[yucapote]

I've been reading for a while that lots of you are always screaming on top of your lungs that "if they want my guns they have to come and get them." This forum is plagued with SHTF threads so I'll play too.

MOLON LABE! That means that most of you are willing to fight for your RKBA, therefore most of you are willing to die for it too, rigth? Let's assume that one day, and I pray to the Lord that this day never become reality, the President and Congress decides that all weapons, even those legally owned, are banned. All efforts and legislation created to stop that evil desicion are worthless. The government gives you 90 days to hand them all of your weapons. Many gun owners obey and many won't. If you failure to do so in that established time they will send a couple of local LEOs to your home to take the weapons from you.

Officer Smith and Hall knock at your door with warrant to seize your guns, that's when you scream MOLON LABE! and start killing them with your tactical carbine, this scenario is happening all over the USA. Then the government sent the local SWAT and if you are lucky you repel them too. Who's next, the National Guard, the Army, the Marines.... you get the point.

Are you really going to kill those that are only recieving orders from above?Are you going to shoot at those who are serving their country? Many of them will be those who train with you at the local range, even some THR'ers.

WILL YOU PULL THE TRIGGER? Please be honest with yourself and avoid personal attacks.

BTW I'm not anti. Just someone who uses his critical thinking skills, but just in case I'm wearing a tactical flame suit.

If that scenario ever happens I'll probably render my only two guns. But not before buying one on the streets, with plenty of ammo :evil: . Or even better moving to another country that supports gun ownership, if such a place really exists.

[Pilgrim]

If it comes to that, you will be a fool to sit in your house waiting for the knock on the door.

Pilgrim

[geekWithA.45]

This is a question that every gunowner needs to come grips with, and arrive at their own conclusion.

The key is to fight smart, and fight now with the hammer of our votes, so that dropping other hammers in the future is less likely.

At the end of the day, there are some things worth fighting for, and if it's worth fighting for at all, it's worth fighting to win.

That means sometimes you make tactical concessions, and other times you stand firm.

At the end of the day, so long as it is believed that

A) "Off Paper" firearms exist and
B) At least SOME people would be willing to use them to defend their unalienable rights, and yes, this means potentially killing people, that day will never come.

And the more of A and B there are, the better.

[El Tejon]

yuca, several members of this forum, including El Tejon's eeevil alter ego, have lived in cities where the RKBA was a nullity. We did not comply with their inane, immoral and unconstitutional laws then, nor shall we in the future.

[Harold Mayo]

It isn't a matter of whether or not a citizen will "pull the trigger" or not, in my belief. It's more a matter of whether or not the SWAT team, the Marines, etc. that you mentioned are going to do their own job. Wars aren't won by killing everyone in sight...they're won by failure of morale or resolve on the part of one of the combatants. All you have to do is have enough people martyr themselves and take enough of the "order-takers" with them that resolve is broken.

I had an old government employee tell me once that he didn't see the big deal about "gun nuts" and how they thought that they could defend themselves against the government. After all, he said, the government has tanks and planes and stuff and what can a citizen do against that? Well...a citizen can set up an ambush and kill a leader. A citizen can poison military foodstuffs. A citizen can contaminate fuel. A bunch of citizens can show up peacefully protesting with their children in tow, implicitly daring the military to fire upon them. A citizen can befriend members of an oppressive military and get information from them. There are a lot of things that a citizen can do and there are ALWAYS far more citizens than soldiers.

Please reference what happened in the Warsaw ghettos in the beginning years of WWII and that was just a small number of people with no training or experience, no caches of weapons or plans in advance. There are enough people in THIS nation who are prepared, even in small ways, for this eventuality that I really pity anyone who goes in against them. Lose? I'm sure most would on an individual basis, but at what cost to the government that they are fighting?

The scenario of the government banning a bunch of weapons out of the blue and then confiscating them won't happen. It will be (is)a gradual thing, the loss of facets of the freedom to keep and bear arms over time so that people become used to it and protest little. The government won't have to take guns from most people because, by then, the fire will have been bred out of the citizens and they either won't have weapons or will give them up relatively peacefully.

[SunBear]

You are assuming that all those levels of enforcement will do as they are told. I don't believe that scenario is likely. They are us. Their families are us. Happy trails.

[Denver]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If that scenario ever happens I'll probably render my only two guns. But not before buying one on the streets, with plenty of ammo .
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Right on!

Pilgrim is also on the money!

There is an article that I have read, (and I'll be hornswoggled if I can remember where... Of course I think I saw it at guntruths.com, which is on a temporary hiatus, I am told.) that talks about the effectiveness of the unorganized militia in a theoretical SHTF scenario against the U.S. Armed Forces.

A small band of not so highly organized, but exceedingly motivated individuals succeeding with weapons, crude in comparison to the forces they are opposing, is not without historical precedent:

The fact that the Japanese were hesitant to land on U.S. soil because of their expectation of a house to house battle with each and every farmer and peasant on the continent, for one! (Japanese SUBJECTS have been discouraged from keeping personal implements of warfare since at least the time of the Shoguns and maybe even longer.)

The Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, for another. Imagine if the Nazi patrols were ambushed in a few more stairways and alleys.

That kind of surprise has taken the wind out of the sails of quite a few despicable types throughout history. And it still does!

Why else do tyrants first disarm the intended victims? If a government did not fear a few little firearms in the hands of it's citizens, why would they even bother to even TRY disarming them? A governments' attempts to disarm their own people is PROOF that a few measly little pop-guns are indeed a HUGE threat to even highly trained, well equiped, modern military forces.

Someone mention Irag vs. U.S. and I will point out that that country has been delivered of a monstrous tyrant that the people are thrilled to be rid of. It's not a comparable scenario. Unless you look at all of the indigenous help we have thus far recieved!!! And that will only enhance my argument, won't it!

IMHO, it's tremendously pesimistic to think that the forces of evil, no matter how galantly disguised, cannot be repelled and vanquished by a determined resistance of Peace Loving patriots, however vilified by the mouthpieces of the tyrants.

Can you tell I'm a JPFO member?

And yes, I WILL pull the trigger.

[Zedicus]

one thing I rarely see mentioned on this kind of sinario...

Do you honestly think that the Millitary would do something that suicidal?

It is more likely that the Millitary (or atleast parts of it) would turn on the goverment before they obeyed orders to go aganst innocent/law abiding civillians.

just my $0.02

[Drjones]

Yucapote:

Read this: http://www.frontiernet.net/~lendringser/declaration.htm


I've made up my mind to fight.

[Balog]

I'd also point you to http://home.hiwaay.net/~sickler/opforstuff/goodstuff/onepistol.htm

[Standing Wolf]

Are you really going to kill those that are only recieving orders from above?

Ach, ja, but I vas only following orders, und besides, zey vere only Chews, vere dey not?

[Derek Zeanah]

the President and Congress decides that all weapons, even those legally owned, are banned. All efforts and legislation created to stop that evil desicion are worthlessThat's actually a pretty tough question. Some thoughts you'll need to mull over for a while...

1. Do you believe in "democracy?" What if you get a situation like this where the majority imposes their will on a minority. They're just a bunch of soccer moms voting like any reasonable person would vote after watching the "in depth" news reporting we get on the nightly news, right?

You might come back with "but they overstepped their bounds by infringing on my rights," but then you are facing a couple more issues:
Does anyone have the right to use force in defense of their rights? What about the right to keep every penny that they earn? Or the right to hunt on the "public" land that joins their property.
How can you try and hold politicians accountable if all they did was look at polling numbers and vote the way people told them to vote? Should you instead hold the general populace accountable? How about offing all the teachers and bombing all the news media?
If you have your uprising and you win, what then? Will you trust the same group of people who tried to "destroy your freedom" not to do it a second time, or do you have a better form of government in mind? What kind of legitimacy will the new form of government have, and would those disenfranchised by the new system have the same right to an uprising that you took advantage of?Now, who to shoot is an easier question to look at if we take a step back and use another society as an example. How about.....Nazi Germany (bet you knew that was coming).
Is it ok to shoot Hitler, Himmler, and the like?
What about Rommel, and those who were good at "serving their country."
What about personal assistants to the above.
What about the politicians who voted to give Hitler his power -- they honestly didn't know what they were doing.
What about the prison camp guards who enjoy their jobs?
What about the guards who were assigned to the job and are afraid to resign or refuse to do the job because of the clear consequences of doing so?
What about the cameraman who shows up every few weeks to document what's going on in the camps? Or the secretarial pool, typing away all day making sure the orders needed to keep the society running get created and routed appropriately. Or the foundry worker who makes steel to build tanks? Or the contractors who build the "showers" that we've all heard so much about? Or the telephone worker who makes sure that calls go through. Or the powerline guy in a cherry picker? Infrastructure is vital to the effectient performance of the Reich's important tasks, after all.
How about the people who continue to lead productive lives and quietly pay the taxes that enable the government to do what it's doing?"Government" is a vague term. What you're talking about is a bunch of different people trying to make it month-to-month, most of whom have families, and dreams, and who honestly want to make the world a better place. Now, I'm going to assume that we all agree that enacting the "final solution" to the "jewish problem" wasn't actually going to make the world a better place, but there were likely people who truly believed in that goal. Are you going to punish them and their families because they simply believed what they were told to believe, then did their part?

Hell yes. They helped murder 11 million "undesirables." Serial killers who think they're doing God's will because "God" talked to them through their dog don't get a free ride either, even though most religious people would say that working to accomplish God's will is the most noble act man can engage in.

Evil is evil. Evil is still evil if it's being done in the name of all that's good. Hell, evil is still evil even if it's the "lesser evil." (Let's see if the thread forks here ;) )

The question is this: "revolution" and "civil war" are terms that describe a lot of death on both sides; where people kill other people based on ideology. It's nasty business, and is really a last resort option. Is it worth starting a chain of events that may kill millions of Americans over this? Is it about more than guns -- is it losing access to your favorite toy, or is it a line that once crossed means that everything else is lost, and there's no point trying to salvage the republic?

These are tough questions, and they're questions that everyone needs to ask themselves.

It's one thing to defend your life against a bunch of ninja-clad goons as they charge your house with machine guns -- everything is lost at that point anyway, at least for you personally. It's another to realize that all those ninja-wannabees are daddies too, and to initiate actions that will result in a lot of little girls without a daddy to come home to at night. And it's a completely different level to go after the soccer mom down the street because she turned someone in, honestly believing that guns are evil and that she was doing her Christian Duty to make the world a better place.

[Denver]

Zedicus, you are correct!

That was one of the items mentioned in that lost article I mentioned. Though there have been some scary polls done of some Marine units, as I recall, that suggested there was still a significant portion of the enlisted who felt it would be OK to fire on U.S. citizens if ordered to do so.

The poll was done by a Marine officer of some rank as I recall. (PLEASE forgive me for not being able to properly footnote these recollections...)

[Derek Zeanah]

Do you honestly think that the Millitary would do something that suicidal?

It is more likely that the Millitary (or atleast parts of it) would turn on the goverment before they obeyed orders to go aganst innocent/law abiding civillians.Assume it's not about a "revolution" or a "civil war," but instead it's about terrorism.

Raise your hand if you think this sort of thing will be reported as anything but terrorism.

Now, will soldiers target the "terrorists" they're told are "trying to destroy our freedom?" Will you support said terrorists? What if these terrorists try to con you into believing that they're freedom fighters?

[Denver]

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep discussing what to have for lunch.

Sir Derek,

Have you not read from chapter twelve of Lysander Spooners' 1852 Essay on the Trial by Jury? :

"When two men meet one upon the highway, or in the wilderness, have they a right to dispose of his life, liberty, or property at their pleasure, simply because they are the more numerous party?

"Or is he bound to submit to lose his life, liberty, or property, if they demand it, merely because he is the less numerous party?

"Or, because they are more numerous than he, is he bound to presume that they are governed only by superior wisdom, and the principles of justice, and by no selfish passion that can lead them to do him a wrong?

"Yet this is the principle, which it is claimed should govern men in all their civil relations to each other.

"Mankind fall in company with each other on the highway or in the wilderness of life, and it is claimed that the more numerous party, simply by virtue of their superior numbers, have the right arbitrarily to dispose of the life, liberty, and property of the minority; and that the minority are bound, by reason of their inferior numbers, to practise abject submission, and consent to hold their natural rights, -any, all, or none, as the case may be, -at the mere will and pleasure of the majority; as if all a man's natural rights expired, or were suspended by the operation of a paramount law, the moment he came into the presence of superior numbers.

Also, kind Sir,

As perfect a government as the world has ever seen is embodied by all those who actually believe in adhering to the letter of the constitution. Those who ignore our constitution and trample all over it are EXACTLY the people who that document was designed to protect us from!

There are plenty of us out here who still believe that this republic can still work.

Another perfectly accurate platitude jumps to mind:

"All it takes for the forces of evil to triumph is for enough good people to do nothing."

I will harbour the Jews and shoot the Nazis in ANY of their iterations.

Hitler used the media to his advantage also. Terrorist, Jew, Militia Nut, Whathaveyou... I repeat, I will harbour the Jews and shoot the Nazis in ANY of their iterations.

[Brian Dale]

My high-school introduction to Communism in civics and history classes brought the realization that a central tenet of Marxism was that some changes were expected to take generations to occur. Full-blown, Leninist/Maoist/Trotskyite Marxists are not the only ones who've learned this, folks. Once upon a time, American industry invested in strategies calculated to produce profits over the long term. While modern business has changed some of this, my point is that long-term planning is effective. Modern socialists like the harmless-looking folks down the block know it, too.

I'm certainly not going to shoot them, but you'd better believe that I vote against their candidates and disagree with their public statements. We see it in the AWB renewal tizzy that's going on. We see it in news reports. We hear and read what's happening in public schools. A slow, steady, insidious undercurrent exists. Individual actions happen under our radar, and the momentum builds. Note that this is not a secret conspiracy that I've uncovered; it is clearly expressed policy, followed in public and on purpose.

I don't believe that we'll see total prohibitions and door-to-door seizures of firearms. They won't create the spectacle of our family members (and fellow THR members, or ourselves, as the case may be) in law enforcement and the military having to choose between insubordination and murder. However, we already see prohibitions of new manufacture of certain types of weapons. I don't want a machine gun (too costly to license and feed), but that should be my choice. Since - 1986? - it isn't, not if I wanted a new one. And one key to the antis' strategy is that machinery wears out. There are a lot of beautiful old guns in the world. I have a couple. If they're tranformed by rarity from useful tools into art objects, then we've lost.

I believe that the goal of the antis is to chip away, chip away, chip away, staying mostly within the bounds of what we will tolerate. They'll keep testing to see how much we will tolerate at any given time. Eventually, they expect that people will see weapons as out-of-the-ordinary artifacts, not as normal tools that adults usually have and that children are taught to use. They expect the abolishment of our rights (and theirs) to be achieved slowly and quietly.

What say ye?

[TheeBadOne]

The key is to fight smart, and fight now with the hammer of our votes, so that dropping other hammers in the future is less likely.
What Geek said. :cool:

[yucapote]

This thread is going good, however only a couple of people answered my question? WILL YOU PULL THE TRIGGER?

Though there have been some scary polls done of some Marine units, as I recall, that suggested there was still a significant portion of the enlisted who felt it would be OK to fire on U.S. citizens if ordered to do so.

Sad but true. I also asked a couple of Marines if they will fire at U.S. citizens and their response was "if they shoot at me I'll shoot back" So let's assume that that will happen.

I believe that the goal of the antis is to chip away, chip away, chip away, staying mostly within the bounds of what we will tolerate. They'll keep testing to see how much we will tolerate at any given time. Eventually, they expect that people will see weapons as out-of-the-ordinary artifacts, not as normal tools that adults usually have and that children are taught to use. They expect the abolishment of our rights (and theirs) to be achieved slowly and quietly.

That's what I fear the most. No matter all the efforts to stop the AW ban it happened, now it seems that it will be signed again by a republican president. There is picture on my local gunshop of Bush hunting with a shotgun IIRC, the captions read : One of us! :rolleyes:

If it comes to that, you will be a fool to sit in your house waiting for the knock on the door.

So you will run to the hills or hide in the woods. Re-arm and re-group with other fellas in your situation and the next thing you know is that there is a raid in your hideout/compound.

Balog and DrJones thanks for the links.

[Thumper]

I was in my mid twenties when the assault weapon ban passed. I was one of those with (pretty juvenile, at the time) thoughts of armed insurrection.

Now I'm a little older, and with a lot more to lose. I assure you, I'll still fight, and well. Uncle Sam taught me quite a lot about small unit tactics.
In other words, I won't be waiting at my door.

That being said, you can be a lot more useful with a pen today than you can be with a rifle tomorrow. Write...your congresscritter, your local paper, whatever...just write.

[geekWithA.45]

I will harbour the Jews and shoot the Nazis in ANY of their iterations.

Denver, that statement gave me chills. Well said.

[Teufelhunden]

Sad but true. I also asked a couple of Marines if they will fire at U.S. citizens and their response was "if they shoot at me I'll shoot back" So let's assume that that will happen.

Haven't we established before that pretty much everyone here would have an answer like that if they were being shot at? The individual Leatherneck might just be holding a line somewhere for crowd control and all of the sudden someone starts shooting them, and he's supposed to hold his fire because it's American citizens shooting at him? :rolleyes: If that's the case, none of us should ever shoot a violent criminal because he too is an American citizen...

If there comes a time where there is a declared emergency and martial law is declared authorising the use of the military against its own citizens, members of the military then will be able to make a decision, but if they're doing a fairly routine mission that isn't agressive in nature to the average American citizen and someone starts putting rounds downrange, I expect them to defend themselves.

-Teuf

[Rebel Gunman HK]

Nobody is taking my guns. And there isnt enough cops or soldiers that will be willing to try after the first few attempts of people defending their weapons. These arent robots we'll be dealing with.

[Derek Zeanah]

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep discussing what to have for lunch.

...

Yet this is the principle, which it is claimed should govern men in all their civil relations to each other.I believe we're in agreement on the nature of democracy. That's why we have a constitution though, right? Is it working?

Here's a Lysander Spooner quote for you: The Constitution has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it.

As perfect a government as the world has ever seen is embodied by all those who actually believe in adhering to the letter of the constitution. Those who ignore our constitution and trample all over it are EXACTLY the people who that document was designed to protect us from!

There are plenty of us out here who still believe that this republic can still work.I'm not sure you're correct. I have doubts about our current form of government that mirror the Spooner quote listed above.

If things have gotten this bad this time, and you want to push the reset button because of it, then how will you prevent this from happening again? Do you have a better framework than the constitution? Are you advocating something like the elimination of universal sufferage (and do you think that'll fly?) Are you suggesting we do something like restore the constitution to what it was 90 years ago? If so, what's to keep the changes from being reinacted? What exists in the constitution to prevent something like the Department of Homeland Security, or the Board of Education, or the DEA? Where's the enforcement clause -- it's all well and good to put together a law that criminalizes some behavior, but without some sort of enforcement provision the law is useless.

Why endure the horror of a civil war, if in the end it won't change anything?

[semf]

If that scenario ever happens I'll probably render my only two guns. But not before buying one on the streets, with plenty of ammo . Or even better moving to another country that

Ive already picked out my "They was stolen" guns

[tiberius]

They don't even have to be "stolen", just "sold to a private party a while back".

[Intune]

Taxation @ 50%, various firearms outlawed, borders being overrun, tracking chips implanted in vehicles (humans? Do it for the children.) Citizens being held without being charged with a crime, means to protect self and property denied and on & on...

None of us would put up with a government that went this far, we would draw the line! Oops! Ok, cross THIS line... No THIS one....

[Gus Dddysgrl]

I wouldn't be waiting at the door. Dad and I would prolly have rounded up a local milita to fight back by the time they got there anyway. ;):neener: :evil:

But I doubt it will ever get to that.

Gus

[TallPine]

I have a pretty good field of view over my driveway from up on the hill behind my house .... ;)

[CZ-100]

I have a pretty good field of view over my driveway from up on the hill behind my house ....

But the Gunship has a better one...:what: :what:

[TallPine]

But Officer Smith and Hall don't have a gunship ... :neener:

[williamcrane]

Most guerilla wars start out with a few lightly armed men waging war against superior and well equipped forces - e.g., War for American Independance, Cuba, Vietnam.

Also, in WWII, didn't we drop thousands of .45 Liberator pistols over France and SE Asia? That was a gun to get a gun.

But, we citizens should never allow our government to get to the point where we need to take up arms against it. We should always vote. Write letters to the editors of newspapers/magazines. And use the new found power of the Internet to ever keep our freedoms from being infringed.

[BigDeeeeeeee]

What guns?

If you're really expecting a majority of people on this board to proclaim that they would shoot LEO you're nuts.

I respect the LEO of this great country, I support the 2nd Amendment. Nuff said.

[Moparmike]

Would I join a group fighting against tyranny and oppression if I thought they were rational? Yes.

If I thought they were a bunch of nuts with overactive imaginations (ie fighting because of a raise of parking meter fines from $1 to $2), NO.

[Standing Wolf]

I repeat, I will harbour the Jews and shoot the Nazis in ANY of their iterations.

Well said. I'll help you.

[winstonsmith]

Yes.

Yes, they are Americans too, and they are just folowing orders. But that stopped being an excuse 50 some odd years ago.

They are Americans too, they should know better.

[MagKnightX]

This is a very wordy thread, so I'll just say my piece and go.

Do I imagine that we would have to, in the course of any of our lifetimes, take arms against the Government of the United States? No, I do not. I don't think any of us will let our legislators take more rights. This is why we have regular elections.

Do I imagine that if we had to, the majority of military and law enforcement personnel would fight against us? No, I don't imagine that, either. All military and most LE have sworn to uphold the Constitution, second amendment included. Many are pro-gun.

Do I believe that what military and LE that would be against us would wage full war, with bombing and gunships and such? No, I don't believe that would happen. It would cause too many non-combatant casualties, and too much property damage. It would bring too many against them.

Would I go around actively attacking soldiers and police? No, I would not.

Would I defend my property and my rights if I were attacked? Yes, I most certainly would. If they open fire, I open fire. I may die, but I will not be the aggressor, nor would I ever want to be. That's it, plain and simple.

[Denver]

edited... dhy:uhoh:

[Drjones]

Yes, they are Americans too, and they are just folowing orders. But that stopped being an excuse 50 some odd years ago.

They are Americans too, they should know better.

VERY well said. :)

[revlar]

I'll take my cosmoline, my sections of plastic pipe and my shovel and head for the woods behind my house. Then I cut the door off of the gun safe, report the burglary and theft, and await the "inevitable" knock at the door. I obediently surrender my only remaining weapons (hidden under the mattress when I was burglarized) - a single-shot H&R 20 gauge and potmetal RG .38 revolver (knew it would come in handy for something).

THEN I wait for the dust to settle and see how the battle lines form.

[FTG-05]

I wouldn't wait for the knock on the door. Since this scenario would be politically motivated, I would join 50 or so other armed Americans and reduce the number of anti-gun politicians accordingly. Think what America would be like with 50 or so less anti-gun politicians.

Food for thought.

Albin

[Black92LX]

MOLON LABE! That means that most of you are willing to fight for your RKBA, therefore most of you are willing to die for it too, rigth?

ABSOLUTLY!!! If the Constitution of The United States isn't worth dying for than i have absolutley no idea what is.

[tyme]

The Constitution is just a document, meant to offer a means of dead reckoning if congressional or american opinion travel too far astray. But a document cannot enforce itself. And varying meanings of words and opinions may therefore render parts of the Constitution inapplicable. What is to be done if public opinion shifts against some right or liberty? Will rebellion accomplish anything? A substantial minority of the population tried revolt during the civil war and failed. A guerrilla war will not change policy.

The world is thoroughly populated. There is no means of escape and self rule for those who don't agree with any existing government. The only hope for this is to support any social or political policy that will aid science and lead to a more rapid onset of the age of space exploration.