So what if they come get our guns.


PDA






Waitone
October 20, 2004, 12:24 AM
Another thread got me thinking.

How often do I see the following phrase or a derivative? ". . . . . .and they will come get our guns."

So what? What does it mean? There is an implied next step after "they come get our guns."

What is that next step.

We just surrendered free political speech and no one said, ". . . . .and they will keep us from speaking in public." Hate speech laws seek to control non-political speech yet there is no outcry or threats leveled against our government.

Freedom of association is well-down the road to being obsolete yet there is no followup comments.

Someone would say the right to due process is squashed by the Patriots' Act but there is no implied danger or threat to the government for its actions.

So what is it about the second amendment that causes a followup comment?

If you enjoyed reading about "So what if they come get our guns." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Lone_Gunman
October 20, 2004, 12:53 AM
That is a good question, but I am not sure I have an answer for it, except that guns are a physical object, while speech is esoteric. It is easier for Joe Sixpack to notice his gun is gone than it is for him to realize he can't buy air time to speak out against a candidate prior to an election, unless he is a member of a government-authorized organization.

Its a shame. Supporters of gun rights sat back and watched free political speech die with very little resistance. Heck, the majority of them are going to vote for Bush, despite the fact that he signed the legislation, after even stating he thought it was un-Constitutional.

SAG0282
October 20, 2004, 01:07 AM
With no intention of any bravado or "tough talk", coming to get my guns would be a very dangerous undertaking, and I suspect this is true for most of us on this board.

Billmanweh
October 20, 2004, 01:38 AM
coming to get my guns would be a very dangerous undertaking, and I suspect this is true for most of us on this board.

has that been the case anywhere in the world that it's already happened? australia, great britain, california, chicago, etc...

SAG0282
October 20, 2004, 02:04 AM
You can only push so far........

KaceCoyote
October 20, 2004, 02:06 AM
I intend on fighting to keep my 2nd amendment.


"When all else fails, vote from the rooftops."

Wildalaska
October 20, 2004, 02:27 AM
has that been the case anywhere in the world that it's already happened? australia, great britain, california, chicago, etc...

Real bad form to interject reality here Bill

WildcomeanggetemAlaska

Ellery Holt
October 20, 2004, 02:30 AM
Condescending Bastard. Ha Ha. Truth in advertising!

SAG0282
October 20, 2004, 02:39 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but is the motto of this fine site not "come and get them"??

What, if anything, are you people prepared to defend??

Wildalaska
October 20, 2004, 02:45 AM
Condescending Bastard. Ha Ha. Truth in advertising!

Yep honesty about oneself on a mesasage Board is the best policy, I note your sig is tabula rasa...:)


WildsometimesyajustgottobecondescendingAlaska

Tharg
October 20, 2004, 03:02 AM
BLEH

no offense intended but i'm sure there will be some.

EVERY ONE of you "vote from the rooftops people" should just go ahead and post here before you do... we will count the posts... and see how many of you stood for yer bravado.

That goes for the "coming to get my guns would be a very dangerous undertaking"

oh? what... the cops that decided that you'd be dangerous didn't thnk of that?

or were you going to shoot a few of em?

I'm not saying its WRONG... i'm saying that its very different to talk big than to be faced w/ a brit/ausie/canadian senario and say - YA instead of living my comfy (mostly i hope) life of football/baseball/soccer/hockey/hot dogs/driving fast<sometimes...rofl>/cheesburger from mickeyd's/steak from outback/ shopping at walley world life.... i'm going to start shooting cops cause they want my guns....

I would think the point of this board was to try to stop it from getting there - and any big talk about if it DID get there is pointless... but please... be sure to post before it happens... cause i'd like to see the success ratio's....

J/Tharg!

SAG0282
October 20, 2004, 03:33 AM
*shrugs*

Interpret it however you wish to. I'm curious though as to why anyone would post on this board if they weren't committed to defending their rights were it to come down to something like door-to-door gun confiscation. I like to think the spirit of this board is such that the pledge to vigorously defend one's rights wouldn't be ridiculed......

You may take your rights less-then-seriously......I do not.

MP5
October 20, 2004, 07:42 AM
Supporters of gun rights sat back and watched free political speech die with very little resistance. Heck, the majority of them are going to vote for Bush, despite the fact that he signed the legislation, after even stating he thought it was un-Constitutional.

That's what never ceases to amaze me. So many people here support Bush because he's supposedly a friend of the 2nd Amendment (in truth, he's merely not an active enemy like Kerry is). But many don't seem to mind when Bush and Co. support restrictions of the 1st, 4th, 6th Amendments, the right to privacy, etc. These are the rights worth defending with our guns if need be, and they're also the ones that let us first peaceably work within the system to defend the RKBA without having to "vote from the rooftops."

The Bill of Rights works together. It's foolish and myopic to think only the Second Amendment matters or takes primacy. If you were to let the government take all your other rights but allow your RKBA, would you be happy? Because then you'd to need to actually use your guns to fight the state whenever you tried to excercise those lost rights. Good luck. One-issue voting makes no sense to me.

HankB
October 20, 2004, 08:41 AM
. . . australia, great britain, california, chicago, etc... Can't speak for the first three, but as a former resident (inmate?) of Chicago, I can assure you that discrete noncompliance with Chicago's gun ban is the rule, not the exception. They tried going door-to-door with warrantless searches for "illegal" guns in the city-owned housing projects some years ago, but the courts slapped them down on that one.

igor
October 20, 2004, 09:04 AM
We don't have a 2A and all firearms are to be licenced. Once we get a Dunblane/Columbine kind of an incident, heavy pressure for more regulation will be reality. That might result in anything but no-knock raids to confiscate... we don't have that kind of policy nor police. So "molon labe" in such a sense won't be actual either.

I sure as heck won't be getting into any kind of altercations with any "authority" so long as the society somehow remains intact. Plus that I strongly suspect that burglars looking for firearms will become a true pest in my area by then. Oh bummer. :scrutiny: :D

Actually, my main theoretical peeve is the use of the firearm registry by an invading force. Seeing what e.g. the Russian political developments have been the last ten years, who knows what the next twenty-thirty will bring? We have Europe's longest land border with them.

sendec
October 20, 2004, 09:11 AM
Does anyone but me notice the irony in the last post: "they tried warrantless confiscation, but the court slapped them down (para)"?

Y'all can thump your chests all you want, safe in the knowledge that the odds of this ever happen are right up there with government sanctioned book burnings and crucilfix confiscation. How come no one wants to vote about those from the rooftops?

Standing by for the inevitable nazi Germany/Waco/ ungrounded analogies.

TrapperReady
October 20, 2004, 09:20 AM
MP5 - What makes you think that the Democrats would be any better? The Patriot Act passed the senate with 98 yeas, 1 nay, and 1 who didn't vote. Kerry and Edwards both voted for the bill. The McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reforms passed the senate 59-41, with most of the support coming from Democrats, including Kerry and Edwards.

If you compare the candidates, neither side looks particularly good. So, I'll go for the guy who isn't a gun grabber as well.

I've got other reasons for voting for Bush, but since we're talking 2nd Amendment and such in this thread, I'll stick to those points.

hammer4nc
October 20, 2004, 09:23 AM
Why bother to answer the question posed in the initial post, when you can just sit back and use it as an excuse to poke and prod at your fellow board members? Judging from some of the responses, not only would these people NOT resist a gun confiscation, they would cheer, as the resisters were carted off to jail and/or killed. Rarely do they offer a positive post. Jab. Jab. Jab. Troubling and immature. (Honesty about oneself indeed!)

Re: The original question. Lone gunman was correct in drawing a distinction between legislation that banned an action, and the type of law that would require .gov to come into the homes of peaceable citizens to steal their property. The smart legislators have nibbled around the edges, focusing on specific weapon types, (i.e., EBR's) and even then, avoiding house-to-house enforcement actions (theft); and the JBT connotations that would bring. the general public tolerates reactive oppression somewhat better than proactive oppression, it seems.

Perhaps the question can be answered in the third-person, and discussed at higher than a third grade rhetoric level, avoiding the false bravado on both sides?

What is the next step?

On the part of the government...seems clear that removal of the means of self defense & retaliation emboldens the worst of the bureacrats to come up with ever more oppressive laws, cloaked in "public safety" or similar numbmush justification.

On the part of citizens...embrace "strategic ambiguity", as the Isreali government does when addressing hypothetical questions about response to threats. This means reserving every option up to and including nukes, if the need arose. For individuals (presumably not possessing nukes), utilize every means of resistance at your disposal. The idea is to maximize uncertainty, on the part of the oppressors, and maximize their costs. Without dwelling on the armed confrontation at one's front door, many other options out there. Suiffice to say, a gauntlet would have been thrown.

(edited 'cause my keyboard went tu in mid- post!! )


:banghead:

Zrex
October 20, 2004, 09:30 AM
Can't speak for the first three, but as a former resident (inmate?) of Chicago, I can assure you that discrete noncompliance with Chicago's gun ban is the rule, not the exception. They tried going door-to-door with warrantless searches for "illegal" guns in the city-owned housing projects some years ago, but the courts slapped them down on that one.

Hiding your guns, or turning in some of them and not registering the others is certainly a far cry from the bravado laden, "They will get the lead first" or "vote from the rooftops" and is a far more likely outcome.

What also amazes me is how people in california, NYC and other places thump their chests and talk about how they will defend the 2nd amendment and start shooting once its infringed..... um.... hello?

Waitone
October 20, 2004, 10:48 AM
My original question just morphed. Back to the original.

I'm asking about the implication contained in the phrase, ". . . . .come get our guns."

Is it a fear you won't be able to defend yourself against garden variety criminals?

Or are you fearful of not being able to defend yourself when civil order collapses?

Or how 'bout not being able to defend yourself from Blue Helments?

Or how 'bout being pushed too far by our own home-grown fascists?

Or how 'bout the humiliation of your loss of "manhood." <Just making up ideas>

There is an implicit fear associated with, ". . . . . .come get our guns." I want to understand what that fear is.

Second point is why is there a line drawn in the sand with the second amendment but not with the destruction of the first, fourth, tenth, et al?

fletcher
October 20, 2004, 11:32 AM
Second point is why is there a line drawn in the sand with the second amendment but not with the destruction of the first, fourth, tenth, et al?

Just a possible answer for that:

If the line in the sand for the 2A is gun confiscation, then the line is more obvious than infringements on the other amendments. Taking guns is a physical action, and very concrete concept that even your most ill-educated individual can understand. Whereas for infringements on conceptual/abstract rights, it's a little harder to define a widely accepted concrete line that shall not be crossed.

Werewolf
October 20, 2004, 11:55 AM
Regarding the question involving the 1st, 4th, 5th etc..

Most folks are anchored in the real world, the pragmatic world. To most if it can't be touched it just doesn't matter.

Let's look at some of our rights in that light shall we:

1st Amendment: Freedom of Speech - can't touch it. To Joe SixPack free speech doesn't mean much. He doesn't believe that anything he says matters much in today's world anyway - and he's right. Take it away most folks won't miss what they never had or exercised.

4th Amendment - how many times have you heard someone say "I've done nothing wrong, I've got nothing to hide." To most people the 4th amendment is unreasonable and prevents the government from putting bad guys in jail. Go to an airport and watch the sheep line up to be searched and never utter a complaint. I've talked to numerous folks who fly about this issue - the most common response I get is "sure it's annoying but it makes us safer". They just don't get it.

Pretty much the same arguments noted above can be applied to all the other amendments - especially the 9th and 10th.

Those arguments cannot be applied, however, to the 2nd Amendment.

Why not? Because the 2nd applies to a physical article, property. When someone in authority tries to take property from you, something you worked and paid for that gets your immediate attention. It's something you can wrap your hands and psyche around. The results of losing that physical thing are immediate and obvious. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand they've lost something. It does take someone capable of abstract thought to realize that they've lost something if they lose the right to free speech, freedome from unreasonable search and seizure, etc. Most Joe Sixpacks either are incapable of abstract though or plain just don't give a hoot.

Still - I don't believe that even 1 out of a 1,000,000 of those who say. "they'll get my guns when they pry 'em out of my cold dead hands" is doing more than just talking big. When the cops come to take 'em away most folks are gonna give 'em up without a struggle because a few 1000 dollars worth of property isn't gonna be worth giving up their lives or lifestyles for.

There will be a few - a very few - that take action and launch bullets at the confiscators. They will die unmourned for their efforts and will pass in vain because there will not be enough of them to make a difference. The populace will cheer their passing as terrorists or right wing extremists and proclaim that the US and the world is better off without them.

The days when freedom loving individuals could stand up and fight an oppressive government have passed into history. The age of the sheep is upon us.

Sam Adams
October 20, 2004, 11:59 AM
I second what TrapperReady said. Bush ain't perfect (in fact, he's far from it), but he's been far better (and would remain so) than Kerry.

Better on guns.

Better on national security.

Better on terrorism and the response to it.

Better on standing up for our country (i.e. telling the world to shove it on wacko environmental, economic and gun-related regulations).

Better on taxes.

Better on regulations.


Note that NONE of the above is intended to show that Bush is perfect, or anything close to my ideal candidate. I have lots of complaints about him, and if he had a credible opponent with truly conservative views in the primaries, that person would have gotten my vote.

You vote your conscience in the primaries, and you vote for the lesser of 2 evils in the general election. As General George S. Patton said, "The enemy of the Good is the Perfect."

MP5
October 20, 2004, 12:18 PM
What makes you think that the Democrats would be any better?

Nothing. Believe me, I have no love for the Democrats. In general, I'm a conservative/libertarian, which is why I dislike both Kerry and Bush equally, albeit for different reasons.

Whereas for infringements on conceptual/abstract rights, it's a little harder to define a widely accepted concrete line that shall not be crossed.

Which is perhaps why those rights should be defended even more vigorously. The state has shown us just how easy it is to chip away at them with nary a peep from the populace.

Mulliga
October 20, 2004, 12:19 PM
There is an implicit fear associated with, ". . . . . .come get our guns." I want to understand what that fear is.

Second point is why is there a line drawn in the sand with the second amendment but not with the destruction of the first, fourth, tenth, et al?

The fear is of losing your life. After everyone is disarmed, there's nothing anyone can do to stop any kind of fun genocide someone (either the government, private armies, you name it - just look at other countries) cooks up.

THR is a banned site from my workplace. It's because of threads like this. Essentially, what we are talking about is treason, or at least potential treason. But, then again, so was the American Revolution. Armed insurrection ain't fun - it's messy business. That's why most hope it won't come to that.

There are lines drawn on the sand with the other freedoms in our society. If they were to start searching people out on the street or breaking up protest marches, there will be plenty of resistance (witness the civil rights movement). It just wouldn't be necessarily violent resistance. If they try to confiscate guns (or even register them), they would be assured of instant violent response.

R.H. Lee
October 20, 2004, 12:22 PM
has that been the case anywhere in the world that it's already happened? australia, great britain, california, chicago, etc...

AFAIK, there was/is active enforcement, if not outright door to door searches, in all those places EXCEPT California. Instead, California passed a law then advertised heavily about the illegality of certain firearms after a certain date. I personally know NO ONE who turned in any banned weapon. Moreover, a trip to almost any range in the state on any weekend will produce a mind boggling array of AR's, AK's, and other "banned" weapons. My unofficial survey indicates compliance was so extremely low as to make the law irrelevant, except for new purchases through licensed FFL's.

As someone has previously pointed out, the threat of armed resistance to forceful confiscation of firearms serves as a deterrent. Remember MAD? Mutually Assured Destruction kept WWIII at bay until the USSR no longer became a threat. The principle works, and will continue to work, unless somebody weakens.

History has shown us time and time again that confiscation of firearms and disarmament of the citizenry always preceded genocide by the government. I do not know what the rate of compliance in Great Britain or Australia might be, and to date, these remain 'benevolent' governments. However through attrition, and over time, there will be fewer and fewer small arms in the hands of the citizens of these countries, and they will become increasingly vulnerable to some form of not so benevolent dictatorship.

The entire 'battle' is not simply the retention of firearms. It is now, and has been for years, a cultural war. The increasing dependence of our citizenry on government for cradle to grave subsidies serves to nurture a mindset of entitlement that is the antithesis of liberty. This is the battle we've been steadily losing.

Wildalaska
October 20, 2004, 12:38 PM
Rarely do they offer a positive post. Jab. Jab. Jab. Troubling and immature. (Honesty about oneself indeed!)

Honesty about oneself mandates poking fun at these endless jackbootedthugscomingtotakemygunsletsgototherooftopsthumpmyinternetchestposts.......

Long time ago, when I was just a young law student, I sat in on an interview where some goodfella wannabe bragged about his accomplishments....when I mentioned to the lawyer that the client seemed to be a dangerous guy he said..

"Real ones dont talk about it"


WildseparatethemenfromtheboysAlaska

TallPine
October 20, 2004, 12:52 PM
You don't know who will resist and who will not ...

But I'm sure there are some "old farts" out there that really don't want to spend their last days in a nursing home anyway ;)

Gordon Fink
October 20, 2004, 01:21 PM
Interesting thread. It’s not “What will you do when they come for your guns?” but rather “Why haven’t you fought for other suppressed rights?” Others have already made some good points about tangible and intangible rights, but there are deeper issues as well.

While many casual liberties and many, many comforts have expanded in the modern era, more important freedoms have been in gradual decline since approximately the American Revolution. This has happened for a variety of reasons, but decline doesn’t lead to revolution on its own. In fact, revolutions usually occur during periods of rising expectations, which were most prevalent during the 18th and 19th centuries, when a spate of them swept Europe and the Americas.

It’s hard to judge where the balance of expectations are right now. Some are certainly on the rise, but others are clearly declining. I suspect that the balance is tilted toward decline at the moment and will remain so for many years to come. In other words, I fear we are doomed to much more tyranny before the tide of real freedom again begins to rise.

As far as gun control and the right to keep and bear arms are concerned, the gun-control movement has hit upon an effective strategy. If the gun-controllers stick to this strategy and don’t try anything revolutionary, they will probably succeed in marginalizing the right to arms within a few more generations. Hopefully, they will make a mistake.

~G. Fink

Cosmoline
October 20, 2004, 01:54 PM
Lordy I hope it never comes to that. Indeed I suspect even the "Mr. and Mrs. America--turn them in" crowd doesn't actually want it to come to that. The US is many things both good and bad. But it is most certainly NOT the UK or Australia. A lot of the talk is bravo sierra, of course. But if there was a perfect anti-gun storm in DC and they managed to pass UK or Australia style bans on handguns, semiautomatic rifles and shotguns, etc. you'd see outright rebellion. I'm not talking about Joe Sixpack shooting a cop. I'm talking about state legislatures and governors in the hard-core "Red" states openly declaring that they will oppose the law and forbidding any LEO's from cooperating in their enforcement. Perhaps even sterner measures such as taking federal property (which is exactly how the first Civil War started). At that point the feds would likely back off and simply let the laws sit on the books without trying to press the matter in places like Alaska or the mountain states. The federal LEO force in those places is tiny and totally unable to cope with a problem of that magnitude. That's if they're smart.

If the feds continued to press matters, it would go from ugly to tragic. Personally, I would never shoot a federal officer on my own initiative. Such an action would be criminal and probably terrorism. But if my state breaks, I'll be flying the stars and bars and making cocktails from gasoline and tar. If you don't think that's possible, I'd suggest you don't know this nation as well as you think.

MP5
October 20, 2004, 02:15 PM
In other words, I fear we are doomed to much more tyranny before the tide of real freedom again begins to rise.


I tend to think the same. We live in an age of exponentially advancing technology and population, where our society becomes more complex every day, and where more people (worldwide) interact closely and frequently than ever before. That means there are ever more dealings or meetings between men and men, and men and machine, and men and the "system." New opportunities for people to come into conflict or to get injured or simply to do new things in the midst of other people arise every day. Every day there are new questions about what should be considered just or legal in our interactions and what we should do to rectify such dilemmas.

As such, ever more legislation is probably inevitable. Simple culture and technology=a few simple laws. Complex culture and technology=myriad complex laws, lawyers to understand them, judges to interpret them, cops to enforce them, legislators to change or amend or expand them. Couple that with a high standard of living, relative freedom, lowered educational expectations (in the sense of a classic liberal education) and social awareness, numbing consumerism, and a terrorist threat, and you have even greater chances for every aspect of our lives to be governed not merely in frightening detail, but with the open arms of the governed. It's all too complex for them to understand or care about. A simple promise of "freedom" or "protection" and a good economy is enough consolation for many.

Just as importantly, many people are afraid of great freedom because they've never experienced it and wouldn't know what to do with it. (For those interested in religion, there's a spiritual corollary there.) Also, most people don't trust their neighbor with any significant freedom, anyway, whether out of selfish ends or because we see daily how flawed and dangerous human nature and our society can be.

We all know that many people lack the moral compass, maturity, and responsibility to use freedom safely and beneficially. (When we're honest, we know that sometimes applies to us in our weaker moments.) Just look at the millions crowding our jails and all the free morons who endager or abuse themselves and others daily. You and I might want to see a simpler society with old Jeffersonian values, and you and I might be able to live an upright, positive life in one. But most people either don't want that or--I hate to admit--probably couldn't be trusted to live in one because their sense of values has twisted or decayed as our society has "progressed" to its current state.

Zrex
October 20, 2004, 02:18 PM
Another thing that amazes me is the number of people who claim that the 2nd amendment prevents the rest of our rights from being taken away. One guy even called the 2nd, "Liberty Teeth".

These very same people seem willing to sit on their asses and vote for people who would steal all of their constitutional rights as long as its not the 2nd Amendment. Whats the point of having a guard dog that wont bark at the thieves coming to rob you, but instead only reacts to the dog catcher?

MP5
October 20, 2004, 02:23 PM
These very same people seem willing to sit on their asses and vote for people who would steal all of their constitutional rights as long as its not the 2nd Amendment. Whats the point of having a guard dog that wont bark at the thieves coming to rob you, but instead only reacts to the dog catcher?

That's like I was saying earlier: you don't want to let things devolve until the only protector of your liberty is your gun. That should be the last resort. Don't get so obsessed with the last resort that you let your first, second, third, etc. resort be emasculated or destroyed in the meanwhile. I'd much rather interact peacefully with my government and fellow man than violently.

Sam Adams
October 20, 2004, 02:25 PM
But if my state breaks, I'll be flying the stars and bars and making cocktails from gasoline and tar.

Forget tar, try oatmeal instead: http://www.madogre.com/Interviews/myths_molotovs.htm

Cosmoline
October 20, 2004, 02:51 PM
Or oatmeal and tar. The tar is only partly for stick. Primarily it is used for its ability to create a painful, toxic and blinding smoke when burned with gasoline. The cocktails burn area is going to be limited no matter what, and may not burn nearly as badly as you'd think. The Finns during the Winter War used them for their ability to create big clouds of blinding smoke amongst the enemy.

Turkey Creek
October 20, 2004, 03:32 PM
TallPine

You don't know who will resist or not- But I'm sure there are some "old farts" out there that really don't want to spend their last days in a nursing home anyway

A decided advantage of being a member of the "old farts" brigade, to which I proudly belong- when your time is about gone, what's to loose?

Brian Dale
October 20, 2004, 03:36 PM
MP5, We all know that many people lack the moral compass, maturity, and responsibility to use freedom safely and beneficially.All true in 1791 (Bill of Rights), 1787 (U.S.Constitution), 1215 (Magna Carta), and forever before that. I believe that you're right: freedom isn't safe, and a lot of people are uncomfortable with that. That doesn't make us in the minority wrong. All the more reason to use the soapbox and the ballot box now.

Lone_Gunman
October 20, 2004, 04:33 PM
TrapperReady and Sam Adams:

You both made comments to the effect of "the Democrats are worse than Bush", and I would agree with you on that.

You then use this as justification for voting for Bush again despite obvious infringements he has made, and even acknowledged, in the name of campaign finance reform and anti-terror legislation.

However, I would caution you that a lot of Bush's bad legislation would simply have not been passed if the Republicans had not been in control of the House, Senate, and Presidency.

I do not believe that if we had a Democrat for President in 2000 that we would have seen McCain-Feingold or Medicare Reform Passed. I think the Republicans would have been against those vehemently. I also think we would have gotten a Patriot Act that is less obtrusive as well.

Understand, my point is that although the Democrats are horrible, the Republicans are only a little less horrible. Letting one side have all the power results in bad things happening.

george_co
October 20, 2004, 05:52 PM
Why are we not in the streets already fighting due to the loss of other rights? Because we, for the most part, believe in the American System. While the systems pendulum may swing too far from time to time, as long as we can vote, speak, and petition the government for redress of our grievances that's what we will do.

Why do so many speak more forcibly about the 2nd? It is due to the belief that once that is gone the remainder of the rights will go and we will no longer be able to do anything about it.

Will we fight when they threaten to kick our door down and take our guns? Heck I don't know. I have passed the middle point of life, but I started a family late. At what point do I risk death or even loss of income and the ability to provide for my family? At what point, is it more important for me to protect a right for the future benefit of my children with the potential (very likely) loss of my life or freedom, than it is for me to be alive to insure they get the start in life they deserve and have the right to expect of their father.

And, importantly, who do we shoot? The local cops, most of whom I know. National Guard Troops, again most of them are good people. Both of these groups would be charged with the duty to protect the legislators, who would be the real culprits. Federal Agents, who if this would come to pass would just be paid mercanaries in my opinion.

One reason, I believe, that the founders depended on a militia is the fact that to get the militia to act you need to convince the state govenor's and legislators of the righteousnous of your cause, and in truth the militia members as well. With paid troops, whether or not they are army, LEO, Fed Agent, or National Guard they are required to perform their duty or be thrown in jail. Trying to raise a militia in America, even today, to enforce the will of the legislators to disarm the people more than likely wouldn't happen. The legislature will turn to their paid mercenaries to enforce the law. Will the police and federal agents say NO! I doubt it.

Like almost everyone in the world, I want to bounce my grandchildren on my knee. Like all civilized people, I want all of the other members of society to do the same thing, federal agents or not. However, I also want to punch little round holes in paper and maybe shoot a squirrel or two as well. So when the door flies open will I meekly hand them over or pull the trigger. Damned if I know the truth, and I honestly doubt that most here know their own truth.

I apologize for the length of my rant, but I feel better.

Be safe, and let's hope the inmates don't really start running the asylum so this question need never be answered.
George

ARperson
October 20, 2004, 06:08 PM
How is eliminating the 2nd different from eliminating the 1st, 4th, 5th, etc?

I'll tell you how. When the 2nd is gone, the rest are gone for good. Forever to remain in the history books as relics of a noble but failed experiment in human self-control.

As long as we have the 2nd, we will always have a way to reclaim the others that we have lost. (Why do you think the politicians that are taking away or other rights are fighting so hard to take away our 2nd amendment rights? They know they will never have full control as long as the populace is armed.) It wouldn't be easy, and it certainly wouldn't be the preferable method. But the 2nd amendment is the last barrier they have to complete and utter anhiliation of freedom and liberty in this country.

Sam Adams
October 20, 2004, 06:14 PM
...and if Gore had been President right now, the AWB would have been renewed at least, if not made permanent and broader. Additionally, Gore wouldn't have done what Bush has done in the War on Terror - Libya would still be trying to make nukes, Hussein would still be in power, etc., etc. All of these factors say that Bush has been a better (or less bad) President that what the Dems had (and have) to offer - even when counting the bad stuff that he's done.

Zrex
October 20, 2004, 06:21 PM
As long as we have the 2nd, we will always have a way to reclaim the others that we have lost.

Nah. Too many gun owners will sell their constitution for the illusion of security as long as they can keep the firearms they already own. None of them will stand up and fight to take any right back. Its tougher to recover something once gone than it is to give it away in the first place.

What sort of revolt took place in '34 or '68 or '86 or '89 or '94 or '00? None. Ban everything, but if you grandfather existing guns, not a shot will be heard. If gun owners wont fight for their "liberty teeth", why would they fight for something intangible?

artherd
October 20, 2004, 09:39 PM
What is that next step.

They kill us.

That simple.






Legitimate Governments have killed 170million + after they took their guns worldwide, in peacetime, since 1900!

SkyDaver
October 20, 2004, 09:56 PM
How often do I see the following phrase or a derivative? ". . . . . .and they will come get our guns."

You want to register what? What guns? No guns here.

Lone_Gunman
October 20, 2004, 11:22 PM
...and if Gore had been President right now, the AWB would have been renewed at least, if not made permanent and broader.


Sam, that may be true, but I would take a renewed assault weapons ban over McCain-Feingold any day.

MP5
October 21, 2004, 07:26 AM
I believe that you're right: freedom isn't safe, and a lot of people are uncomfortable with that. That doesn't make us in the minority wrong. All the more reason to use the soapbox and the ballot box now.

Agreed. Freedom is inherently dangerous, and everyone, at least on a gut level, knows it. That's why, even though the anti-gun forces are wrong 98% of the time, I can understand where they're coming from emotionally. They usually don't understand or have familiarity with guns, which generally breeds irrational fear. That's an inexcusable basis from which to make decisions. But antis can be excused for rightly believing that a lot of people are immature, stupid, irresponsible, or just flat-out evil. Who wants to see those people armed?

But the much greater danger is in letting someone else control our lives to the nth degree. The desire to eliminate everything dangerous from life or society is myopic and, ironically, self-destructive. But so many people have so little faith in themselves and their fellow men that they'll at least grudgingly allow their own freedoms to be stolen if that supposedly keeps John Doe down the street in check. That's a Faustian bargain if ever there were one. (Similarly, people will allow their own freedoms to be stolen as long as they can keep their guns.)

The more laws and restrictions there are,
The poorer people become.
The sharper men's weapons,
The more trouble in the land.
The more ingenious and clever men are,
The more strange things happen.
The more rules and regulations,
The more thieves and robbers.

Therefore the sage says:
I take no action and people are reformed.
I enjoy peace and people become honest.
I do nothing and people become rich.
I have no desires and people return to the good and simple life.

--from the Tao Te Ching, verse 57

MP5
October 21, 2004, 07:52 AM
As long as we have the 2nd, we will always have a way to reclaim the others that we have lost.

Through armed insurrection, aka treason. In such a situation, who cares if you have the legal right to own guns? You may as well just get them illegally like the criminals do today, because you would have already signed your own death warrant. What would it matter if you broke a few more laws? Better to defend all your other Constitutional freedoms peaceably and legally while you have the chance instead of allowing them to be eroded, just so long as you can keep your guns.

RealGun
October 21, 2004, 08:52 AM
I'm curious though as to why anyone would post on this board if they weren't committed to defending their rights - Seigfried

I don't think anyone is seriously committed unless they belong to an effective militia. On their own, they will be crushed, possibly killed.

I would like to have a real assault rifle for patriotic purposes, but as a class III license holder I would be on the A list for a visit.

RealGun
October 21, 2004, 08:54 AM
That's what never ceases to amaze me. So many people here support Bush because he's supposedly a friend of the 2nd Amendment (in truth, he's merely not an active enemy like Kerry is). - MP5

The problem is that voting for a fantasy doesn't help.

RealGun
October 21, 2004, 09:02 AM
Second point is why is there a line drawn in the sand with the second amendment but not with the destruction of the first, fourth, tenth, et al? - Waitone

Personally, I always make an association of infringement of any right with a potential threat to gun rights, even to the point of being considered tedious on occasion. It's the mindset precedent that really concerns me. Lawmakers either comply with their oath to "uphold and defend" or they don't. Being soft on one Constitutional point indicates to me that there is a potential softness on anything else.

buzz_knox
October 21, 2004, 09:06 AM
His record in Texas and the White House proves its not a fantasy. But hey, don't let the facts intrude on the discussion.

I think the real reason some people almost seem to relish a Kerry victory by going 3rd party is that they want a revolution, and to get it to happen, they need to see rights rapidly taken away.

buzz_knox
October 21, 2004, 09:22 AM
Personally, I always make an association of infringement of any right with a potential threat to gun rights, even to the point of being considered tedious on occasion. It's the mindset precedent that really concerns me. Lawmakers either comply with their oath to "uphold and defend" or they don't. Being soft on one Constitutional point indicates to me that there is a potential softness on anything else.

Absolutely agree. The problem is that we don't protect the Constitution by replacing someone who's soft in areas of it with someone who has a fundamentally opposition to its basic principle (that we are endowed with rights, not that it provides rights to us), who believes that people receive rights from the gov't, who is ardently opposed to American sovereignty (a key requirement for maintaining the Constitution as the central element of the American political culture) and wants to strip us of our ability to "protest" in the ways of our forefathers. We win nothing and lose everything by allowing (even assisting) an enemy who has completely discounted us to gain power at the expense of a limp friend who actually does tend to listen.

The key to retaking what we have lost is not to step outside the current system (which will not change absent an extreme event, which would be more likely to bring increased gov't control rather than less). Instead, we must do what the liberals did to the Democratic party: infiltrate it and shape it to what they desire it to be. The most liberal elements now have a real opportunity to have someone dedicated to their views to an extent greater than even Clinton in the White House. We can do the same, having a real freedom loving candidate, if we are willing to fight long battles necessary to change the party and hold the line.

Lone_Gunman
October 21, 2004, 01:28 PM
Buzz, what you say about changing the Republican Party from within is true, but the sad fact is, no one is even trying to change the Republican Party right now.

Bush was re-nominated for President without contest from other Republicans. If someone in the Republican Party would stand up for the conservative wing, and had at least made a token run to win the nomination in 2004, then Bush might have at least been forced to move toward the right a little bit. Instead, every one in the party is following Bush as he makes one left turn after another.

Conservatism is dead in the Republican party, at least for the time being.

Mastrogiacomo
October 21, 2004, 01:42 PM
It's amazing but of the posts I've read, it almost of sounds like a page taken out of the Turner Diaries -- what are you prepared to do for your guns? :what: :D

buzz_knox
October 21, 2004, 02:40 PM
Buzz, what you say about changing the Republican Party from within is true, but the sad fact is, no one is even trying to change the Republican Party right now

Gee, I guess I fall in the category of "no one." But hey, if you've given up on them, go ahead. I haven't.

As for Bush being renominated without contest, of course. Did you really expect the Republicans to try and change horses given all the existing circumstances? Once again for all who haven't been listening, the way you win this battle (as evidenced by the success of the liberals and gun control movement) is to maintain a hold on the areas you've got, and advance the line in the direction you want. You do not do that by abandoning the ground you've gained. If the Republicans had tossed Bush (which would have caused a major split in the party at the front), they would have also been tossing an incumbent, losing credibility with the American public, and guaranteeing a Democratic victory.

As for making left turns, those left turns are being made because only the left side of the party is being heard from. Too many of the right side have said screw the Republicans. Well, if people are declaring they won't vote for them no matter what, why should Republicans listen to them?

Lone_Gunman
October 21, 2004, 03:50 PM
Buzz, I guess you missed my point... I know they Repubs aren't going to ditch an incumbent... I will quote what I said:

If someone in the Republican Party would stand up for the conservative wing, and had at least made a token run to win the nomination in 2004, then Bush might have at least been forced to move toward the right a little bit.

If a conservative had run, or at least threatened to run, for the nomination, I suspect Bush would have made more of an effort to appease the right wing. That would have been the perfect example of what you mean when you talk about changing the party from within. The bottom line is the Republican Party will not risk loss of its power by allowing a challenger to make waves by expressing an opposing ideology.

I have been a Republican all my life, but I think Bush has changed that. I supported him in 2000 with money, my vote, and even a little campaign work. But since he took office I have seen more liberal agenda get passed in his four years than Bill Clinton got passed in eight. Obviously Kerry is not the answer to my problem, but I am really so disappointed with Bush that I don't think I can vote for him.

ProGlock
October 21, 2004, 03:58 PM
One thing I think needs to be stressed into everyone's heads though is that if there ever comes a time of open revolt by the people against its government, certain conditions MUST be adhered to.

First, who is your target? You cannot just openly shoot anything that works for "the man". For example, local police belong to the city/county law enforcement. Are you rebelling against them? No. You will likely be rebelling against the federal government. You must make your intentions clear that your enemy is who you pick and stick to it, unless attacked without provocation from another party. If you start shooting everyone in sight, you will be labeled a terrorist.

Second, you must communicate with the people all the time and make sure they understand exactly why you are rebelling and whom you are rebelling against. Explain to them that your militia or group will not in way, shape or form attack the innocent or those who want nothing to do with the rebellion, and stand by your word. You can, of course, express that donations of food, water, shelter, clothing, etc. will always be gratefully accepted.

Third, ensure your militia or group is properly labeled as a group rebelling against the government and not as terrorists. At every point that people attempt to label you a terrorist, always counter them stating they are wrong. The best way to go about this is by passively asserting yourselves by wearing uniforms and having a flag. Ensure your uniforms are easily recognizable and that your flag could not be mistaken for anything else.

Finally, instill in your men that you fight on the side of righteousness and for the greater good, even when many others will denounce you at every opportunity. Always display confidence in achieving your goals and make sure the people see you for who you really are...respectful, kind, and well-mannered toward the public and that same public knows who the opponent is. People will decide for themselves which side they choose to support, and with any luck, you will have a majority of them with you.

buzz_knox
October 21, 2004, 04:02 PM
But since he took office I have seen more liberal agenda get passed in his four years than Bill Clinton got passed in eight.

You mean like the ban on partial birth abortions, the death of the AWB, national concealed carry for LEs, and taking the war on terrorists to the terrorists themselves? Those liberal agendas?

Zrex
October 21, 2004, 04:04 PM
Maybe talking about the greatest social welfare program since the "Great Society" of LBJ.

Maybe talking about "No child left behind".

TallPine
October 21, 2004, 04:13 PM
Third, ensure your militia or group is properly labeled as a group rebelling against the government and not as terrorists.
Doesn't seem to make any difference in Iraq ....

buzz_knox
October 21, 2004, 04:20 PM
So the solution to Bush's liberal bent is to give power to Kerry, who makes Bush look like a conservative?

Like I've said before, I think some people want to make things so bad that the revolution happens in their lifetime.

Lone_Gunman
October 21, 2004, 04:33 PM
You mean like the ban on partial birth abortions, the death of the AWB, national concealed carry for LEs, and taking the war on terrorists to the terrorists themselves? Those liberal agendas?

No I mean McCain-Feingold, Medicare Reform, the Patriot Act, and Kennedy's No Child Left Behind.


To take your points one at a time:

Bush's stand on the partial birth abortion ban, while I agree with him philosophically, became irrelevant when the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional.

The AWB died on its own thanks to Congress, not Bush, who said he would sign it if Congress passed it.

National concealed carry for LE's creates a special class of citizens with special priveledges.

I will give Bush credit with taking the War on Terror to the terrorists. Thats a good idea, but very little else good has come out of his term.

We won't have a revolution if Kerry is elected, and I think we all know that. I don't support Kerry's ideology at all, but considering what a bad job the Repubs have been doing, having the Democrats in charge of the White House might give us a little bit of much needed political gridlock.

Zrex
October 21, 2004, 04:34 PM
Most of us are fully aware of what kind of person John F'ing Kerry is. What you don't seem to understand is that we see George Bush as not a whole lot better. Maybe if there were any real substantial difference between the 2 candidates, things might be different. I know you believe there are major differences, and I respect your opinions. I happen to opine otherwise.

It is just a terribly sad state of affairs where you vote for someone because you assume he is lying, rather than the other person because you assume he is telling the truth.

Welcome to the Republocratic party.

How much money has George Bush cost you? Were you effected by his steel tariffs? I was. I thought republicans were free trade?

MP5
October 21, 2004, 04:38 PM
Instead, we must do what the liberals did to the Democratic party: infiltrate it and shape it to what they desire it to be.

What leverage would you use? If Bush and his ilk are the ones that are elected and thereby grant the GOP power, what incentive is there for them to take a conservative wing and their relatively extreme views (like the RKBA) to heart? Why would the GOP abandon a winning formula for those of us who would like to see more classical conservatism?

Zrex
October 21, 2004, 04:41 PM
What leverage would you use? If Bush and his ilk are the ones that are elected and thereby grant the GOP power, what incentive is there for them to take a conservative wing and their relatively extreme views (like the RKBA) to heart? Why would the GOP abandon a winning formula for those of us who would like to see more classical conservatism?

The Republican Liberty Caucus is the best and only hope, IMHO, sad and small as it may seem...

buzz_knox
October 21, 2004, 04:42 PM
How much money has George Bush cost you? Were you effected by his steel tariffs? I was. I thought republicans were free trade?

Are you affected by the subsidies foreign gov'ts give their companies? Do you believe that free trade is effective when there isn't a level playing field?

As for the revolution, I don't believe it will occur during Kerry's reign. I do believe that some are hoping that things will get worse much faster with Kerry and his successor, so that the time of the glorious revolution which is the basis for this thread will be sped up.

But here's the logical fallacy in your argument, Lone_Gunman. You want a Republican Congress and a Democratic White House. I presume that means you are voting for Republican congresspersons, right? Yet, those are the same people who drafted and voted on the legislation you oppose? In fact, you're probably going to be voting for (or relying on others to vote for) the very same people who made the crap you're opposed to in the first place.

buzz_knox
October 21, 2004, 04:45 PM
If Bush and his ilk are the ones that are elected and thereby grant the GOP power, what incentive is there for them to take a conservative wing and their relatively extreme views (like the RKBA) to heart? Why would the GOP abandon a winning formula for those of us who would like to see more classical conservatism?

The same way the liberals did it to the Democratic party. By making their voices heard powerfully within the party, not from without. They elected representatives and senators who thought the way they did, while maintaing their traditional power bases.

Waitone
October 21, 2004, 04:54 PM
Buzz, what you say about changing the Republican Party from within is true, but the sad fact is, no one is even trying to change the Republican Party right now.From what I'm hearing on the grapevine the appearance of inaction is an illusion. Assuming Bush is reelected and spinelessrepublicans maintain a majority in the House and an increasing margin in the senate, a number of long-suffering groups are poised to push their agendas. The fear of splitting the party is so strong than no one is willing to speak out.

Specifically, cultural warriors want war declared on an activist judiciary. That means the senate will act like the majority and change senate rules to knock down Daschle's 2/3 rule in reporting nominees to the senate. It also means the beginning of implementation of Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 of the constitution which permits the legislature to remove appelate jurisdiction from the supreme court.

Fiscal fighters are demanding that insane spending stop and stop suddenly.

Anti-criminal immigration advocates have just about had it with Bush's immigration policiy and his advocation of an amnesty program.

So-called "free trade" is now on the block for change. Enough of those standing election and re-election have faced defining moments with their electorate.

Back when democrats were flying high, spinelessrepublicans made fun of how fractured the democrat party was. We will now see how fractured spinelessrepublicans become when their control of congress is a little more certain.

Zrex
October 21, 2004, 05:04 PM
Are you affected by the subsidies foreign gov'ts give their companies? Do you believe that free trade is effective when there isn't a level playing field?

The steel tariffs had nothing to do with a level playing field, it had to do with keeping a campaign promise to the steel workers union. Am I affected by the subsidies foreign gov'ts give their companies? Beats me.

I own a manufacturing company. I bought about half a million dollars worth of steel from march of 2002 to December 2003. I do not manufacture for export. I do not compete against imported products. I believe that if GWB wants to help domestic steel, he should not do it at the expense of those who rely on steel as their life blood -- domestic manufacturers. Rationalize Georgies actions all you want. He sucked up to a big union at the expense of small manufacturers. If it is cheaper for me to buy steel from the other side of the Ural Mountains in Russia than it is from the US, maybe the US steel industry should modernize and streamline and become more efficient instead of letting GWB reward their inefficiencies.

MP5
October 21, 2004, 05:13 PM
By making their voices heard powerfully within the party, not from without.

At the risk of sounding defeatist (which isn't normally palatable to me), what is my voice versus the spoils of office they've garnered through Bush? If I had connections in the upper echelons of government or industry or had millions of bucks at my disposal, it would be one thing. But that's not the case.

Freedomv
October 21, 2004, 05:58 PM
After reading most of the posted rplies I have to put my $.02 worth.

It is too late when they come to pick up your guns. The time to act is now, by educating as many people as one can to the facts and the B.S. and of our constitution and Bill of Rights.

Getting people to think and not let the Government think for you, and then voting.

I personally hate the way our system has degraded to voting the lesser of two evils, political correctness etc etc.

We must educate the up and comming generations. they are sheep that Michael Moore wants to get out to vote for his candidate.

Vern

Mastrogiacomo
October 21, 2004, 06:28 PM
I can understand why some people are unhappy with Bush over the last four years. But if you value your guns, you'll give him your vote regardless of whatever your opinions are of him. Kerry WILL: tax guns, tax ammo, he WILL ban "assault"weapons, he'll make every effort to remove you from your guns. That's not a threat, it's a promise. You can also expect the U.S. to join the United Nations and become a close friend of France. As someone once said, "With France as your friend, you're better off going alone."

Do you really hate Bush more than you love your gun rights? Then give Kerry your vote and the whole country will look like Massachusetts in no time. Better yet, don't vote and allow Michael Moore and his friends to vote for you. While we're at it -- why not kill a baby in the womb or kill them before they have a chance. After all, what you can't see doesn't matter anyway. Kind of like Kerry's views on God.....

Zrex
October 21, 2004, 06:41 PM
While we're at it -- why not kill a baby in the womb or kill them before they have a chance.

This is what you rabidly pro-bush people dont seem to get. Bush and Kerry have the same positions, it is just a matter of degrees.

Bush opposes abortion except in cases of rape, incest or to save the mother’s life.

So, lets boil it down. Bush thinks it is OK to kill babies under certain circumstances. So does Kerry. Sure, Bush thinks far fewer babies should be "murdered in their mothers wombs", but killing babies is still killing babies. And who among you would blame the baby for the circumstances of its conception?

The argument then becomes a discussion NOT over whether or not to kill the babies, but how many and which ones. Do you like that? Do you support murdering Babies, Mastrogiacomo? Your candidate of choice does. Murder is still murder, or are you going to rationalize that a little murder is ok?

Mastrogiacomo
October 21, 2004, 06:44 PM
I vote for Bush. I personally hate Kerry but not for this reason. He's managed to screw over the Commonwealth in other ways that doesn't seem to make the press. Bottom line, I know Bush's stance on protecting life is stronger than Kerry, who also prefers to fight the war on terrorism with spit balls....

Zrex
October 21, 2004, 06:53 PM
This is why the republican party is doomed. No one will take a stand. They are too busy running around making decisions based on fear instead of being based on principles.

Its time people just stood up and said NO. If you dont have the courage to do it now, then go to the polls, pull the lever for BUSH, then start screaming NO MORE at the top of your lungs. That gives you 4 years to try to see if the party will change. If it doesnt, then they must be punished. I have given them ... lemme count.... 16 years to change, and they have not done a damn thing except wander around like a ship without a rudder. I will vote for bush when you pry the ballot from my cold dead hands.

People need to stop compromising themselves, and wake up and realize that the republicans and democrats are two wings on the same bird, and its flying in the wrong direction. (I stole that from someplace but cant remember where).

sendec
October 21, 2004, 06:58 PM
I dont value my guns nearly as much as I value the lives of service people and the memories of terror victims. I would willingly revert to a sharp stick if we could have a leader who led, and listened to his cabinet and military. Bush's foreign policy was well conceived, and then he decided not to listen to Colin and Condi, but now we have the comedy team of Rumsfeld and Cheney trying to make a sow's ear out of a silk purse. I have'nt seen this much tap dancing since Fred was Singin' in the Rain. Osama is still loose and Ashcroft dreams of the good life at Gitmo, where that Constitution thing doesnt get in the way.....

Not voting for Bush is not the same as voting for Kerry. There is more to life than guns (gasp!) I refuse to be a single issue voter, especially after Bush's non-handling of the AWB

I know I wont vote for Kerry, but if he wins, I'm patient. Remember the uproar when the AWB first passed? And then what happened?

Mastrogiacomo
October 21, 2004, 07:00 PM
Then vote for Kerry -- kiss your guns goodbye, say goodbye to health care -- Teresa will be in control of that and NOT heating homes for the eldery. Yes, what a sweetie she is....:barf: Leave the U.S., join France now, and let Osama know whatever he wants is okay by you. Let's all just complain about Bush, vote for someone that won't win, or join Kerry in a chorus of Kum Bai Ya....

While you're at it, it might be time to open that account with Canada and buy your drugs while you can. Again, Teresa's record is just so lovely....no wonder Hollywood adores...her, who never worked a day in her life -- literally. And she insults the First Lady, who's more of a lady in reality so I'm still voting for Laura and George.

Zrex
October 21, 2004, 07:09 PM
Yes! Finally! Someone brought out the "If you dont vote for bush then you are a terrorist" argument!

sendec
October 21, 2004, 07:11 PM
That would be Osama, right? The guy who is'nt in Iraq?

Mastrogiacomo
October 21, 2004, 07:15 PM
If I was Bin Laden -- who would I fear? A president with the stones to do what's right for the safety of innocents....or a man who's opposed to every weapon the U.S. owns and won't make a move if it's unpopular and doesn't have France's approval? How could you be opposed to every weapon the U.S. military owns and STILL claim to be the "terrorism president?" No thanks, I don't want to wait for another attack to see what Kerry will do. I'm FROM Massachusetts so I've seen him in action first hand. If only I could vote for Bush more than once...

Waitone
October 21, 2004, 08:31 PM
In an attempt to repel a thread hijack, let me rephrase my original question.

To those who concern themselves with ". . . . they will come get our guns. . . " I ask a simple question: What do you expect to happen subsequent to "come get our guns. . ."

They (you define the term) have come after our freedom of political speech and imposed limitations. They have saddled us with politically correct speech and hate speech, yet as far as I can tell nothing has happened.

They (you define the term) chip away at the fourth amendment, some say. No indication of anything happening after the chips fall.

What is going to happen once all our wicked and nasty guns are safely out of our hands?

Mastrogiacomo
October 21, 2004, 09:05 PM
When "evil guns" are out of good people's hands, history has demonostrated what follows: Nazi occupation and muder of inferior people, millions of innocent children, students, etc. just "disappear" in Argentina's Dirty War, Pol Pot's solution known as the "Killing Fields," millions of dead by oppressive governments as seen in Stalin's Russia and Mao's China. In short, when guns are a privledge to a chosen few and not a right of the people -- nothing good ever comes of it.

Anti's like to say that people who own guns are a bunch of right wing extremists and religious nuts. Well, let's see....:rolleyes: this country was based on the lifestyle and teachings of the Pilgrims when they landed in Plymouth. They left to escape religious persecution so they could be free to persecute everyone else....religious nuts...

When this country took up arms against the British, we forced them out of the "Colonies" and subsequently become a country unto ourselves and eventually a world power. So, we became a United States because of right wing extremists.... Liberals don't see it that way though and they'll be the first to tell you "That was different!" I don't see how but then I don't think with my head up my....well, you know. ;)

Sindawe
October 21, 2004, 09:47 PM
What do you expect to happen subsequent to "come get our guns.

News, blogs and forums not "approved as in the publics interest" being shut down.

Manditory .gov issued ID papers or some other means of identification for any employment or financial transaction, even buying a frelling candy bar.

Elimination of "cash" in any form, those who use it will be classified as suspect and enemies of the public good.

Increased levels of taxation on all forms of income, additions of taxes for personal property for states that do not yet have such.

Controled distribution of food stocks, checked against .gov ID database to ensure "hording" does not take place.

Removal of people from "Dangerous rural areas" for their own good, moved to transitiononal processing centers and cities.

Children removed from the family home for their own good, so that they can be properly raised and educated to be good "world citizens"

Manditory .gov issued ID to travel between geographic locations. Starting with cities, eventually required when just walking down the street.

ctdonath
October 21, 2004, 10:24 PM
What do you expect to happen subsequent to "come get our guns. . ."

Confiscation, most likely without appropriate compensation, will occur under threat of fines, imprisonment, or - failing prompt compliance or successful arrest - death. What could possibly be worth fining, jailing, or killing citizens over arms which have not harmed society?

Lots of pat or insightful answers can be given. Whatever it specifically is does not much matter. What matters is (eventually if things get too far) whatever it is they want, they will be willing to kill you on the spot if you don't comply. Armed citizens can choose to not comply, especially if they don't want to comply badly enough. There are things which you want to not do so badly that you'll kill to stop someone from making you do it; likewise, there's probably someone out there who wants you to do it so badly they'll kill you if you don't.

The discussion of the mindset causing someone to insist others "obey or die" may ultimately be up to psychologists and theologans. It has been manifest various ways throughout history; you all know the examples. Whether the power-hungry tyrant or the polypragmatician (ruling busybody), they eventually decide they know best and you must - MUST - obey.

Arms of any kind are the last advantage one has against forceful dominance. If "they" come to take my guns, I know that whatever they have planned is something so opposed to my principles and well-being that they are willing to kill me to force obedience, and likewise I am willing to kill to remain free from compulsion - and their knock is their message: "now is your last chance to submit; disarm and obey, or die." Why they do it is irrelevant; that they do it is everything.

ProGlock
October 22, 2004, 11:03 AM
Mastrogiacomo:

You know what I find laughable is how you use the ridiculous argument that "any vote that isn't for Bush is a vote for Kerry (or terrorists)". Give a me a break.... If I value my guns I'll vote Bush? Well hell, I value my 4th, 5th and 6th amendment rights too...should I also vote for Bush?

It never ceases to amaze me that hardcore republicans are just as bad a liberal gun-grabbers when it comes to politics. You will resort to any sort of name-calling or justification you can think of, especially scare tactics, into trying to convince people to vote for your man Bush. You sir have already done so by saying "if you value your guns you'll vote for Bush".

And for the icing on the cake: I witness this on many different boards...everyone arguing one way or the other who is the best candidate for President...Bush or Kerry...Bush vs. Kerry.

Does anyone here have ANY FREAKING CLUE as to where the real [Constitutional] power of our government lies? News flash: it's in Congress! Every 2 years we could bear witness to a brand new House! How about this: your man Bush does get re-elected but the House now has a super-majority of liberals. "Oh F-@&!", all the neo-cons will say. "We were so busy shooting down logical discussions of people who are voting for third parties and how we think they're wasting their vote and all this time representatives from around the nation got ejected for new liberals".

Here's another tidbit of info...do you honestly believe that this close to the election that there are so many people here at this message board that have NOT made up their minds of who they are voting for President? Do you actually believe your arguments of "vote to keep your guns, vote for Bush" really convince intelligent people here? "This isn't any time to waste your vote on principles by voting for a third party, we gotta keep Bush in the White House", the neo-cons continue to argue.

Get off your lazy keyboard commando butts and realize that there is more at stake here than just the presidency, and no matter what ridiculous arguments you think you can come up with when resorting to liberal gun-grabber tactics in political discussions, I will from now on, in every general election that comes available, be voting for as many libertarians that appear on my ballot.

RealGun
October 22, 2004, 12:22 PM
I will from now on, in every general election that comes available, be voting for as many libertarians that appear on my ballot.

I did not have to read far to know that statement was coming. Interesting that it was the last sentence in your post.

Mastrogiacomo
October 22, 2004, 01:01 PM
Well ProGlock -- consider this: I find it laughable that you'd consider Kerry the better candidate even though he voted against every weapon this country has and wants to use spit balls and the UN to fight terrorism. I'm sure he'll want us as a member.....

I also find it laughable that you don't feel Kerry will appoint judges that will eliminate your right to own. He already wants to tax guns and ammo.

And finally, I find it laughable that a man that said, no the war wasn't justified, yes, I'd have invaded Iraq -- just can't make up his damn mind what his position would be. Bottom line: he has no stones, his wife is no lady, and both are clueless about what the Commonwealth needed, forget about the U.S. By the way, is Kerry STILL getting two paychecks for work he's not doing....:rolleyes:

Vote for Kerry, give terrorists a free passport into the country because our whole defense will be watered down and people unarmed. Oh no, 9/11 won't ever happen again under Kerry -- our strong French, let's do nothing president. Of course you could not vote and let the liberals do it for you -- or vote for a Libertarian -- who was the LAST Libertarian president -- anyone remember? They win all the time, right?:scrutiny:

buzz_knox
October 22, 2004, 01:15 PM
For those believing Kerry will be less detrimental to the Bill of Rights than Bush, please recall also that Kerry's campaign threatened retaliation against Sinclair Broadcasting for daring to air an anti-Kerry film. So much for the 1st Amendment. And this was said while campaigning. What will he say and do when he's achieved the office? Clinton used the IRS to silence his antagonists. What will Kerry do with the Patriot Act, which you should all recall he helped make law, and doesn't want to repeal but only to see it "tempered" (i.e. administered under his benevolent guidance).

At the risk of sounding defeatist (which isn't normally palatable to me), what is my voice versus the spoils of office they've garnered through Bush? If I had connections in the upper echelons of government or industry or had millions of bucks at my disposal, it would be one thing. But that's not the case.

There's an old saying that all politics is local politics. And that's true. Reduced to its most basic level, representatives and senators need to please their constituency. And the constituency that gets pleased the most are the ones who offer the politicos gains and the ones who make their lives hell. It's the carrot and stick approach. I may not be able to contribute financially, but I can work for you and help bring voters to your side. Alternatively, I can bug the crap out of your office via letters and phone calls, distribute information to my friends and family and get them to call you, do the same with the local media, etc. The liberals didn't take the national Democratic party in a night: they elected people who fit their ideals at local/regional levels, then to higher office. Finally, they had people who believed as they did in the highest offices. They did the same with state legislatures and governorships, and thus had a large power base to operate from and promote their candidates.

standingbear
October 23, 2004, 10:22 AM
if you thought slick willy was bad..kerry is worse..much worse.he tells everyone that he is for freedom to do this and freedom to do that yet he makes it a point to be VERY clear in his stance on gun control...an spreads the bull pretty thick on everything else.

would you like a permanent ban on the finesschwine and chuckie definition of what an assault weapon is?How bout a new ban on "sniper" rifles?gunshows bye bye..ffl dealers taxed and litigated out of existance?think Im being a bit...harsh?

as far as what would happen..prolly nothing.nothing at all.clinton did it and got caught,national tv covered the trials(seen everywhere) yet he stayed put cause "he was doing such a good job otherwise"..where does kerry truly stand on these issues of morals?if he gets in..there'll be alot of couch potatoes wishing they had voted..and alot of hindsight.

Grey54956
October 23, 2004, 11:01 AM
The 2A is the most important amendment in the BoR. It is the reset switch for the system. Without it, all other rights will fall victim to tyranny.

While the Patriot Act, anti-hate-speech legislation, and the War on Drugs continue to infringe upon our other rights, they are largely temporary. The Supreme Court can overturn or otherwise interpret against them. An act of congress can remove them. Or they can sunset on their own. But, if all else fails, the citizens of the US retain the right to throw the most final, desparate and terrible switch of all, effectively rebooting the system. Should that happen, a great number of elected officials may end up in trouble, ala the french revolution(s), only the US prefers rope.

Elimination of the 2A means there is no reset switch, and the ruling class (career politicians and party members) are free to run amok. Only those endorsed by either of the two major parties will have any rights, any power and eventually they will merge into oe Republicrat party... While I tend to think that the Republicans are better than the Democrats, they will be corrupted by unchecked power and authority.

Essentially, the end of the 2A is the goal of people who fail to realize they serve the public good at the publics request. They are generally aware that their 'solutions' only appease some of their constituents but don't want to take the time or make the effort to do something that is good for all of their constituents. They see the 2A as a threat to their own safety as it promises that should they go to far and disrupt the lives of too many people, they may find themselves on the receiving end of the devices they seek to ban or, in the event of a successful public uprising, swinging from the end of a rope. What they seek in trying to end the 2A is immunity from their own poor policy decisions.

Zrex
October 23, 2004, 11:16 AM
The 2A is the most important amendment in the BoR. It is the reset switch for the system. Without it, all other rights will fall victim to tyranny.

So, the Molon Labe crowd just sits around while other freedoms are taken from us, and its OK, as long as its not guns, and even then its ok as long as they dont actually confiscate anything. They can ban everything under the sun, but if what you own is grandfathered in, you will do nothing. Look at gun owners in DC, NY, California, Chicago, etc.... see that big "uprising"? I didn't think so. Its time to start caring about all your rights not just your "reset switch" that no one has the balls to use. If you let them take all of your rights except your "guns", because you think your guns will protect you at that point, you are sadly mistaken.

That 2nd amendment is sure doing a whole lot of "protecting" these days, isn't it?

RealGun
October 23, 2004, 11:31 AM
That said, I think it is still important to watch for any rights being treated as regulated, potentially withdrawn privileges, under constant attack by "compelling government interests". All of that activity establishes the mindset that legislators are effectively able to ignore the Constitution on most any point and gives liberals the freedom to define a government du jour.

I have received a notice from GOA that they are against some Homeland Security Act provisions in principle, with potential impact on gun owners. I agree completely and intend to do my part in letting it be known how I feel about it in the best way I know how at this point. I have already written the White House and intend to write my legislators as well.

The latest is that the bill is not expected to be out of conference and ready for passage before the election. All things considered, I think that's a good thing, mainly because McCain's national ID card thing was not properly considered or debated and may not be dropped in committee. If the Senate's provision for civil rights oversight is dropped, then the whole bill and Congress in general is evil, as far as I am concerned. Might as well include the White House, especially if giving signature.

One of the reasons the bill may be "stalled", is that there is now a realization that it is potentially an election deal breaker. The more we make that apparent, the more civil rights concerns will be taken seriously in the future. The problem is always who to vote for instead. Rather than propose any change in direction, I am simply acknowledging that it could very well make a difference to a significant number of voters primed to vote for Bush. Personally, I am not going to enable Kerry in any way, under any circumstances, but I might acknowledge in the end voting for the "lesser of two evils" and then fighting the issues full bore after the election. My Congressional reps will really make the difference, determining what likely gets a rubber stamp in the White House.

Tag
October 23, 2004, 04:24 PM
There is an implied next step after "they come get our guns."

they kill us

Or they (you define the term) at least have the option to.

Nightfa11
October 23, 2004, 11:06 PM
Read all four pages...interesting stuff.

I don't know what I'll do. I'm far more afraid of this:


Children removed from the family home for their own good, so that they can be properly raised and educated to be good "world citizens"


I can imagine for most people that had better happen AFTER they come get our guns.



As for the original question.

Three possibilities

1. Turn them in (50%)
2. Ignore the rule (49.99%)
3. Open Rebellion-Think Unintended Consequences type stuff (.01%)

Assuming 100 million gun owners, that's 10k rebels. That sounds about right to me....

In any case, it will be incremental, except maybe in Illinois :what:

ctdonath
October 23, 2004, 11:25 PM
I can imagine for most people that had better happen AFTER they come get our guns.

Which leads me to a better summary of my prior rant:

If "they come for our guns", it's because they're afraid we'll use those guns to stop whatever it is they have planned for us next - which is a very good reason to not hand them over meekly.

RealGun
October 24, 2004, 06:55 AM
We have the elements in gun ownership and resolve, but it's the banding together in militias that makes real resistance possible. Militias are as hard to hold together as a road band, but some effort ahead of time, especially establishing leadership and contingency plans, would be part of any serious resolve to fight back.

Militias are legal but have been discredited as a concept, marginalized, or harrassed. I think if one does not take them seriously, then real resistance is not taken seriously either. The rest is all talk and will end with ah, sh$$t! Now whadda we do? Who's in charge here? Let's get organized. What's the signal? Where do we meet up? What should I bring?

A simple list of what-ifs and some solid, credible answers would be all it would take, should gun control really cross a critical line. I guess, first one has to know where that line is. Those who at least have a suitable weapon and a serious stash of ammo are on the right track but will not accomplish much alone.

Baba Louie
October 24, 2004, 08:26 AM
I ask a simple question: What do you expect to happen subsequent to "come get our guns. . ." As in the far East, I would expect a large number of people to sign up for "empty hand" self defense courses.
I would expect crime to rise to new heretofor unbelievable levels.
I would expect taxes to be raised to new heretofor unbelievable levels as funds will be needed for more LEO to fight said crime.
I would expect a large majority of people to go on the dole with the resultant slimming down of business small and large unless gov't owned or subsidized.

Something like Atlas Shrugging.

Who (and) Where is John Galt?

Mastrogiacomo
October 24, 2004, 09:28 AM
Realgun -- know of any good Militia links? I never come across any.

Kaylee
October 24, 2004, 10:30 AM
To answer the original question.. to me it's a psychological point more than anything else. There is a difference between the armed citizen and the unarmed subject. Sure it sounds trite on a bumper sticker, and if you haven't actually lived in both head-spaces, it's hard to truly appreciate the difference. But it's very real, and critical to the tradition of liberty not just in this country, but at all.

What I fear should weapons be outlawed is not the death of my body, but rather the death of the American soul. A tradition of liberty and independence which only seems to pop up once every few millenea.. that is something I don't want to see lost. Not again.

Yes, there are hard choices there -- I don't like the Patiot Act or continued chipping away at the 4th any more than the most die-hard lefty ACLU member. But right here, right now, to me its a matter of fighting our most immediate battles and preserving our options for down the road.

standingbear
October 24, 2004, 10:54 AM
I ask a simple question: What do you expect to happen subsequent to "come get our guns. . ." there is no simple answer,cant read and know exactly the future but we can change it by getting involved and voting...instead of watching it happen on the news after it has been done.its more difficult to change something after it has been done than to prevent it in the beginning.

there are already restrictions in place and it hasnt detrerred crime,in fact it has created it.take a look at those that live in states that have a special test now to own the guns of certain types.you registered them like you were told to do..the gun failed the test then what...gone or stored away in a free state- the street gangs and thugs still go about their daily buisness with less chances of worrying if the next "victim" will be able to do anything about it.unsuitable for "sporting "purposes?whose sporting purposes?

I have to wonder why anyone would want your or my guns, if taking them from honest citizens would have no deterrant effect on crime.this is why I have no trust for people who say I dont need them or cant have them...this is why Im voting and trying to encourage others to do so to stop it before it gets any worse.


take it for what its worth..whether it answers it or not,its my 2 cents.

Grey54956
October 24, 2004, 11:00 AM
Zrex, you misunderstand. I do not advocate letting other rights slip away. However, you can make changes to the system by voting for candidates that support your views. YEs, we live in a time when some of our constitutional rights are ignored, but things ebb and flow. The Patriot Act will someday be dismantled. Hate speech might be overturned. It just depends on who you put in office and time. You can fight for your rights every election day.

The 2A is there in the event of total system failure. When politicians decide for themselves that they hold the power, not the public.

RealGun
October 24, 2004, 12:22 PM
Realgun -- know of any good Militia links? I never come across any.

It's not always someone else's job to start one. It is more than just another internet link and discussion group. You might not favor what already exists. You start with your own friends and neighbors, face to face. If you can't do that now, you won't do it when it counts most, although a bit late. You can't really belong to a militia from a keyboard. If you can't head for the woods on foot, equipped to survive, and meet up in numbers and with leadership within hours, you don't really have a viable plan.

Part of the whole concept is to first sell the idea of the need, kind of like selling the idea that it really is wise to carry a gun and know how to use it. Are the odds high of ever needing it for self defense? They are low enough for many to argue that it isn't necessary, a fanatical eccentricity. Thankfully the odds are not high, but consider the consequences otherwise.

Currently, I think there is enough concern about terrorism and resulting abuses of civil rights to warrant at least discussing worst case scenarios. I think too many have a false sense of security knowing they have a gun and a box of ammo, only vaguely familiar with who else might be similarly equipped and motivated to rely on it.

I see internet links and forums as only a way to promote local activity, not as a way of organizing and running a militia.

Back to your original question, after reading americanminutemen.org, I realized that militias as a national movement do not operate under a common charter. I believe agreement to some basic principles, common among State and local level organizations, would be in order to have any affiliation. Otherwise you have to do your own thing and may not prefer to associate in a grander scale or be mentioned in the same breath with some group that is out of control and misrepresenting the general concept. You would have to be sensitive to how militias can be and have been misrepresented or the extent to which they really were a bunch of scary lunatics. True patriotism is the key, and that would be preservation, not planned overthrow or terrorism by anarchists and criminals. Respectability will come from much more widespread activity and publicized purpose. Screw it up, and militias will be outlawed.

If you enjoyed reading about "So what if they come get our guns." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!