May 8, 2003, 07:01 PM
This is kind of a follow-up on NIGHTWATCH's post about if the government took away your gun rights completely. Anyway, say some armed federal agents came to your house demanding your weapons, or else they would storm your house and arrest you. (of course this is assuming that this is happening nationwide to all gun owners that have not committed any crimes) Would you shoot back?
If you enjoyed reading about "What if..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org
today for the full version!
May 8, 2003, 07:22 PM
Anyone busting into my home would be considered the enemy, and appropriate action would be taken.
May 8, 2003, 07:27 PM
The first thing i would do is get the WORD OUT on this forum and others.:banghead:
May 8, 2003, 08:35 PM
If it was as you stated, a general "we're coming to get them all" act then I'd say that things must already be in the toilet and that there would be very little to lose since it would be obvious that most of our rights were gone.
Try and get the word out to as many people on-line as you can, lock, load and stand by to repel boarders.
As has been pointed out before, Nazi Germany may have ended up a quite different story if Jews had met the SS troopers at their door with a bang rather than a compliant “yes, sir.”
May 8, 2003, 08:41 PM
I think many folks are in the same situation as me. If all the guns in my safe and cabinet disappeared, I'd certainly be upset, but I wouldn't be unarmed. And if the guns that might not be in the safe or the cabinet are found, I still wouldn't be unarmed.
It pays to have friends or family that you trust absolutely implicitly. ;)
To answer the question, if someone knocked on my door or yelled at our house through a megaphone, all would go peacefully. If agents were walking up my hill and shot my dog, there would be another Ruby Ridgin' goin' on. And if agends batter my door down and come in with guns, I'm going down fighting because that's exactly what this country is founded on.
There's a right way to do things and a wrong way to do things and eventually the government along with all of its abbreviated agencies will figure that out.
May 9, 2003, 02:24 AM
It is hard to speculate about what one might do. One never knows until the moment arrives. I hope and pray it never does.
May 9, 2003, 02:32 AM
Unless I am caught flat footed and I am sure my family would be killed/captured, I won't shoot back. I'll shoot first.
May 9, 2003, 05:25 AM
This poll is a little bias, a 3rd response might be "as a law abiding citizen" I will obey the law but will work to see this law repealed by due process. To say that banning gun ownership is living in tyranny is narrow minded and inaccurate. Every right we have is regulated to some extent, its called government. You demand others obey the laws you agree with but YOU get to pick and choose? How do you stand on abortion, thats an unpopular law also, I guess you support people's "rights" to destroy clinics and kill law abiding citizens. They get to pick and choose the laws they will obey just like you. What about drunk driving? Boy, I bet a great many more people would choose not to obey that one. Your idea of freedom and rights amounts to nothing more than a suicide pact. Next you are going to say what a great patriot you are, like the guy that blew-up that government building a few years ago (your name isn't Tim is it?). Or the 911 terrorists (patriots) that took down the twin towers, they got to pick and choose just like you. Where does it stop and where is the logic?
May 9, 2003, 05:56 AM
:rolleyes: Sure... of course I would. :D
May 9, 2003, 06:10 AM
In agreement with telewinz, I too think that the wording here is a little biased. But I still went with #1. If the government ever gets to the point when they decide that they're above what they are founded upon, then it is not only our right, but our duty to revolt.
I'd stop by the gun shop too. They might have a few sales on arms and ammo I could take advantage of before defending my god-given rights. :D
May 9, 2003, 06:45 AM
If we ever let it come to that, I would probably move to another country.
May 9, 2003, 11:13 PM
Telewinz brings up a point. But like Dionysusigma said, it is our duty to revolt. Ensuring that our freedoms are protected is our number one priority as citizens of the U.S.
May 9, 2003, 11:21 PM
Well, by the time I was old enough to get my "gun license" here in Australia last year, the tyranny was already well in place: and legislation was (and still is) in the works to ban even more guns: this time, the majority of defensive handguns, cultimating in another horrid, futile and wasteful "buyback" at the end of this year.
:cuss: :banghead: :fire: :barf: :mad: :(
May 10, 2003, 05:32 AM
"Our duty is to revolt" c'mon, the prisons are full of people you and I happily put their because they revolted against the system. Democracy demands just as much tolerance and responsibility as it does freedom, it has always been a political compromise that requires intelligent and responsible people to succeed. The situation stated was "they are coming to get your guns", 80 years ago they were coming to get your bottle(s) of Jim Beam or Mad Dog. For the last 70 years, most of us can drink our Jim Beam legally, the law was repealed by Due Process. The system works, he didn't say democracy had been flushed down the toilet. Hmmm, sounds like we have a few "Sunshine Patriots". We gun owners have lost and will lose a battle on occasion (as does any special interest group) that doesn't mean we lost the War. Classified Ad: FULL-TIME HELP....... Looking for a few Law Abiding Citizens, part-timers need not apply. Take the High Road even if it hurts, in the long run you will win more converts and the WAR.
May 10, 2003, 11:00 AM
no, I would not want a confrontation with LE, you cant fight the
government, unless you want to get killed? if they want the guns
that bad they can have them, my family and my life are more important than material objects. :(
May 10, 2003, 12:42 PM
I keep seeing this issue come up over and over and over again. Always with the same result. However, I submit that we have pretty much been losing this battle for our rights under the 2nd for about 70 years. We haven't won anything, only lost. Yet no-one has played the "From my cold-dead hands" trump yet.
I keep posting this noise over and over again in some form or another trying to get either a really good rebuttal so that I'll shut up, or a concensus that things resemble what I perceive them to be.
Please, I am not trying to be inflamatory, only trying to get a discussion of the heart of the matter to the forefront. Please know that I only me "you" or "we" in the literal sense, not the read sense.
"I quote myself from our Alma Mater
"They" won't come and get "your" guns.
"You" will turn them in.
Please, this is just rhetoric, don't construe this to mean that I believe anyone here will or won't turn in their guns. I'm just working with the wording of the question. About "accepting" tyranny an all.
Moving right along.
"We the People" have a right, enumerated in the Bill of RIghts to keep and bear arms. Simple.
"They" have no claims on this right, by law.
However, they do make claims on this right, like saying that one cannot bear arms. In what many consider to be the best cases, without a permit.
So, folks go out and get permits.
Now, on a purely pragmatic level, this is the only sensible way to proceed.
However, on a more philosophic level, this strongly implies that those who applied for permits accept the claim of the government over RKBA.
A devils deal if you will.
From a point of pure ideology, a ccw is a concession to the states claim over your inalienable right to keep and bear arms. From a point of pure practicality, a ccw is the only practical approach.
So, by extension, "They" will not need to come and get "your" guns. All they need to do is keep narrowing the definition of what you can and cannot own (National Firearms Act) and making it not too horrible to comply with the laws, until there is hardly anything that fits the profile of a legal arm, without those arms being fully registered and tracked.
Then, as time goes by, they will do buy-backs and turn-ins, until eventually, the only folks who have firearms are the "They" of which you speak and outlaws.
The good and decent law abiding will have disarmed a long time ago.
I'm not saying it will be easy, I'm not saying that there won't be a lot of fuss, but in the end, as in the all years since 1934, "They" will get them all. Time favors the patient in this, as in most things.
The pressure is on us, not them."
May 10, 2003, 01:29 PM
I imagine there would be a standoff, at which point I would demand confirmation of the warrant. If the warrant was valid and they had the right address (my greatest concern IMO), then I would surrender.
May 10, 2003, 01:41 PM
Everyone is a tough guy on the internet.
If "the government" kicks down your door with you, your wife, and kids in the house, and you decide to fight back, everyone is going to be killed. Count on that.
May 10, 2003, 01:46 PM
The whole problem lies with the way the 2nd amendment is written, it's not as concise as the 1st amendment. It is and logically can be interperated several ways (as the Bible is) by educated and intelligent people with a biased or unbiased view. Yes, I've read what our forefathers had to say on the subject but it's not enough, that why the BAN against slavery has never been overturned in a court of law. So the battle continues, it not for the weak minded nor the "SunShine Patriots". We have to win the hearts and minds of the American voter by our responsible actions, not by threats and loud voices. McVee, Ruby Ridge, and Waco are hardly worthy to be considered the "Poster Children" of the Pro-gun movement. They were guilty felons who refused to answer for their actions to the proper authorities, or are we still picking and choosing which laws we respect. At the time of WACO, no one I spoke to thought the government acted harshly, we were angry that the government took so long to subdue the "nut". When the women and children were killed, the public washed their hands of all responsibility. The stand-off was ended only because of the political pressure bought to bear by John Q. Public, how quickly some forget.:scrutiny:
May 10, 2003, 06:29 PM
If the rebels in the Revolutionary War had an attitude like Captain Scarlet, we'd all be speaking with a British accent right now.
May 10, 2003, 06:37 PM
Are those the only choices?
May 10, 2003, 07:18 PM
Only about a 1/3 of the colonials actively supported the rebellion the rest were either against it or indifferent. In truth, the colonials were treated and taxed much less (1/25th) than an Englishman living in London or anywhere else in the empire. If all the taxes imposed upon the colonies had suceeded, combined they would not have paid the expenses incurred by the British to protect the 13 colonies, they only wanted the colonies to help defray their expense, not bear even a major portion of the cost. Ben Franklin left to negotiate with the crown to avoid war, he was instructed NOT to except ANY OFFER no matter how reasonable or fair it was.
There is high school history and then their is the real thing. HMMM, I wonder what the tax rate was for the average citizen AFTER we won our freedom (you will recall that our soldiers were by and large "stiffed" by the U.S. after the war for years). What do you want to bet it was much higher? I can't think of one new freedom we gained from our victory, we were even permitted to have our own flag if we wished, all we had to do was obey legal authority. Things sure are different today.:uhoh:
I'm going to start a poll to see if we should repeal our Declaration of Independance, we have been had!:D
May 11, 2003, 04:32 AM
Okay, so it seems most of us enjoy freedom, but a few of us are socialist pigs. The good news is that if you feel you are suffering from SPS (Socialist Pig Syndrome), you can get help. SPA (Socialist Pigs Anonymous) meets the first Tuesday of every month at 7:00 PM in your local church basement. Remember, the first step is admitting you have a problem.:neener:
May 11, 2003, 10:29 AM
I bent my tinfoil hat!
what other evil lurks....
May 11, 2003, 11:19 AM
Boy, I don't come here much, but this one got me to post back, mostly because of some serious flaws in the logic.
...I guess you support people's "rights" to destroy clinics and kill law abiding citizens. They get to pick and choose the laws they will obey just like you. What about drunk driving? Boy, I bet a great many more people would choose not to obey that one. Your idea of freedom and rights amounts to nothing more than a suicide pact. Next you are going to say what a great patriot you are, like the guy that blew-up that government building a few years ago (your name isn't Tim is it?). Or the 911 terrorists (patriots) that took down the twin towers, they got to pick and choose just like you. Where does it stop and where is the logic?
Gun ownership is not an infringment upon someone else's right to life, or property. To say that allowing people to hurt other people or to destroy their property is okay because they have that "right" is entirely flawed.
We have the right to worship who, where, and what we may, BUT if you choose to offer human sacrifice to your god(s) that is just a bit of an infringement upon the life of the sacrifice, don't you think? And as such you would be charged with murder. Now, if you don't agree with the law, and you start crying, "It infringes upon my right to worship!" you've got some seriously mixed up values that need some straightening out.
Those who cry, "He has a gun! He's infringing upon my right to feel safe!" really don't understand what a right really is, nor do they understand what personal responsibility is. And when fighting against this warped thinking in the legislation and the courts does not work, then people who DO understand these principles are left with only two choices: Acquiesce or start shooting.
It seems to me that about 1/3rd of the colonists chose the latter (according to you).
While I think this poll is biased, I ceratinly can't agree with your flawed logic against it.
May 11, 2003, 03:04 PM
Since when does History have anything to do with logic? Also who defines "warped" thinking in the courts and legislature? The unhappy minority, the uninformed? If a responsible person with a good idea can't convince a simple majority of the idea's worth, maybe its not a good idea? Regardless, in a democracy even the uninformed are allowed to voice their opinions thru just about any media channel you wish. You and I have NO more right to pick and choose our laws than Randy Weaver did, the ignorant masses don't write the laws or administer them in this country. I believe they tried that once in France, they called it the Reign of Terror otherwise know as the French revolution. I don't know of any RIGHT thats isn't regulated to some extent, thats probably a good thing. If your understanding of the 2nd amendment is not being practiced properly, follow due process and convince the non-believers to your way of thinking with logic and reason, anything else is just so much background noise. I am a veteran and a law abiding citizen, I don't like some of the regulations I am required to follow but I still possess a gun collection and it can shrink or grow at my choosing, whats the problem?
May 11, 2003, 04:28 PM
You have obviously missed the point of the poll and my post.
May 11, 2003, 05:47 PM
I don't know what you are talking about.
May 11, 2003, 09:26 PM
No one will take my guns!!!
May 12, 2003, 11:51 AM
Very simple question, very profound answer. Think awhile before you post.
- I am not a law-abiding citizen. I break laws all the time, knowingly and enthusastically. I have neither the desire nor the ethical obligation to obey laws that are enforced upon me without my consent, by people provably less intelligent and less moral than myself.
We as a community need to get over this sense of meek compliance with the law, however inane. Instead, let's aggressively challenge bad law at every opportunity, through noncompliance and civil disobedience ans well as legislative and judicial lobbying.
- If you plan on getting into a firefight with the local SWAT team/BATFE task force, please, do yourself a favor and stick the gun in your mouth instead. The result will be no less certain, and it'll probably hurt less.
Seriously, if the JBTs are coming thru the door and you still have your illegal guns, then your choices are as follows: Surrender, and get hauled off to jail, or start a firefight with the SWAT goons and get yourself and your family killed. Not a nice solution set, but you have no one to blame but yourself - you didn't prepare while you could. Going out in a blaze of glory is nice and all, but it's better to fight smart.
- If it even comes down to a fight, the pro-freedom side has already lost 90% of the war. A lastingly free society has never, not once in history, resulted from a bloody revolution, not even our much-heralded American Revolution (how free were the Pennsylvania farmers when Washington's tax army came down on them?)
Creating a free(er) state, and letting the wheat and the chafe seperate under their own power, is the only solution I can think of that has any possibility of success.
Points to ponder...
May 12, 2003, 11:56 AM
If we ever let it come to that, I would probably move to another country.
man....talk about patriotism at its best
May 12, 2003, 12:05 PM
I have neither the desire nor the ethical obligation to obey laws that are enforced upon me without my consent
That is absurd. Using that logic, nobody is a true criminal because everyone would deny the validity of the laws they break, including murderers and rapists. This is the philosophy of the moral relativist - "I did not ascribe to this law, therefore it is not a law unto me."
A lastingly free society has never, not once in history, resulted from a bloody revolution
That is because, based on your definition of free, no free society has ever existed. They only live in your fantasy world and the twilight dreams of your favorite sci-fi writer.
May 12, 2003, 02:34 PM
For those of you not awake this has already happened in the USA! The class 3 community has been harrassed when ever possible buy the US govenment and in almost all cases there were no laws broken by these people That were raided on weak info or in some cases open ended warrants.
May 12, 2003, 05:25 PM
And what responsible position do you hold (if any)? I doubt that you are the rebellious person you say claim to be.(maybe jaywalking or minor shop lifting) or your return address would be from some city, county, state or federal "institution". You are what gives responsible gun ownership a bad name....but I respect your right to express your unique form of "law abiding citizen". I disavow that you and I are talking on the same subject, responsible gunownership, or that we have ANY common cause. Give me advanced warning if you ever visit this neck of the woods so I can have the security cameras turned on.
I read the rules and regulations a person AGREES to BEFORE they take on the added responsibility of a class 3 weapons permit. This day and age its a wonder class 3's are even issued. Events are over taking us, with one or two of the posts I've read in this thread the "security" is prudent and justified.:scrutiny:
May 12, 2003, 05:34 PM
Again, rockjock, look at the laws that we are talking about. Do you think that black citizens were obligated to obey laws that required they sit in the back of the bus, for example? Do you always make a point of obeying the multitude of laws regarding speed limits, yard ornaments, and the proper disposal of lawn clippings?
If so, fine and dandy, but don't expect me to respect you for your adherance. You are, in effect, using the decisions of petty burecrats and political shysters as a substitute for a brain. That ain't nothing to be proud of.
I've agreed to abide by three simple rules; the only ones a free society requires. I don't attack others, I don't steal from them, and I honor my contracts. Anything else, y'all can keep.
That is because, based on your definition of free, no free society has ever existed. There have been a very few, very short-lived free societies extant throughout history. Post-Revolution America, prior to the signing of the Constitution was one.
Also, I'm curious as to what you think my definition of 'free' is, and what about it you object to. PM me if you wish to continue, natch.
May 12, 2003, 06:33 PM
As a matter of fact blacks were required to sit in the back of the bus and were jailed for not doing it. It only stopped when responsible citizens had the laws changed by due process (it wasn't the Black Panthers). Thats what happens to bad laws (majority opinion) in this country. Your simple rules are for simple times, but these are not simple times. Their are petty politcians as their are petty people, it requires a case by case evaluation to be accurate but the petty people seldom make it to a position of responsibility and influcence and if they do, they are almost always outnumbered by the more responsible. I will except our culture's current values on freedom. Elsewhere they may have more freedom but it comes at a cost, like a lower standard of living (3rd world countries) and corruption. I've lived in a 3rd World country, they could give us lessons on corruption and violent crime. "Total freedom" means no government and chaos (before civilization), I know better than to desire that.
May 12, 2003, 09:38 PM
As a matter of fact blacks were required to sit in the back of the bus and were jailed for not doing it. That's kind of my point. Would you have advised the aforementioned black citizens just abide by the law until some abstract 'due process' frees them? If so, that speaks poorly of your own morality...
Again - no one is under any obligation to obey bad law. Lex mallum, lex nula.
Your simple rules are for simple times, but these are not simple times. So explain to me how, and under what circumstances, my Big Three rules of social deportment are inadequate.
Their are petty politcians as their are petty people, it requires a case by case evaluation to be accurate but the petty people seldom make it to a position of responsibility and influcence and if they do, they are almost always outnumbered by the more responsible. Um, how many counter-examples would you care for? Feinstein, Kennedy, Schumer, Moran, Bush, Clinton, Reno, Bush II, dozens more...these are the majority. In point of fact, the petty and corrupt are attracted to politics because politics give them a simple means of gaining power over others.
If you are afraid of freedom, if you doubt your ability to function in a free society, that's okay. It's not for everyone. But I won't accept your demands that I give up my freedoms to provide you, or anyone else, with security.
May 12, 2003, 11:52 PM
Do you always make a point of obeying the multitude of laws regarding speed limits, yard ornaments, and the proper disposal of lawn clippings?
As a matter of fact, I am in the midst of a legal battle with my county government to change an ordinance that makes no sense. No one has challenged this ordinance thus far because they feel a fight against the govt. is futile, but I am doing it on principle. It is costing me time and quite a bit of money, but I am making my stand publicly and my fight within the bounds of the legal system. I don't skulk around giggling under my breath while breaking pissant rules that no one notices and thinking myself a brave patriot. The problem with your attitude is that you are no different than most other sheep; while they blindly accept rules without questioning why they are there and if they actually do any good, you blindly disregard anything that is inconveninent to you without asking (or apparently, caring) if they serve any useful purpose. In fact, your universal disregard for rules is no different than a universal acceptance of same. Both attitudes show a lack of independent thought and responsibility.
May 13, 2003, 05:39 AM
The sole purpose of the regulation of our rights is to impose common sense and responsible behavior on those who are lacking in this area. You have the freedom to drive down main street in any car you wish but not at 80 mph. You can still get a license to buy dynamite, just don't use it or store it in my neighborhood. You can still own a class 3 weapon, just don't leave it laying unattended in the back seat of your unlocked vehicle. The exercise of your rights should not come at the expense of my rights (their are other rights besides gun ownership).
May 17, 2003, 06:11 PM
Chris, good points but........
"We as a community need to get over this sense of meek compliance with the law, however inane. Instead, let's aggressively challenge bad law at every opportunity, through noncompliance and civil disobedience as well as legislative and judicial lobbying".
I am all for what your are saying and do get your point. But by your statements you must have ideas about how to do these things. Tell us how you would non comply or be civilly disobedient.
I am not saying this to put you on the spot or to flame but I want to know how to fight in ways that we are not doing so now and to begin before the JBTs come through the door.
I am an active politician and belong to several gun rights groups. I am willing to try something different if it would help.
If you enjoyed reading about "What if..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org
today for the full version!