Which states will secede when the gun confiscation begins?


PDA






secamp32
January 23, 2006, 05:05 PM
Will any states (Texas??) secede when President Hillary, in her second term federalizes the National Guard and sends them door to door to confiscate all your guns? (Maybe she let you keep a single shot .22 for a little while) She'll know who you are because in the first term there will be manditory gun and gunowner registration. So when this happens where can we go?

If you enjoyed reading about "Which states will secede when the gun confiscation begins?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
STAGE 2
January 23, 2006, 05:06 PM
Won't happen... even if confiscation starts.

El Tejon
January 23, 2006, 05:08 PM
No.

rick_reno
January 23, 2006, 05:13 PM
Will any states (Texas??) secede when President Hillary, in her second term federalizes the National Guard and sends them door to door to confiscate all your guns? (Maybe she let you keep a single shot .22 for a little while) She'll know who you are because in the first term there will be manditory gun and gunowner registration. So when this happens where can we go?

Double up on the tin foil and don't forget to take your meds.

Nitrogen
January 23, 2006, 05:21 PM
Will any states (Texas??) secede when President Hillary, in her second term federalizes the National Guard and sends them door to door to confiscate all your guns? (Maybe she let you keep a single shot .22 for a little while) She'll know who you are because in the first term there will be manditory gun and gunowner registration. So when this happens where can we go?

I can't see Hillary taking my guns away.
Mostly, because I can't see her being elected. :rolleyes:

Correia
January 23, 2006, 05:29 PM
I don't think the vast majority of the National Guard is suicidal.

Look at the outrage generated by the confiscations in New Orleans, which were small in number, in a tiny geographic area, in a disaster area, where most of the gun owners had already evacuated, with very spotty reporting, and overwhelming police presence, and even in those ideal gun grabbing conditions, gun owners across America were very very very very very very angry. This was of course educational to the politicians who were surely watching this unfold.

Now take your scenario, which is the New Orleans scenario, but magnified 1,000,000 times. What do you think the reactions would be?

Nope, even the most rabid gun grabber knows that they aren't going to be able to have outright confiscation in the next decade. They are going to stick with the Boil The Frog Slowly method of stripping our rights. If you want to prevent that, get involved in your local political process, and introduce more new people to shooting. The outright confiscation, massive civil war, Red Dawn stuff is for the fat guys wearing camoflage in their Lazy Boys cleaning their SKS and invisioning themselves as rebel freedom fighters. Sorry guys. :)

GEM
January 23, 2006, 05:43 PM
Do you live in TX? You could never get a vote to do this based on the demographics. The cowboy era is long past.

A significant portion of the state would be antithetical to the folks who might suggest such a thing. Also, a great number of gun owners aren't committed to any action based on the fact they own guns like toasters.

I propose seceding over warrantless wiretaps - that is more to happen.

But guess what? The initial proposition is a fantasy proposed periodically on gun lists. It goes along with the folks who dream about sitting in their house with some buddies fighting off the ATF

The fight is in the ballot box for gun rights and in the minds of the voters. If anything proposing armed rebellion will probably make it likely to get guns confiscated.

Also, at that time all the security methods that right wing folks are pimping for Bush will be used against the gun owner. Oops!

Sinsaba
January 23, 2006, 05:57 PM
I understand that this is not a likely thing to happen. But, what would you all have said 20 (or even 10) years ago if someone said "what are you going to do when the government starts taking your property and giving it to someone to build condos on"

A lot of people would have said then... "get out the tinfoil"

Father Knows Best
January 23, 2006, 06:03 PM
I understand that this is not a likely thing to happen. But, what would you all have said 20 (or even 10) years ago if someone said "what are you going to do when the government starts taking your property and giving it to someone to build condos on"

A lot of people would have said then... "get out the tinfoil"

Um, no. The government has been doing exactly that for a long, long time. I was involved in the City of Detroit's taking of a lot of land back in the late 1970s and early 1980s for the Chrysler Jefferson North Assembly Plant project. The City used eminent domain to take many hundreds of acres, spent millions of taxpayer dollars to clean it up and prep it, and then handed it over the Chrysler for a new plant. It wasn't even considered controversial at the time, because that sort of thing had been going on for as long as anyone could remember.

The Kelo decision doesn't change anything. It just makes clear that SCOTUS isn't going to stand in the way of it. That wasn't a surprise to any of us who have been following this area for the last few decades. It's not right, but it certainly ain't new....

thereisnospoon
January 23, 2006, 06:08 PM
...its the U.N.

Haven't you been getting your calls from Wayne LaPierre telling you the UN wants your guns so please give him your children's college fund?

This kind of question and the resulting responses always makes me wonder what the Founding Fathers would think of those they left behind to defend and protect Liberty...

KriegHund
January 23, 2006, 06:09 PM
Which states will secede when the gun confiscation begins?

None.

carlrodd
January 23, 2006, 06:20 PM
The outright confiscation, massive civil war, Red Dawn stuff is for the fat guys wearing camoflage in their Lazy Boys cleaning their SKS and invisioning themselves as rebel freedom fighters. Sorry guys. :)

hey, watch it buddy:cuss: i can run 6 and 1/2 minute miles till the cows come home. and what's wrong with being a rebel freedom fighter. don't tell me you don't all wound up when you watch Red Dawn.

CAS700850
January 23, 2006, 06:26 PM
Taking your property and selling it to the condo guy is logistically easy. Can't really pack up and hide the property, and the guys with the orders will know where to find it when the ink dries. Coming for all the guns is something quite different. Run the hypothetical all the way through...

1. Registration. Yeah, everyone with a gun in America is going to honestly register every single firearm in the house on the list. Sure. Right. :rolleyes: So, they'll know when they come to my house that I only owned one pistol from when I was an LEO. Here it is officer, thank you and have a nice day.

2. Molon Labe. When they come looking for the guns, many will fight to keep them. National Guard is made up of people who work and live in our communities. Think Fred from teh car dealership is really so concerned about taking all the guns away that he's willing to charge Sam's house, when Sam is pointing a rifle out the window? It's one thing to fight, kill, and die when the opponent is a foreign national and the goal is defending your country. It's quite something else to shoot at Jim who lives down the street, coaches your kid's soccer team, and plays softball with you in the church league.

3. Hide and Seek. The press reports the glorious day when the government has issued the order, there's a 30 day amnesty period to turn in your guns, then they're coming on the 31st. Okay, get your shovels. Plant them in the garden, wrapped in oil soaked rags or in Tupperware. When they come, you say "Hell, I sold that old thing off years ago at a gun show before you oh so wise people closed the loophole. Took cash from a guy named Marcus Johnson from next town over." They leave, you dig it back up. Think they'll check the yard with metal detectors? That slows them down, gives me even more time to hide, and I can find places where the metal detector won't give me away.

4. Smuggler's Blues. Consider that smugglers can and do haul in tons of drugs every year, and despite the money and efforts of LEO's, the DEA, etc., it still gets in. Make that guns and ammo, and you can see the black market building even larger. Think it can't happen? Look at the gun markets in Africa and other such places. And, that's ignoring things like the Phillipines where homemade guns of decent quality are available. What could some industrious Americans with a quality machine shop be capable of doing?

5. How many soldiers does it take... Think of this, how many members of the military are there in the U.S.? A few million, maybe even 10 million? Add LEO's and all reserve and Guard units. Up to about 25 million maybe. Think of how long it would take to sweep from one coast to the other, Canada to Mexico, to search for every gun in the country. Every building. Every vehicle. Every square foot of dry land, and maybe even the wet land if someone gets creative in how they hide the guns. It would take years, probably decades, to complete the search, and that doesn't take into account any resistance along the way, any hiding, or anyone being able to do an end-around and get the guns from in front of the search line to behind the search line.

6. Public Outcry. Unless someone takes office and declares the end of the Constitution, meaning the end of elections, Due Process, and everything else that makes this a good place to live, the Leaders will care about public opinion. If they didn't, polls wouldn't be as popular as they are. So, when Big Borther suspends the Fourth Amendment to allow for the door-to-door search for weapons, even the antis will not like it. Why? Think about it...what might you have stashed away in your home that you don't want to be made public. Dope? Porn? Stolen property? A secret shrine devoted to your everlasting love for Brittney Spears? ONce the guys in uniform come in, it all gets found. And, don't think that the press won't love publishing that Mayor Jimmy had a ginat bong, or Senator Feinstein's biggest contributor had a large collection of films featuring beastiality.

Nah, I'm not worried about this one. Relax and enjoy your hobby. ;)

Correia
January 23, 2006, 06:30 PM
Hey, I'm fat too, and not only wear camoflage but sell it out of a gunstore, so there! :) (plus John Milius movies absolutely rock, so of course I like Red Dawn).

Believe me, I'm totally aware of the dangers to freedom and the American way and all that, and yes, I know every time I post on one of these threads I make the founding fathers weep, :rolleyes: BUT doing effective things like teaching people to shoot, getting to know your local politicians and getting involved in the political process, are far more valuable than internet fantasy masturbation sessions where we can all talk about our plans for taking on the blue helmets.

Besides, the sneaky political method of slowly stripping our rights, and changing the culture to be one of sheephood is far more insidious, and sadly, more likely, than any rattle battle confiscation scenario that you can come up with.

You want to battle gun confiscators? Take 10 new people shooting this year. We're in a culture war, not a shooting war.

Manedwolf
January 23, 2006, 06:33 PM
Will any states (Texas??) secede when President Hillary, in her second term federalizes the National Guard and sends them door to door to confiscate all your guns? (Maybe she let you keep a single shot .22 for a little while) She'll know who you are because in the first term there will be manditory gun and gunowner registration. So when this happens where can we go?

I am more likely to believe that one day, the neocons, who are NOT conservatives, will say "Well, y'know, TERRAHISTS could get guns and use them on the HOMELAND...we should control who can have them, and then control more, and control more..."

Fletchette
January 23, 2006, 06:46 PM
You want to battle gun confiscators? Take 10 new people shooting this year. We're in a culture war, not a shooting war.

Ditto.

It certainly isn't as glamorous (would make a boring movie) but that is what needs to be done- as well as being politically active.

I wish people nowadays cared about Freedom as much as the people a few hundred years ago, and would try to secede over such ideals, but I am afraid that the average American of today is simply not as well educated as the average American of the 19th Century.

Our best bet is too educate people ourselves. Take an anti shooting and show them that guns are simply tools, not magical evil devices that turn nice suburban liberals into child-killing lunatics.

Manedwolf
January 23, 2006, 06:51 PM
Ditto.

It certainly isn't as glamorous (would make a boring movie) but that is what needs to be done- as well as being politically active.

I wish people nowadays cared about Freedom as much as the people a few hundred years ago, and would try to secede over such ideals, but I am afraid that the average American of today is simply not as well educated as the average American of the 19th Century.

Our best bet is too educate people ourselves. Take an anti shooting and show them that guns are simply tools, not magical evil devices that turn nice suburban liberals into child-killing lunatics.

One of the most telling bits of evidence I've read was simply an account of early 20th century fancy-dress costume parties on ocean liners. It wasn't at all uncommon for crew to lend a passenger a revolver, sans ammunition or without the cylinder, for use in a cops-and-robbers skit or the like. And nobody panicked. Nobody screamed "A GUN!"...as they likely would now. Nobody tried to sue the ship owners for emotional distress because their children were exposed to a gun. It was an object. Nobody was using it threateningly.

So what happened?

Borachon
January 23, 2006, 07:02 PM
I can't see Hillary taking my guns away.
Mostly, because I can't see her being elected.

Do you think she'll be nominated by her party?

Assuming she did get elected, do you believe she'd go for stricter gun laws?

And finally, if so, do you think states would object to it?


I'd have to answer question number one with a "yes". I think she will be nominated by her party. That will at least put her in the position to become President if elected.

And if so, do you think she'd call for stricter gun control?

ball3006
January 23, 2006, 07:03 PM
they use to round up the illegal guns, dope, guys that busted parole, illegal immigrants, etc, when they come for our legal guns, we don't have a problem.........Uh, what gun? oh, I sold it years ago.........chris3

Biker
January 23, 2006, 07:11 PM
I'm not at all sure that folks as a group would resist. After all, although I'm sure that there were more than a few 'Out of my cold, dead fingers' bumper stickers in NOLA, I don't recall anyone shooting the gun confiscators or getting shot by the confiscators.
You know what they say...'When all is said and done, there's a lot more said than done'.
Hope I'm wrong...
Biker

fedlaw
January 23, 2006, 07:15 PM
We're in a culture war, not a shooting war.
Amen

hugh damright
January 23, 2006, 07:16 PM
I still have faith that Virginians, Carolinians, Texans, Georgians, Alabamians, Floridians, and others too, each would fight to be a people and to control their State.

The thing is, if we have a situation where the US/NG/UN is going into every State and confiscating all guns, then I think it would become too obvious that a minority of States have taken over, and it might make the States come alive. Didn't the Constitution say that if 9/13 States ratified it, then the Constitution would be in effect for them? In that same spirit, maybe 35/50 States would form a new Union rather than be disarmed/ruled by 15/50 States.

thereisnospoon
January 23, 2006, 07:34 PM
getting to know your local politicians and getting involved in the political process

That would be a god idea IF politics didn't revolve around $$$$$. Nothing you or I say on a local level effects anything when it comes time for a true politician to vote for his favorite lobbyists bill...Don't get me wrong, every once in a while "the People" can make enough noise to cause the pigs feeding at the public trough to pause and take note, but it is VERY RARE. I reserve the right to be this cynical about the political process based on recent allegations against Texas Senator DeLay and that Abramhoff dude...

I believe in the ballot box, right up to the point where it meets a politicians wallet.

When I mentioned the FFs I was referring to the way that we as a Nation of voters have been lulled to sleep to the point we have a very STRONG, CENTRALIZED, FEDERAL GOV'T, the one thing it seems ALL the FFs were against...

And, finally, mental masturbation isn't all that bad, once you get the hang of it...:D

mordechaianiliewicz
January 23, 2006, 07:37 PM
look folks, ain't happenin

in order for this to go down, 1st the gov would have to want to do so. I think the dems will forget gun control for a couple years on a national level, after all, it has been a losing strategy. I'm not sayin' it won't come back, but for the minute, no. At the same time, the Republicans? Hah!

If and i do mean if it ever went down, the states are way too concerned with funding highways, paying for gov jobs, & making themselves look good with tax payer dollars to give it up. Frog boiling is what these idiots have planned.

no, in that contingency, widespread domestic terrorism would lead to gov crackdowns on the other amendments. 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments would go away to support round ups.... but that would cause a groundroots revolution.

However, to do all this you would have to destroy the economy, find the idiots willing to do confiscation, & politicians willing to be targets, and i don't think anyone is that brave (more like foolhardy). Not to say this kind of thing can't or won't happen. \
It's just that it'll go down in s.africa, or brazil. places where the gun owners for one reason or another don't have the power they do here

CentralTexas
January 23, 2006, 08:05 PM
I am more likely to believe that one day, the neocons, who are NOT conservatives, "

I understand saying NeoCons aren't conservatives based on what Conservatives were long ago but how are they not the same now?
If the majority of elected Conservative Republicans are NeoCons then true Conservatives are the majority correct? I now return you to the actual thread...
CT

longeyes
January 23, 2006, 08:07 PM
More likely to happen when she confiscates the iPods for official gov't propaganda models (PropPods).

Guns are going the way of cigarettes.

cosine
January 23, 2006, 08:11 PM
You want to battle gun confiscators? Take 10 new people shooting this year. We're in a culture war, not a shooting war.

Ensuring that the culture of the firearm is preserved starts with education. We've all seen the posts and threads; reasonable debate, along with gentle pressure and the introducing of people to sport shooting works. As long as these actions continue, no gun confiscation will occur.

Fletchette
January 23, 2006, 08:13 PM
One of the most telling bits of evidence I've read was simply an account of early 20th century fancy-dress costume parties on ocean liners. It wasn't at all uncommon for crew to lend a passenger a revolver, sans ammunition or without the cylinder, for use in a cops-and-robbers skit or the like. And nobody panicked. Nobody screamed "A GUN!"...as they likely would now. Nobody tried to sue the ship owners for emotional distress because their children were exposed to a gun. It was an object. Nobody was using it threateningly.

So what happened?

WW2.

The government decided it needed to be everywhere and the people largely agreed.

CAnnoneer
January 23, 2006, 09:12 PM
Guns are going the way of cigarettes.

We normally agree on most issues, but not here. There are significant differences in demographics, at the least. From what I have observed, most smokers in this country are old people that cannot break the habit or do not care to do so. On the other hand, I see mostly young gunowners both at the range and in the local gun store. In addition, all kids blasting away in an avalanche of videogames at home are future gunowners. That is why the leftists and antis twist their panties in a bunch so badly over "violent games". They know that the digital revolution is working against them.

trueblue1776
January 23, 2006, 09:23 PM
as long as they allow application for class III weapons, there is no ban in sight, can you imagine all the belt fed's coming out of the woods in such an instance? :D :D :D

xd9fan
January 23, 2006, 09:32 PM
If states ever have the balls to do this...I'm sure there will be another mislabel war called the Civil war. (civil war is btwn two groups fighting for the central Govt) The south just wanted out...but the North forced them back in) anyway.....

Alex45ACP
January 23, 2006, 10:18 PM
If that ever happens, I plan to go on the offensive. I'm not going to just sit around and wait for them to kick in my front door at 3 am...

Croyance
January 23, 2006, 10:30 PM
Well I can see Hillary getting the nomination, since the Democrats go crazy for the Clintons. However, the Clintons really get many people mobilized against them. They are very polarizing.

However, a President cannot just pass bills on their own. So the next supposition is that their are enough anti-gun Congressmen and Senators to pass such a Bill into law.

Neither would every state allow their National Guard to be federalized.

So I really don't know such a thing will happen. These are purely long shot hypotheticals forced on us as fact "that we know will happen". Stop with the hyperbole and state it as is.

No states will secede on this issue. Nor will their be a revolution. By and large very few (percentage) gun owners will shoot law enforcement. More will grumble and swear. Killing somebody is not an easy thing, somebody else who only wants to get through the day.
Neither would every state comply nor every unit follow orders.

cuchulainn
January 23, 2006, 10:37 PM
<sigh>

Waitone
January 23, 2006, 11:01 PM
Never happen. I bring to your recollection the impact of 2 deranged semi-kestered shooters using a varmit round had on the mid-Atlantic region of the US. Effectively shut down that part of the world. Imagine the impact of multiple hundreds who know what they are doing. It won't happen because those to make the decisions do study the past.

What will happen is the boiled frog. Sue US makers out of business. Restrict ammo availability. Substitute tungsten for lead (children and all). Restrict import of tungsten. Restrict powder for reloaders (terror and so forth). Restrict primers (children). Cut back on FFL's. Harass gun dealers out of business (bATFE). Restrict imports of guns from other countries (BTDT). There exists a blue gazillion ways to harass gun owners without laying a finger on 'em.

The UN getting its fingers into the soup is not unexpected. Entire states have bit off on Agenda 21 and Sustainable development, etc. without the first vote. Its all been done via nameless, faceless bureaucrats. I look for the same kind of technique to get the UN intertwined with local government.

Cacique500
January 23, 2006, 11:09 PM
One of the most telling bits of evidence I've read was simply an account of early 20th century fancy-dress costume parties on ocean liners. It wasn't at all uncommon for crew to lend a passenger a revolver, sans ammunition or without the cylinder, for use in a cops-and-robbers skit or the like. And nobody panicked. Nobody screamed "A GUN!"...as they likely would now. Nobody tried to sue the ship owners for emotional distress because their children were exposed to a gun. It was an object. Nobody was using it threateningly.

So what happened?

If I recall correctly, they hit an iceberg and sank. ;)

Kodiaz
January 23, 2006, 11:27 PM
I dont think that the whole crab thing is in the works. Power has almost been consolidated. We have very little freedom left. That whole gun grab in New Orleans was a test to see if it would fly. Once they take our guns that's it we're done. Power corrupts absolute power corrupts absolutely. The gov. has been getting more power year after year. It is so close all they need now are our guns they don't want to wait a hundred years. We'll have another attack or a war or something and then it'll be we need to have marshall law give us your guns. I think I'll be here for that day and I won't be old when it happens either.
What I should say is when they try it.

Gifted
January 24, 2006, 12:10 AM
Succession would be better than revolution. You can get enough people together in one place to make things work, certain states are already collecting patriots from other states(Kali owners going to Arizona or Nevada for example), and with a bit more time, you might at least be able to get it on the ballot. And if you think the outcry over Iraq is bad, wait until the soccer moms see the tanks sittin on thier street corners. Just make sure you're trying to get into a fight, make the .gov look bad. They'll cut losses and continue with what they have, painting us as devils, and sanctioning us(like that'll work, I'm sure we'll have enough brains to figure out ways around that), all that, while they work to get to the point where they can send in the tanks. And by then we'll be ready.

All assuming it works out that way.

gunsmith
January 24, 2006, 12:15 AM
fat guys wearing camoflage in their Lazy Boys cleaning their SKS and invisioning themselves as rebel freedom fighters.:evil: :D :neener:

secamp32
January 24, 2006, 01:27 AM
My question was would any state be concerned enough over a large scale federal confiscation of firearms to secede (a political action not armed revolution).

I believe that if we have Dems in both houses of congress and the white house they would attempt to ban all guns. They'd start off slowly with a new AWB that has no grandfather clause and includes handguns with greater than 10 rounds. Then work their way up from there until they got them all.

And I've already got my tinfoil hat on. The voices stopped a while ago.
Also I never clean my guns on the Lazy-boy, the solvents are bad for the leather.

cbsbyte
January 24, 2006, 01:43 AM
Some of my ultra Liberal friends, have mentioned to me in conversations that there is a movement afoot to have New England succede from the union. I believe it started in Vermont, it is nowing become popular in the liberal areas in all of the NE states. Its seems to me that both political sides are entertaining the idea of succession. Its probably a pipe dream but it could happen if more people are willing to accept the dream.

KriegHund
January 24, 2006, 01:45 AM
WW2.

The government decided it needed to be everywhere and the people largely agreed.

Yes.

The nation hit an iceberg and sank like the revolver on the fancy boat...

beerslurpy
January 24, 2006, 01:54 AM
Speaking of pipes and the dreams derived therefrom....

I think that national confiscation is unlikely, both because the people concerned are well armed and the standing army (including police plus feds) is relatively small compared to the overall populace. You dont need high rates of resistance for it to get really messy.

Also, the politicians in this country are smart enough to see which way the wind blows. The precursors to confiscation in the 90s got congress turned upside down and shaken like an etch-a-sketch. I doubt a repeat is due anytime soon.

Secession wont happen for the same reason china wont play hardball with us. Golden handcuffs baby. Secession is probably possible militarily, but economically it would be the suck for everyone involved. If no one with money has any interest in doing something, how is it going to happen?

cbsbyte
January 24, 2006, 02:03 AM
Speaking of pipes and the dreams derived therefrom....

I think that national confiscation is unlikely, both because the people concerned are well armed and the standing army (including police plus feds) is relatively small compared to the overall populace. You dont need high rates of resistance for it to get really messy.

Also, the politicians in this country are smart enough to see which way the wind blows. The precursors to confiscation in the 90s got congress turned upside down and shaken like an etch-a-sketch. I doubt a repeat is due anytime soon.

Secession wont happen for the same reason china wont play hardball with us. Golden handcuffs baby. Secession is probably possible militarily, but economically it would be the suck for everyone involved. If no one with money has any interest in doing something, how is it going to happen?


I agree with you on sucession will not work. Sucession didn't happen for New England in 1812 even with a lot of popular support among politicans and citizen.

22-rimfire
January 24, 2006, 02:09 AM
National confiscation will not happen any time in the next 25 years. More controls, maybe; but not confiscation. It will happen slowly if it ever happens. The extremist citizen element would not react kindly to outright confisication and the anti-gun politicans know it.

meef
January 24, 2006, 03:02 AM
I don't know if one could draw any comparisons...... but it seems like the Australians did a fine job of resisting gun confiscation. No?

:scrutiny:

Croyance
January 24, 2006, 03:47 AM
My question was would any state be concerned enough over a large scale federal confiscation of firearms to secede (a political action not armed revolution).
No, gun ownership is not a primary issue that any state government is concerned about. Not up there with crime, local economy, etc.

Croyance
January 24, 2006, 03:50 AM
Secession wont happen for the same reason china wont play hardball with us. Golden handcuffs baby.
And vice versa. While the party out of the White House complains about China's Most Favored Nation trading status, each party reconfirms it when they are in the White House.
It is also the most dependable way to change the nature of their government. Why we wouldn't do that with Cuba, Korea, and Viet Nam is beyond me.

palerider1
January 24, 2006, 04:21 AM
if that ever happened i would move to a different country;:rolleyes:

Sinsaba
January 24, 2006, 08:30 AM
...'When all is said and done, there's a lot more said than done'.
Hope I'm wrong...
Biker

I haven't seen that one before!! I think I'll steal that for my sig.

I'm not at all sure that folks as a group would resist. After all, although I'm sure that there were more than a few 'Out of my cold, dead fingers' bumper stickers in NOLA, I don't recall anyone shooting the gun confiscators or getting shot by the confiscators. ...

I hope you are right. I saw in a post somwhere else something that might explain that... most of the people had already run. Had they tried that on a city that was 80% intact instead of one that was only 10% (or less?) the results might have varied.

LAK
January 24, 2006, 08:53 AM
Um, no. The government has been doing exactly that for a long, long time. I was involved in the City of Detroit's taking of a lot of land back in the late 1970s and early 1980s for the Chrysler Jefferson North Assembly Plant project. The City used eminent domain to take many hundreds of acres, spent millions of taxpayer dollars to clean it up and prep it, and then handed it over the Chrysler for a new plant. It wasn't even considered controversial at the time, because that sort of thing had been going on for as long as anyone could remember.

(etc)....
I think it is the frequency and extent of these thefts, and that media - mainstream and otherwise - are providing avenues of attention for any things previously the subject of a few local news stations, newpapers and citizens.
--------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedtstates.org

GEM
January 24, 2006, 12:02 PM
If that ever happens, I plan to go on the offensive. I'm not going to just sit around and wait for them to kick in my front door at 3 am...

You have just been put on the warrantless wire tap list. Thanks for telling us about this so we can set it up now. The Federal Government.

Correia
January 24, 2006, 04:10 PM
GEM, if you're not already on the To Do list, then you must not be living right. :)

hso
January 24, 2006, 04:28 PM
Will any states (Texas??) secede when President Hillary, in her second term federalizes the National Guard and sends them door to door to confiscate all your guns? (Maybe she let you keep a single shot .22 for a little while) She'll know who you are because in the first term there will be manditory gun and gunowner registration. So when this happens where can we go?


No state will secede under any of the circumstances you've laid out.

JJpdxpinkpistols
January 24, 2006, 05:21 PM
I don't know if one could draw any comparisons...... but it seems like the Australians did a fine job of resisting gun confiscation. No?

:scrutiny:

Lets take a moment and compare something:

http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html
http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/ABS@.nsf/0/1647509ef7e25faaca2568a900154b63?OpenDocument

298,000,000 US Population (rounded up)
1,400,000 service members
20,090,000 Aus Population (rounded up)
400,000 Service members

Now, lets just say, for giggles, that 1/2 the households in the US have a gun...and that is what the anti's suggest. that comes to 149 MILLION households with guns in the US, that the government knows about.

I would guess that there are at least another 100 million or so guns that are "hiding" in safes, lockers, footlockers, caches, wilderness caches, old mines, drug houses, lake-beds, car trunks, camper trailers, boats, rv's...you get the idea.

To give you some perspective... 7.1 million people abuse illicit drugs in the USA: http://www.dfaf.org/marijuana/whyharmful.php

Since the percentage of drug users stands are 2.3% of the overall population, and a good number of those folks are *known* to the authorities as well (I would say about 1/2 the number of addicts out there have a criminal record of some drug offense--my hunch...not fact). Yet we can't get all the drugs, and there is a LOT less of it out there, numerically. We don't even dent the supply...and there is a WOD going on!

If we can't even dent the supply of drugs to 2.3% of the population, when a significant percentage of those users are *known* to us, how can we do anything like a sweep of guns in any area.

Oh, and hillary won't even get the nod. :banghead:



::edited: got my percentages wrong::

alan
January 24, 2006, 07:30 PM
A likely answer, I think,to the original question is the folowing. In one word, NONE!!!

NineseveN
January 24, 2006, 08:09 PM
Hehe, threads like this are funny.

I agree that the slow roast is working, but I expect to see things ramp up again in the next 10 to 15 years. I know it sounds off given the political climate, but don't think for one minute that republicans are your friends. We've lost as much, if not more of our freedoms under Bush as we did Clinton...this is the new way of all things. The whole "party" thing is just a dog and pony show to divert us while the fat cats slice and dice and decide which part of your life each gets to rule.

We're in the middle of a game of risk played by men that without thier manipulative talents that they use on a dumbed down public, couldn't conquer a child's sandbox after recess...the worst part is, every time our attention is drawn to the man with the little Mexican burro on a string, a handful of our pawns are swiped away and we miss a turn.

JJpdxpinkpistols
January 24, 2006, 08:25 PM
We're in the middle of a game of risk played by men that without thier manipulative talents that they use on a dumbed down public, couldn't conquer a child's sandbox after recess...the worst part is, every time our attention is drawn to the man with the little Mexican burro on a string, a handful of our pawns are swiped away and we miss a turn.

Actually, I used to think that way.

I am seeing a heartwarming blend of cynicism. Here as in elsewhere. I don't think thing people are getting dumbER, I think that the dumb ones are starting to go away...the boomers are retiring...yes...those boomers. The people that sissified our nation. The people who sat on their asses while Islamists came to power. They are finally retiring, getting off the world stage, and making the dumb mistakes the elderly make.

Problem for the ruling powers is...well...frankly...kids is smart. They maybe lazy and stoned, but they are very smart. They are also politically aware. NOW, we need to reach out to them, while the time is ripe, and they are still playing their 1st person shoot-em-ups!

Alex45ACP
January 24, 2006, 08:46 PM
GEM, if you're not already on the To Do list, then you must not be living right. :)

Beat me to it :D

DigitalWarrior
January 25, 2006, 12:48 AM
I do not understand threads like this.

First, because there seems to be an assumption that the confiscation has not begun. I know I cannot buy an M16 in the states for less than 30k. I cannot buy an AR-15 or a .50 in California.

Second, because people assume that the goal is confiscation of weapons. In all likelyhood the goal is to ensure that people who would use weapons in an act of treason are not able to. That is done with monitoring and predictive behavioral models.

Third, shooting a person does little but garner sympathy and support for those who would disarm us by providing evidence that we cannot be trusted. Talking about it damages our reputation for both sound judgement and honesty.

Fourth, no one wants war on American, and we will go to darn near any length to avoid it.

DigitalWarrior

XMP
January 26, 2006, 05:54 PM
This is purely a hypothetical question; states don't actually have the right to secede -- Abe Lincoln

AirForceShooter
January 26, 2006, 06:06 PM
Texas defnitely has the RIGHT to secede.
They kept that right when they joined the Union.
I think that Florida also has the Right as it never formerly surrendered after the War of Northern Aggression. But I could be wrong on that one

AFS

Fletchette
January 26, 2006, 11:52 PM
I think the best bet for any resistance would be quiet insurrection. By that I mean that several states do not try to leave the union, as they probably could not garner enough political support, but they simply decide not to go along with the gun ban / confiscation. Local politicians would make watered-down complaints that "the Federal government is not funding us to enforce these new laws, so we cannot do so". Basically, they would copy the illegal immigration policies of many blue states - local cops cannot turn in people for owning guns. Gun owners will recieve amnesty if they contact the police for gun use (just like an illegal alien identified during a traffic stop cannot be deported). Basically, make it illegal in name only.

This is not the ideal solution. But it is a good resistance strategy. We as gun-owners despirately need a way to turn the politics around so that the defeat of a new anti-gun law is no longer cited as a "victory" and start actually repealling the gun control laws that are on the books. I love to know how to do that.

Taurus 66
January 27, 2006, 01:00 AM
Will any states (Texas??) secede when President Hillary, in her second term federalizes the National Guard and sends them door to door to confiscate all your guns?

That's a LOT of doors! WHOOEEE!

"Anyone for overtime, for about the next ... oh ... 25 years? Hell, we'll even throw in hazardous pay. If you haven't yet made out a will, you must do so before we start in on the neighborhoods. You have 1 hour."

progunner1957
January 27, 2006, 01:55 AM
Guns are going the way of cigarettes.
I can't see "The Government" ever outlawing cigarettes - hey, people have a Constitutional right to suck down poison smoke, right??

Too bad The Sheeple and "The Government" don't view the right to arms to be as important as the right to smoke. But then "The Government" doesn't make the billions off of the firearms makers that they do from the cigarette makers.

Neither do cigarettes present a roadblock to "The Government's" quest for absolute power with no accountability that an armed citizenry does - and that's what governmental antigun bigotry is all about: More power for "The Government."

dogbaloo
January 27, 2006, 03:00 AM
Texas defnitely has the RIGHT to secede.
They kept that right when they joined the Union.
I think that Florida also has the Right as it never formerly surrendered after the War of Northern Aggression. But I could be wrong on that one

AFS

With all due respect...it's urban legend. Texas does not have the right to secede. We screwed the pooch in 1845 my friend. Joined up with the union, and the days of an independent republic were gone never to return.

http://www.lonestarwebworks.com/texassecede/faq.asp

http://tafkac.org/politics/texas_secession_rights.html

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=/dorf/20041124.html

There's a mess of folks out there that would love you to believe it, but it simply ain't true. Even if it was, it would never, ever in a million light years happen.

Now, there IS a pretty significant chance that Mexico could take Texas back. I'm willing to bet there's a far greater chance of that happening.

Viva'!!!:what:

45Frank
January 27, 2006, 12:27 PM
Isn't most of the country now ran by a few states. NY, CA, NJ, and maybe one or two more. Check the laws in the above mentioned states. They are completly Socialist.:cuss:


then I think it would become too obvious that a minority of States have taken over,

hugh damright
January 27, 2006, 02:07 PM
I believe in a State's right to secession. The Declaration of Independence, our very founding, is based upon the States' right to secession. The States came first ... "State" means "Country". When the States formed a Confederation called "The US of A", they declared in the 2nd Article of Confederation that each State was retaining it's sovereignty. When the US Constitution was presented to the States, they were concerned about the US taking their sovereignty, so they requested our Tenth Amendment ... undelegated powers are reserved to the States, and the Constitution does not say that no State can secede from the Union therefore they have a constitutional right to do so. Also, when ratifying the Constitution, several States, including my State of Virginia, declared that we reserve the right to reclaim the powers being delegated. My Virginia Constitution also declares that the majority of Virginians have the right to alter or to abolish government and that means secede. Also, the Federalist Papers promised that the States were to bound only by their own voluntary act.

Further, if there is no right to secession, there is no need for State Militia, and there are no free States, and the real Second Amendment is dead ... But not to me it isn't, I still believe that Virginians have a collective right to come together and form militia to defend the free State which is by right ours.

mec
January 27, 2006, 02:11 PM
one of the north western states- Wyoming or Montana voted in one house at least, to refuse to do business with any aspect of the Federal government not authorized in the constitution. It was a protest vote against the Clinton administration and did not quite get into law.

m14rick
January 27, 2006, 02:11 PM
+1, hugh damright!

Leif
January 27, 2006, 02:59 PM
You can get enough people together in one place to make things work, certain states are already collecting patriots from other states(Kali owners going to Arizona or Nevada for example), and with a bit more time, you might at least be able to get it on the ballot.

Patriots don't dream about splitting up the country just because they have paranoid fantasies that the government will take all of their guns away tomorrow. Seems a rather unpatriotic thing to me ...

And "Red Dawn" is a lousy, inane movie ... :evil:

XMP
January 27, 2006, 03:51 PM
I believe in a State's right to secession.

You can believe in a state's right to secede all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that all the evidence you cite refers to the founding of the original United States, which essentially ceased to exist in its original form with Lincoln. If a state actually attempted to secede it would quickly find federal/imperial troops invading its borders to preserve the "more perfect union".

Gifted
January 28, 2006, 12:09 AM
Patriots don't dream about splitting up the country just because they have paranoid fantasies that the government will take all of their guns away tomorrow. Seems a rather unpatriotic thing to me ...And at the point where that sort of thing would eb on the ballot would be at the point where it's no longer a paranoid fantasy. Just as the socialist population of these states grew slowly to the point where they became the cessspits they are, eventually the population of patriots and such will eventually in certain areas reac hcritical mass. That's when the confrontations happen, as they realize that they are no longer being represented adequately in the federal government. THIngs like what Flechette said would happen first,
several states do not try to leave the union, as they probably could not garner enough political support, but they simply decide not to go along with the gun ban / confiscation. Local politicians would make watered-down complaints that "the Federal government is not funding us to enforce these new laws, so we cannot do so". Basically, they would copy the illegal immigration policies of many blue states - local cops cannot turn in people for owning guns. Gun owners will recieve amnesty if they contact the police for gun use (just like an illegal alien identified during a traffic stop cannot be deported). Basically, make it illegal in name only.
and as the local people start seeing the federal government as nosy and overbearing, they'll start pushing for change. the politicians will pick up on this quick. Here, I can see a few things happening:

they cut a deal to maintain the status quo, which stays for a while, before the process repeats again,

They manage some reform, which gets rid of some crap, and we settle into the liberty states, and the socialist states, but with disproportionate numbers,

They try for a peaceful successsion(I agree, with the way politicians are, someone will have to get shot before this happens), which either succeeds, or escalates into armed insurrection, or

We just go straight into insurrection(depends on when someone gets shot).

that insurrection might not stay contained in the liberty states, it might spread a bit, who knows. But there will be a confrontation, especially if the dems get into power again. RINOs would give us trouble the other way, we'd have to have some pretty good third parties in there, not likely any time soon. And that confrontation will begin on the streets, or in the halls of government. Let's hope it's peaceful.

Freedspeak
January 28, 2006, 02:22 AM
Personally, I don't think many states will secede, however I think many individuals may secede with extreme prejiduce! The states may then have to follow.

If you enjoyed reading about "Which states will secede when the gun confiscation begins?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!