PDA

View Full Version : If They Come For Your Guns...


sunaj
03-22-2013, 10:03 AM
This is a quote from an article:

"If They Come for Your Guns, Do You Have a Responsibility to Fight?


This man has put down on paper what many people are thinking, but are too cautious to express openly.

I hope it never comes to what he is advocating, but I can certainly see where the possibility exists.

God help us all if it ever does happen.

Here is what Wikipedia has to say about the author:



Dean Garrison (born 1955) is a contemporary American author and crime fiction novelist. He was born in Michigan , grew up in the Indiana , Illinois , and Texas , and received his B.A. degree from Ferris State University in Big Rapids, Michigan . Garrison is a Crime Scene Technician in West Michigan . His research in the fields of crime scene investigationand Shooting Reconstruction are widely published in forensic journals under the name "D.H. Garrison, Jr."



I feel a tremendous responsibility to write this article though I am a little apprehensive. Thinking about the possibility of rising up against our own government is a frightening thing for many of us. I am not Johnny Rambo and I will be the first to admit that I do not want to die. The reason I feel compelled to write this, however, is simply because I don’t think the average American is equipped with the facts. I feel that a lot of American citizens feel like they have no choice but to surrender their guns if the government comes for them. I blame traditional media sources for this mass brainwash and I carry the responsibility of all small independent bloggers to tell the truth. So my focus today is to lay out your constitutional rights as an American, and let you decide what to do with those rights.

About a month ago I let the “democracy” word slip in a discussion with a fellow blogger. I know better. Americans have been conditioned to use this term. It’s not an accurate term and it never has been a correct term to describe our form of government. The truth is that the United States of America is a constitutional republic. This is similar to a democracy because our representatives are selected by democratic elections, but ultimately our representatives are required to work within the framework of our constitution. In other words, even if 90% of Americans want something that goes against our founding principles, they have no right to call for a violation of constitutional rights.

Our founders did not want a “democracy” for they feared a true democracy was just as dangerous as a monarchy. The founders were highly educated people who were experienced in defending themselves against tyranny. They understood that the constitution could protect the people by limiting the power of anyone to work outside of it much better than a pure system of popularity. A system of checks and balances was set up to help limit corruption of government and also the potential for an “immoral majority” developing within the American People. We have forgotten in this country that we are ultimately ruled by a constitution.

Why is a democracy potentially just as dangerous as a monarchy? Let’s look at something that Benjamin Franklin said because it answers that question more fully and succinctly than I can.


Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. -Benjamin Franklin

Even 230+ years ago our founders were perceptive enough to realize that democracy was a dangerous form of government. How so? Because the citizens of a country can become just as corrupt as any government. We have seen evidence of this throughout history. Ask Native Americans and African-Americans if this population can become corrupt.

I think in 2012 we are seeing evidence of what Franklin was trying to tell us. Just because a majority of people may support certain ideas it does not mean that those ideas are just. In simple terms, just because most Americans love our president and voted for him, it does not mean that he has the power to go against our constitutional rights.

Next I’d like to review the text of the second amendment. It is very clear. This is the law of this land. So when Senator Feinstein or President Obama talk about taking your guns, you need to think about something. Are they honoring their sworn oath to uphold the constitution?


A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State , the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

This is a pretty clear statement. The fact is that it took 232 years for the Supreme Court to even rule on this amendment because it has never been successfully challenged. In 2008 a case of Columbia v. Heller the Supreme Court ruled that a handgun ban in Washington D.C. was unconstitutional. One also has to take this into consideration. The Supreme Court supports your right to own guns. If you want to research this decision further you can start here.

For those who try to debate the spirit of the 2nd amendment, they are truly no different from people who will try to take Biblical quotes out of context to try to support their immoral decisions. The founders were very clear on the intent of the 2nd amendment. Let me share a few quick quotes here:


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

Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that is good. -George Washington

The Constitution shall never be construed….to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. -Samuel Adams




I could find hundreds of quotes like these. This country was built on the right to bear arms. It was built on the rights of an individual to bear arms, regardless of what his government or neighbor happened to think. This is crystal clear. Ironically the people who voice their opinions against this right have their free speech protected by your guns.Without guns in this country, all other amendments become null and void, simply because “We the People” will lose our power of enforcement.

We need to keep this in mind as our “representatives” try to push gun bans. I don’t care if 99% of people are in support of gun bans (which is far from the case), it is a violation of our constitutional rights, plain and simple.

A constitutional republic protects the rights of the individual even when their ideas are very much in the minority. If I were the only person in America who believed in the 2nd amendment, I would still be within my rights to call upon it. You would all think I was insane and possibly celebrate if I was gunned down, but in the end I would be the only true American among us.

Our framers were very clear on this. If my government comes to take my guns, they are violating one of my constitutional rights that is covered by the 2nd amendment.

It is not my right, at that point, but my responsibility to respond in the name of liberty. What I am telling you is something that many are trying to soft sell, and many others have tried to avoid putting into print, but I am going to say it. The time for speaking in code is over.

If they come for our guns then it is our constitutional right to put them six feet under. You have the right to kill any representative of this government who tries to tread on your liberty. I am thinking about self-defense and not talking about inciting a revolution. Re-read Jefferson ’s quote. He talks about a “last resort.” I am not trying to start a Revolt, I am talking about self-defense. If the day for Revolution comes, when no peaceful options exist, we may have to talk about that as well. None of us wants to think about that, but please understand that a majority can not take away your rights as an American citizen. Only you can choose to give up your rights.

Congress could pass gun ban legislation by a 90%+ margin and it just would not matter. I think some people are very unclear on this. This is the reason we have a Supreme Court, and though I do not doubt that the Supreme Court can also become corrupt, in 2008 they got it right. They supported the constitution. It does not matter what the majority supports because America is not a democracy. A constitutional republic protects the rights of every single citizen, no matter what their “elected servants” say. A majority in America only matters when the constitution is not in play.

I just wrote what every believer in the constitution wants to say, and what every constitutional blogger needs to write. The truth of the matter is that this type of speech is viewed as dangerous and radical or subversive, and it could gain me a world of trouble that I do not want. It is also the truth. To make myself clear I will tell you again. If they come for your guns it is your right to use those guns against them and to kill them. You are protected by our constitution.

Most of the articles I am reading on the subject are trying to give you clues without just coming out and saying it. I understand that because certain things in this country will get you on a list that you don’t want to be on. I may well be on that list. This blog is small and growing so I may not be there yet, but I have dreams. I also have my own list of subversives and anyone who attempts to deny my constitutional rights is on that list.

I am not the “subversive” here, it is the political representatives who are threatening to take away my inalienable rights. If they come to take my guns and I leave a few of them wounded or dead, and I somehow survive, I have zero doubt that I will spend a long time in prison and may face an execution. But I would much rather be a political prisoner than a slave.

If I go down fighting then I was not fighting to harm these human beings. I was simply defending my liberty and yours. It is self-defense and it is what our country was built on. We won our freedom in self-defense. We would not be ruled by a tyrannical government in the 1770′s and we will not be ruled in 2012 by a tyrannical government. There is no difference.

This is a case of right and wrong. As of now the 2nd amendment stands. It has never been repealed. If Feinstein or Barack have a problem with the constitution then they should be removed from office. They are not defending the constitution which they have sworn an oath to protect. It is treasonous to say the least. They would likely say the same about me, but I have the constitution, the founders, and the supreme court on my side. They only have their inflated egos.

I am not writing this to incite people. I am writing this in hopes that somehow I can make a tiny difference. I have no idea how many of my neighbors have the will to defend their constitutional rights. 2%? 20%? I am afraid that 20% is a high number, unfortunately. When push comes to shove many people may give up and submit to being ruled. I believe that our government is banking on this.


I would hope that our officials come to realize that, regardless of our numbers, we still exist because they are calling Patriotic Americans to action. They are making us decide if we want to die free or submit to their rule. I can not tell you where you should stand on that. I do know that it may make the difference between living a life of freedom or slavery.

You must start thinking about this because I believe that the day is coming soon and I personally believe it has already been planned. Not all conspiracy theories are hogwash. They may throw down the gauntlet soon and my suggestion is that you prepare yourself to react.

I mean no disrespect to our elected officials but they need to understand that “We the People” will not be disarmed. If they proceed then it is they that are provoking us and we will act accordingly. We are within our rights to do so.


Are you willing to die trying to take my guns?

---------------------------------

Draankol
03-22-2013, 10:22 AM
Amen

Bikertrash
03-22-2013, 10:36 AM
When I was a youngster my dad taught me that my word HAS to be my bond for the rest of my life. Several years later I took an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foriegn and domestic.

I WILL stand up for my beliefs and like the Patriot prayer says, "Lord if today is really the day you call me home...Let me die in a pile of empty brass."

Yugo
03-22-2013, 10:50 AM
:clap:

jonc
03-22-2013, 10:52 AM
That's a long read!!!👀👀

Bsandoc40
03-22-2013, 10:59 AM
The truth shall set us free.....

bodger
03-22-2013, 11:08 AM
If they do come for our guns, I believe the only thing that will make them think twice about confiscation is armed resistance, and a lot of bloodbaths.

I'm not convinced that the powers that be truly understand that they are flirting with disaster as they continue to push their anti-gun agendas. Sometimes I think Feinstein and Biden and the rest actually believe that they can disarm us without consequence, and we are just sheeple that will go along with their intent to s**t on the Constitution for the "greater good".

paul0660
03-22-2013, 11:08 AM
That's a long read!!!👀👀

And nothing new.

Bsandoc40
03-22-2013, 11:15 AM
And nothing new.

Nothing new but important to remind all at what is at stake. Too many, even some on Calguns, accept the status quo...

filospinato
03-22-2013, 11:17 AM
http://www.eurobricks.com/forum/public/style_emoticons/default/thumbup.gif

komifornian
03-22-2013, 11:18 AM
Parts of this would be great to send to our elected servants as a reminder.

1) "Keep this in mind as my “representative” when you try to push gun bans. I don’t care if 99% of people are in support of gun bans (which is far from the case), it is a violation of my constitutional rights, plain and simple."

2) The United States of America is a constitutional republic. This is similar to a democracy because our representatives are selected by democratic elections, but ultimately you, my representative is required to work within the framework of our constitution. In other words, even if 90% of your constituents want something that goes against our founding principles, they have no right to call for a violation of constitutional rights.

3) I mean no disrespect to our (insert your representative here) but you need to understand that “We the People” will not be disarmed.

1BigPea
03-22-2013, 11:49 AM
Good read..

supermanuf
03-22-2013, 11:50 AM
Might be time to break out the tin foil, but this is why they have already started the media propaganda campaign to label American patriots as "extremist" groups. They know it's coming, and they're going to use DHS to stamp out any "domestic terrorists" who resist confiscation.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/05/us/splc-extremist-groups-report

zhyla
03-22-2013, 12:06 PM
Blah blah blah, the author has no idea how to resist an oppressive government. Dying "in a pile of brass" is an attractive apocalypse fantasy but is of no use. You won't win a 1-on-SWAT fight.

Even in countries where they have banned civilian possession of firearms they've never just showed up and confiscated them. They ban them little by little over a long period of time and have you turn them in voluntarily. Then law enforcement weeds out the rest over time. It doesn't happen overnight, plenty of time to hide stuff if need be.

Wiz-of-Awd
03-22-2013, 12:11 PM
If they do come for our guns, I believe the only thing that will make them think twice about confiscation is armed resistance, and a lot of bloodbaths.

I'm not convinced that the powers that be truly understand that they are flirting with disaster as they continue to push their anti-gun agendas. Sometimes I think Feinstein and Biden and the rest actually believe that they can disarm us without consequence, and we are just sheeple that will go along with their intent to s**t on the Constitution for the "greater good".

Because they think "we" are the [majority of] voters who elected them, so to them yes - we are sheeple.

A.W.D.

rootuser
03-22-2013, 12:12 PM
You have a duty to protect your firearms. PERIOD.

This means from ANYONE that would take it from you, including our government. Yes there may be an issue where you may voulentarily turn in your firearm, and that is your right and your choice as an American. But anyone who would take your arms from you must be resisted against. This is the very foundation of our country starting at Lexington and the march to Concord to sieze our guns. There is no denying we were forced to resist, but resist we did, none the less.

I would extend that duty to making reasonably sure you guns can't be stolen (numerous tales here of idiots getting guns stolen out of cars, their homes, guns not in safes, safes not properly secured etc), but also stolen by the government and this means voting to make sure our rights are not abridged, not allowing any LEO in your home ever without a search warrant and even fighting as a very last resort if they are knocking down your door.

There will be situations where you loose your guns (If you get tasered at your front door, they're gonna take what they want heh) but it is then your duty to fight through legal channels to get your guns back. Fighting to get them back if you loose them is also part of protecting them IMHO.

OlderThanDirt
03-22-2013, 12:29 PM
They aren't coming. They can't/won't even pursue confiscation from prohibited persons. They cry about the cost, but it's really about not wanting to do a really lousy and dangerous job.

coverme2
03-22-2013, 12:33 PM
Awesome read.

This is a quote from an article:

"If They Come for Your Guns, Do You Have a Responsibility to Fight?


This man has put down on paper what many people are thinking, but are too cautious to express openly.

I hope it never comes to what he is advocating, but I can certainly see where the possibility exists.

God help us all if it ever does happen.

Here is what Wikipedia has to say about the author:



Dean Garrison (born 1955) is a contemporary American author and crime fiction novelist. He was born in Michigan , grew up in the Indiana , Illinois , and Texas , and received his B.A. degree from Ferris State University in Big Rapids, Michigan . Garrison is a Crime Scene Technician in West Michigan . His research in the fields of crime scene investigationand Shooting Reconstruction are widely published in forensic journals under the name "D.H. Garrison, Jr."



I feel a tremendous responsibility to write this article though I am a little apprehensive. Thinking about the possibility of rising up against our own government is a frightening thing for many of us. I am not Johnny Rambo and I will be the first to admit that I do not want to die. The reason I feel compelled to write this, however, is simply because I don’t think the average American is equipped with the facts. I feel that a lot of American citizens feel like they have no choice but to surrender their guns if the government comes for them. I blame traditional media sources for this mass brainwash and I carry the responsibility of all small independent bloggers to tell the truth. So my focus today is to lay out your constitutional rights as an American, and let you decide what to do with those rights.

About a month ago I let the “democracy” word slip in a discussion with a fellow blogger. I know better. Americans have been conditioned to use this term. It’s not an accurate term and it never has been a correct term to describe our form of government. The truth is that the United States of America is a constitutional republic. This is similar to a democracy because our representatives are selected by democratic elections, but ultimately our representatives are required to work within the framework of our constitution. In other words, even if 90% of Americans want something that goes against our founding principles, they have no right to call for a violation of constitutional rights.

Our founders did not want a “democracy” for they feared a true democracy was just as dangerous as a monarchy. The founders were highly educated people who were experienced in defending themselves against tyranny. They understood that the constitution could protect the people by limiting the power of anyone to work outside of it much better than a pure system of popularity. A system of checks and balances was set up to help limit corruption of government and also the potential for an “immoral majority” developing within the American People. We have forgotten in this country that we are ultimately ruled by a constitution.

Why is a democracy potentially just as dangerous as a monarchy? Let’s look at something that Benjamin Franklin said because it answers that question more fully and succinctly than I can.


Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. -Benjamin Franklin

Even 230+ years ago our founders were perceptive enough to realize that democracy was a dangerous form of government. How so? Because the citizens of a country can become just as corrupt as any government. We have seen evidence of this throughout history. Ask Native Americans and African-Americans if this population can become corrupt.

I think in 2012 we are seeing evidence of what Franklin was trying to tell us. Just because a majority of people may support certain ideas it does not mean that those ideas are just. In simple terms, just because most Americans love our president and voted for him, it does not mean that he has the power to go against our constitutional rights.

Next I’d like to review the text of the second amendment. It is very clear. This is the law of this land. So when Senator Feinstein or President Obama talk about taking your guns, you need to think about something. Are they honoring their sworn oath to uphold the constitution?


A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State , the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

This is a pretty clear statement. The fact is that it took 232 years for the Supreme Court to even rule on this amendment because it has never been successfully challenged. In 2008 a case of Columbia v. Heller the Supreme Court ruled that a handgun ban in Washington D.C. was unconstitutional. One also has to take this into consideration. The Supreme Court supports your right to own guns. If you want to research this decision further you can start here.

For those who try to debate the spirit of the 2nd amendment, they are truly no different from people who will try to take Biblical quotes out of context to try to support their immoral decisions. The founders were very clear on the intent of the 2nd amendment. Let me share a few quick quotes here:


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

Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that is good. -George Washington

The Constitution shall never be construed….to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. -Samuel Adams




I could find hundreds of quotes like these. This country was built on the right to bear arms. It was built on the rights of an individual to bear arms, regardless of what his government or neighbor happened to think. This is crystal clear. Ironically the people who voice their opinions against this right have their free speech protected by your guns.Without guns in this country, all other amendments become null and void, simply because “We the People” will lose our power of enforcement.

We need to keep this in mind as our “representatives” try to push gun bans. I don’t care if 99% of people are in support of gun bans (which is far from the case), it is a violation of our constitutional rights, plain and simple.

A constitutional republic protects the rights of the individual even when their ideas are very much in the minority. If I were the only person in America who believed in the 2nd amendment, I would still be within my rights to call upon it. You would all think I was insane and possibly celebrate if I was gunned down, but in the end I would be the only true American among us.

Our framers were very clear on this. If my government comes to take my guns, they are violating one of my constitutional rights that is covered by the 2nd amendment.

It is not my right, at that point, but my responsibility to respond in the name of liberty. What I am telling you is something that many are trying to soft sell, and many others have tried to avoid putting into print, but I am going to say it. The time for speaking in code is over.

If they come for our guns then it is our constitutional right to put them six feet under. You have the right to kill any representative of this government who tries to tread on your liberty. I am thinking about self-defense and not talking about inciting a revolution. Re-read Jefferson ’s quote. He talks about a “last resort.” I am not trying to start a Revolt, I am talking about self-defense. If the day for Revolution comes, when no peaceful options exist, we may have to talk about that as well. None of us wants to think about that, but please understand that a majority can not take away your rights as an American citizen. Only you can choose to give up your rights.

Congress could pass gun ban legislation by a 90%+ margin and it just would not matter. I think some people are very unclear on this. This is the reason we have a Supreme Court, and though I do not doubt that the Supreme Court can also become corrupt, in 2008 they got it right. They supported the constitution. It does not matter what the majority supports because America is not a democracy. A constitutional republic protects the rights of every single citizen, no matter what their “elected servants” say. A majority in America only matters when the constitution is not in play.

I just wrote what every believer in the constitution wants to say, and what every constitutional blogger needs to write. The truth of the matter is that this type of speech is viewed as dangerous and radical or subversive, and it could gain me a world of trouble that I do not want. It is also the truth. To make myself clear I will tell you again. If they come for your guns it is your right to use those guns against them and to kill them. You are protected by our constitution.

Most of the articles I am reading on the subject are trying to give you clues without just coming out and saying it. I understand that because certain things in this country will get you on a list that you don’t want to be on. I may well be on that list. This blog is small and growing so I may not be there yet, but I have dreams. I also have my own list of subversives and anyone who attempts to deny my constitutional rights is on that list.

I am not the “subversive” here, it is the political representatives who are threatening to take away my inalienable rights. If they come to take my guns and I leave a few of them wounded or dead, and I somehow survive, I have zero doubt that I will spend a long time in prison and may face an execution. But I would much rather be a political prisoner than a slave.

If I go down fighting then I was not fighting to harm these human beings. I was simply defending my liberty and yours. It is self-defense and it is what our country was built on. We won our freedom in self-defense. We would not be ruled by a tyrannical government in the 1770′s and we will not be ruled in 2012 by a tyrannical government. There is no difference.

This is a case of right and wrong. As of now the 2nd amendment stands. It has never been repealed. If Feinstein or Barack have a problem with the constitution then they should be removed from office. They are not defending the constitution which they have sworn an oath to protect. It is treasonous to say the least. They would likely say the same about me, but I have the constitution, the founders, and the supreme court on my side. They only have their inflated egos.

I am not writing this to incite people. I am writing this in hopes that somehow I can make a tiny difference. I have no idea how many of my neighbors have the will to defend their constitutional rights. 2%? 20%? I am afraid that 20% is a high number, unfortunately. When push comes to shove many people may give up and submit to being ruled. I believe that our government is banking on this.


I would hope that our officials come to realize that, regardless of our numbers, we still exist because they are calling Patriotic Americans to action. They are making us decide if we want to die free or submit to their rule. I can not tell you where you should stand on that. I do know that it may make the difference between living a life of freedom or slavery.

You must start thinking about this because I believe that the day is coming soon and I personally believe it has already been planned. Not all conspiracy theories are hogwash. They may throw down the gauntlet soon and my suggestion is that you prepare yourself to react.

I mean no disrespect to our elected officials but they need to understand that “We the People” will not be disarmed. If they proceed then it is they that are provoking us and we will act accordingly. We are within our rights to do so.


Are you willing to die trying to take my guns?

---------------------------------

Bikertrash
03-22-2013, 1:06 PM
Dying "in a pile of brass" is an attractive apocalypse fantasy but is of no use. You won't win a 1-on-SWAT fight.

I realize that and I have no doubt that I won't win. I would rather die on my feet than live on my knees. What's the old saying, "Give me liberty or...I will do whatever you say" No...that's not it. Think what you will, I don't care. What I do know is that if ANYONE comes into my house trying to take ANY of my belongings they will be treated as a burgler and met with the same resistance.

zhyla
03-22-2013, 1:19 PM
I realize that and I have no doubt that I won't win. I would rather die on my feet than live on my knees.

Then in that 100% hypothetical scenario you will be of no use to the actual resistance. Enjoy your swift death, you die for nothing.

greg36f
03-22-2013, 1:22 PM
Great another "they are out to get me" paranoid example of OT spreading to the rest of Cal Guns. They are not coming after your damm guns!!!! "They" meaning te people we elected to represent us could not even get an assault weapons ban passed. Almost 100 percent of what the anti gun crowd wanted did not see the light of day. Did we suffer some set backs? Yeah, but we won a lot too.

We are never going to get everything we want and they are never going to get everything they want; that's life. That's how it's supposed to work.

Stop being so damm paranoid, the whole world is not out to get us (you). If you look at the big picture, we have it pretty damm good here in America.

JimWest
03-22-2013, 1:29 PM
Parts of this would be great to send to our elected servants as a reminder.

1) "Keep this in mind as my “representative” when you try to push gun bans. I don’t care if 99% of people are in support of gun bans (which is far from the case), it is a violation of my constitutional rights, plain and simple."

2) The United States of America is a constitutional republic. This is similar to a democracy because our representatives are selected by democratic elections, but ultimately you, my representative is required to work within the framework of our constitution. In other words, even if 90% of your constituents want something that goes against our founding principles, they have no right to call for a violation of constitutional rights.

3) I mean no disrespect to our (insert your representative here) but you need to understand that “We the People” will not be disarmed.

Excellent. I am stealing your idea and employing it. I know others that will also, and so will pass it along. Thanks.

JimWest
03-22-2013, 1:32 PM
.... If you look at the big picture, we have it pretty damm good here in America.

Greg, I'm sorry, but we do not have it like it was and therefore not "good enough". Personally, I like a little paranoia. Keeps me on my toes and my opponents off balance.

greg36f
03-22-2013, 1:41 PM
Greg, I'm sorry, but we do not have it like it was and therefore not "good enough". Personally, I like a little paranoia. Keeps me on my toes and my opponents off balance.

"Like it was"? What the heck does that mean. How far back we going? Slaves? Females can't vote? Get a mall infection and die?

Yes, a little paranoid is a good thing, just don't let the paranoia become a big thing. For some people here, it has become a big thing and if that happens you start to create issues where there are none in order to justify that paranoia; not healthy!!!!

LBDamned
03-22-2013, 1:41 PM
I think much of it boils down to some very basic principals and human behavioral philosophy...

Survival is a human instinct... primitive, or highly sophisticated, the basic instinct to survive is part of all living things...

Having that been said - the act of disarming, and in a sense, forcing someone to become a victim - will entice survival instinct within many (even though they may use logic such as "freedoms" and "rights" to justify their actions and that's okay)...

So whether it's a "responsibility" or not, may be debatable - but I strongly feel it will be instinctual to fight. I suppose you could consider the fact that the instinct to survive is based on the biological need to live and it can be argued that the will to live is because of responsibility to offspring (or loved ones?) - maybe in that sense it's a responsibility to fight.

I can't fathom anyone would willingly/knowingly become vulnerable. I will say however, there are many naive enough to think the world is only evil to certain people and "it can't happen to them".

Anyway - yes, fighting for your rights (which can be instinctual survival) is inevitable.

rm1911
03-22-2013, 1:43 PM
look at the origins and ideas of the progressives. now, for historical perspective, you have to compare that with maximalists. in fact, if you read the versailles treaty, they referred to the government in russia as maximalist. why? maximalists (i.e. bolsheviks) wanted massive and immediate overturning of society. "starting from zero". they were jacobin in nature, societal idealists, fed on rousseau's romantic visions. the jacobins compeletely tore down the old and sough to establish an altogether new society, a "republic of virtue". everything old had to go. that also happened in the S.U. recall that the greatest hatred that the bolsheviks had was not necessarily for the capitalists or tsarists, but actually for the mensheviks and others. those who were moderate socialists, those who favored incrementalism and working within the system. those were the ones lenin hated the most and warned his followers the most.

but progressives OTOH saw it differently. their view was one of incrementalism, that any change was good, was "progress", and should be sought. they actually had the right strategy. in effect, while their ultimate goal was fairly the same, their means were much different. they knew it would happen over time, and not all at once. there would be no revolution. consider today, the success of the progressive:

the federal government can decide what you will work for, how much yo will work for, what jobs you can and can't do, what goods and how goods are shipped across state lines, what vendors must and must not with those goods, etc. the federal government now determines how much water your toilets flush, the amount of water that comes out of your shower heads, and even the type of bulbs you put in your bathroom.

in fact, make a list in the morning and continue throughout the day, of anything and everything you do, however big and small. around noon or so, look at the list and figure all the ways both overt and subtle, that the federal government is involved in those actions and decisions.

didn't happen overnight. look, I'll bet lots of people on CG never bother to question the legitimacy of social security. it's wholly unconstitutional. but it is so ingrained into our psyche that there are plenty of 2A supporters that would rally against against SocSec cuts. look what they've done to our grocery bags in LA. can't even get plastic anymore. my kid's school has an earth day celebration thing. and it's not even a big deal. holy f***ing s***!!! (I can only correct the lies for my kids. but I can't fight or everyone's kids.)

see, in so many ways, our republic has been completely erased. we just don't know it yet.

so while we fight rear-guard actions, the progressives know they'll never directly come for them. it took 60-70 years to get here. you think they care about a grand sweeping victory on guns this congress? please. they are winning the war of attrition. slowly and surely, they'll just whittle us away, even without new laws. 60-70 years from now, what do you think this place will look like? you think we'll be the same "pile of ammunition...molon labe" group? how many will remain.

it's their entire methodology, progressive. i.e. progressively. incrementally. eventually.

now, I see other much more catastrophic things in the nearer future. the dollar's collapse is right around the corner. good news is that progs failed before the succeeded in destroying the dollar.

Bikertrash
03-22-2013, 1:47 PM
Then in that 100% hypothetical scenario you will be of no use to the actual resistance. Enjoy your swift death, you die for nothing.Thank you I will, because if the "Resistance" is headed up by people like you...I'll have better odds on my own.:D

zhyla
03-22-2013, 1:57 PM
Great another "they are out to get me" paranoid example of OT spreading to the rest of Cal Guns.

Yes. Mods haven't been stemming the tide well enough lately.

Thank you I will, because if the "Resistance" is headed up by people like you...I'll have better odds on my own.:D

People like me? You don't even know me. Your odds are zero on your own. Or are you John Wayne?

HBrebel
03-22-2013, 1:59 PM
I don't think they are 'coming to take our guns' but remember that governments tend to do things like this in increments. This is why nobody should be sitting back on their asses just because the 'Assault weapons' ban is off the bills for now. One thing I will say, constitutional rights or not, is that anybody who wants my property is going to need my permission to even look at it, period. I am not a subject in some kings realm or some slave to an emperor. This country was freed from tyranny by pissed off men with guns and a fierce desire for liberty. If we give that up just to satisfy some 'majority' or some bureaucrat with a power trip, then we do not deserve to live free.

Meplat
03-22-2013, 2:54 PM
Blah blah blah, the author has no idea how to resist an oppressive government. Dying "in a pile of brass" is an attractive apocalypse fantasy but is of no use. You won't win a 1-on-SWAT fight.

That depends on your definition of winning.

Even in countries where they have banned civilian possession of firearms they've never just showed up and confiscated them. They ban them little by little over a long period of time and have you turn them in voluntarily. Then law enforcement weeds out the rest over time. It doesn't happen overnight, plenty of time to hide stuff if need be.

That is the way they plan it to go down, it would behoove any one in opposition to think very carefully about their counter strategy.

old151
03-22-2013, 3:36 PM
It should be published in all news papers.

bodger
03-22-2013, 4:13 PM
Then in that 100% hypothetical scenario you will be of no use to the actual resistance. Enjoy your swift death, you die for nothing.

I don't agree. If in the unlikely event they do try to confiscate, the more resistance they meet at each attempt at confiscation, the more likely they are to abandon the concept.

OneLoneShooter
03-22-2013, 4:19 PM
Here's to hoping we'll never experience confiscation on the scale that would warrant violent resistance.

(I may be well-armed, and look intimidating to some, but I'm a peace-loving hipster at heart...)

Bsandoc40
03-22-2013, 4:49 PM
Confiscation might never happen. But one can never know how far Democrats and Liberals will go with their un-Constitutional agenda.

Better to be prepared than caught unprepared.

If people aren't concerned then that's on them.

HHGT
03-22-2013, 5:34 PM
Then in that 100% hypothetical scenario you will be of no use to the actual resistance. Enjoy your swift death, you die for nothing.


I disagree because those who were murdered in the Boston Massacre and on Lexington Green, their deaths resulted in helping to catalyze the revolution that gave us our independence. Those that died at the Alamo, their deaths ultimately resulted in the state of Texas.

While being murdered in your home while protecting your right to keep and bare arms might not be exactly the same thing as a group of people being murdered. Nevertheless its still the same thing in that it can just as easily precipitate enough public outrage that ultimately leads to quashing any anti Second Amendment laws.

Another example: On July 5th 1934, now known as Bloody Thursday, down on the waterfront in San Francisco dockworkers were in the middle of strike when police shot dead two of the strikers. As a result of these killings a massive general strike resulted which ultimately gave birth to the International Longshore and Warehouse Union. It was the public's outrage over these killings which brought about the massive general strike and it was that massive general strike which made it possible for the dockworkers to win and form the ILWU.

So I disagree because there are lots of examples throughout history where someone taking a stand for what's right, paying for it with their life and as a result it changes history.

Just my two cents and of course nobody wants to see any kind of violence. This is our country, our homes, and nobody wants to see anything like that happen.

SURVIVOR619
03-22-2013, 6:16 PM
I think much of it boils down to some very basic principals and human behavioral philosophy...

Survival is a human instinct... primitive, or highly sophisticated, the basic instinct to survive is part of all living things...

Having that been said - the act of disarming, and in a sense, forcing someone to become a victim - will entice survival instinct within many (even though they may use logic such as "freedoms" and "rights" to justify their actions and that's okay)...

So whether it's a "responsibility" or not, may be debatable - but I strongly feel it will be instinctual to fight. I suppose you could consider the fact that the instinct to survive is based on the biological need to live and it can be argued that the will to live is because of responsibility to offspring (or loved ones?) - maybe in that sense it's a responsibility to fight.

I can't fathom anyone would willingly/knowingly become vulnerable. I will say however, there are many naive enough to think the world is only evil to certain people and "it can't happen to them".

Anyway - yes, fighting for your rights (which can be instinctual survival) is inevitable.

Since I respect this great forum, I will not quote this post as a "signature" as it would be too long, but.. WOW! One of the best posts I've read.

Blake760
03-22-2013, 6:23 PM
Blah blah blah, the author has no idea how to resist an oppressive government. Dying "in a pile of brass" is an attractive apocalypse fantasy but is of no use. You won't win a 1-on-SWAT fight.

Even in countries where they have banned civilian possession of firearms they've never just showed up and confiscated them. They ban them little by little over a long period of time and have you turn them in voluntarily. Then law enforcement weeds out the rest over time. It doesn't happen overnight, plenty of time to hide stuff if need be.

+1 , This is a war of atttition; which began a long time ago...

Meplat
03-22-2013, 6:36 PM
Here's to hoping we'll never experience confiscation on the scale that would warrant violent resistance.

(I may be well-armed, and look intimidating to some, but I'm a peace-loving hipster at heart...)

And what scale would that be? When it's my neighbor's gun it's small potatoes; but when it's my guns; call out the militia!!!

LBDamned
03-22-2013, 6:38 PM
Since I respect this great forum, I will not quote this post as a "signature" as it would be too long, but.. WOW! One of the best posts I've read.

wow, that's a great compliment. Thank you. :)

more importantly, I'm glad you get it

StuckInTheP.R.O.Ca
03-22-2013, 6:44 PM
Great read.

kcbrown
03-22-2013, 6:50 PM
Sometimes I think Feinstein and Biden and the rest actually believe that they can disarm us without consequence, and we are just sheeple that will go along with their intent to s**t on the Constitution for the "greater good".

And they are right to believe that, because that is precisely what has happened in every other nation that has proceeded down this path in the last 100 years.

What in the world makes people think that those here in the U.S. will behave any differently than anyone else when the chips are down?


The founders of this country were extraordinary people compared to those you find today. And they were the leaders of their society at the time, in contrast with like-minded people of today. Today's "leaders" have views that are the polar opposite of those of the founders, while those who have the views of the founders have no real power at all (hence the impotence of the Libertarian party).


No, against the slow, suffocating march of "progressivism" and the endless flow of new restrictions that come with it, there has historically been only one solution that has ever worked: violent revolution. And that won't work because the government has all the guns that really matter (not to mention bombs, missiles, planes, drones, satellite surveillance, etc.).

SURVIVOR619
03-22-2013, 6:55 PM
wow, that's a great compliment. Thank you. :)

more importantly, I'm glad you get it

:patriot:

LuvLRBs
03-22-2013, 7:13 PM
When Lithuania declared it's independence from the Soviet Union in the early 1990's, there were home made guns that were a part of that revolt. It is not possible to disarm the US. Underground machine shops would become as common as moonshine stills during prohibition. They can come take the registered firearms that they can find, but that's it. And I suspect a lot of those would end up "lost" somewhere. Unfortunately such a situation would make guns into exactly what the liberals want them to be.....not for fun, for collecting, for target shooting and customization, but to fight the government. A self- fulfilling prophecy. See, they would say, we always knew guns were only owned in order to kill people.

rsacks
03-22-2013, 7:27 PM
Beautifully written and expressed, I wish more people understood what is actually at stake.

Whatever you believe about the current crop of government, you do need to understand why the constitution was written, why it is of vital importance, and why above all else there can be NO compromise of it. For my part, there will be no confiscation at my property, as long as I am alive. End of story.

Do what you must, but do it because you have strong beliefs. Not because you think it might not matter.

Meplat
03-22-2013, 7:34 PM
Having that been said - the act of disarming, and in a sense, forcing someone to become a victim -will entice survival instinct within many (even though they may use logic such as "freedoms" and "rights" to justify their actions and that's okay)...


And this is the place from where the 'RIGHT' springs. It is not the constitution, it is not the thousands who have fought and died for freedom. As much as I love our constitution, it only articulates what by nature exists. As much love, respect, admiration, and gratitude I have for those who have fought, and bled, and died to prevent the infringement of the right; they did not create it or give it to us. They and the constitution can only seek to protect its free exercise. It comes to us by the simple fact that we exist.

P. S. I too think this is one of the best all time posts on CGN.

Meplat
03-22-2013, 7:48 PM
When Lithuania declared it's independence from the Soviet Union in the early 1990's, there were home made guns that were a part of that revolt. It is not possible to disarm the US. Underground machine shops would become as common as moonshine stills during prohibition. They can come take the registered firearms that they can find, but that's it. And I suspect a lot of those would end up "lost" somewhere. Unfortunately such a situation would make guns into exactly what the liberals want them to be.....not for fun, for collecting, for target shooting and customization, but to fight the government. A self- fulfilling prophecy. See, they would say, we always knew guns were only owned in order to kill people.

Plus, guns are only one weapon, we live every day with objects and substances that are just as deadly, some more so. The mind is the ultimate weapon. The men who put the final end to WWII, and in so doing saved millions of Japanese and American lives, never fired a shot! The internet is a wonderful tool, all patriots should learn how to get the job done with whatever they have.:43:

BajaJames83
03-22-2013, 7:56 PM
guns....
what guns.....

LBDamned
03-22-2013, 9:57 PM
And this is the place from where the 'RIGHT' springs. It is not the constitution, it is not the thousands who have fought and died for freedom. As much as I love our constitution, it only articulates what by nature exists. As much love, respect, admiration, and gratitude I have for those who have fought, and bled, and died to prevent the infringement of the right; they did not create it or give it to us. They and the constitution can only seek to protect its free exercise. It comes to us by the simple fact that we exist.

P. S. I too think this is one of the best all time posts on CGN.

Yes sir. A much bigger (and fundamental) principal and truth. I like your statement that "It comes to us by the simple fact that we exist".

Thank you for the kind words too... that's quite an honor!

marcusrn
03-22-2013, 11:12 PM
A lot of this is basic neighborhood watch stuff which is real big in my area of Oceanside, Ca.

If a bunch of people showed up dressed in black with machine guns and flashy grenades they should really worry about getting shot in the back of the necks or rear pelvic areas by that same neighbor watch group.

In the civilized society of laws in which we live one is served warrants and this should be done in the light of day and not at 0500 AM.

Look how terrified those cops in LA were of that fat low achieving X navy/cop psycho 2 weeks back.. I think they will run out of steam pretty quick if they run into a really regulated and vigilant neighborhood watch group.

I say this with love toward cops and all oath keepers. I have had numerous LEO in my immediate family.

Peace to all and keep all 20 lbs of smokeless powder dry.

Marcus

1Asterisk
03-23-2013, 9:35 AM
Great another "they are out to get me" paranoid example of OT spreading to the rest of Cal Guns. They are not coming after your damm guns!!!! "They" meaning te people we elected to represent us could not even get an assault weapons ban passed. Almost 100 percent of what the anti gun crowd wanted did not see the light of day. Did we suffer some set backs? Yeah, but we won a lot too.

We are never going to get everything we want and they are never going to get everything they want; that's life. That's how it's supposed to work.

Stop being so damn paranoid, the whole world is not out to get us (you). If you look at the big picture, we have it pretty damm good here in America.

So, if I understand you correctly...a little 'infringement' was OK last time, a little more 'infringement' will be OK this time?

The 'big picture' is that they ARE coming for our guns...

1Asterisk
03-23-2013, 9:50 AM
Blah blah blah, the author has no idea how to resist an oppressive government. Dying "in a pile of brass" is an attractive apocalypse fantasy but is of no use. You won't win a 1-on-SWAT fight

I personally am glad that you, in any previous life, were not an adviser to the to the militiamen who fired the opening shots of the American Revolution at Lexington Common against superior British forces in 1775.

AragornElessar86
03-23-2013, 9:53 AM
I personally am glad that you, in any previous life, were not an adviser to the to the militiamen who fired the opening shots of the American Revolution at Lexington Common against superior British forces in 1775.

Read a book. The militia did not fire anything resembling an "opening shot".

Sent from my MB886 using Tapatalk 2

El Toro
03-23-2013, 10:00 AM
Unfortunately, with laws prohibiting military style training, a loan Patriot holding off SWAT is probably all the news will report. I have my doubts about any real Revolution. militias and paintballers are probably already under FBI surveillance.

sunaj
03-23-2013, 10:12 AM
A lot of people are concerned that our government is becoming a fascist regime,
I have news for people-this has already happened, it is just subtle, hidden, done in stealth, our politicians are bought and paid for and puppets on a string,
there is a hidden government within the government that pulls the strings of society,
we have a CIA that is the assasination/black op section of the government that murders, kidnaps, tortures, overturn governments, assasinates foreign leaders, etc.
We have a private banking cartel (Federal Reserve, there is nothing Federal about it, it is privately owned ) that controls our money and credit, inflation, etc. and is a criminal entity (The FR is owned by foreign banks-your bailout went to foreigners),
Massive government spying is taking place on your emails, phone calls, cell phone calls, internet etc.
We have a news/information system that is owned and controlled by major corporations, that censors and limits information through the major news outlets,
much of very important news is not broadcast in this country,
This is not conspiracy theory, you cannot question the major false flag operations going on from the Gulf of Tonkin incident, the Kennedy assassination (Bobby), Northfield Documents (Cuba),
we already have gun confiscations going on in limited instances, e.g., Katrina, and we are on the verge of actual wholesale gun confiscation,
and new laws that turn millions of citizens into criminals,
so think twice before you start calling some of these scenarios "conspiracy"

sunaj :biggrinjester:

The Shadow
03-23-2013, 10:18 AM
The thing that no one wants to think about is it won't be the politicians that come knocking on the door. But if I write further, I'll just be labeled a hater. I don't care, I just don't want to start a Sh*tstorm in someone elses thread.

bodger
03-23-2013, 10:26 AM
And they are right to believe that, because that is precisely what has happened in every other nation that has proceeded down this path in the last 100 years.

What in the world makes people think that those here in the U.S. will behave any differently than anyone else when the chips are down?


The founders of this country were extraordinary people compared to those you find today. And they were the leaders of their society at the time, in contrast with like-minded people of today. Today's "leaders" have views that are the polar opposite of those of the founders, while those who have the views of the founders have no real power at all (hence the impotence of the Libertarian party).


No, against the slow, suffocating march of "progressivism" and the endless flow of new restrictions that come with it, there has historically been only one solution that has ever worked: violent revolution. And that won't work because the government has all the guns that really matter (not to mention bombs, missiles, planes, drones, satellite surveillance, etc.).

This is what is most frightening about what is happening right now. It seems like the majority of the people will go along with whatever the government decides to dish out.
I guess you are right, they are correct in believing that they can do whatever they want. Sickening, but probably true.

bodger
03-23-2013, 10:28 AM
The thing that no one wants to think about is it won't be the politicians that come knocking on the door. But if I write further, I'll just be labeled a hater. I don't care, I just don't want to start a Sh*tstorm in someone elses thread.

I suppose it will be LEO, or military that comes, if they come. And I don't believe all this "oathkeeper" buls**t we hear. If the stuff is hitting the fan, there will be plenty of military and LEOs who won't give a damn about the Constitution if keeping their oath means they might end up on the losing side of things, having THEIR doors kicked in.

Katrina showed us a lot.

jpkar
03-23-2013, 11:41 AM
very powerful article...I'm sure alot of us have been asking ourselves this question lately but reading this article help me realize what I would do if placed in this situation then my response would be...Give me Liberty or give me death!!!

PoorChoiceofUsername
03-23-2013, 11:55 AM
Great another "they are out to get me" paranoid example of OT spreading to the rest of Cal Guns.
.

^ That. It's no wonder much of the public views us as crackpots. The longer I'm here the more I understand why the government worries about some people bearing arms.

nicki
03-23-2013, 12:03 PM
Many of the people who gripe the most about the government coming for their guns are doing nothing to stop it.

The sad reality is most firearms owners refuse to do ANYTHING.

The fight for gun rights is being carried by a "few", not all. Of course I am preaching to the choir on this, but that is the problem.

Look at your children, do you want them to be "Orphans"?

I don't want my kids to be "Orphans", but I don't want to surrender "all my arms" either because surrendering of my arms is not just surrendering my guns, it is surrendering my "rights".

Once we surrender our guns, we go from "potentially free citizens" to full blown "government owned subjects".

I use the world "potential" instead of "sovereign" because we have already surrendered our rights.

Nicki

chris
03-23-2013, 12:09 PM
. Sometimes I think Feinstein and Biden and the rest actually believe that they can disarm us without consequence, and we are just sheeple that will go along with their intent to s**t on the Constitution for the "greater good".

sure they do. they saw what happened in England and Australia both countries disarmed their people after mass shootings. SH was no different they used that one to push the agenda as far and wide as possible. they have let their plan out of registration and then confiscation. it's no secret anymore. we can use their words against them in Youtube videos to spread their agenda on Facebook and other media. let the gun banners think their lie of not infringing on those who follow the law go unnoticed.

their endgame is confiscation period.

im sending 20 bucks to CGF today. it's not much but it's what I can afford to donate. every little bit counts.

JimWest
03-23-2013, 12:19 PM
I suppose it will be LEO, or military that comes, if they come. And I don't believe all this "oathkeeper" buls**t we hear. If the stuff is hitting the fan, there will be plenty of military and LEOs who won't give a damn about the Constitution if keeping their oath means they might end up on the losing side of things, having THEIR doors kicked in.

Katrina showed us a lot.

Oh, that's what that Civilian Defense Force Obama was talking about was. To protect folks like us. Of course it would have to exist underground right now collecting preemptive intelligence and strategies. Probably composed of anonymous cells. It would look alot like urban warfare in Iraq. Fiction of course. But details are in an upcoming novel.

Meplat
03-23-2013, 12:32 PM
Read a book. The militia did not fire anything resembling an "opening shot".

Sent from my MB886 using Tapatalk 2



No one knows who fired the "shot heard round the world" there are pet theories and speculation. But the militia did fire the opening American shots, whether in offense or defense or by accident, no one knows. But they did stand and deliver at least one volley. Can you imagine the guts that took?

Meplat
03-23-2013, 12:37 PM
^ That. It's no wonder much of the public views us as crackpots. The longer I'm here the more I understand why the government worries about some people bearing arms.


If that is your position; this is also a poor choice of forums for you.:D

Meplat
03-23-2013, 12:44 PM
I don't want my kids to be "Orphans", but I don't want to surrender "all my arms" either because surrendering of my arms is not just surrendering my guns, it is surrendering my "rights".

Nicki

Nicki:

A word to the wise. If you don't want your kids to be orphans, don't do what the brave men at Lexington did. Think it out. Nuff said.

Mike

chicoredneck
03-23-2013, 12:53 PM
While an inspiration read, the scenario of blunt gun confiscation is a long ways off from coming to fruition.

We have been suffering under slow gun confiscation for nearly 100 years thorugh small encroachments and grandfather clauses. "Sure, you can keep your gun, but no new ones can be bought, sold or manufactured."

They are not coming to get your guns. That would be political suicide and incredibly dumb. They are coming for your childrens and their childrens. Each law that is passed eventually becomes the new accepted normal and at that point new small encroaching restrictions can be made and eventually normalized. By the time the govenrment actually decides they need to confiscate guns (if it ever comes to that point, in all likelyhood they will just slowly be regulated out of existence), your grandchildren will either not care or will be so overwhelemed and out gunned by the prevailing mindset and military arms that resisting would be suicide.

We have already lost much of our gun rights and "shall not be infringed" has been blatantly violated. It is my right to own, make, and sell a fully automatic machine gun, but that right is denied in this country.

I don't mean to be negative (I think the gun rights community has made great strides in recent years), but I just want to point out that the scenario the author has foisted has already happened and is curently going on. The real battle is for us to influence future generations.

el chivo
03-23-2013, 1:09 PM
I think you are better off to live and resist in other ways if this does happen. To die in a blaze of glory may sound good but it just gives them justification that gun owners are anti-government and violent and all need to be "taken out". The thing that brought the Soviet Union down was passive-aggressive resistance, covert not overt.

The Shadow
03-23-2013, 1:21 PM
I think you are better off to live and resist in other ways if this does happen. To die in a blaze of glory may sound good but it just gives them justification that gun owners are anti-government and violent and all need to be "taken out". The thing that brought the Soviet Union down was passive-aggressive resistance, covert not overt.

"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country cause. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country cause." - George S. Patton

Zuni
03-23-2013, 1:23 PM
Wow, powerful statements, thank you.

greg36f
03-23-2013, 1:39 PM
If that is your position; this is also a poor choice of forums for you.:D

Yeah, either get in lock step with the vocal few here or go away!!!!!

bodger
03-23-2013, 2:23 PM
Yeah, either get in lock step with the vocal few here or go away!!!!!

Not really. In this political environment, being concerned about the possibility of outright firearms confiscation isn't completely tin foil hat paranoia. PoorChoiceofUserName claimed this is why the public views gunowners as crackpots and why the government "worries about some people bearing arms."

Should we all just buy a shotgun and STFU?

shooter777
03-23-2013, 2:42 PM
The varying viewpoints in this thread prove that the "gun community" or "gun owners" are not a monolithic entity. Some of us are hobbyists; some are hunters. Some are competition folks; some just like weapons. We come from all walks of life, all political affiliations. We all deserve to protect and defend ourselves. That right is sacrosanct!

Americans in a classical sense are anti-government(at least the Anti-Federalists). That is the foundation of the Constitution, to limit the scope and breadth of our governing bodies. Yet, we see the constant erosion of our rights while our government continues infringement.

It is our duty to remain constantly vigilant not consistently subservient.

vantec08
03-23-2013, 2:48 PM
A lot of people are concerned that our government is becoming a fascist regime,
I have news for people-this has already happened, it is just subtle, hidden, done in stealth, our politicians are bought and paid for and puppets on a string,
there is a hidden government within the government that pulls the strings of society,
we have a CIA that is the assasination/black op section of the government that murders, kidnaps, tortures, overturn governments, assasinates foreign leaders, etc.
We have a private banking cartel (Federal Reserve, there is nothing Federal about it, it is privately owned ) that controls our money and credit, inflation, etc. and is a criminal entity (The FR is owned by foreign banks-your bailout went to foreigners),
Massive government spying is taking place on your emails, phone calls, cell phone calls, internet etc.
We have a news/information system that is owned and controlled by major corporations, that censors and limits information through the major news outlets,
much of very important news is not broadcast in this country,
This is not conspiracy theory, you cannot question the major false flag operations going on from the Gulf of Tonkin incident, the Kennedy assassination (Bobby), Northfield Documents (Cuba),
we already have gun confiscations going on in limited instances, e.g., Katrina, and we are on the verge of actual wholesale gun confiscation,
and new laws that turn millions of citizens into criminals,
so think twice before you start calling some of these scenarios "conspiracy"

sunaj :biggrinjester:


Agree. Ineresting how some erst-while folks can be so foolish to assert "it will never happen here" and "too many safeguards built into the system here" blahblah. We are ONE . . . . ONE SCOTUS vote away from becoming the 7 headed monster we fled the crown for. Safeguards?? WHAT safeguards? they are all owned by various special and hidden interests.

prometa
03-23-2013, 5:29 PM
While an inspiration read, the scenario of blunt gun confiscation is a long ways off from coming to fruition.

We have been suffering under slow gun confiscation for nearly 100 years thorugh small encroachments and grandfather clauses. "Sure, you can keep your gun, but no new ones can be bought, sold or manufactured."

They are not coming to get your guns. That would be political suicide and incredibly dumb. They are coming for your childrens and their childrens. Each law that is passed eventually becomes the new accepted normal and at that point new small encroaching restrictions can be made and eventually normalized. By the time the govenrment actually decides they need to confiscate guns (if it ever comes to that point, in all likelyhood they will just slowly be regulated out of existence), your grandchildren will either not care or will be so overwhelemed and out gunned by the prevailing mindset and military arms that resisting would be suicide.

We have already lost much of our gun rights and "shall not be infringed" has been blatantly violated. It is my right to own, make, and sell a fully automatic machine gun, but that right is denied in this country.

I don't mean to be negative (I think the gun rights community has made great strides in recent years), but I just want to point out that the scenario the author has foisted has already happened and is curently going on. The real battle is for us to influence future generations.

This is how it works.

The best resistance you can fight with is convincing people around you to support 2nd amendment rights, so the tide slowly turns back the other direction.

Say in an alternate universe, Brown signs a sweeping ban and directs agents to go collect. Armed officers of the law are at your door and have a seizure order for one or more of your guns. What do you do? You could:

1. Stall by claiming you don't have it. This will likely result in a future search warrant but buy you time.

2. Give up the gun and then file a lawsuit. You will probably lose the firearm forever, but may get to be party of one of the greatest Supreme Court decisions ever.

Or 3. Resist openly and open fire. Say you are a great shot and kill both agents. Now you are a murderer, and will very quickly be branded a Timothy McVeigh type terrorist and used as a talking point about why the law was needed in the first place. You will spend the rest of your life behind bars or as a fugitive. If you are unlucky, the agent might kill you first, and you'll be a now dead political talking point.

3 is a crappy option. Literal lone gunmen never bring about positive social change, just over reactions

wazdat
03-23-2013, 5:44 PM
I'm surprised by those that claim the intent of our politicians is not to disarm us through confication of our firearms. One need only look at the list of firearms in the proposed legislation at both the state and federal level that they want to ban outright or force us to register.

Ask California firearms owners what happened to the SKS rifles that got classified as assault weapons that they were allowed to register. Once the state knew where they were, confiscating them was easy.

I don't wear a tin foil hat but I will never register or willingly turn over my firearms.

My choice of signature was not made by mistake...

penguin0123
03-23-2013, 6:47 PM
My choice of signature was not made by mistake...
As an aside, the domestic part was added after the Civil War which cemented the power of the federal government. Before 1861, the United States are; after 1865, the United States is.

BigPimping
03-23-2013, 7:07 PM
It's coming and we all know it. Katrina showed us a prequel.

BigPimping
03-23-2013, 7:16 PM
If they do come for our guns, I believe the only thing that will make them think twice about confiscation is armed resistance, and a lot of bloodbaths.

I'm not convinced that the powers that be truly understand that they are flirting with disaster as they continue to push their anti-gun agendas. Sometimes I think Feinstein and Biden and the rest actually believe that they can disarm us without consequence, and we are just sheeple that will go along with their intent to s**t on the Constitution for the "greater good".


And they have Tanks.....

BigPimping
03-23-2013, 7:19 PM
This thread rocks!!

greg36f
03-23-2013, 7:39 PM
It's coming and we all know it. Katrina showed us a prequel.

You mean the incident that was condemned nationwide and caused numerous laws to be passed preventing another occurrence. You mean the confiscation that was repeated over and over nationwide…..Oh, that’s right, it was not repeated.

That incident that stands out as a widely recognized stain on liberty. If that is what you are basing your fear of “they are coming to get me” paranoia, you probably need to look somewhere else.

No one is coming to get your guns.

Yeah, they are going to try to pass laws restricting your rights; and we will fight back and win some and lose some. A balance will be found and everyone will either be angry or happy. That's how it works.

Some people in this nation want ALL guns to be taken and destroyed. Some people in this nation want to be able to own tactical nuclear weapons in case the government comes to get you.

A balance will be found. That's how the founders set it up; like it or not.

All this Chicken Little crap serves no purpose.

tanner127
03-23-2013, 8:01 PM
No, against the slow, suffocating march of "progressivism" and the endless flow of new restrictions that come with it, there has historically been only one solution that has ever worked: violent revolution. And that won't work because the government has all the guns that really matter (not to mention bombs, missiles, planes, drones, satellite surveillance, etc.).

Funny how goat herders and farmers in the Middle East are standing up to these weapons for an idea that they believe in. Should we not stand up for what we believe in just because we are "outgunned"?

sunaj
03-23-2013, 8:20 PM
[/B]

You mean the incident that was condemned nationwide and caused numerous laws to be passed preventing another occurrence. You mean the confiscation that was repeated over and over nationwide…..Oh, that’s right, it was not repeated.

That incident that stands out as a widely recognized stain on liberty. If that is what you are basing your fear of “they are coming to get me” paranoia, you probably need to look somewhere else.

No one is coming to get your guns.

Yeah, they are going to try to pass laws restricting your rights; and we will fight back and win some and lose some. A balance will be found and everyone will either be angry or happy. That's how it works.

Some people in this nation want ALL guns to be taken and destroyed. Some people in this nation want to be able to own tactical nuclear weapons in case the government comes to get you.

A balance will be found. That's how the founders set it up; like it or not.

All this Chicken Little crap serves no purpose.

Dude you hafta be kidding-
They are already using pretexts to confiscate guns right now,
any kinds of so called mental illness, depression, a fight with your wife, safety, etc.,
they are proposing legislation right now in sacto that sets the stage to make you a criminal for owning certain guns,
to give police the power to show up at your door without a warrant and search your house for guns-what more do you and people like you need to see???
Even Sheriffs across the country are standing up and refusing to enforce these proposed laws, this is an incredible event

sunaj

Mojaveman
03-23-2013, 8:35 PM
If you're that worried about someone taking your AR buy a second one and take that as well as an extra parts kit, cleaning kit, some magazines, a set of load bearing equipment, and about 1,000 rounds and go bury it somewhere. :D

violentmouse
03-23-2013, 8:39 PM
I think you are better off to live and resist in other ways if this does happen. To die in a blaze of glory may sound good but it just gives them justification that gun owners are anti-government and violent and all need to be "taken out". The thing that brought the Soviet Union down was passive-aggressive resistance, covert not overt.

I guess the two things you missed:

1.) This isn't the Soviet Union.
2.) If they (our leaders) belive we would rather go out in a blaze of glory they will be less likely to commit to an action because conversely we could point out that if they had not attempted to disarm us by force there would have been no blood shed.

This isn't a call to immediate action, this is a great article informing us of one fact. You need to prepare yourself, mentally for what might be in store for us, it may not be tomorrow or the next day but it CAN happen.

As long as you are prepared for the possibility that grabbers may come door to door, you are afforded the ability to prepare a greeting for them, whether it be welcoming them in and handing your future generations freedom over, or laying down suppressive fire while your family members pick them off one at a time.

So if you want to try and fight off current political leaders, who are directly challenging our constitutional rights on a daily basis with some good old fashioned passive aggressiveness you do that. That's your right, Me and mine will continue to clean and lubricate our peace makers.

V.

violentmouse
03-23-2013, 8:53 PM
[/B]

You mean the incident that was condemned nationwide and caused numerous laws to be passed preventing another occurrence. You mean the confiscation that was repeated over and over nationwide…..Oh, that’s right, it was not repeated.

That incident that stands out as a widely recognized stain on liberty. If that is what you are basing your fear of “they are coming to get me” paranoia, you probably need to look somewhere else.

No one is coming to get your guns.

Yeah, they are going to try to pass laws restricting your rights; and we will fight back and win some and lose some. A balance will be found and everyone will either be angry or happy. That's how it works.

Some people in this nation want ALL guns to be taken and destroyed. Some people in this nation want to be able to own tactical nuclear weapons in case the government comes to get you.

A balance will be found. That's how the founders set it up; like it or not.

All this Chicken Little crap serves no purpose.

Swinestein is.
Obama is.
Biden is.

Biden was on KPRI the other day and during the interview he admitted that the AWB is not likely to pass right now. But he also made sure he did not admit defeat and openly and proudly declared:

"we will keep pushing for it"
"we may not get it this year, or the next, but we will push until we do"

Then again he also said:

"I believe the people want to see the AWB passed."
"I believe the people agree with me, that assault weapons and high capacity clips should be banned"

I guess he forgot that it's not his job to make "The People" agree with him. It's his job to agree with "The People" and make sure that the will of "The People" is enforced.

Your 1st amendment right prohibits me from telling you what to do and say and how to respond, but I offer some constructive criticism.

Don't jump to conclusions and snap at someone that they are "over the top" or paranoid because they firmly believe that our current leadership has a gun grabbing agenda. You nor I personally know the agenda when it comes to firearms but based on VP Bidens statements last week , and the fact that Swinestein has been trying to shove an AWB down our throats since the first one expired that the possibility of a gun grabbing agenda really does exist and I will prepare myself to respond in the way that I feel is needed. Much in the same way that you will make your own determination and respond how you feel is needed.

That being said let's be less critical of others "paranoia" and try and get on the same page, Page 1 (Protecting current and future generations freedoms)

V.

bodger
03-23-2013, 9:03 PM
Swinestein is.
Obama is.
Biden is.

Biden was on KPRI the other day and during the interview he admitted that the AWB is not likely to pass right now. But he also made sure he did not admit defeat and openly and proudly declared:

"we will keep pushing for it"
"we may not get it this year, or the next, but we will push until we do"

Then again he also said:

"I believe the people want to see the AWB passed."
"I believe the people agree with me, that assault weapons and high capacity clips should be banned"

I guess he forgot that it's not his job to make "The People" agree with him. It's his job to agree with "The People" and make sure that the will of "The People" is enforced.

Your 1st amendment right prohibits me from telling you what to do and say and how to respond, but I offer some constructive criticism.

Don't jump to conclusions and snap at someone that they are "over the top" or paranoid because they firmly believe that our current leadership has a gun grabbing agenda. You nor I personally know the agenda when it comes to firearms but based on VP Bidens statements last week , and the fact that Swinestein has been trying to shove an AWB down our throats since the first one expired that the possibility of a gun grabbing agenda really does exist and I will prepare myself to respond in the way that I feel is needed. Much in the same way that you will make your own determination and respond how you feel is needed.

That being said let's be less critical of others "paranoia" and try and get on the same page, Page 1 (Protecting current and future generations freedoms)

V.

I heard part of that Biden interview too. Sickening. One thing that stands out, as it always has, is Biden's lack of knowledge of the very firearms he intends to outlaw. He basically says "Guns are bad", paints in broad strokes as to the effectiveness of their proposed bans, and millions of sheeple go along with what he says.
I was shouting at the radio.

bodger
03-23-2013, 9:10 PM
[/B]

You mean the incident that was condemned nationwide and caused numerous laws to be passed preventing another occurrence. You mean the confiscation that was repeated over and over nationwide…..Oh, that’s right, it was not repeated.

That incident that stands out as a widely recognized stain on liberty. If that is what you are basing your fear of “they are coming to get me” paranoia, you probably need to look somewhere else.

No one is coming to get your guns.

Yeah, they are going to try to pass laws restricting your rights; and we will fight back and win some and lose some. A balance will be found and everyone will either be angry or happy. That's how it works.

Some people in this nation want ALL guns to be taken and destroyed. Some people in this nation want to be able to own tactical nuclear weapons in case the government comes to get you.

A balance will be found. That's how the founders set it up; like it or not.

All this Chicken Little crap serves no purpose.

When it comes to firearms, I don't have one iota of trust for what the government will or will not do, regardless of condemnation of previous Constitutional rights violations or passing of new laws to prevent it from occurring again.

Too many people are buying into the mentality of "for the greater good" when it comes to violation of rights, especially regarding guns.

TRICKSTER
03-23-2013, 9:11 PM
[/B]

You mean the incident that was condemned nationwide and caused numerous laws to be passed preventing another occurrence. You mean the confiscation that was repeated over and over nationwide…..Oh, that’s right, it was not repeated.

That incident that stands out as a widely recognized stain on liberty. If that is what you are basing your fear of “they are coming to get me” paranoia, you probably need to look somewhere else.

No one is coming to get your guns.

Yeah, they are going to try to pass laws restricting your rights; and we will fight back and win some and lose some. A balance will be found and everyone will either be angry or happy. That's how it works.

Some people in this nation want ALL guns to be taken and destroyed. Some people in this nation want to be able to own tactical nuclear weapons in case the government comes to get you.

A balance will be found. That's how the founders set it up; like it or not.

All this Chicken Little crap serves no purpose.

You are attempting to use logic in a logic free zone.:oji:

Baja Jones
03-23-2013, 10:02 PM
Read a book. The militia did not fire anything resembling an "opening shot".

Sent from my MB886 using Tapatalk 2

Wrong Aragorn
The Militia fired the opening shots of the revolution. All the initial rounds were a police action by a sovereign monarchy. There was in fact no revolution until there was armed resistance to tyranny.
What will you be clutching when they shut of your MB886 and kick in your door?

prometa
03-23-2013, 10:49 PM
I guess he forgot that it's not his job to make "The People" agree with him. It's his job to agree with "The People" and make sure that the will of "The People" is enforced.


I disagree. Because we are a republic, we give power to our elected leaders to act in our interests. If they do a bad job, we vote them out. If they violate the law, congress can impeach them, not us.

Meplat
03-24-2013, 1:22 AM
Yeah, either get in lock step with the vocal few here or go away!!!!!

I think "the vocal few" is a poor choice of words and inaccurate. But ya, we don't need any more ***** stirrers.
:D

Meplat
03-24-2013, 1:32 AM
This is how it works.

The best resistance you can fight with is convincing people around you to support 2nd amendment rights, so the tide slowly turns back the other direction.

Say in an alternate universe, Brown signs a sweeping ban and directs agents to go collect. Armed officers of the law are at your door and have a seizure order for one or more of your guns. What do you do? You could:

1. Stall by claiming you don't have it. This will likely result in a future search warrant but buy you time.

2. Give up the gun and then file a lawsuit. You will probably lose the firearm forever, but may get to be party of one of the greatest Supreme Court decisions ever.

Or 3. Resist openly and open fire. Say you are a great shot and kill both agents. Now you are a murderer, and will very quickly be branded a Timothy McVeigh type terrorist and used as a talking point about why the law was needed in the first place. You will spend the rest of your life behind bars or as a fugitive. If you are unlucky, the agent might kill you first, and you'll be a now dead political talking point.

3 is a crappy option. Literal lone gunmen never bring about positive social change, just over reactions

You forgot a couple of options. One is to just give them the damn gun; I'll make you another one. And if you cant figure out the other, I'm not going to tell you.

Meplat
03-24-2013, 1:51 AM
[/B]

You mean the incident that was condemned nationwide and caused numerous laws to be passed preventing another occurrence. You mean the confiscation that was repeated over and over nationwide…..Oh, that’s right, it was not repeated.


You are missing the point. The point is not that they backed off. The point is that there are plenty of politicians, officials, and enforcement personnel in this country who have absolutely no moral or ethical compunction about crapping the Constitution!

kimber_ss
03-24-2013, 2:05 AM
It's the politicians more than anything else. The second amendment bashers. You know, those who we have so much admiration for. The puppet masters pulling the strings...

DiFi, Mao, Stalin...

Meplat
03-24-2013, 2:06 AM
I disagree. Because we are a republic, we give power to our elected leaders to act in our interests. If they do a bad job, we vote them out. If they violate the law, congress can impeach them, not us.

We are a representative republic. That means elected officials are supposed to represent their constituents.:rolleyes:

Nick Adams
03-24-2013, 4:30 AM
We are a representative republic. That means elected officials are supposed to represent their constituents.:rolleyes:

Exactly...the big money donors who are their constituents. Welcome to the corpocracy.

JimWest
03-24-2013, 5:29 AM
You forgot a couple of options. One is to just give them the damn gun; I'll make you another one. And if you cant figure out the other, I'm not going to tell you.

Back to the mainpoint here and the bottom line is just make sure when they come for your guns they are not there. Or at least where they can't be found. Keep in mind they have sonar equipment that can detect items in the ground or in walls and if they think you have a cache and they want to find it, they will have such devices. Also keep in mind, to fight tyrants you want explosives and a knowledge of electronics. For guns, I've made provision for them outside of my residence. They cannot be found by any method they have. That includes aerial surveillance (keep that in mind too-you can be watched from long distances on the ground and above). But I firmly believe, there will be no gun grab like Britain or Australia in my lifetime so I'm spending my efforts staying tight with other gun owners and donating to progun orgs and writing to progun legislators.

glock7
03-24-2013, 7:03 AM
Nothing new but important to remind all at what is at stake. Too many, even some on Calguns, accept the status quo...

very true. i understand free thought and free speech, but some of the things i read and the things i hear from supposed pro 2a folks....yikes:facepalm:
my family realizes how i feel about the current situation and they know i'll not give up anything. no compromise, ever.:2guns:

glock7
03-24-2013, 7:06 AM
Parts of this would be great to send to our elected servants as a reminder.

1) "Keep this in mind as my “representative” when you try to push gun bans. I don’t care if 99% of people are in support of gun bans (which is far from the case), it is a violation of my constitutional rights, plain and simple."

2) The United States of America is a constitutional republic. This is similar to a democracy because our representatives are selected by democratic elections, but ultimately you, my representative is required to work within the framework of our constitution. In other words, even if 90% of your constituents want something that goes against our founding principles, they have no right to call for a violation of constitutional rights.

3) I mean no disrespect to our (insert your representative here) but you need to understand that “We the People” will not be disarmed.

well said, our reps are self serving. i learned that at an early age.:oji:

glock7
03-24-2013, 7:07 AM
thanks op. good read. i salute you and those of us who believe in the constitution.

1Asterisk
03-24-2013, 9:46 AM
Read a book. The militia did not fire anything resembling an "opening shot".

Sent from my MB886 using Tapatalk 2

I have, but this is not the thread to continue this discussion. You may find this link interesting: http://www.revolutionarywararchives.org/lexington.html


“Arrogance is blind to the stumbling block.”
― Toba Beta, Master of Stupidity

Meplat
03-24-2013, 9:47 AM
Exactly...the big money donors who are their constituents. Welcome to the corpocracy.
Touché: You got me there!

Meplat
03-24-2013, 9:51 AM
Back to the mainpoint here and the bottom line is just make sure when they come for your guns they are not there. Or at least where they can't be found. Keep in mind they have sonar equipment that can detect items in the ground or in walls and if they think you have a cache and they want to find it, they will have such devices. Also keep in mind, to fight tyrants you want explosives and a knowledge of electronics. For guns, I've made provision for them outside of my residence. They cannot be found by any method they have. That includes aerial surveillance (keep that in mind too-you can be watched from long distances on the ground and above). But I firmly believe, there will be no gun grab like Britain or Australia in my lifetime so I'm spending my efforts staying tight with other gun owners and donating to progun orgs and writing to progun legislators.

I agree with 90% of this. As I have said before the mind is the best weapon.

nitrofc
03-24-2013, 10:02 AM
Hillary will do the dirty work.

Bookmark it!

obiwan
03-24-2013, 10:03 AM
Erosion of rights = to cooking a frog

colossians323
03-24-2013, 10:06 AM
If they do come for our guns, I believe the only thing that will make them think twice about confiscation is armed resistance, and a lot of bloodbaths.

I'm not convinced that the powers that be truly understand that they are flirting with disaster as they continue to push their anti-gun agendas. Sometimes I think Feinstein and Biden and the rest actually believe that they can disarm us without consequence, and we are just sheeple that will go along with their intent to s**t on the Constitution for the "greater good".

But none will be brave enough on their own. Although dorner was just a common criminal, how far did he get on his own, and what has changed because of his actions?

colossians323
03-24-2013, 10:07 AM
http://www.eurobricks.com/forum/public/style_emoticons/default/thumbup.gif

What does a dog have to do with this?

Meplat
03-24-2013, 10:09 AM
very true. i understand free thought and free speech, but some of the things i read and the things i hear from supposed pro 2a folks....yikes:facepalm:


They are mostly not 2A folks. The contrarian voices here are mostly anti moles; here to foment division among us. There are some whom I believe are dedicated gun rights believers but are also naive and have collectivist 'greater good' tendencies. But most of the naysayers are fifth columnists.

colossians323
03-24-2013, 10:14 AM
When Lithuania declared it's independence from the Soviet Union in the early 1990's, there were home made guns that were a part of that revolt. It is not possible to disarm the US. Underground machine shops would become as common as moonshine stills during prohibition. They can come take the registered firearms that they can find, but that's it. And I suspect a lot of those would end up "lost" somewhere. Unfortunately such a situation would make guns into exactly what the liberals want them to be.....not for fun, for collecting, for target shooting and customization, but to fight the government. A self- fulfilling prophecy. See, they would say, we always knew guns were only owned in order to kill people.

I have to wonder if lithuania was brainwashed as our children that have gone to the public schools, and because of the apathy of parents we have whole generations of constitution haters.

TheWhopper
03-24-2013, 10:15 AM
I'll avoid a confrontation if possible, but if cornered, I will "go" as a free man than live like a slave/prisoner/cattle.

People who are unarmed are always taken advantage of by their government, it's been that way for thousands of years. Why would the U.S. Government be any different? It's won't...

The picture below occurred in the 20th century...who's to say it won't happen again?


http://i47.tinypic.com/vxcmdg.jpg

colossians323
03-24-2013, 10:16 AM
Yes sir. A much bigger (and fundamental) principal and truth. I like your statement that "It comes to us by the simple fact that we exist".

Thank you for the kind words too... that's quite an honor!

True, natural law should be above all else

Doheny
03-24-2013, 10:29 AM
All this Chicken Little crap serves no purpose.

Agreed. Nor did it over two months ago when this article was first posted. (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=673247)

I guess that makes this thread a :dupe:

Move along, nothing to see here.

Virginian
03-24-2013, 10:30 AM
http://www.vahistorical.org/onthisday/42175.htm

Take aways... 1) A powder magazine makes a very poor fort, your home not noticeably better. 2) The seizure by itself should be as effective (if not more) at rallying public support.

Yugo
03-24-2013, 10:35 AM
I'll avoid a confrontation if possible, but if cornered, I will "go" as a free man than live like a slave/prisoner/cattle.

People who are unarmed are always taken advantage of by their government, it's been that way for thousands of years. Why would the U.S. Government be any different? It's won't...

The picture below occurred in the 20th century...who's to say it won't happen again?


http://i47.tinypic.com/vxcmdg.jpg

/THREAD

Virginian
03-24-2013, 10:37 AM
http://www.vahistorical.org/onthisday/42175.htm

Take aways... 1) A powder magazine makes a very poor fort, your home not noticeably better. 2) The seizure by itself should be as effective (if not more) at rallying public support.

Meplat
03-24-2013, 12:46 PM
/THREAD

Are we having a; "You can't handle the truth." moment?

Yugo
03-24-2013, 12:56 PM
Are we having a; "You can't handle the truth." moment?

What are you typing about? I am simply implying that "that" post was enough argument to win this debate, it can happen, it has happened, and the indicators are now here to show that it may happen again.

sunaj
03-24-2013, 1:12 PM
Agreed. Nor did it over two months ago when this article was first posted. (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=673247)

I guess that makes this thread a :dupe:

Move along, nothing to see here.

This thread examines one very possible scenario within the next 3 years of Obama's 2nd term, everyone is going to have to decide where they stand NOW before this happens (one possibility), Thomas Jefferson thought we needed a revolution every 25 years, 200 years and counting-what makes you think we will never have some kind of revolution in this country? And what does it take before people like you see this? Do they have to break in your doors like they did in Katrina?
You can bet those peeps are convinced.
You may not believe this is likely, but you shouting down people because they are discussing it is like someone saying the Warren Commission is truth

sunaj :kest:

kcbrown
03-24-2013, 1:27 PM
Funny how goat herders and farmers in the Middle East are standing up to these weapons for an idea that they believe in. Should we not stand up for what we believe in just because we are "outgunned"?

Funny how the only such goat herders that have won are the ones who got air support from major military powers, or ones in which the military basically just stepped aside. Neither will happen here.

We should definitely stand up for what we believe in, outgunned or not. But we shouldn't expect to win if we do so. The effort will almost certainly fail, for many reasons (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=9026226&postcount=76).

Doheny
03-24-2013, 2:47 PM
This thread examines one very possible scenario within the next 3 years of Obama's 2nd term, everyone is going to have to decide where they stand NOW before this happens (one possibility), Thomas Jefferson thought we needed a revolution every 25 years, 200 years and counting-what makes you think we will never have some kind of revolution in this country? And what does it take before people like you see this? Do they have to break in your doors like they did in Katrina?
You can bet those peeps are convinced.
You may not believe this is likely, but you shouting down people because they are discussing it is like someone saying the Warren Commission is truth

sunaj :kest:

Yeah, I know, you're the OP and you feel silly for posting something that's already been posted a time or two. I feel silly when I post dupes too. Plus, of course, there's the tinfoil hattery that goes along with the subject itself.

Better sleep with one eye open tonight, you never know when the .gov is gonna kick in your door...

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRde1orSA1d61Dkjh02wYG6AqKw0CmFG bventYajE_BS-Mpsz6qAh_CpfM39w

Meplat
03-24-2013, 3:15 PM
I'll avoid a confrontation if possible, but if cornered, I will "go" as a free man than live like a slave/prisoner/cattle.

People who are unarmed are always taken advantage of by their government, it's been that way for thousands of years. Why would the U.S. Government be any different? It's won't...

The picture below occurred in the 20th century...who's to say it won't happen again?


http://i47.tinypic.com/vxcmdg.jpg

Some time around or before six thousand years ago mankind managed to domesticate plants and animals and develop the beginnings of agriculture. This freed him from the hand to mouth existence of hunter gatherers and lead to the development of an agrarian society which, in a much evolved form, we still live in today.

Man could, for the first time, produce and store more food than he needed to survive. This surplus meant that he could pursue interests beyond feeding himself. This surplus lead to specialties and specialists. If two farm families with a total of ten people could produce enough food for twelve they could support a metal smith or a potter, etcetera, and still save back some for hard times.

There were then, as there are now, smooth operators who wanted to get in on this surplus but did not want to labor over a hot crucible or a plow or a potting wheel all day. If a person could produce more than it takes to keep body and soul together, he could be taxed! The political/military class was born; Government was born! At first the two were indistinguishable and still are in the most oppressive places. It started with bands of thugs selling protection, just like the mob. And blossomed into the little shop of horrors we have today.

tanner127
03-24-2013, 3:18 PM
Funny how the only such goat herders that have won are the ones who got air support from major military powers, or ones in which the military basically just stepped aside. Neither will happen here.

We should definitely stand up for what we believe in, outgunned or not. But we shouldn't expect to win if we do so. The effort will almost certainly fail, for many reasons (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=9026226&postcount=76).

You're right, an outright win would probably not happen, but the idea behind the resistance would live on until every last "revolutionary" has been killed. The "War on Terror" has been going on for ten years now and will never end because the anti-American idea cannot be killed. You make a lot of good points in your article, but the military is already stretched out on foreign soil. Would they have the resources to fight on domestic soil too? The police force would have to step in, but we've seen recently what one guy can do against them. And I believe that when innocents are killed by the government that neutral people will turn and become more vocal against the them. I know this is all crazy talk, so I'm gonna go finish my tin hat. :TFH:

Meplat
03-24-2013, 3:19 PM
What are you typing about? I am simply implying that "that" post was enough argument to win this debate, it can happen, it has happened, and the indicators are now here to show that it may happen again.

My bad! I misunderstood. :o

Yugo
03-24-2013, 3:21 PM
My bad! I misunderstood. :o

no worries :patriot:

Meplat
03-24-2013, 3:24 PM
We should definitely stand up for what we believe in, outgunned or not. But we shouldn't expect to win if we do so. The effort will almost certainly fail,

Oh well, nobody lives forever. :43:

Also, when faced with a vastly superior force with much more advanced weaponry, one slinks around setting traps and stabbing backs until they are so tired of your ***** they just wanna go home. Add some doubt about the honorability of their mission and your enemy’s leadership has big problems.

sunaj
03-24-2013, 3:47 PM
Yeah, I know, you're the OP and you feel silly for posting something that's already been posted a time or two. I feel silly when I post dupes too. Plus, of course, there's the tinfoil hattery that goes along with the subject itself.

Better sleep with one eye open tonight, you never know when the .gov is gonna kick in your door...

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRde1orSA1d61Dkjh02wYG6AqKw0CmFG bventYajE_BS-Mpsz6qAh_CpfM39w

If you're so unhappy and think this is just another tired retread what are you doing on the thread?
BTW The hat is an improvement

sunaj:toetap05:

bodger
03-24-2013, 3:51 PM
But none will be brave enough on their own. Although dorner was just a common criminal, how far did he get on his own, and what has changed because of his actions?

I see your point and might agree that not enough will be brave enough on their own, and certainly if it comes to confiscation, many if not most, will hand over their guns rather than jeopardize their families or their lives.

But many will decide not to just be a sheep. I am one of them, unless I piss my pants at the critical moment and cave in like a little biatch. I don't see that happening though, I'm 60 years old, my kids are grown, I'm a Vietnam combat vet.
If my door gets kicked in by so called authorities for the sole purpose of confiscating guns that I obtained legally, I will be deploying deadly force. They WILL kill me, so be it.

Doheny
03-24-2013, 4:14 PM
If you're so unhappy and think this is just another tired retread what are you doing on the thread?
BTW The hat is an improvement

sunaj:toetap05:

;)


...

Meplat
03-24-2013, 7:20 PM
I see your point and might agree that not enough will be brave enough on their own, and certainly if it comes to confiscation, many if not most, will hand over their guns rather than jeopardize their families or their lives.

But many will decide not to just be a sheep. I am one of them, unless I piss my pants at the critical moment and cave in like a little biatch. I don't see that happening though, I'm 60 years old, my kids are grown, I'm a Vietnam combat vet.
If my door gets kicked in by so called authorities for the sole purpose of confiscating guns that I obtained legally, I will be deploying deadly force. They WILL kill me, so be it.

I resemble those remarks. Dying on your feet, fighting for what you believe in beats the hell out of dying in a wheel chair in a rest home drooling down your chin and wetting your diapers. Make my Fing day.:43:

GayGuns
03-24-2013, 8:30 PM
Should be required reading for every single American.
Thank you so much for posting.

GayGuns
03-24-2013, 9:50 PM
THE REST OF HIS STUFF IS REALLY AWESOME TOO!!

http://dcclothesline.com/

kcbrown
03-24-2013, 10:08 PM
You're right, an outright win would probably not happen, but the idea behind the resistance would live on until every last "revolutionary" has been killed. The "War on Terror" has been going on for ten years now and will never end because the anti-American idea cannot be killed.


No, the "war on terror" will never end because the objective of that is not even theoretically achievable. That's why it's being fought: to make it possible for the government to engage in a war without end, to give it the pretext it needs to eliminate every last right we have because "we're at war".

In any case, because the revolutionaries would have to achieve an overthrow of the sitting government through force of arms (one does not engage in a violent overthrow attempt unless all the other options are already off the table), the government wins as long as it is able to prevent that. My argument is that the government will prevent that as long as it has the backing of the military, and the nature of the media combined with the control options available to the government combine to make it highly likely that the military, as well as the majority of the population in general, will side with the government.

Because an outright win will probably not happen, it means that the goals of the revolutionaries will probably never be achieved, and tyranny will remain intact. That is the entire point. People think that because the American Revolution was fought and won, that a second one is likely to succeed should it become necessary. But that is precisely what is incorrect. This ain't the late 1700s, and it's high time people start figuring that out.


Now, that said, a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do. If violent revolution is the only means left on the table to rid the world of a tyrannical domestic government, then violent revolution it'll be. But nobody should believe that such an action is likely to succeed, when the reality is that it is likely to fail.

The universe is inherently evil. Favoritism towards evil is baked into its very fabric (look up entropy to see what I mean). That's why good things such as the American Revolution are extremely rare, and why liberty will not last. But liberty must be fought for no matter the odds.



You make a lot of good points in your article, but the military is already stretched out on foreign soil. Would they have the resources to fight on domestic soil too?


No, they probably don't. That just means the government would have to prioritize. That would be easy, because the choice would be between the government losing some foreign influence and the government losing its entire existence. Guess which they're going to choose?



The police force would have to step in, but we've seen recently what one guy can do against them.

It's much harder to locate one guy and neutralize him without the aid of the NSA, homeland security, etc., than it is to locate and neutralize a larger group of people with the full surveillance and investigative resources of the U.S. government, most especially when the group fails at its mission if it does not offensively engage in some significant fashion. You simply cannot take the Christopher Dorner experience and "scale it up" in such a fashion. As soon as it becomes clear that what is involved is a group of people intent on overthrowing the sitting government, all the gloves will come off.


And I believe that when innocents are killed by the government that neutral people will turn and become more vocal against the them. I know this is all crazy talk, so I'm gonna go finish my tin hat. :TFH:

You mean like they did when Anwar al-Awlaki (a U.S. citizen) was assassinated abroad without due process? Oh, wait.

You just don't understand. Being vocal means nothing anymore. Protests fail, because the government knows that the only thing that really matters is the amount of force you can actually bring to bear. The government is safe in knowing it can do any damned thing it pleases, because the U.S. citizenry cannot bring enough force to bear to stop it even if it wanted to. If it could, then a revolutionary effort would have a real chance of succeeding, but it doesn't, as you yourself acknowledge.

And so, we slip forever into the abyss of tyranny, never to climb out again. *


* This is an exaggeration, of course, but I believe it to be true enough, for I do not expect us to climb out of tyranny for many hundreds of years. And that presumes the avoidance of the water monopoly empire effect, which would extend that to thousands of years. Remember that we exist on earth in a closed system, so once a sufficiently strong and wide empire is formed, there is no "outside" to overthrow it.

bodger
03-24-2013, 10:13 PM
I resemble those remarks. Dying on your feet, fighting for what you believe in beats the hell out of dying in a wheel chair in a rest home drooling down your chin and wetting your diapers. Make my Fing day.:43:

Roger that Meplat.

Yugo
03-24-2013, 10:18 PM
https://www.facebook.com/notes/terry-michael-hestilow/re-department-of-homeland-security-dhs-and-that-agencies-preparation-for-war-aga/10151339181433869

TRICKSTER
03-24-2013, 10:25 PM
Well, I just got the call. FEMA camps open on the 1st.
Time to go back to work. :43:

Doheny
03-24-2013, 10:31 PM
Well, I just got the call. FEMA camps open on the 1st.
Time to go back to work. :43:

Oh, you got one of them senior volunteer jobs? The gray hairs in the white shirts, driving a car with an amber light bar?

:oji:

FatalKitty
03-25-2013, 9:56 AM
Awesome read.



Thanks for quoting the entire damn thing... I couldn't find it in the original post..



:facepalm:

sunaj
03-25-2013, 11:02 AM
No, the "war on terror" will never end because the objective of that is not even theoretically achievable. That's why it's being fought: to make it possible for the government to engage in a war without end, to give it the pretext it needs to eliminate every last right we have because "we're at war".

In any case, because the revolutionaries would have to achieve an overthrow of the sitting government through force of arms (one does not engage in a violent overthrow attempt unless all the other options are already off the table), the government wins as long as it is able to prevent that. My argument is that the government will prevent that as long as it has the backing of the military, and the nature of the media combined with the control options available to the government combine to make it highly likely that the military, as well as the majority of the population in general, will side with the government.

Because an outright win will probably not happen, it means that the goals of the revolutionaries will probably never be achieved, and tyranny will remain intact. That is the entire point. People think that because the American Revolution was fought and won, that a second one is likely to succeed should it become necessary. But that is precisely what is incorrect. This ain't the late 1700s, and it's high time people start figuring that out.


Now, that said, a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do. If violent revolution is the only means left on the table to rid the world of a tyrannical domestic government, then violent revolution it'll be. But nobody should believe that such an action is likely to succeed, when the reality is that it is likely to fail.

The universe is inherently evil. Favoritism towards evil is baked into its very fabric (look up entropy to see what I mean). That's why good things such as the American Revolution are extremely rare, and why liberty will not last. But liberty must be fought for no matter the odds.




No, they probably don't. That just means the government would have to prioritize. That would be easy, because the choice would be between the government losing some foreign influence and the government losing its entire existence. Guess which they're going to choose?




It's much harder to locate one guy and neutralize him without the aid of the NSA, homeland security, etc., than it is to locate and neutralize a larger group of people with the full surveillance and investigative resources of the U.S. government, most especially when the group fails at its mission if it does not offensively engage in some significant fashion. You simply cannot take the Christopher Dorner experience and "scale it up" in such a fashion. As soon as it becomes clear that what is involved is a group of people intent on overthrowing the sitting government, all the gloves will come off.



You mean like they did when Anwar al-Awlaki (a U.S. citizen) was assassinated abroad without due process? Oh, wait.

You just don't understand. Being vocal means nothing anymore. Protests fail, because the government knows that the only thing that really matters is the amount of force you can actually bring to bear. The government is safe in knowing it can do any damned thing it pleases, because the U.S. citizenry cannot bring enough force to bear to stop it even if it wanted to. If it could, then a revolutionary effort would have a real chance of succeeding, but it doesn't, as you yourself acknowledge.

And so, we slip forever into the abyss of tyranny, never to climb out again. *


* This is an exaggeration, of course, but I believe it to be true enough, for I do not expect us to climb out of tyranny for many hundreds of years. And that presumes the avoidance of the water monopoly empire effect, which would extend that to thousands of years. Remember that we exist on earth in a closed system, so once a sufficiently strong and wide empire is formed, there is no "outside" to overthrow it.

Excellent post, thank you and please feel free to continue to contribute your insight to these and similar threads

:rockon:

sunaj

wazdat
03-25-2013, 12:56 PM
...Because an outright win will probably not happen, it means that the goals of the revolutionaries will probably never be achieved, and tyranny will remain intact. That is the entire point. People think that because the American Revolution was fought and won, that a second one is likely to succeed should it become necessary. But that is precisely what is incorrect. This ain't the late 1700s, and it's high time people start figuring that out.

Now, that said, a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do. If violent revolution is the only means left on the table to rid the world of a tyrannical domestic government, then violent revolution it'll be. But nobody should believe that such an action is likely to succeed, when the reality is that it is likely to fail...

I seem to remember the guerrilla mujahideen in Afganistan holding off the Soviet Army for over 10 years. Even though nearly 1 million Afghans died, the Soviets did not succeed.

Even now, we're being labelled "Patriot Terrorists". :rolleyes:

OlderThanDirt
03-25-2013, 2:13 PM
I have to wonder if lithuania was brainwashed as our children that have gone to the public schools, and because of the apathy of parents we have whole generations of constitution haters.

No, Lithuania was invaded by the Soviet Union, then Germany and then the Soviet Union, again. They were so confused as to which way to point their guns, they just threw them on the ground in frustration (at least those that weren't slaughtered).

North86
03-25-2013, 3:38 PM
Great another "they are out to get me" paranoid example of OT spreading to the rest of Cal Guns. They are not coming after your damm guns!!!! "They" meaning te people we elected to represent us could not even get an assault weapons ban passed. Almost 100 percent of what the anti gun crowd wanted did not see the light of day. Did we suffer some set backs? Yeah, but we won a lot too.

We are never going to get everything we want and they are never going to get everything they want; that's life. That's how it's supposed to work.

Stop being so damm paranoid, the whole world is not out to get us (you). If you look at the big picture, we have it pretty damm good here in America.

When California passes its own version of the AWB (similar to NYS) will you be prepared to walk back those statements?

GayGuns
03-25-2013, 4:56 PM
Don'it? :facepalm:

Loud and proud, huh? Feel free to us the regular size font.

That site has a lotta :TFH:

.

kcbrown
03-25-2013, 4:58 PM
I seem to remember the guerrilla mujahideen in Afganistan holding off the Soviet Army for over 10 years. Even though nearly 1 million Afghans died, the Soviets did not succeed.


Yes, but their goal was not the overthrow of the sitting government. Their goal was to prevent their own destruction.

The goal of the revolutionaries would be to overthrow the sitting government. In that scenario, tyranny remains as long as they don't succeed.


This is why you can't use Afghanistan (or Iraq) as an example of how the revolutionaries would win. Winning requires a military victory for the revolutionaries. Nothing less will do. It's not enough for the revolutionaries to merely exist, they must win in order for liberty to be restored. As long as the sitting government remains in power, tyranny remains intact. Elimination of tyranny is the entire purpose of the revolution in the scenario we're speaking of, and that cannot happen until military victory is achieved.

Another crucial difference is that in the case of Afghanistan and Iraq, the enemy of the insurgents is an outside force. That outside force has the option of retreating, of leaving the country in question, when the politics of the situation gets too questionable. That is not an option for the government in the case we speak of. In the case we speak of, the only way the government can disengage is to cease to exist. That is a much higher cost than the mere egg in the face that the Soviets got when they withdrew from Afghanistan. When the very existence of the government is on the line, the government will do absolutely everything in its power to win. There are no stops it will not pull out to achieve that. If the Soviet government's existence were on the line in Afghanistan, they would have gone to much greater lengths than they did, including the use of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons if necessary.



Even now, we're being labelled "Patriot Terrorists". :rolleyes:And that should come as no surprise at all.

Meplat
03-25-2013, 6:08 PM
No, the "war on terror" will never end because the objective of that is not even theoretically achievable. That's why it's being fought: to make it possible for the government to engage in a war without end, to give it the pretext it needs to eliminate every last right we have because "we're at war".

Absolutely correct!


It's much harder to locate one guy and neutralize him without the aid of the NSA, homeland security, etc., than it is to locate and neutralize a larger group of people with the full surveillance and investigative resources of the U.S. government,

Think there may be a clue here somewhere KC?

kcbrown
03-25-2013, 6:56 PM
Think there may be a clue here somewhere KC?

No, not really.

At the end of the day, Dorner was a nuisance to law enforcement. They treated him like a significant nuisance, to be sure, but a nuisance nonetheless.

When someone becomes a real threat to the federal government, they won't be treated as a nuisance. They'll be treated as a real threat. What do you think happens to such threats abroad? The answer is that they're eliminated by any means necessary. And so it will be with revolutionaries.


And keep in mind: despite all that happened, at the end, they did get Dorner. They won, he lost. It's as simple as that.


And lest you think that what I said above implies some weakness, it doesn't. What centralization there is will be very heavily protected using technologies that are essentially unassailable with the weaponry that will be available to a civilian uprising. Remember: the capabilities in question are designed to survive and function during a real war against an aggressor armed similarly to the United States government.

Extra411
03-25-2013, 7:34 PM
kcbrown, I feel you are overlooking an important factor.

You describe the government as a single entity, when in fact it's anything but a single entity. A lot of people seem to believe the hypothetical outcome of "people vs the government", when America's own civil war demonstrated that when the chips fell, it was states vs states (with their own set of people and governments).

So my question is, why do you believe a second civil war would be anything different than the first one? Wouldn't history repeat itself, and some states will forcibly secede and form their own union with their own interpretation of the constitution?

Unless the government can unify itself first under a one-party dictatorship, I simply don't see a "people vs government" situation. Now, I understand some people believe we're "on the way there", but I don't share that opinion (at least for the moment and foreseeable future).

Meplat
03-25-2013, 8:37 PM
kcbrown, I feel you are overlooking an important factor.

You describe the government as a single entity, when in fact it's anything but a single entity. A lot of people seem to believe the hypothetical outcome of "people vs the government", when America's own civil war demonstrated that when the chips fell, it was states vs states (with their own set of people and governments).

So my question is, why do you believe a second civil war would be anything different than the first one? Wouldn't history repeat itself, and some states will forcibly secede and form their own union with their own interpretation of the constitution?

Unless the government can unify itself first under a one-party dictatorship, I simply don't see a "people vs government" situation. Now, I understand some people believe we're "on the way there", but I don't share that opinion (at least for the moment and foreseeable future).


To start with during the civil war there was at least something like parody in the classes of weapons both sides were using. The North by and large had an edge in some areas but not a huge one. Now consider that US civilians are basically limited to weapons Tec that was in existence only 30 years after that conflict. Then think of the scariest weapon that you know of the US government having, now multiply that by the ones we don't know about yet.

Oh; it will be different.

The states don't have the resources to keep up with their entitlements, no way they can even think about military parody with the feds.:rolleyes:

Extra411
03-25-2013, 9:36 PM
To start with during the civil war there was at least something like parody in the classes of weapons both sides were using. The North by and large had an edge in some areas but not a huge one. Now consider that US civilians are basically limited to weapons Tec that was in existence only 30 years after that conflict. Then think of the scariest weapon that you know of the US government having, now multiply that by the ones we don't know about yet.

Oh; it will be different.

The states don't have the resources to keep up with their entitlements, no way they can even think about military parody with the feds.:rolleyes:

I'm not sure I understand.

If the events were to play out akin to the first civil war, there should be very little weapon disparity, because the "military" will be split into state-allegiance as well. Let's not forget, some of the people that fought for the south used to belong to the same "US" military as their northern counterparts. Both sides also had to draft a lot of militia.

Let's say that hypothetically at some point red states and blue states split. Do you really think Texan soldiers are going to fight for the (hypothetically blue) feds? Where's this assumed federal monopoly on technology coming from?

kcbrown
03-25-2013, 9:42 PM
kcbrown, I feel you are overlooking an important factor.

You describe the government as a single entity, when in fact it's anything but a single entity. A lot of people seem to believe the hypothetical outcome of "people vs the government", when America's own civil war demonstrated that when the chips fell, it was states vs states (with their own set of people and governments).

So my question is, why do you believe a second civil war would be anything different than the first one? Wouldn't history repeat itself, and some states will forcibly secede and form their own union with their own interpretation of the constitution?


The problem is the disparity in strength of arms.

During the Civil War, the federal government wasn't nearly the centralized powerhouse that it is today. Indeed, it is in large part because of the outcome of the Civil War that the federal government now has the power it does.


Today, the federal government directly controls arms that are vastly more advanced and capable than those that even the states control. So unlike the Civil War in which the arms controlled by the federal government were not significantly better than those controlled by the states, the war we speak of here will be enormously lopsided in favor of the federal government. This advantage is not limited to arms. It extends to surveillance, intelligence gathering, and communications.



Unless the government can unify itself first under a one-party dictatorship, I simply don't see a "people vs government" situation. Now, I understand some people believe we're "on the way there", but I don't share that opinion (at least for the moment and foreseeable future).

If the Republicans continue to self-destruct, as I believe they will, then a one-party dictatorship is an inevitability. Third parties will continue to be "unelectable" because at the end of the day, what makes a candidate "electable" is that candidate's ability to get media exposure that doesn't make the candidate look bad. Since the media is privately owned and highly consolidated, this puts the media directly in the driver's seat with respect to which candidates wind up being the primary contenders. Third parties, particularly the ones that would reverse the disastrous course we're on, haven't a chance because their candidates are not willing to sell their souls to the media. Make no mistake: those who own and run the media want this country to be on the course it's on. Bloomberg himself is one of the people who runs the media, and is a perfect illustration of exactly what I speak of here.


The bottom line is this: we currently live under what amounts to a two party dictatorship. We haven't seen a major party be a significant supporter of liberty for well over 50 years. The only difference between that and a one-party dictatorship is that the latter is more obvious. But both are ruinous to liberty, and that should be obvious by the fact that there is damned little that anyone can do these days that is not in some way forbidden or regulated by government.

Extra411
03-25-2013, 9:53 PM
Today, the federal government directly controls arms that are vastly more advanced and capable than those that even the states control.

I will have to disagree with this. The federal government cannot control arms that are physically residing in a state that is not under its control.

If the Republicans continue to self-destruct, as I believe they will, then a one-party dictatorship is an inevitability.

I believe that's far too pessimistic and assumes all factors must always continue on a single course.
Let's not forget Democrats were the party of pro-slavery. Let's also not forget Democrats were the party of anti-woman suffrage. If they can turn around from such devastating political positions, what makes you think Republicans won't rebound the same way? Frankly gay rights or abortion or whatever deemed "unsavory" that the Republican party represents, are NOTHING compared to what the Democratic party used to represent.

The bottom line is this: we currently live under what amounts to a two party dictatorship. We haven't seen a major party be a significant supporter of liberty for well over 50 years.

Perhaps, but I'm still cautiously optimistic. When viewing American history as a whole, I believe we did make good progress, even if we took some steps backwards. Some people had thought the country was done for with Lincoln, or FDR, but it wasn't. Yes, they advanced federal powers, but as a whole, I support (most of) their decisions under the situation at the time.
Time will tell how America's future will turn out, but I certainly don't believe that it's inevitably doomed.

kcbrown
03-25-2013, 11:14 PM
I will have to disagree with this. The federal government cannot control arms that are physically residing in a state that is not under its control.


That's true as far as it goes, of course. However, you presume that those arms which reside in a given state can be used by that state against the federal government. Modern control technology makes it possible for that to be precluded.



I believe that's far too pessimistic and assumes all factors must always continue on a single course.


Must I remind you that the singular course in question has been followed for nearly 100 years? A trend that long is not easily departed from, much less reversed entirely and for an equivalent time. For such a thing to occur, something substantial and fundamental would have to change. But change of that nature generally does not occur except through violent revolution. History is littered with the corpses of those who have tried to force such changes through other means.



Let's not forget Democrats were the party of pro-slavery. Let's also not forget Democrats were the party of anti-woman suffrage. If they can turn around from such devastating political positions, what makes you think Republicans won't rebound the same way?


Because those who control the Republican party, the neocons and the ultra-religious, will not give up their control willingly. Both groups are driven by religious zeal, not reason.

Moreover, their religious fervor and the policies they stand for make for a useful foil for their opposite number. So not only is it logical that those who control the Republican party will hold onto their control for their own reasons, it's logical that they will be helped by the very media complex that controls the overall process. A relatively powerless opposite party is useful for maintaining the illusion, however thin, of a "choice" in government.

Understand this: it is the death of liberty that those who control the media wish for, because they believe the people cannot be entrusted to rule themselves. And you need only look at Bloomberg himself to see that.



Frankly gay rights or abortion or whatever deemed "unsavory" that the Republican party represents, are NOTHING compared to what the Democratic party used to represent.


Yes, but the change in the Democratic party occurred during a period of time when the parties were not controlled by monolithic outside forces. That is no longer the case.



Perhaps, but I'm still cautiously optimistic. When viewing American history as a whole, I believe we did make good progress, even if we took some steps backwards. Some people had thought the country was done for with Lincoln, or FDR, but it wasn't. Yes, they advanced federal powers, but as a whole, I support (most of) their decisions under the situation at the time.


Oh, we've made good progress in some ways. We've gained liberty for specific groups, but have lost liberty for all.



Time will tell how America's future will turn out, but I certainly don't believe that it's inevitably doomed.

Inevitably doomed? Perhaps not. But I believe that doom is as close to inevitable as it ever gets.

The Shadow
03-26-2013, 6:19 AM
So far I've read several posts that say "no one is coming for your guns". And in an attempt to make you buy in to their premise, they tell you that you're crazy if you believe that. Interestingly enough, several government officials said that about Obama in his first term. And now in his second term, he and the other gun grabbers are attempting to implement more gun restrictions. Even Andrew Cuomo, governor of New York, used the term, confiscation, when he talked about MANDATORY registration.

In California, the dems have the upper hand in Sacramento, and they know it. Because of this, they are sponsoring as many anti-gun bills as they can. Leland Yee wants to ban the bullet button and effectively make EVERY OLL illegal. There's even talk of banning shotguns, and making mere possession of magazines that carry more than 10 rounds illegal.

Right now there are pro-gun politicians in D.C. that are fighting for us, but they are few in California and other states with a strong anti-gun regime. Remember what Feinstein said, they know they can't outright take the millions of guns that we own off of the streets, so their strategy is to dry up the supply by putting laws in place that prevent you and me from passing our firearms down to our kids, and preventing future purchases of the firearms they want to take from us. And we know that if laws like that are implemented, there will be government officials setting up more "Hotlines" like what New York has created, to get your neighbors to snitch you off if they see what they believe is an "illegal" firearm. Like New Jersey, government officials will be "compelled" to go to your house because a citizen called with concerns, and those government officials will tell you that they wouldn't be doing their job if they didn't investigate.

Right now there are government officials that monitor and post to this forum, and they are saying the samethings that other government officials said about Obama. They also claim to be staunchly supportive of the 2A, but since, according to government officials and the politicians that are currently in office, the Supreme Court said that the 2A is not unlimited, they feel they can create and enforce laws that are enacted until the Supreme Court says it's unconstitutional to do so. That means, if the state legislature puts a law in place and makes it illegal for you to own a particular firearm, even if the government official, who is staunchly supportive of the 2A disagrees with it, the law will still be enforced, and if confiscation is ordered, the government official who claims to support the 2A will confiscate your firearms if ordered to do so.

To bottom line it, this isn't a matter of if, it's a matter of when. It isn't a matter of taking firearms away, remember, our government officials support our right to own firearms...of the type they think we should own...and in a manner that they think we should be allowed to own them...locked in a safe...approved by the government...with a trigger lock on it...and an insurance policy...that uses ammunition that's taxed beyond what people can afford...and in quantities that the government allows...and serial numbered. It's a matter of taking away firearms that are useful for self defense, and as an effective deterrent against a tyranical government. And until such time as the Supreme Court says that banning specific classes of firearms, and specific calibers is unconstitutional, our pro 2A government officials will continue to push for more gun control and wrap it in a nice neat package labeled as safety, or anti-crime, or "for the children".

POLICESTATE
03-26-2013, 3:34 PM
Great read, too bad the author also just got red-flagged for summary execution when the time comes. But he may be better off...

Joe Bishop
03-26-2013, 3:47 PM
I think that you, all, us and everyone should send that script to everyone in Congress and especially Senator Graham and John McCain; I don't trust any of the Republicans or Demowits to support the Constitution of the United States except a few like Ted Cruz TX and state that if we go down in gunfire in support of our Civil Rights that we will take one of you as company to the bastions of Hell.

Remember the NRA is the largest Civil Rights lobbying group ever! Support them and the Second Amendment Foundation!

Doheny
03-26-2013, 9:53 PM
So tell me, what kind of resistance is needed other than suicide?

Simple non compliance? Or active IRA or Tim McViegh type actions? Up until after Sandy Hook I thought McViegh was a nut case, now I think he was a hero, a true patriot, someone fighting back agaisnt the faceless murderers in our government, our biggest threat to freedom. Screw Al Quida, they have nothing on Obama and Bush.


Are you serious? McViegh killed 168 people, including 19 children in the building's daycare center and you think he's a hero?

:facepalm:


.

bodger
03-26-2013, 10:09 PM
Are you serious? McViegh killed 168 people, including 19 children in the building's daycare center and you think he's a hero?

:facepalm:


.

Thank you.
McVeigh was a deranged scumbag and coward who murdered children and other non-combatants who didn't have a chance to fight back if they even could.

McVeigh's main beef was with the Army because he didn't have the gonads to be a Green Beret. I'd bet he and his accomplices all would have all pissed their pants in a stand-up firefight. Good riddance.

kcbrown
03-26-2013, 10:54 PM
Are you serious? McViegh killed 168 people, including 19 children in the building's daycare center and you think he's a hero?

:facepalm:


.

I don't for a minute think that McVeigh's actions were correct, because the time and situation wasn't right for it.

But do any of you really believe that, in the event the population has to resist tyranny through force of arms, they will be able to avoid killing innocents? That destroying the government's ability to remain in power can be done without some children losing their lives in the process?

If that time ever comes, I guarantee that those who fight against the government will cause innocent lives to be lost, no matter how hard they might try to avoid it. Indeed, an evil government of the type that will need to be fought against through force of arms will intentionally put innocent people in harm's way precisely because it will cause those who fight against it to reconsider.


So if it is on the basis of innocent lives being lost that you declare someone unfit to be called a "hero", then I suggest you wake up to the real world, because in the real world, such people will die no matter how hard the good guys attempt to avoid it.

Ishoot
03-26-2013, 11:19 PM
...Simple non compliance? Or active IRA or Tim McViegh type actions? Up until qafter Sandy Hook I thought McViegh was a nut case, now I think he was a hero, a true patriot, someone fighting back agaisnt the faceless murderers in our government, our biggest threat to freedom. Screw Al Quida, they have nothing on Obama and Bush.....

...

Something is wrong with this...this coward kills 168 men, women and children, injures over 800 and you call him a hero and a patriot. If you think that the end justifies the means, no matter the costs..then you have lost your way. Freedom and justice are just meaningless words to use to pretend that you still fight the good fight.

sunaj
03-26-2013, 11:20 PM
You know they are gonna' burn you at the stake publicly first-right?

sunaj:)

BTW at least two unexploded bombs were removed from the Federal Building by the police bomb squad,
while Timothy McVeigh was involved I believe he was also a patsy

Ishoot
03-26-2013, 11:33 PM
I don't for a minute think that McVeigh's actions were correct, because the time and situation wasn't right for it.

But do any of you really believe that, in the event the population has to resist tyranny through force of arms, they will be able to avoid killing innocents? That destroying the government's ability to remain in power can be done without some children losing their lives in the process?

If that time ever comes, I guarantee that those who fight against the government will cause innocent lives to be lost, no matter how hard they might try to avoid it. Indeed, an evil government of the type that will need to be fought against through force of arms will intentionally put innocent people in harm's way precisely because it will cause those who fight against it to reconsider.

So if it is on the basis of innocent lives being lost that you declare someone unfit to be called a "hero", then I suggest you wake up to the real world, because in the real world, such people will die no matter how hard the good guys attempt to avoid it.

I'm not sure you using "hero" correctly in a sentence. :) Terrorists all over the world would be proud of your stance....I'm sure that's exactly what they're thinking when they planting IED's against our troops and their own people. No matter the costs, they justify "collateral damage" as the price they are willing to pay for freedom. Hey good luck strapping that vest on.

kcbrown
03-26-2013, 11:53 PM
I'm not sure you using "hero" correctly in a sentence. :) Terrorists all over the world would be proud of your stance....I'm sure that's exactly what they're thinking when they planting IED's against our troops and their own people. No matter the costs, they justify "collateral damage" as the price they are willing to pay for freedom. Hey good luck strapping that vest on.

Oh, really?

Then answer me this: what price is too high a price to pay for liberty? What price would be high enough that you would prefer that you and all your descendants live in servitude?

My argument is not that innocents should be targeted intentionally. They most certainly should not! My point is that innocents will die no matter how hard you try to avoid it, and in fact a tyrannical government will try to arrange for maximum loss of innocent lives at the hands of those who dare resist its tyrannical rule.

Are you going to argue, here, that the life of innocents is so precious as to have greater worth than liberty for all? That you would rather everyone live under tyranny than spill the blood of innocents in a contest for liberty?

Doheny
03-27-2013, 12:02 AM
I don't for a minute think that McVeigh's actions were correct, because the time and situation wasn't right for it.

But do any of you really believe that, in the event the population has to resist tyranny through force of arms, they will be able to avoid killing innocents? That destroying the government's ability to remain in power can be done without some children losing their lives in the process?

If that time ever comes, I guarantee that those who fight against the government will cause innocent lives to be lost, no matter how hard they might try to avoid it. Indeed, an evil government of the type that will need to be fought against through force of arms will intentionally put innocent people in harm's way precisely because it will cause those who fight against it to reconsider.


So if it is on the basis of innocent lives being lost that you declare someone unfit to be called a "hero", then I suggest you wake up to the real world, because in the real world, such people will die no matter how hard the good guys attempt to avoid it.

Lame.

Hurry, the commercial is about over...Red Dawn will be back on in a second...

kcbrown
03-27-2013, 12:03 AM
Lame.


Got anything more substantive to say than that?

If not, then your lack of a cohesive counterargument is noted.

tankarian
03-27-2013, 6:58 AM
Got anything more substantive to say than that?

If not, then your lack of a cohesive counterargument is noted.

Cohesive counterargument?
You are asking too much from him. Way too much.

blkside
03-27-2013, 7:31 AM
As an american it is your obligation to stand to maintain the remainder of your freedoms. I took an oath against all enemy foreign and domestic... hmm domestic you ask... the question to ask is this...

Did the governement put that in there for the military/police because of civil unrest or is it our cue to fight tyranny...

Ishoot
03-27-2013, 8:11 AM
Oh, really?

Then answer me this: what price is too high a price to pay for liberty? What price would be high enough that you would prefer that you and all your descendants live in servitude?

My argument is not that innocents should be targeted intentionally. They most certainly should not! My point is that innocents will die no matter how hard you try to avoid it, and in fact a tyrannical government will try to arrange for maximum loss of innocent lives at the hands of those who dare resist its tyrannical rule.

Are you going to argue, here, that the life of innocents is so precious as to have greater worth than liberty for all? That you would rather everyone live under tyranny than spill the blood of innocents in a contest for liberty?

Sure it's easy when it is someone else's loved one being sacrificed for the "greater good". You can go ahead and sacrifice all your innocents and loved ones first then we can talk. I'm sure the Liberty earned would be appreciated by all those not around to enjoy it. Ask all the relatives and the loved ones of those killed in the Oklahoma bombing if they think the "price was right". I'm not saying that innocents won't die either, but they should never be a target. Mcveigh did just that. And remember while Tyranny is bad, it's not absolute...it can and will be defeated. Death on the other hand....there's no going back.

USMC VET
03-27-2013, 8:46 AM
Blah blah blah, the author has no idea how to resist an oppressive government. Dying "in a pile of brass" is an attractive apocalypse fantasy but is of no use. You won't win a 1-on-SWAT fight.

Even in countries where they have banned civilian possession of firearms they've never just showed up and confiscated them. They ban them little by little over a long period of time and have you turn them in voluntarily. Then law enforcement weeds out the rest over time. It doesn't happen overnight, plenty of time to hide stuff if need be.

This

kcbrown
03-27-2013, 12:18 PM
Sure it's easy when it is someone else's loved one being sacrificed for the "greater good". You can go ahead and sacrifice all your innocents and loved ones first then we can talk. I'm sure the Liberty earned would be appreciated by all those not around to enjoy it. Ask all the relatives and the loved ones of those killed in the Oklahoma bombing if they think the "price was right".


This is one of the big reasons a revolutionary effort will almost surely fail (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=9026226&postcount=76). And you do realize the consequences of that, right?



I'm not saying that innocents won't die either, but they should never be a target.


And guess what? I agree with you! They shouldn't be a target. But that's no guarantee that targeting innocents can be avoided entirely.

The problem is this: you're rising up in arms against the sitting government. How do you avoid targeting innocents in that? Go directly after the military, which is the hardest target (hence, the one you're least likely to succeed against) and, probably, the one that will yield the least benefit? Hint: targeting the military will automatically turn the military against you.



Mcveigh did just that. And remember while Tyranny is bad, it's not absolute...it can and will be defeated. Death on the other hand....there's no going back.

You cannot defeat tyranny through force of arms without shedding blood! Even the founders of the country didn't manage to avoid that.

1BigPea
03-27-2013, 12:26 PM
I wonder what the outcome would be if "revolutionaries" only went after the politicians? One mass attack coordinated throughout the Country.

greg36f
03-27-2013, 1:10 PM
I wonder what the outcome would be if "revolutionaries" only went after the politicians? One mass attack coordinated throughout the Country.



Dude, you ever try to get 6 friends to agree on a movie?

All this revolutionary talk is fun and all, but,,,,,not gonna happen...At least not when American Idol is on......

sunaj
03-27-2013, 1:15 PM
Lame.

Hurry, the commercial is about over...Red Dawn will be back on in a second...

Doheny the only thing lame on this thread is your posts-you're nothing but a troll-go back to the tin foil avatar-it's easier for people to identify you as a troll :puke::puke:

greg36f
03-27-2013, 2:28 PM
Doheny the only thing lame on this thread is your posts-you're nothing but a troll-go back to the tin foil avatar-it's easier for people to identify you as a troll :puke::puke:

Ummmm, check it out junior mints with a join date of 3-2013. You don't get to throw the troll card!

For the record, your posts don't always reek of maturity and reason, so I would also say that you are to pot calling the kettle black.

bubbapug1
03-27-2013, 3:17 PM
doheny has been on my ignore list for over two years. I would also classify him as calguns biggest troll.

Sunday
03-27-2013, 3:26 PM
They aren't coming. They can't/won't even pursue confiscation from prohibited persons. They cry about the cost, but it's really about not wanting to do a really lousy and dangerous job. Obama won't ger reelected either.

gruntbull
03-27-2013, 5:34 PM
Oh, really?

Then answer me this: what price is too high a price to pay for liberty? What price would be high enough that you would prefer that you and all your descendants live in servitude?

My argument is not that innocents should be targeted intentionally. They most certainly should not! My point is that innocents will die no matter how hard you try to avoid it, and in fact a tyrannical government will try to arrange for maximum loss of innocent lives at the hands of those who dare resist its tyrannical rule.

Are you going to argue, here, that the life of innocents is so precious as to have greater worth than liberty for all? That you would rather everyone live under tyranny than spill the blood of innocents in a contest for liberty?

That fine line is such a difficult one to weigh in on, and is the basis of great arguments for/against government. Great point.

In the end I imagine there is no good answer, and yet there is most likely no bad answer either.

kcbrown
03-28-2013, 12:28 AM
In the end I imagine there is no good answer, and yet there is most likely no bad answer either.

There is no good answer, certainly, because no option is without a cost. But there is a bad answer, and that's to let tyranny reign supreme and unchallenged. The supremacy of tyranny is precisely the outcome, however, if everyone refuses to ever stand up to tyranny as a result of a desire to not do harm to innocents.

Look, there is no pleasant way to say it: what liberty we have exists precisely because our predecessors were willing to sacrifice the lives of even their own innocents in order to secure liberty. That is the cold, hard fact, and anyone who believes otherwise is only fooling himself.

advocatusdiaboli
03-28-2013, 11:35 AM
Oh, really?
My argument is not that innocents should be targeted intentionally.

McVeigh and most terrorists certainly do target innocent intentionally.
If he was really out for a fair fight and not terrorism, he'd have attacked a military or FBI or CIA installation. The colonists attacked the British and their sympathizers directly aiding the British to attack, arrest, and murder colonists who sided against the crown. Big difference. The Minute Men would never attack a school (the building McVeigh attacked had a day care center). He was not a good example of a patriot, more like a delusional wacko who was overcome with anger and just wanted to kill people.

kcbrown
03-28-2013, 12:34 PM
McVeigh and most terrorists certainly do target innocent intentionally.
If he was really out for a fair fight and not terrorism, he'd have attacked a military or FBI or CIA installation. The colonists attacked the British and their sympathizers directly aiding the British to attack, arrest, and murder colonists who sided against the crown. Big difference. The Minute Men would never attack a school (the building McVeigh attacked had a day care center). He was not a good example of a patriot, more like a delusional wacko who was overcome with anger and just wanted to kill people.

Yes, I completely agree. It is not because innocents were killed that McVeigh cannot rightly be regarded as any kind of hero (even if it were in the context of a revolutionary war), it is because he intentionally targeted innocents. More precisely, he wasn't after the target because of any kind of threat it represented, but because he wanted to send a "message". His motives were all wrong.

But answer me this: if the intelligence nexus of your enemy happens to have a day care center and you must take out the people at that nexus as well as the equipment in order to secure a victory for liberty, are you going to hit the nexus or not? More to the point, what are you going to do if the enemy intentionally places day care centers at the strategic locations that you must destroy in order to secure a victory for liberty? Will that be sufficient grounds for you to give up your quest for liberty? You must remember: you're fighting tyranny. The enemy you fight is therefore evil, and will do evil things like intentionally put the most innocent of people directly in your line of fire. It will not fight fairly, it will fight in as unfair a manner as possible. Such is the nature of those who covet power for its own sake.

Doheny
03-30-2013, 7:41 AM
doheny has been on my ignore list for over two years. I would also classify him as calguns biggest troll.

Being that you consider Timothy McVeigh a hero (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=10926198&postcount=155), that would make us polar opposites so it makes sense that I'm on your ignore list.

The anniversary of the bombing is in a couple of weeks; I suppose you're going to travel to OKC and dance on the graves of the 19 children?

BTW, what happen to the post where you declared your hero worship for McVeigh? Did you have second thoughts and pull it?

.

Neo Sharkey
03-31-2013, 8:31 AM
Yes, I completely agree. It is not because innocents were killed that McVeigh cannot rightly be regarded as any kind of hero (even if it were in the context of a revolutionary war), it is because he intentionally targeted innocents. More precisely, he wasn't after the target because of any kind of threat it represented, but because he wanted to send a "message". His motives were all wrong.

But answer me this: if the intelligence nexus of your enemy happens to have a day care center and you must take out the people at that nexus as well as the equipment in order to secure a victory for liberty, are you going to hit the nexus or not? More to the point, what are you going to do if the enemy intentionally places day care centers at the strategic locations that you must destroy in order to secure a victory for liberty? Will that be sufficient grounds for you to give up your quest for liberty? You must remember: you're fighting tyranny. The enemy you fight is therefore evil, and will do evil things like intentionally put the most innocent of people directly in your line of fire. It will not fight fairly, it will fight in as unfair a manner as possible. Such is the nature of those who covet power for its own sake.

In our hypothetical sitution, there is an easy solution...they hit the location on a holiday, or after hours, whenever they can confirm the non-combatants are not there.

The big difference between Patriots and tyrants is that Patriots will go out of their way to avoid harming innocents. Any time Patriots shrug and say "collateral damge", they've lost the moral high ground.

kcbrown
03-31-2013, 12:41 PM
In our hypothetical sitution, there is an easy solution...they hit the location on a holiday, or after hours, whenever they can confirm the non-combatants are not there.


I agree, that's a good solution if the people themselves are not part of the target. But go back to my example for a moment. In that example, the people who operate the intelligence nexus are part of the target. And in that example, missing them means losing. So hitting that target on a holiday or after hours will mean losing. So the question, again, is: do you hit the target anyway, and surely kill some innocents, in order to secure liberty, or do you refrain from doing so and give up the quest for liberty?



The big difference between Patriots and tyrants is that Patriots will go out of their way to avoid harming innocents. Any time Patriots shrug and say "collateral damge", they've lost the moral high ground.

I completely agree. Real patriots will not shrug and say "collateral damage". The loss of innocent life will weigh very heavily on them. But that does not mean that they can avoid killing innocents in the course of securing liberty.

Again, the enemy here is evil, and will intentionally place innocents in harm's way in an effort to keep the patriots from taking action. If the loss of innocent life is sufficient to keep the patriots from taking action, then the patriots lose, and liberty will be nothing more than a fond memory. It's as simple as that.

Meplat
04-01-2013, 7:12 PM
Are you serious? McViegh killed 168 people, including 19 children in the building's daycare center and you think he's a hero?

:facepalm:


.

Not all is known about the extent and impact of the federal involvement in Oklahoma City. We know much of the outcome but little of McViegh's intent or how that intent was warped by the feds.

greg36f
04-01-2013, 7:26 PM
Not all is known about the extent and impact of the federal involvement in Oklahoma City. We know much of the outcome but little of McViegh's intent or how that intent was warped by the feds.

Ummmm, his intent was to blow up a building a kill a lot of people! Didn't really care if there were children and innocents there.

Anyone who tries to defend or rationalize that is just as bad as him.

You can't rationalize that! It's sick to do so.

It's not like its red dawn and its the Russians that you are attacking. You are killing Americans.

Hopefully that POS rotting in Hell!

Meplat
04-01-2013, 9:15 PM
In our hypothetical sitution, there is an easy solution...they hit the location on a holiday, or after hours, whenever they can confirm the non-combatants are not there.

The big difference between Patriots and tyrants is that Patriots will go out of their way to avoid harming innocents. Any time Patriots shrug and say "collateral damge", they've lost the moral high ground.

The OK bomb was originally scheduled to go off at 0300 Hrs. with no one around. The BATF office was the legitimate target. Federal investigators and snitches had as much or more control over events as McViegh. We will never know who really is responsible for the timing screw up because the Gov. prevailed upon McViegh to shut up in exchange for not prosecuting his sister.

sunaj
04-01-2013, 9:48 PM
Ummmm, check it out junior mints with a join date of 3-2013. You don't get to throw the troll card!

For the record, your posts don't always reek of maturity and reason, so I would also say that you are to pot calling the kettle black.

I challenge you to discredit any of my posts,
and a troll is a troll is a troll, the fact that some people
have been posting idiocy longer doesn't give credence to your posts,
if you care to take issue with something I posted lets see what you've got to say besides more smack,
so I'll thank you to go about your own business

sunaj

Tell you something else-KcBrown has been pretty courageous to expound his thesis about McVeigh,
its not a popular point of view, but philosophically it has a lot of merit, everyone has to make up their own mind about Oklahoma,
I haven't studied OCB enough to have a firm opinion on it but I can say with confidence the police bomb squad pulled at least 2 unexploded bombs out of the building site remains which tells me the Government conspiracy story doesn't add up (again)-personally I think McVeigh was a patsy

vonderplatz
04-01-2013, 9:55 PM
McViegh??? Seriously??? Wow!!!

penguinofsleep
04-01-2013, 10:49 PM
i hate saying this, but i don't think most americans have it in them or understand why we must stand up for our rights (not just 2a). it seems like most would much rather play along to ensure we can keep our stability, comfort, nice cars, homes, 401k, or w/e other form the golden handcuffs take. that and look at all of the pro big gov people running around today, even if they don't have the golden handcuffs. i have no doubt that some people will resist if it came down to it, but not the majority of the populace where they aren't even able to entertain these kinds of ideas...

i don't think it's on accident that the 2nd amendment is 2nd and not 1st in our bill of rights to ensure freedom... to fix the above and ensure our own freedoms i think the best thing we can do is to change thought, perception, and understanding of freedom, liberties, and rights, not just save all our rhetoric and efforts for the last and final straw.

morfeeis
04-02-2013, 12:19 AM
I wonder what the outcome would be if "revolutionaries" only went after the politicians? One mass attack coordinated throughout the Country.

great minds, great minds...

Dude, you ever try to get 6 friends to agree on a movie?

All this revolutionary talk is fun and all, but,,,,,not gonna happen...At least not when American Idol is on......
that's why things would have to bet set according to a given rank, rats with no leader just run anyway they want, but give them someone to follow and you're looking at a rat force the likes of which this world isn't ready for.


And for those that think this country has never shed innocent blood, please research our history, there are many dead native Americans that would disagree. If it did get ugly those in power would be ready to lay down the life of everyone of their slaves to keep their power. In order to win you have to be ready to be a bit more of a monster then the enemy you face and do what they don't have the balls to do. Anything else is a waste of time, lives, and ammo