizenship. Which is to say, they will buy into the story told by the U.S. government because it is the only one that will get any real traction in public. This is no longer unprecedented. The military was used to assassinate a U.S. citizen abroad (http://townhall.com/columnists/judgeandrewnapolitano/2012/03/08/can_the_president_kill_you/page/full/). Said citizen was declared an "enemy combatant" because of his alleged ties with an organization the U.S. had "declared war" on. If the U.S. military is willing to kill a U.S. citizen on foreign soil who is not a proven material and substantial threat to the citizenry of the U.S., merely on the orders of the President, what do you think it will do to people who are proven to be such a threat? No, there will be no hesitation there whatsoever.
The government's message will be the only one to gain real traction because the government will attempt (and will largely succeed) to shut down all other forms of communication that cannot be strictly monitored in order to maintain control.
Anyone who even looks like he might be a potential collaborator with the revolutionaries will be rounded up and placed into concentration camps, just as the U.S. did with U.S. citizens of Japanese descent back during World War 2.
The U.S. government will use the opportunity to declare martial law in the event it can't snuff out the revolutionaries' efforts early on.



History is an excellent guide here. There are reasons the French were unable to throw off their German oppressors during World War II (it took a military victory from outside to make that happen), and that was a situation in which the population was much more unified against the Germans, the Germans' center of power was elsewhere, and the German government's very existence wasn't in jeopardy the way the U.S. government's would be in the scenario we're talking about.


To make my point plain about the military's response to the scenario we're discussing, do you think anyone in the military would have any hesitation whatsoever in putting a bullet in the head of Timothy McVeigh, if they had been given the order to do so? No, they'd have happily done so. And so it will be with respect to the revolutionaries, who will have to do the same kind of thing as McVeigh (but on a much more massive scale) in order to retake the country.

The bottom line is this: revolution means killing people. It is never clean. It means taking the lives of the sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, and dear friends of other people. It is a business which fosters hate on the part of those whose lives have been shattered. Innocent people will die at the hands of the revolutionaries, and that's a fact. It will be hard -- very, very hard -- to convince people that their sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, and dear friends needed to die at the hands of the revolutionaries in order for liberty to be regained. And that is why the military will fight for the government by default and why the population will side with the government by default, even in the absence of all the other factors I described above.




The commitment of the U.S. military is as strong as the commitment of the government it serves. And since the situation we're speaking of is one where the very existence of the government it serves is in jeopardy due to the efforts of the revolutionaries, it follows that the commitment of the government will be stronger than we've ever seen before. Those in power fight to the bitter end to retain it, and give up only when there is no hope left for them.




That seems like a reasonable thing to do. However, there is one problem with it: it makes it trivial for the government to know exactly who to go after should its power be challenged in the way we foresee.




You must remember that by 1775, all these things you're talking about here, and efforts like the ones that are currently underway, had already been tried. The founders tried diplomacy. They tried working within the system. It was only after those efforts proved fruitless that they took it to the next level, and then only because the other side actually responded to the diplomatic efforts with ever greater restrictions.

No, what makes now (or, rather, the envisioned future) different from 1775 isn't the set of actions involved, it's the circumstances. While the circumstances were greatly in favor of the founders in 1775 (and yet, despite that, they still barely won and then only with help from a powerful outside nation), they are greatly against the revolutionaries in the future scenario we're thinking of.

And that makes all the difference in the world.


No, with the intelligence capability alone of the modern U.S. government, an insurrection such as the one we're discussing here would be lucky to get off the ground at all. It would take a miracle of Biblical proportions for the insurrection to achieve victory at all.

Geez KC.........now I am depressed. Every point you make is valid. Can't argue with with any of it. I might not like it, but valid none the less.

However, I would pray for the strength to stand up for my rights when faced with the prospect of confiscation. I just don't think i could sleep at night, or look at myself in the mirror if I knew that I had cooperated with allowing myself to be disarmed.

Guns, gun rights, hunting, shooting sports, the heritage and meaning of my 2nd amendment rights. These things are part of my identity and they have been since I got my first .22 at seven years old.

I doubt very much that I would be so quick to engage someone that was hell bent to strip away my freedom of speech (my girlfriend says I should talk less anyway) or someone that wanted to limit what I can read, or how I can worship. For some reason, I take those types of threats with a much more subdued attitude. But my guns...........well, I think most of you understand.

kcbrown
07-30-2012, 10:41 PM
Geez KC.........now I am depressed. Every point you make is valid. Can't argue with with any of it. I might not like it, but valid none the less.

However, I would pray for the strength to stand up for my rights when faced with the prospect of confiscation. I just don't think i could sleep at night, or look at myself in the mirror if I knew that I had cooperated with allowing myself to be disarmed.


The one thing that might cause me to acquiesce is the knowledge that if I'm dead, I can't take any action to reverse the course of things, but if I'm not dead, I might be able to take such action. With life there is hope. With death there is no hope at all.

It is always better to take an action that has some hope of yielding success later on than it is to take an action that has no such hope at all. The problem with putting up an armed resistance in the situation we're talking about is that there is only one result that comes of it: you wind up dead, and your guns get taken anyway. Now, if everyone (or nearly everyone) who has arms puts up such an armed resistance, then maybe it would have some effect, but that presumes that the will of the government is weak. Generally, when a population puts up such a resistance, the response is to take stronger measures. This is why invading forces are able to subdue even an armed and determined population. More importantly, it's why military forces exist at all. If a well armed civilian population were sufficient to deter any invasion attempt, then most countries wouldn't bother with the overhead of a military force. But the fact of the matter is that, most especially today, military forces are far more effective at fighting than groups of armed civilians.



Guns, gun rights, hunting, shooting sports, the heritage and meaning of my 2nd amendment rights. These things are part of my identity and they have been since I got my first .22 at seven years old.

I doubt very much that I would be so quick to engage someone that was hell bent to strip away my freedom of speech (my girlfriend says I should talk less anyway) or someone that wanted to limit what I can read, or how I can worship. For some reason, I take those types of threats with a much more subdued attitude. But my guns...........well, I think most of you understand.

I completely understand. I even agree, at least in principle.

The things I outlined previously should illustrate the grave importance of winning this thing in the courts and, later, in the court of public opinion. Because we will almost certainly not succeed in winning any other way.

Lone_Gunman
07-30-2012, 11:15 PM
KC- I think you have a rather California-centric view of things. There are many parts of the country where virtually EVERYONE, police, politicians, citizens, etc. subscribe to the "from my cold dead hands" view.

Yes, the US military has a great amount of firepower, but that is not necessarily enough, look at Afganistan.

Also, you keep talking about "The Government", remember, they're men. Just like us. They do not have super human strength, or power. If cut they bleed, they get tired, they get hungry. A soldier from NYC isn't going to enjoy a "home field advantage" in Alabama.

9mmrevolver
07-30-2012, 11:17 PM
I would tell them i let boxer or fienstine have them.

kcbrown
07-30-2012, 11:41 PM
KC- I think you have a rather California-centric view of things. There are many parts of the country where virtually EVERYONE, police, politicians, citizens, etc. subscribe to the "from my cold dead hands" view.

Yes, the US military has a great amount of firepower, but that is not necessarily enough, look at Afganistan.


Why do you guys keep insisting on bringing up Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.? I've already dealt with that extensively and repeatedly.

None of the examples you guys cite ever shows the insurgency achieving a military victory over the (much stronger and more technologically advanced) occupiers, and yet that is precisely what would be necessary for a revolution to succeed. Until you understand that, you won't understand the real problems an insurrection would face.


The examples you cite would be relevant if the insurrection that would be fought would be like that of the American Revolution, where it was the British, and not the Americans, that needed a decisive military victory. The Americans won because they were able to hold out against their oppressors from across the sea.

But in the case of a domestic insurrection, the goal isn't merely to hold out against what amounts to an invading force, it's to achieve a victory over an established and entrenched government. It would be like the Americans attempting to take over England as a necessary condition of winning their independence. And surely you can see how that would have been much more difficult for them even if the Americans were already located on British soil.

No, for the U.S. government to win, it need only remain in place. The government's position would be exactly like the Afghanis' in that case, but with one critical exception: it would be the much stronger entity, not the weaker one. If a weaker entity can remain in place as the Afghanis do, a stronger entity most certainly can -- just like the U.S. remains in Afghanistan to this day. And that is why a domestic insurrection against the U.S. government is up against such withering odds: it would have to defeat the stronger entity that has the home field advantage.

The insurrection might be able to survive, just as the Afghanis have, but that alone is clearly not sufficient -- it has to win. Until it wins, it will be a mere nuisance, much like "terrorists" are to us today (seriously, "terrorists" are a joke and not a real threat to the country).



Also, you keep talking about "The Government", remember, they're men. Just like us. They do not have super human strength, or power. If cut they bleed, they get tired, they get hungry. A soldier from NYC isn't going to enjoy a "home field advantage" in Alabama.

Yes, but normal men don't command nuclear weapons, cruise missiles, satellite surveillance networks, C-130 gunships, etc. The U.S. government does. Yes, it's men within the government who accomplish all that, but they answer to the government. Their paycheck is cut by the government. Their benefits come from the government. Their allegiance is to the government, despite claims that their allegiance is to the Constitution. Were their allegiance truly to the Constitution, they would not have assassinated a U.S. citizen on foreign soil. That alone should end the discussion on that.

Lone_Gunman
07-31-2012, 12:00 AM
Why do you guys keep insisting on bringing up Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.? I've already dealt with that extensively and repeatedly.

None of the examples you guys cite ever shows the insurgency achieving a military victory over the (much stronger and more technologically advanced) occupiers, and yet that is precisely what would be necessary for a revolution to succeed. Until you understand that, you won't understand the real problems an insurrection would face.

The examples you cite would be relevant if the insurrection that would be fought would be like that of the American Revolution, where it was the British, and not the Americans, that needed a decisive military victory. The Americans won because they were able to hold out against their oppressors from across the sea.

But in the case of a domestic insurrection, the goal isn't merely to hold out against what amounts to an invading force, it's to achieve a victory over an established and entrenched government. It would be like the Americans attempting to take over England as a necessary condition of winning their independence. And surely you can see how that would have been much more difficult for them even if the Americans were already located on British soil.





Yes, but normal men don't command nuclear weapons, cruise missiles, satellite surveillance networks, C-130 gunships, etc. The U.S. government does. Yes, it's men within the government who accomplish all that, but they answer to the government. Their paycheck is cut by the government. Their benefits come from the government. Their allegiance is to the government, despite claims that their allegiance is to the Constitution. Were their allegiance truly to the Constitution, they would not have assassinated a U.S. citizen on foreign soil. That alone should end the discussion on that.


I tend to disagree with you on several points. First, I brought up Afganistan as an illustration, to make the point that goat herders with inferior arms managed to hold off first the British, then the Russians, and seem to be doing a decent job holding off the US at this point as well. The situation could be much the same on US soil. US soldiers would have a major problem killing US citizens, the population would get war weary, there would be calls for a cease fire, concessions would be made, or the fighting would continue.
And yes, the Government controls the nukes, cruise missiles, etc, but do you really think they would use nukes on US soil against US citizens? Really? That would no longer be the United States, that would be a rogue government, and my hope would be that there would be an internal coup if that was the case.

kcbrown
07-31-2012, 1:49 AM
I tend to disagree with you on several points. First, I brought up Afganistan as an illustration, to make the point that goat headers with inferior arms managed to hold off first the British, then the Russians, and seem to be doing a decent job holding off the US at this point as well. The situation could be much the same on US soil. US soldiers would have a major problem killing US citizens, the population would get war weary, there would be calls for a cease fire, concessions would be made, or the fighting would continue.


We'll have to disagree on whether or not US soldiers would have a problem killing US citizens, but as I've already pointed out, they are already willing to kill US citizens on foreign soil upon being given the order to do so by the President, under the auspices that said citizens are declared "enemy combatants" by some panel of people selected by that same President. This has already happened once (http://townhall.com/columnists/judgeandrewnapolitano/2012/03/08/can_the_president_kill_you/page/full/).


However, I should note that military support is the only thing that ultimately matters for the scenario in question. Whichever side the U.S. military allies itself with is the side that will win. If it allies itself with the government then the insurrection will have an impossible task of overthrowing the government, and if it allies itself with the insurgency then the government will have no means of defense to speak of. Military support is, in the case of the U.S., the only thing that matters.

And that is why the case that I cite above is so incredibly troubling. If the military is willing to assassinate a U.S. citizen on foreign soil without said citizen even getting his day in court, then there's not much distance left to cover before it will be willing to do the same to U.S. citizens on domestic soil. Which is to say, the U.S. military is already well down the slippery slope (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/al-qaeda/8799295/Same-US-military-unit-that-got-Osama-bin-laden-killed-Anwar-al-Awlaki.html) that you and others have said it will never proceed down. You are now on very thin ice with your argument that the U.S. military will not fire on U.S. citizens, especially in the context where those U.S. citizens have demonstrated their willingness to use deadly force to overthrow the sitting government (does that not make them, by definition, "enemy combatants"?).




And yes, the Government controls the nukes, cruise missiles, etc, but do you really think they would use nukes on US soil against US citizens? Really? That would no longer be the United States, that would be a rogue government, and my hope would be that there would be an internal coup if that was the case.

If an honorable revolution is underway, it's precisely because the government has gone rogue and the revolutionaries are attempting to restore liberty to its rightful place, so the conditions you're talking about are precisely the ones that are in play at that point. And yes, such a government would not hesitate to use such force on its own citizenry if it believed that doing so was necessary to remain in control. That is a scenario that has played out (albeit with different weapons) countless times throughout history.

However, I don't believe it would ever get to that point, because I don't believe the insurrection would ever become enough of a threat to the sitting government to make it quite that desperate.

Rude Robert
07-31-2012, 3:01 AM
We'd do just like all the other countries have done. Give them up. the very few who don't will looked upon with disdain. from those who have given up their guns and rights.

Lone_Gunman
07-31-2012, 6:54 AM
We'll have to disagree on whether or not US soldiers would have a problem killing US citizens, but as I've already pointed out, they are already willing to kill US citizens on foreign soil upon being given the order to do so by the President, under the auspices that said citizens are declared "enemy combatants" by some panel of people selected by that same President. This has already happened once (http://townhall.com/columnists/judgeandrewnapolitano/2012/03/08/can_the_president_kill_you/page/full/).


However, I should note that military support is the only thing that ultimately matters for the scenario in question. Whichever side the U.S. military allies itself with is the side that will win. If it allies itself with the government then the insurrection will have an impossible task of overthrowing the government, and if it allies itself with the insurgency then the government will have no means of defense to speak of. Military support is, in the case of the U.S., the only thing that matters.

And that is why the case that I cite above is so incredibly troubling. If the military is willing to assassinate a U.S. citizen on foreign soil without said citizen even getting his day in court, then there's not much distance left to cover before it will be willing to do the same to U.S. citizens on domestic soil. Which is to say, the U.S. military is already well down the slippery slope (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/al-qaeda/8799295/Same-US-military-unit-that-got-Osama-bin-laden-killed-Anwar-al-Awlaki.html) that you and others have said it will never proceed down. You are now on very thin ice with your argument that the U.S. military will not fire on U.S. citizens, especially in the context where those U.S. citizens have demonstrated their willingness to use deadly force to overthrow the sitting government (does that not make them, by definition, "enemy combatants"?).





If an honorable revolution is underway, it's precisely because the government has gone rogue and the revolutionaries are attempting to restore liberty to its rightful place, so the conditions you're talking about are precisely the ones that are in play at that point. And yes, such a government would not hesitate to use such force on its own citizenry if it believed that doing so was necessary to remain in control. That is a scenario that has played out (albeit with different weapons) countless times throughout history.

However, I don't believe it would ever get to that point, because I don't believe the insurrection would ever become enough of a threat to the sitting government to make it quite that desperate.

You may well be right. That's why it's so important that we do what we can to make firearms ever more mainstream. Take people to the range, get them buying guns for them selves, get them into the "hobby" and they will begin to understand its much more than just a "hobby".
Guns need to become the third rail of politics, touch them and your career is dead. We are inching toward an ever more totalitarian government, but if we would just vote for freedom and liberty loving men and women I truly think we could go the other way.

creekside
07-31-2012, 8:51 AM
First, I brought up Afganistan as an illustration, to make the point that goat herders with inferior arms managed to hold off first the British, then the Russians, and seem to be doing a decent job holding off the US at this point as well.

Afghan insurgents have several things going for them: an absurdly long logistics tail for their enemies, high mountains that hamper even air operations and make ground operations difficult, a long tribal tradition of casual sniping at each other until a third party arrives to serve as a unification-target, a ready flow of hard cash through the drug trade, and a sanctuary from which to train and re-arm (northwest Pakistan).

We are talking about that most grisly of wars, a civil insurgency. No logistics tail: we all live right here. We have high mountains and swamps, but it's a fight on our own home turf which has been extensively mapped, and 80% of us live in cities which were designed to be easy to control, cf "Interstate Highway System."

We don't have a tradition of inter-group violence, barring some inner-city gangs and too much playing of Call of Duty. Neither Canada nor Mexico would be willing to serve as a sanctuary; I think Canada would try hard to hold her borders and be aggressively neutral, and Mexican sovereignty would be ignored in an insurgency scenario.

If some idiots went into the mountains of Idaho and started sniping at FBI agents, I'd have great difficulty seeing them as anything but criminal thugs. I'd probably applaud if the Rangers were sent to dig them out.

The situation could be much the same on US soil. US soldiers would have a major problem killing US citizens, the population would get war weary, there would be calls for a cease fire, concessions would be made, or the fighting would continue.

We don't negotiate with terrorists and we don't make concessions to criminals. This issue was settled in the Civil War. A rebellion is not legitimate unless it controls territory that cannot be taken away. There is no such territory in the continental United States barring a substantial Balkinization where we split up into dozens of little countries -- probably with about as much blood as was spilled in said Balkans when Yugoslavia broke up.

Could someone start an insurgency? Possibly, and it would justify all sorts of repressive control measures that make DHS look like a bunch of playground supervisors. Internal passport controls, ration cards, internment camps . . . and that is if the government is playing fair.

Could that insurgency do anything but spill lots of blood? Almost certainly not.

And yes, the Government controls the nukes, cruise missiles, etc, but do you really think they would use nukes on US soil against US citizens? Really? That would no longer be the United States, that would be a rogue government, and my hope would be that there would be an internal coup if that was the case.

No domestic insurgency could become an actual rebellion unless it had control of nuclear arms. Of course a rogue government would nuke a city to stay in power, and the only countermeasure is the threat of retaliation. This is the only reason chemical weapons were not used in World War II.

The planet dodged a bullet when Russia fell without the use of nuclear arms in civil conflict. Can't keep dodging that one forever -- smart money favors India-Pakistan as the next to face the glow-IQ test.

kcbrown
07-31-2012, 9:28 AM
You may well be right. That's why it's so important that we do what we can to make firearms ever more mainstream. Take people to the range, get them buying guns for them selves, get them into the "hobby" and they will begin to understand its much more than just a "hobby".
Guns need to become the third rail of politics, touch them and your career is dead. We are inching toward an ever more totalitarian government, but if we would just vote for freedom and liberty loving men and women I truly think we could go the other way.

Agree absolutely, positively, 100%. We absolutely must secure the right in the courts and, as soon as possible, in the court of public opinion. We must do so because the other ways of doing so are much, much worse and, realistically, impossible.

Anchors
07-31-2012, 10:07 PM
What guns?

Rude Robert
08-01-2012, 6:20 AM
Well that settles it, we need to cut off ever one's hands, then it wouldn't matter if we had guns or not, sorry, its time for a nap:oji:

donw
08-01-2012, 8:01 AM
Guess I'm just a chest puffer also, I'm glad people who have never met me know me so well :rolleyes:. If they take our guns that means that we are no longer free or we are on the verge of losing all freedoms and I would rather die fighting for freedom than die an old man having tasted freedom and then stood idly by as we lost it. The 2nd Amendment was written for exactly this reason. The "militia" would be us as gun owners and it would have to be us, as gun owners, to stand up against oppression. That being said, the US military, or who is left after the defector join our side, will crush us because they have better weapons and training than civilians. Abrams vs. AR15 anyone? A-10, Javelin, Ma-Deuce etc etc...

edit: flame suit on, bring it on.

bold italic is mine

i will NOT flame...i've posted similar responses to similar posts.

i see you were in the "Big Red One"...i was with the "Tropic lightning" and "Hell on wheels" (25h inf and 2nd Armored Division to those who might not know)... then, the M60MBT was the main BT and the M14 and M60 MG were the issue...yes it was early Vietnam; those weapons are obsolete by today's standards.

most on this, and forums like it, have no idea what an armored unit, or mechanized infantry, is capable of, i would speculate. to the untrained, inexperienced...it's intimidation to the extreme...

it is my OPINION, we have an administration in power NOW, that WILL not hesitate to utilize units like the above mentioned to gain power IF THEY ARE RE-ELECTED in order to RULE this country.

notice i said RULE...not LEAD.

prime example is the Australians...fiercely independent, freedom loving people they are, capitulated without a fight, or even vocal resistance, when confiscation was ordered.

it's not a matter of "IF" confiscation/banning will come around...it's 'WHEN'...

the question is: what do we do and how do we prevent "IF" becoming 'WHEN'?

part of the answer is to make sure obama is NOT re-elected. the rest of the answer(s)? i don't know...time will tell

Tempus
08-01-2012, 2:25 PM
I tend to think we'd be a larger, better armed IRA.

Assuming that the propaganda war was last and most/all of the military and LEA in the nation joined the disarm/oppression movement, then this isn't a war.

No one but a fool sees the might of the nation coming and heads to their bug out location to make a final stand. No need to give them a large safe target to destroy.

Stay in the cities. Be happy and nice. Watch and see. Strike covertly when you can.

No one wants to have to live in a green zone in their own nation.

SilverTauron
08-01-2012, 3:32 PM
I tend to think we'd be a larger, better armed IRA.

Assuming that the propaganda war was last and most/all of the military and LEA in the nation joined the disarm/oppression movement, then this isn't a war.

No one but a fool sees the might of the nation coming and heads to their bug out location to make a final stand. No need to give them a large safe target to destroy.

Stay in the cities. Be happy and nice. Watch and see. Strike covertly when you can.

No one wants to have to live in a green zone in their own nation.

An insurgency without public support is a defeated army awaiting destruction.How can an armed resistance hide among civilians,when today merely walking about legally armed can trigger a 911 call? If you can't walk down the street with a legal firearm without concern of arrest,good luck convincing these same people to not call the Feds when they know about your night job as a militant.

Bruceisontarget
08-01-2012, 5:22 PM
After reading many of these posts I must conclude... our Founding Fathers were made of much sterner stuff than we are. A National confiscation would probably be possible in states like California and New York, but Texas, Tennessee, Alabama, Utah, North Carolina, Mississippi, etc... fuggettaboutit. LE's would be retiring in droves and military would refuse to execute such an illegal order on their family members.
Oh, and the British confiscation isn't a good example of how it could be accomplished here either. The gun is a big part of American culture and always has been. It was never that way for the British. There was never an NRA with political Godzilla like power, like we are blessed with in the USA.

mrbalbowski
08-01-2012, 6:29 PM
Why is it that almost every thread about gun confiscation and "reasonable" gun laws are started by some junior member that has only been around for 6 months or less?

I will not play your game.

Then don't. Thanks for the useless reply though. It seems to me that my post started a nice little discussion none the less.

Meplat1
08-01-2012, 7:30 PM
I have not read this whole thread but I have a few observations.

First, I would rather keep folks guessing about what I or anyone else would do.

Was I the only one who noticed all the WWII era weapons that crawled out from under the corn crib when the Balkans started coming apart at the seams?

It is my understanding that a VERY substantial number of “Ca assault weapons” still have not been registered. BTW, the only one I own is registered.

Firearms are 19th century technology. It will not be long before they are as obsolete as the broad sward. They don’t need to confiscate, they just need to wait.

A country that started its existence shunning a standing army as a danger to liberty now has one of the larger and arguably the most effective standing militaries in the world; and it is a mercenary force.

Dodging doing their own fighting has figured into the decline of most great civilizations.

The last best hope of the United States lies with her Oath Keepers.

Young people should be encouraged to serve in the military for at least long enough to grasp modern weapons and tactics.

Knowledge is the key component. The weapons will be there. As Sam Elliot told Mel Gibson in “We Were Soldiers”; “Sir, if it comes to where I need an M-16, there’ll be plenty of ‘um layin’ on the ground.”

southernsnowshoe
08-01-2012, 9:06 PM
Then don't. Thanks for the useless reply though. It seems to me that my post started a nice little discussion none the less.


It did. So you have been around where for less than six months? this forum? big damn deal.

Pay no attention to the haters Mr. Ski. For some reason these threads often times deteriorate into decisiveness, instead of what they should be...... Gun owners supporting each other.

Jason_2111
08-01-2012, 11:39 PM
Well.. all of this hypothetical is going to be put to the test.

If SB249 goes through, we're all screwed.