L.E.O.s : Would you confiscate?


June 2, 2004, 01:40 PM
Everone here, to some extent, seems to fear an eventual massive gun-grab by the goverment. I dont doubt that some day, someone will try, but my question is this to any law enforcement officers, soldiers, and national gaurd: How would you respond to a sweeping order of disarmament? Would you enforce a complete gun-ban for your fellow citizens?
Also, how feasible would it be? Could such an order be enforced realisticaly?

I have read some sociology experiments and we all know the lesson of Nazi Germany, that proves that normal people can be made to do horrible things under orders from a pecieved authority. How do you think average Americans would react?

If you enjoyed reading about "L.E.O.s : Would you confiscate?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
June 2, 2004, 01:49 PM
Most people would turn their guns in. They did it in England and Australia. The thought of being a felon isn't much fun.

June 2, 2004, 01:50 PM
(Mountaindrew) Would you enforce a complete gun-ban for your fellow citizens?
They already enforce partial ones. I'm pessimistic about it. :uhoh:


La Pistoletta
June 2, 2004, 02:00 PM
The 2nd Amendment is being attacked, but would it really not protect from such a thing?

"If you want my gun, you must first get the key to my gun closet. Guess what I keep near the key?"

Sounds a little fruity, but you know what I mean. ;)

June 2, 2004, 02:26 PM
I agree with jnojr. Most people will turn them in. I'm single, in a relationship and I often think about those with a wife/husband, kids, etc.

Those people have a lot to lose if they chose to defy such a ban/confiscation. I'm not saying that I have nothing to lose by any means, but freedom is very important to me.

If the 2A goes, many other rights will be trampled on enforcing the ban/confiscaton.

What would I do? Probably "lose" a rifle or two or "Nope, I sold that gun."

What would your priorities be? Fight it, end up in prison, and leave your family on their own? Yes, most people would fold. Some would not, and they would be shown to be terrorists, militants, psychopaths on the 6:00 news.

A very scary thought. I would not want to be the one knocking on doors. This type of confiscation would be extremely difficult to pull off, which is the reason the powers that be do it a little at a time.


June 2, 2004, 02:30 PM
From the looks of this thread, we're screwed. :(

June 2, 2004, 02:34 PM
We've been screwed in FDR and 1932.

June 2, 2004, 03:04 PM
I think a lot would depend on where you live. Here in the South, I'm sure most LEO's and Feds (including me) would do something like call you and say "I'm going to be there in two hours - I have to check that you don't have any guns in your possession. Is that OK with you?" I'm sure that when I arrived to inspect, I wouldn't find any guns - right? :D

We try... ;)

June 2, 2004, 03:14 PM
when that time comes...and it seems that it will..it will be a "natural" evolution...like smoking..now in some cities you cant even smoke in your own condo because it is "attached" to the non smoker next door..

many are considered evil for just driving a SUV..and there are groups formed and forming to make sure you wont be able to buy one...

silly you say..it cant happen here..suzy creamcheese would disagree..

images of mad max and blade runner are not that far away now..there will be the few that resist openly...and the underground..outlaws all

today the city of los angeles is taking a very small cross out of its city seal..someone found the cross offensive and the ACLU decided to sue..the city folded..there were no demonistrations or debates on TV..it just "happened" think about this for a min..LA is the second largest city in the country.

some of you will be able to say..."i used to be able shoot my gun at a target range." people will laugh at you and say..."yeah yeah...next you will be telling us that you could smoke cigerettes in a bar during business hours"


June 2, 2004, 03:18 PM
My advice: "Don't!"

June 2, 2004, 03:21 PM
Most people would turn their guns in. They did it in England and Australia. The thought of being a felon isn't much fun.

Actually in Aulstralia that was not the case. i don't remember exact numbers but i believe they expected somewhere around 10 million guns or more to be turned in. And just over 150,000 were.

June 2, 2004, 03:53 PM
I would venture to guess that there are many LEOs who wouldn't confiscate ... but then they would be fired, jailed or quit and some snot nosed kid raised in our anti-gun public schools would take his place.

If our government ever goes for wholesale confiscation it will be messy but they will win in the end ... thing is they won't just say "okay Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them in!" they will keep enacting stupid things like the AWB (also, if technology ever moves beyond firearms to something like particle beam weapons or such then those will never be legal in the first place).

Carlos Cabeza
June 2, 2004, 03:56 PM
Yeah, I guess so. BACK THE TRUCK UP AGENT SCHMUCKATELLI ! You're gonna need a tommy lift. That's all I got 'cept for this here rubber band gun that I made for my son, you want that too ? OK I suppose it's alright............ ;)

June 2, 2004, 04:04 PM
I'd probably do something similar to preacherman. "Hi I've come to pick up your guns sir" "Oh you don't have them anymore, darn what a shame" "Mind if I take a look?" "Nope, you're right I sure don't see any guns in here....you have yourself a nice day now!" :D :evil:

June 2, 2004, 04:08 PM
I think the government will go after the ammo rather than try to confiscate 100 million plus guns in the U.S..

First they will make ALL factory ammo LEO. Possession of LEO ammo will be a felony with a draconian punishment.

Then they will close the "hand-loading loophole".

A gun without ammo is a........paper-weight.:uhoh:

Never say never.


June 2, 2004, 04:16 PM
Actually in Aulstralia that was not the case. i don't remember exact numbers but i believe they expected somewhere around 10 million guns or more to be turned in. And just over 150,000 were.

Britian had a similar turnout. The only way to make a gun turn-in stick is by enforcing it with JBTs. For some reason that doesn't go over well. ;)

June 2, 2004, 04:21 PM
I doubt that many guns would be turned in at all. Most guns in this country (at least long arms) are unregistered, and without registration there can be no confiscation. I have heard that when the call went out in California to register all "assault rifles", some people did not do so. I think this would happen again, except on an unprecedented scale.

If another call went out, "Mr and Mrs America turn them all in", I suspect that there would be quite a lot of interesting stuff for future archeologists to dig up.


June 2, 2004, 04:25 PM
Reynolds Wrap time


Mr. Kook
June 2, 2004, 04:31 PM
The only way total disarmament can occur is incrementally. If they ever tried complete gun ban/confiscation or an ammo ban all at once, we would fight back. Simply put, no one in this country today can fathom giving over that much freedom.

So long as no one in this country tomorrow can fathom giving up that much freedom we don't need to worry about a gun ban. Teach your kids the right thing, confront their teachers at school, write to your legislators, take an anti to the range, promote personal responsibility and the day we on this board fear so much will never come.

That being said if a total ban/confiscation order were done today I'd say at least half our armed forces/police force would not enforce it. If called to enforce it many would desert.

June 2, 2004, 04:49 PM


June 2, 2004, 05:33 PM
"That being said if a total ban/confiscation order were done today I'd say at least half our armed forces/police force would not enforce it. If called to enforce it many would desert."

From my time in service I can tell you the majority of folks don't own guns, the ones that do have them are for home security and a few are hobbyists.
Most don't know gun laws or care and sadly many don't even vote.
a lot of the military are city kids who weren't raised around guns.
Most members of the Air Force and Navy will shoot a gun only once in their career during basic training/boot camp.

The military practices gun confiscation here in the United States in preperation for "overseas" urban combat.
People were abused in Iraqi prisons for months and few complained for fear of getting in trouble.
You think most of these folks won't do what ever they are told to do?

June 2, 2004, 05:44 PM
law enforcement officers, soldiers, and national gaurd

How could they? I thought they all swore to uphold and defend the Constitution? :rolleyes: /sarcasm

June 2, 2004, 05:46 PM
Having been both in the National Guard and in the active Army, I think the National Guard would not be effective in gun confiscation. The active duty force is a different thing. As someone said above, a lot on non-gun owners on active duty.

June 2, 2004, 05:53 PM
If everyone who has ever uttered "molon labe" or "from my cold dead hands" meant it and means it, it will be a bloody mess.

If, OTOH, these phrases are/were mere words with no faith backing them, then it will not be very bloody at all.

Sad we are even having this discussion. :(

editted to answer the original question:

Would I? NO! We have to draw a line in the sand somewhere. This is where my line in the sand is. All firearms I own were legally obtained. They are mine! I am not a criminal. Even if a "law" comes about which states that the posession of a Rifle I own is illegal, TOO BAD!

If my local Police Cheif or Sherriff called me up and said they were coming to see if I had any firearms, I'd tell them to make sure they have a warrant, because if I have learned anything from THR, I have learned to NEVER CONSENT TO A SEARCH!

Ben Shepherd
June 2, 2004, 06:00 PM
I'm single, all but 2 of my friends are already gone, and I'm already a little bitter towards my tax burden and lack of freedom, so you can guess what my reaction will be.

I hope I am never forced, but if it comes to that, I'll be fighting for what little I have left, with nothing but that to lose. I most likely won't live through it, but there will be a pile of brass around me if I get the slightest chance at resisting.

Something about feed the hogs.........

FWIW: I went to school with most the local LEOs and they won't confiscate. In fact I've shot with most of them a few times.

One brother works for the county as a mechanic, and ALL the deputies and the sherriff are on the correct side.

A second brother is all but hired on with the highway parol, and all the troopers he has discussed this with are on our side as well.

So at least in Utah, we seem to be OK.

Now then: Everyone go read Unintended Consequences again, then have a little "think session" with thier inner self.

June 2, 2004, 06:03 PM
This is one of those questions where geography seems to come into play.

You guys in California seem to think it's a foregone conclusion. Those of us in the south (and evidently Alaska) are wondering how you can afford all the tinfoil.

I have to tell you, the LEOs I know will be the first ones digging positions.

June 2, 2004, 06:17 PM
From Dave Grossman's book On Killing.
Dr. Stanley Milgram's famous studies at Yale University on obedience and aggression found that in a controlled laboratory environment more than 65 percent of his subjects could be readily manipulated into inflicting a (seemingly) lethal electrical charge on a total stranger. The subjects sincerely believed that they were causing great physical pain, but despite their victim's pitiful pleas for them to stop, 65 percent continued to obey orders, increase the voltage, and inflict the shocks until long after the screams stopped and there could be little doubt that their victim was dead. ....

Freud warned us to "never underestimate the power of the need to obey," and this research by Milgram (which has since been replicated many times in half a dozen different countries) validates Freud's intuitive understanding of human nature. Even when the trappings of authority are no more than a white lab coat and a clipboard, this is the kind of response that Milgram was able to elicit:

"I observed a mature and initially poised businessman enter the laboratory smiling and confident. Within 20 minutes he was reduced to a twitching, stuttering wreck, who was rapidly approaching a point of nervous collapse.... At one point he pushed his fist into his forehead and muttered: 'Oh God, let's stop it.' And yet he continued to respond to every word of the experimenter and obeyed to the end."

If this kind of obedience could be obtained with a lab coat and a clipboard by an authority figure who has been known for only a few minutes, how much more would the trappings of military authority and months of bonding accomplish?

Grossman went on to discuss the ways in which a commanding officer's presence and authority can impel his troops to make kills which they would not otherwise make, but I veered off onto a (hardly original) tangent of my own and got thinking about the many ways in which Milgram's research explains the evil that was Hitler's Germany, that was Stalin's Russia, that was Pol Pot's Cambodia. I've always marvelled at the sheer compliance of the masses in such cases, and wondered even more at the ordinary grunts who actually committed most the atrocities. How could they?

Grossman's thesis is that most ordinary human beings have an inborn and very powerful resistance to killing other humans, and that it takes certain extraordinary circumstances before this resistance is broken down enough to enable one ordinary person to kill another at close quarters. You would think that with such a thesis, the book would be encouraging for the future -- but it's actually very bleak indeed, especially in light of Milgram's research.

If the government chooses to misuse and abuse its powers, what does Milgram's research say the ordinary grunt will do in response? Will he obey unlawful orders? Will ordinary citizens comply and cooperate with men in uniform? I see no reason to believe they will not.

Worse than that, one of the recurring themes in literature (at least in the literature I read) is the beauty and power of taking responsibility for one's own actions and one's own choices. From Voltaire to Gandhi, from MLK to Andrew Jackson to e.e. cummings, from Emerson to Thoreau to Swift to Solzhenitzen, from Kepler to Abraham Lincoln to Spurgeon to Mark Twain to Bertrand Russell and Orson Scott Card, it seems to me that nearly every author who ever set pen to paper and nearly ever orator who ever mounted the podium has lauded the value and virtue of nonconformity.

And yet, it suddenly occurred to me that the very prevalence of these glowing words is pretty darn depressing. You don't, after all, often encounter people lauding the commonplace. Nor is a soldier decorated for doing merely what is expected of him. Such laurels are for those who do the extraordinary ... which leads me to the depressing (but again, hardly original) conclusion that if-and-when, it'll be the majority against a tiny minority; and of that minority, a predictably large number will lose their zeal when faced with nothing more than the disapprobation of the crowd.

For all those reasons, if the order to round up guns is ever given, foot soldiers who refuse to obey it are going to be few and far between.

And let's talk about common gun owners. What will ordinary gun owners do? Looking at what gun owners are by and large doing right now, I see no real reason for optimism.

A lot of gun owners don't even vote, for apathy. Or because they think it "won't make any difference."

Sometimes they even vote against freedom, because they want to demonstrate that they aren't "one issue voters," or because the legislation suggested is just a "common sense safety measure" and the voter thinks it "won't affect me."

Some gun owners tell other gun owners not to vote for the best, most RKBA candidate -- because the best candidate has "no chance of winning." Well, duh. If all the people who really agree with the best candidate, waste their votes on someone else instead, the best ones never will have a chance.

Gun owners won't even show up at political protests to carry signs, or write to their local papers, for fear of "getting on a list somewhere."

They won't put RKBA bumper stickers on their cars, unless the sticker is so subtle that no one but a fellow gunnie would get it anyway -- for fear of "getting a window smashed or something."

Whenever one of our fellow gun owners has a run in with the law, gun owners are quick to denounce the gun owner, and support the unjust law. They do this to show that gun owners are "really law abiding" ... even when the law itself is unjust and wrong.

But it's okay. In the soi-distant future, when the goon squads are coming door-to-door to gather up guns, suddenly all the gun owners in America will grow a set of balls twice as big as the ones they had before.

Unfortunately, two times zero is still zero.


The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails. -- William Arthur Ward

June 2, 2004, 06:42 PM

That's enough to make me want to cry. :(

June 2, 2004, 06:42 PM
Pax, the milgram experiment is one of those that I was refering to in my original post. It proves that most people realy are sheep, and that they are more than likely to respond to a strong shepard, even if led in a direction they don't want to go. Not many people are willing to stand up for what is right, and even in this age that pretends to value individualism, conformity is stilll strongly ingrained. People are told it is better to aqueice (sp) than to fight. (eg. people are told it is better to just give a robber your rmoney rather than resist). But my original question was directed towards the LEO/ military types and what they think about the subject. Not entirely encouraging, but the division geographically makes me wonder if another "War between the States" wouln't be a likely outcome, with the various "Peoples republics" against those freedom loveing heartland states. Either way, it is a scary thing to even think about....

La Pistoletta
June 2, 2004, 07:17 PM
Pax, that's extremely interesting. Too bad it makes a lot of sense...it really is the way you describe it. I have repeatedly seen examples over and over again myself.

People need to stop following and start Thinking.

June 2, 2004, 07:29 PM
There are plenty of anti-gun cops who would enforce a ban.

Ben Shepherd
June 2, 2004, 07:34 PM

On a list?

I'm sure I'm on several, and I don't care one wit. I mean my THR handle is the same as the one on my birth certificate, I don't care who knows who I am. Heck the stack of 4473's around local gun shops with my name is big enough. I've got the capital switchboard on speed dial at work, write letters at least 2X per month(with at least 50 duplicates handed out and mailed by family/friends), vote every election(local, county, state and federal), and keep a list of congressmembers adresses on my fridge.

Unlike other posters who want to cry after reading you post(which is most likely very true), I'm past that now. No more crying, or being worried sick. I resolved myself to the fact that it will happen. And if it does during my lifetime, I know my course of action.

I'll no longer sit and sadly lament that my fellow countrymen are doing nothing. I convert, or at least plant a seed every chance I get, and on occasion my donations to NRA, GOA, CCRKBA, JPFO, etc., have put me in a pinch, but I'm doing what I can every day.

If and when the SHTF, I will go down fighting, I won't give an inch, 'cause at that point I've got nothing left to lose

June 2, 2004, 08:02 PM
Not many LEOs answering this thread. Could it be that they know the answer?

I think I do.

June 2, 2004, 08:55 PM
Yea, interesting that no LEOs have replied yet. :uhoh:

As far as response to such an action by a .gov, I'm with Ben Shepherd.

June 2, 2004, 09:22 PM
Not owning any guns (yet :p ), I'm not really sure what I would do.

June 2, 2004, 09:52 PM
Mountaindrew wrote that sheep follow a shepherd. True.

It works both ways, though.

If enough men like our own Ben Shepherd who wrote: " there will be a pile of brass around me if I get the slightest chance at resisting "
who have the GRANITE ONES to do it
come foward, they will serve as catalysts for other resisters.

Oppressors hate martyrs for that reason- you can't kill 'em if they're already dead.

Guys like that, like Ghandi, Martin Luther King, Jesus Christ, and other people who really shake up the status quo KNOW they will likely die for it. That's why these types are so honored by the rest of us.

So who's it gonna be?

June 2, 2004, 10:04 PM
This post is why we need active militia.

This country is in for its demise, it appears. Where to next?

June 2, 2004, 10:07 PM
Here ! Here !

I am an LEO although I am just a reserve. For you yanks that dont know what that means, it means that I am armed and have all the full powers of an LEO when I'm on duty.I can arrest you, ticket you and drive around in a fast car with blue lights. You'd never know I was not a fulltimer because we wear the same uniforms,attend the same training and have the same supervisors. Fact of the matter is, although I enjoy playing cop, my yearly paycheck in my real job is roughly 4 times higher than that of the highest paid LEO, in my case the Sherrif. We have 30 fulltimers and 20 reserves.

With that being said...

I can personally vouch for everyone in my small department. I am not naieve enough to beleive that all cops are that way. While I am fortunate to be in a dept. where the majority, including the sheriff, are very pro-gun, just 70 miles to the south of me in a small city called Little Rock there are some rabidly antyigun cops and politicians. You may have heard of one of the local scuzballs, his name was Bill Clinton. His still shows up occasionaly..

I also know that this is pretty much a rural thing. While we here in Arkansas are cosndiered primitive by many standards, most of us still value our freedoms and we cherish them. While the big citys slickers might care less if it came down to it, I can testify that it would be a bit different in the rural areas.

Understand this...
If (or when) it ever comes down to confinscating guns, I will refuse to particpate in that activity. Heck, I may even go to your house and tell you that Im here to get your guns. If you are stupid enough to give them to me, I guarantee you that I will pass them out to people with enough balls to use them against those that would take them by force.

If you refuse, I will say have a great day and move on.

I feel that operating in this capacity might be of more use than just
refusing and quitting. In short, those that refuse to give up their guns will find a friend in me.

Rest assured, I am not the only one that feels this way.

I have somethign to say about this statment...
[I]I have to tell you, the LEOs I know will be the first ones digging positions.[I/]

If the time comes for digging, dont dig deep. Not long after, the time to use them will be at hand.

Heck...I may be amongst the first to get whacked. If I do, it wont be because Im taking guns by force.


June 2, 2004, 10:41 PM
LEO's are not responding to this thread because they actually have to pass a psychological exam indicating that they are relatively stable before being hired.

June 2, 2004, 11:11 PM
sendec: Meaning that those who would resist a gun grab are unstable? :scrutiny:

Watchman: HUZZAH!!!

June 2, 2004, 11:40 PM
Where do they go to get their "Cheat Sheets"? :D

June 3, 2004, 12:43 AM
I think a lot would depend on where you live. Here in the South, I'm sure most LEO's and Feds (including me) would do something like call you and say "I'm going to be there in two hours - I have to check that you don't have any guns in your possession. Is that OK with you?" I'm sure that when I arrived to inspect, I wouldn't find any guns - right? :D

Once you've lived in the South a little longer, you'll realize that that hypothetical day would be a much better day to call in sick than to make any phone calls. :uhoh:

June 3, 2004, 01:14 AM
If the time comes for digging, dont dig deep. Not long after, the time to use them will be at hand.

Watchman, I think you might have misunderstood what I meant when I said "digging positions." ;)

Just for clarity:

1. Through supervision, evaluation and on the spot corrections, ensure that the construction of the individual fighting position generally follows the sequence below. See the tank Construct individual Fighting, Position, task number 071-326-5703, STP 21-1-SMCT.

2. Assign the location of the position and the sector of fire. The soldier constructing the position should emplace sector of fire stakes.

3. Ensure your soldiers partially clear fields of fire within their sector and dig a hasty hole for minimum protection, begin careful not to destroy natural camouflage around their positions. They should save sod, grass clumps, etc, for use as camouflage later.

4. Next ensure your soldiers dig a hole which is armpit deep. If they have a natural frontal parapet, the dirt from the hole should be carried away and camouflage, if not, it should be used to make a frontal parapet.

5. They can now complete clearing fields of fire, clearing only what is absolutely necessary. Ensure that the soldier get into the firing positions and check their fields of fire.

6. The soldiers should next camouflage their positions using available materials (sod, grass clumps, foliage, etc) blending the position with the surrounding area. The camouflage should be checked from about 35 meters to the front;if the position can be spotted easily, more camouflage work is needed.

7. After all of the above have been accomplished satisfactorily, the soldier should construct overhead cover. They should use longs and planks, 4 to 6 inches thick, that will support at lease 6 or 8 inches of dirt (logs and dirt should total 12 inches), and dig a cave-like area big enough to get under.

8. Upon completion of the overhead cover, the soldier should begin to improve their positions. Items to check for include generate trench, drainage trench, elbow holes, night firing stakes, range cards and camouflage.

June 3, 2004, 05:20 AM
I am "one of those" who would have much to lose. I have a wife, and three children.

Would I resist? Would I fight?


I would tell my wife not to lie, she would say " Yes my husband owns guns. Yes my husband owns ammunition. When this law was passed, he kissed me, and he kissed his children, told us he loved us. Then he took his guns and his ammunition, and he left. He also said to tell you, if he's not looking at you now, he will see you soon."

The government that would try this, is the same one that spent well over a million dollars training me to pick my own battlegrounds.

If it came to this it would be a sad day indeed.

Some would say "From my cold dead hands"... I rather like " I will not go quietly into the night".

Art Eatman
June 3, 2004, 08:38 AM
Er, uh, has anybody considered the "takings clause" of the Fifth Amendment?

To mandate surrender to the government of one's personal property, I'd think that they'd be in the arena of eminent domain. That means they gotta pay you. That means you can get a jury to set the fair market value.

At one time it was publicized that the EvilBlackRifle population of California was some 350,000; only some 30,000 or so were registered. Now, registration is a California thing. Those guns aren't illegal insofar as present federal law. If a federal law is passed requiring surrender, and the juries agree with the present values in the open market, a serious question arises: Whence cometh the money? You're looking at a couple of hundred million or more, just in California, just for EBRs.

Make sure you're in the jury pool in your home county. Snuggle up to the county clerk, if need be. That's part of political self-defense. Lay some lawyer money aside, pooling resources with folks who agree with you--and do it before the need, not after.

The antis who have succeeded have done it via the political process. They care enought to get involved--which is today's Point to Ponder.


Molon Labe
June 3, 2004, 09:12 AM
Most people would turn their guns in.I doubt it. I believe there would be non-compliance on a large scale (which would be a good thing).

But as mentioned by others, the Marxists have learned that “big steps” (such as outright confiscation) are virtually impossible to achieve. They’ve learned incrementalism is a much better strategy.

At some point each of us is going to have to draw our line in the sand. I’ve already drawn mine. Have you?

La Pistoletta
June 3, 2004, 09:21 AM
The problem is they don't take your guns. They don't ban your guns. They ban production of them, and when your old weapons (that can't be bought again) go down, you're left with fewer and fewer guns. Now, if people were faced with the situation of keeping their guns, that'd be one thing. But they're faced with the situation of having to buy illegal guns, and that's another. There's a difference between "I'm keeping my rifle no matter what!" and "I'm going out to buy a rifle no matter what!". It just doesn't have that rebellion thing to it, if you know what I mean.

Molon Labe
June 3, 2004, 09:25 AM
I am "one of those" who would have much to lose. I have a wife, and three children.Me too.

Would I resist? Would I fight?


I would tell my wife not to lie, she would say, "Yes my husband owns guns. Yes my husband owns ammunition. When this law was passed, he kissed me, and he kissed his children, told us he loved us. Then he took his guns and his ammunition, and he left. He also said to tell you, if he's not looking at you now, he will see you soon."I like your spirit, oneslowgun. And like you, I am also a fighter. But there’s a “rule” when it comes to fighting for your freedom: If you must leave your family for an indefinite period of time, do not leave them unprotected!! Make sure they’re safe! If your wife and children are not safe on their own, they should be with family members.

If (God forbid) I am ever in a situation where I must fight for liberty with other freedom fighters, I will ask the following question to each: “Is your family safe and secure?” If I find out they simply walked away from their family and left them in a vulnerable state, I will insist they immediately go back and correct the situation. Only after making their family safe & secure will they be allowed to rejoin.

June 3, 2004, 09:30 AM
I would imagine there would be a much higher percentage of urban/suburban cops that would walk in step to such an order than the more rural counterparts. The crew that I worked with when I was a badge would likely whine about it and try their best not to enforce such a mandate.

June 3, 2004, 09:46 AM
For those who think they have too much to lose if they did not go along with a forced gun grab............once the government has deteriorated your rights to that point you have nothing left to lose.

I can bluntly say if it ever comes to me having to make a choice I'm going down resisting. Whatever happens at that point happens and I am willing to accept the outcome.

June 3, 2004, 10:38 AM
LEO's are not responding to this thread because they actually have to pass a psychological exam indicating that they are relatively stable before being hired. Yeah, but after that... :D

June 3, 2004, 10:47 AM
Most people would turn their guns in.Perhaps the same apathy that causes people not to bother to vote will be the same factor in having gun owners not to want to get off the couch, load their guns in the minivan, and drop them off at the Central Collection Point.
He also said to tell you, if he's not looking at you now, he will see you soon."The other point in this is not just will we fight, but how we will fight and to whom will the fight be brought? Yes, a few hundred-thousand cops and a couple million troops are formidable, even for a nation of 80,000,000 gun owners (even if only 0.1% or 80,000 take up the fight). But the key is not to match force on force with the peon soldiers, but to focus attention on the people who pull the strings. The 30 of 50 bad Governors. The 60 of 100 bad Senators. The 300 of 435 bad Congressmen. Sundry Mayors, Chiefs of Police, Sheriffs, County Attorneys, Attorneys General. --- and their homes, and businesses, and possessions, and families.

Because they will go after ours.


June 3, 2004, 10:54 AM
It will be like prohibition, only the people you are turning in to criminals already have guns.

Joe Demko
June 3, 2004, 11:20 AM
Door to door searches and confiscation aren't going to happen. No matter how stupid you may think the anti's are, they know that there are millions of guns in the hands of millions of citizens. They don't have enough manpower to do it even if they had every government employee and every member of the armed services involved.
What they will do, in fact are already doing, is to make various and sundry items illegal to own or illegal to pass on to your heirs or illegal to transfer. For the things that are illegal to own, they don't have to come to your house looking specifically for it. They can just use it as an additional charge when you do something else wrong. For the stuff that is illegal to transfer or pass on to heirs, you have the choice of turn it in or make somebody besides yourself a criminal.
Other tactics include:
-make the purchase of arms that are legal at present increasingly complicated and expensive.
-through propaganda campaigns, turn the public in general away from gun ownership, much the same way they did with tobacco.
-restrict the available places to shoot, ideally making it so inconvenient and/or expensive that people just give up on shooting.

Though we use the term "gun grabbers" a lot, they aren't really grabbers in the sense of just suddenly snatching the guns away from us. Over a period of decades, they will gradually eliminate the "gun culture" and bit by bit reduce the civilian arms stockpile. We should concentrate on fighting their real campaign rather than indulge in fantasies of manning the barricades against the JBT's.

June 3, 2004, 01:40 PM
Most people would turn their guns in.
I dunno ... look at Canada.

The non compliance rate with their new registration scheme is pretty high ... and theres plenty of people who would be willing to register, but not turn them in.

Plus you gotta load them up, take a day off from work, drive down to the "collection center" and turn them in ... if nothing else us Americans are just too lazy :p

June 3, 2004, 02:13 PM
"I'm going to be there in two hours - I have to check that you don't have any guns in your possession. Is that OK with you?"

Preacherman, why would you cooperate even to this extent? I think what we need is LEOs who would simply say, "Nope, here is my badge -- I quit." If enough LEOs out there said the same thing, it might nip it in the bud.

But if you try a method such as you describe, you are putting yourself in jeopardy, of being charged with some sort of "obstruction" crime. BS, yes, but still something a determined DA could prosecute.

My call to LEO's would be to simply quit. It is, after all, just a job.

BTW, here in East Texas, I think almost all LEO's would refuse such an order. Not only would most think it absurd, but they would know that not many of them would be going home that night.

HOWEVER -- I agree with all those who say that this is not the way it will happen. The incremental approach will be taken, restrictions, registration, limits, taxes, etc. The leaders of the anti-gun movement are not stupid and they do not want to wake up the masses. One step at a time is OK with them.

June 3, 2004, 02:22 PM
I think what we need is LEOs who would simply say, "Nope, here is my badge -- I quit." If enough LEOs out there said the same thing, it might nip it in the bud. They'd find people that would carry out the orders, and then we'd have no "allies in the ranks," so to speak.

John Ross
June 3, 2004, 02:30 PM
A young woman on another board asked the question "Why do we need guns?"

One fellow patronizingly told her "So we can effectively resist a government that is attempting to chill our freedoms."

She immediately asked "Then what are you waiting for?" I wanted to kiss her.

Golgo-13 nailed it. No door-to-door searches, just ever-tightening laws. As more things become more and more illegal, some will keep or bury their banned guns but they'll NEVER practice with them.

Incremental tactics will virtually guarantee little to no resistance.

Having said that, I suggest all of you read The Tipping Point by Malcolm Gladwell. It explains how when events and actions reach a critical mass, epidemics result.

Which is one of the main points of the sequel to UC that I'm working on...


Ben Shepherd
June 3, 2004, 03:09 PM
Mr. John Ross:

We want a new thread on your book, complete with teasers and an approximate publish date if you have it!!!!

Come on now, you can't post something like that without more details. You have to play nice.:D

June 3, 2004, 03:26 PM
they cant confiscate that which i have already sold, can they?

June 3, 2004, 03:36 PM
I am 37 years old and I can remember even HOSPITALS having smoking areas. I am sure that not long beofre there were no areas and people just smoked wherever they wanted to smoke. This is absolutely unheard of today.

I can imagine that in another 30 years when we tell someone of how we used to own several guns with piles of ammo for each, and went to shoot at any number of places whenever we wanted to, that this would seem as outrageous as smoking anywhere near a hospital seems today.

If a law were passed calling for the confiscation of all weapons, well, that would just be too easy for us. Our enemy is not this stupid. They are very sneaky and persistent. They, in fact, may not even disarm you at all for they are also a patient foe. It may be that your children will never know the joys of shooting, or many other freedoms for that matter, that you and I take for granted today.

My point is that this gradual disarmament tact being used against us will have to be halted at some point. Obviously many of you have thought about this and several have mentioned "drawing a line in the sand". Hopefully that line doesn't inch backwards over time, as has happened in many cases in history. Maybe it already has, seeing what we now put up with in the way of restrictions and bans on constitutionally guaranteed items.

I have found that when dealing with kids, it is best to curtail any negative behavior as soon as it is witnessed. ("A sharp knive cuts the cleanest and hurts the least.") With every sucessful attempt at covert bad behavior the child becomes more emboldened to break the rules and more clever at escaping the consequences. A child, by nature, will seek to test, and ultimately to stretch his boundaries. It is much easier to reinforce good behavior. It is also much simpler to have a stern talk with a child who has been led a bit astray than try to reform an unruly child who has lost respect for authority.

Our government has exhibited bad behavior for many years now. Not just reguarding guns but all civil liberties. The longer we let this unconstitutional, immoral behavior go unchecked, to harder it will be to curtail. I fear we may have already let it go so far as to elicit a response equal to that in Unintended Consequences. Our government is here to serve it's people. It seems to have forgotten this fact, and who has the authority in this equasion.

Whatever point we are at, a most expedient response is in order for this type of situation. Certainly the sooner the better. And, for what its worth, what we have been doing to this point isn't working.

June 3, 2004, 03:41 PM
In September, based on the actions of our government I will either continue to be a law abiding citizen or become a felon. In other words, the AWB is sunsetting at my house this September. Furthermore, while I may choose to honor existing gun laws that are on the books, I will not obey any new laws passed which restrict my 2nd Amendment rights. I may very well go out of my way to violate them. How's that for a line in the sand?

June 3, 2004, 04:43 PM
Yea, interesting that no LEOs have replied yet.

Because we get tired of the same paranoid questions popping up on gun boards. Try using the archive search before posting a worn-out topic.

June 3, 2004, 05:02 PM
Hi, ho, there tcsd1236

I did like you said.

I searched the posts using the word confiscate. I asked for it to search titles only and with any occurance of the word confiscate in it.

I came up with two. This one (The one to which I am presently posting) and one called;

Poll: Should the U.S. Military Confiscate Iraqi Citizen's Guns?

What should I search for?

June 3, 2004, 05:04 PM
Because we get tired of the same paranoid questions popping up on gun boards. Try using the archive search before posting a worn-out topic. Jim, maybe you can provide us with a link that we can revive. My guess it hasn't been done to death, since it has 1500 views and over 60 replies.

June 3, 2004, 05:13 PM
If they tried a Gun Confinscation, and some .Mil & LEO Did not Side aganst shuch an Unconstitutional thing, I would think we would most certanly be facing a 2nd Civil War.

June 3, 2004, 05:31 PM
As a still-commissioned LEO I will carry out any lawful order I am given. As a commissioned LEO I have also learned that when people get to the point of making their own license plates any attempt at discussion is an exercise in futility.

I would commend you on your apparent faith in the government to set a goal and achieve it. When I think of the government's ability to do anything I am reminded that this is the same government that:

Crucified Richard Jewel, but could'nt convict OJ Simpson

Routinely finds spies in its primary federal law enforcement agency, which is the same agency that loses a significant percentage of its own guns

Lost 14 astronauts and 2 spacecraft, one to a defective rubber o-ring, and one to a defective piece of styrofoam

Invaded a country looking for WMD, which it couldnt find, but then it couldnt find who contaminated their own buildings in downtown DC.

Lets a Cessna crash into the White House, and then acts suprised when somebody tries it again.

Has over 80 seperate federal law enforcement units, none of which know what the other is doing.

Requires 3 forms to be filed when fueling a federal LE vehicle: fuel disbursement, mileage and vapor control compliance form.

Really, you think they are going to confiscate your guns? Do you know how many committees it would take to do that?

June 3, 2004, 06:41 PM
Hi, ho, there tcsd1236......
This topic comes up endlessly on every gun board. I cannot believe that there have only been two threads on the topic over the entire history of THR.

June 3, 2004, 06:59 PM
This topic comes up endlessly on every gun board
And your point is ....?

So, which do you think is better, a 9mm or a 45acp? :neener:

June 3, 2004, 07:04 PM
I would go with the 45

June 3, 2004, 07:15 PM
Is that it? I thought you would tell me what search words I should use. You can't just say This topic comes up endlessly on every gun board. I cannot believe that there have only been two threads on the topic over the entire history of THR.

What do I use?

Talk 'bout hackneyed, Everybody knows that the 9mm is a sissy round. .45 alla way.

Edited for the sensibilities of Art's grammaw. :)

June 3, 2004, 07:22 PM
Yep. The .45 hurts less, and is less likely to overpenetrate and damage your neighbor's house when you shoot a gun-grabber on the doorstep. ;)

No, really, guys, if it comes to the point of house-to-house work, the run-up to that point will have been 'way worse than anything yet seen in the States since 1865. Folks minded to bug out or stay and duke it out will already have done so.

As for the lack of comment from cops, hey-darn it, those folks work for The Gummint, like it or not, and they are, as the phrase goes, "held to a higher standard." Wal-Mart kind of stinks to work for, too, but you don't get very far asking an on-duty WallyWorld staffer to comment on the subject -- so what makes you think LEOs, with all the pride and tradition of their service starin' 'em in the conscience, are going to be quicker to speak out? If the bough breaks, LEOs will follow their duty, as they see it. Could be a lot of them will surprise the pessimists....


June 3, 2004, 09:17 PM
She immediately asked "Then what are you waiting for?" I wanted to kiss her.
The same thing the Colonists were waiting for well after the Boston Massacre (of 1770)... a unifying trigger point.
Incremental tactics will virtually guarantee little to no resistance.That assumes Gubmint Bureaucrats have the patience to stick to that plan and not mess up.
Because we get tired of the same paranoid questions popping up on gun boards.I wonder if the citizens of New York or California have learned to be a little more paranoid now that two semi-auto rifle registration schemes were both used to later confiscate them using the Boys in Blue, guns, badges, and all?


June 3, 2004, 09:20 PM
I wonder if the citizens of New York or California have learned to be a little more paranoid now that two semi-auto rifle registration schemes were both used to later confiscate them using the Boys in Blue, guns, badges, and all?

Thank you, Rick. I thought maybe that was a paranoid delusion of mine, but I gues it actually happened....:p

June 3, 2004, 09:56 PM
I have heard folks say that when some cities/states banned smoking in public places, most smokers grudgingly went along with that. But, then again, if you ban cigarettes, the worst that can happen is a smoker might put out his cigarette on your forehead...

Let's hope no one is ever foolish eough to actually ban firearms.

June 3, 2004, 10:37 PM
I generally agree with the probability of the continuation of the gradual approach by the antis.

(dons tin-foil-hat)

But, what if there is a barrage of terrorists attacks on US soil within a short period (days) on nuclear power plants, large buildings in big cities, oil refineries, etc. and martial law is declared. Could there be an executive order in place or put in place to confiscate firearms at that point in the name of "national security"? Anyone who does not comply would be labled accomplices with the terrorists (i.e. either your with us, or against us).

In such a situation where the economy and supply systems and all-around choas would cause most people to be concerned with getting food to eat or getting away from a nuclear reactor, etc., many who normally would not comply to a confiscation order may do so in order to be around their family and not in jail during the "national crisis."

This could be one possible example of a sudden gun-grab, no?

(removes tin-foil-hat)

Another point.

We all talk about a sudden gun-grab or a gradually deterioration of our rights.

But, the phrase "...shall not be INFRINGED" is what is written. We have already succumbed to INFRINGEMENT. Amendment II is already dead and has been for a long time now. A shame, but true nonetheless. If we really believed in Amendment II, we would have already done something about it.

June 3, 2004, 11:29 PM
I wholeheartedly agree with your every word in your last post.......

However these are the SAME people that seem to not understand the FIRST ammendment as well.......

What part of "Congress shall pass no law abridging the freedom of speech" do these people not understand??? The McCain / Feingold bill effectivly GUTTED and TRAMPLED the First ammendment and people don't hear a WORD about it all day....

It's just a matter of time before we are silenced here and on other boards for even talking about this atrocity.

As for the second ammendment we are doomed I am afraid.

Learn to shoot very well.................very very well, get all of the training your hard earned and highly taxed leftover money can afford you while you can......


Art Eatman
June 4, 2004, 10:41 AM
Logistics, are you aware the NRA and the ACLU combined to sue in federal court against the First Amendment violations of McCain/Feingold, and SCOTUS denied?


June 4, 2004, 10:56 AM
the NRA and the ACLU combined to sue in federal court against the First Amendment violations of McCain/Feingold, and SCOTUS denied?

And that is what is REALLY, REALLY scary!

June 4, 2004, 11:01 AM
The Agument that we are a force to recon with because we are armed is only valid if we are willing to fight and not only die for what we believe in but kill as well. You might get people to fight if there is a quick, dramatic gun grab, but how many of you are willing to kill a man with a family, just doing his job, because the legislature passed another small-step law that finaly crossed your line in teh sand (maybe a high puchase tax, or outlawing full metal jacket ammo as "armor-piercing, or other such stupidity) These little steps will work, and all we could do is ignore them, while the political climate slowly changes until 90% of the people actually BELIEVES we are crazy, gun owing, law defying terrorists and we have no base to fight from. It would only take one generation, especially in today's volitile world. I am not parranoid, but I am pessimistic

June 4, 2004, 11:04 AM

Unfortunately I am. What a sad day and age this is. I love how McCain touts his war record whenever possible and even Fox news touts him as well as having him on quite often. All the while the masses just don't get "it" about what he's (as well as SCOTUS) done. :barf: :barf:

This is truly not an America I know........

I surely pray for a Constitutional convention.

June 4, 2004, 06:31 PM
A couple of things...

I think that there would be a division in the attitude of urban v. rural cops as well as younger cops v. older ones. That being said I think the mjority of cops would go along with damned near any orders they received.

Cops have already went door to door in some area to confiscate guns. NYC comes to mind as does Cali. Garnted in Cali they restrained themselves to certain types of weapons, but the point is gun confiscation has laready happened & I don't recall any stories about cops quiting or refusing to comply.

Gun confiscation happens on a much braoder scale with more narrowly defined terms. Have a bayonet lug where it shouldn't be? Have your hogleg out of sight w/o the proper paperwork? Have a long gun whose barrel or stock is too short? I'm sure there are some cops who look the other way when/if they find someone who violates a gun law, but they're in the minority.

If a cop enforces a gun law based upon the principle of prior restraint (i.e. mere possession) now, what makes you think that a line will be drawn if it's upped a notch or two?

So to answer the question I doubt most LEO's would refuse to comply. A few would try to be sneaky about not complying & fewer still would outright quit.

As to what cops should do...

well there could be some value of a sympathetic insider letting us know what;s happening, but I think the value would be minimal. It'd be much better for the cops to hand in their badge or simply not show up for their shift or even leave in the middle of a shift. This would be much better for sympathetic cops since if door to door confiscations occur odds are that anyone with a badge would be fair game.

Ditto for soldiers if a confiscation were to be assigned to them - better to leave your job than to be confused with the gun grabbers of your unit.

But to the logistical arguments...

Ross is right: an incrementalist strategy is much more effective than an outright ban coupled with confiscation. However...

Most states have laws that allow for the suspension of sales & confiscation of arms during a declared emergency. In every state there are areas where carying arms at any time is illegal (National Parks come to mind). Damn near every state has laws that prescribe how a firearm may be carried.

Now given the three things above there is a relatively effective way to attempt confiscation.

1: Declare a state of emergency in a particular place, say the coast of NC because of some real or imagined disaster or potential disaster. Have non-local cops &/or military sent in to secure the area. Along with securing the area have them go house to house to make sure the citizens are safe. While there pick up anything that can accept a cartridge. Set up road blocks for those still driving & search their cars, confiscating anything you find. If they have a firearm or a CCW then detain them while their house is searched for other guns.

Repeat this in waves through a state (for example, NC could be done in 5 or 6 stages) & you'll round up a majority of privately held arms. The state of emergency thing will lul most people off their guard as far as confiscation goes. those that resist will be few & isolated. The roadblocks are good because it takes a gunowner out of the fight while you steal his guns from his house.

2: Increase patrols &/or enforcements in areas where firearms are prohibited (like National Parks) & areas close to them that are outside the emergency area. While a person is arguing that he's on National Forest land, not National Park land, his gun will be safely confiscated.

3: Set up road blocks - again detain those with guns or CCW's until their house is searched & releived of all weapons. this will work well all by itself cause we're all used to roadblocks & to handing over our guns to cops when they ask. & we're used ot stories of people being wrongfully arrested cause some cop doesn't know that the gun in question isn't illegal so most will go along quietly thinking of the settlement they'll get for wrongful arrest.

That's how a gun confiscation program could be put into place. There'd be no warning, little resistance & since no one would realize it's a gun confiscation until it was too late there wouldn't be much of a chance to be warned & gather support. 5 to 10 cops or soldiers would make anyone think twice about slamming the door & racing for the gun cabinet.

Any one of these 3 things can be used in conjuction with the others or by itself, although you get maximum effect by combining them all.

There is of course the chance that those who would want to pull off such a plan wouldn't think of this strategy but I have faith in the capacity of people to come up with effective ways of harming others.

Now that being said I doubt seriously it will happen. If outright confiscation were to occur I know that's the way I'd think it could be done best, but the incrementalist approach has worked well so far. I doubt that the game plan would be altered.

Oh, Art...

The takings clause of the 5th amendment may offer some protection. then again it may not.

It says that no property shall be confiscated for public use without compensation. Now if the state was taking up guns to arm their own troops you'd have a case, but taking up guns to destroy them as contraband could be considered by many to not qualify as public use.

If I recall there were several challenges to the NFA using a takings clause strategy. Obviously the courts sided against the idea that public use meant any confiscation. More or less they regarded the unregistered machine guns as contraband, not lawfully owned property which negated a takings clause defense. If contraband were to be considered under the taking clause do you know how many drug dealers would be ask for the street value of what the cops seized & destroyed?

So to sum up, most cops would go along with confiscation since most go along with partial confiscation now. I don't think the principled view will take precedent over a paycheck, otherwise it would have already.

Confiscation is possible & it could be very effective.

Outright confiscation is unlikely though because the incrementalist strategy is working just fine.

& the takings clause of the 5th amendment probably wouldn't help any more than the 2nd amendment would in either case.

June 4, 2004, 07:45 PM
This thread and subsequent posts reinforces the need for ways we can communicate efectively and broadly!

This forum, phones, email lists, etc.

The first few martyrs would go down in a mass grab, even the 'roadblock emergency' situation described. But with the word gettign out about it, eventually (unfortunately) the rest would know the time has come to dig up the cache and use it.

If you recall, the KEY to the success of the resistance in Unintended Consequences was the wide dissemination of the list of names, and the wide publishing of the declaration of resistance. Colorful and exciting as the protagonists were, the resistance was happening all over the country and the 'bad guys' were resigning in droves.

If the bad guys didn't know there was a wide scale resistance movement killing them off, they wouldn't have known to resign either.

Sneaking around will work for the grabbers since , as pointed out, an all-out grab will backfire; but its the opposite for us: stand in the light and get the message out!

So whatever we do, we need to keep the lines of communication open between us.


June 5, 2004, 12:39 AM
So, what you're saying is that us gunnies should get to know each other and make lists. First all of us in a county, then regionally, then statewide? And possibly organize a nationwide comittee?
I like it. Maybe the old Tyranny Response Team members could help us with this. At least as a starting point?
It's a good idea even if you don't believe confiscation is a possibility. It would provide another way of organizing get togethers, and keeping up to date on legislation. Maybe this deserves a thread all its own. It'd be easy to do. a few of us PMing, exchanging emails, phone numbers, etc. Contacting others we already know.....

June 5, 2004, 04:43 AM

I belive you misunderstood my post. (easy to do in a text enviroment)

I do not, and would never advocate leaving family alone and defenceless.

I do not always review threads that I have posted on, as I have (I belive) made my point, and feel no need to argue it.

I will point out however, that the point you posted about, was a very simplified statement of my possible actions. Leaving the house, with the "banned" equipment, would free my wife and children from "legal" repercussions. I SHOULD have said: By removing myself, and the affected items, my family, and those I chose to watch over them, would be protected from MY actions.

The words "If he isn't looking at you now..." (from the wife's point of view) were ment to cast fear into the one spoken to, NOT to imply that I wasn't in fact "looking". The part about "will see you soon" was ment to show resolve.

Simple misunderstanding, I will try to be more clear in the future.

Occasionally I make assumptions in my thought train, that while I belive are linear, may not be really so.

June 5, 2004, 08:56 AM
Confiscation of 100,000,000 million guns is not an easy or practical tactic. It runs the risk of creating unwanted footage on the 6 o'clock news, and the possibility of the general public becoming too sympathetic towards gun owners/enthusiasts.

I still say the gun-grabbers will try to onerously tax or ban ammunition and hand-loading supplies. This has already been proposed by the late Sen. Daniel Moynahan. Liberals consider him an icon of modern politics.

The second amendment is silent about ammunition. At least that's the legal contortions you can expect from the gun-grabbers, liberal judges and legislators.

If I was trying to get rid of/nullify firearms it would be the tactic I would employ.


June 5, 2004, 09:27 AM
Ted Kennedy isn't afraid of gun owners because we tend to be law abiding and upstanding (theories he can hardly comprehend.) He will rue the day he turns us into criminals. If we're already criminals, we've already crossed the line. When you've already got 7 felony counts on you, what's a murder charge on top of it, right?

Art Eatman
June 5, 2004, 10:46 AM
Publicola, I may be splitting hairs or something, but the drug laws are enforced agains material which is acquired AFTER the passage of a ban.

Machine gun seizures have come after a grace period within which to comply with a law, and the guns weren't put into compliance.

It might be possible for Congress to ban manufacture of new firearms for civilian purchase as it has banned the manufacture of new machine guns. I'm in doubt of this happening, in that many who favor gun control laws yet favor private ownership. A proposed ban thus brings in those who don't like AWs but do like their semi-auto shotguns or their Perazzis. And the bedside-table pistol owners...


June 5, 2004, 07:44 PM
I am not a LEO.

When I was much younger, I believed in the "from my cold dead hands" sentiment. Or, anyway, I thought I did. Then had a beautiful little girl and it all changed. How could I leave her without a Dad?

Now that I am older still, I have imagined a day when she will look me in the eye and ask "Why didn't your generation do something?" as we contemplate National I.D. cards, cameras in our homes, bar codes on our skin, warrantless searches, having to have a "permit" or other "official permission" to do anything at all, etc. etc. etc..

I would not be able to look her in the eye, knowing that I had traded freedom, my posterity's and my own, for some "safety".

Scary stuff, and well within the realm of possibility.

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

June 5, 2004, 08:10 PM
Preacherman, if you called me with 2 hours' advance notice, I'd have to tell you that I won't be home in 2 hours, please show up next Monday.

I'm SURE you wouldn't notice a large mound of fresh dirt in the back yard, would you?

There are people on this board who would have to dig for TWO WEEKS to bury all their goodies and it would STILL be sticking out of the earthworks...

June 5, 2004, 09:02 PM
The traitors don't have to ban/confiscate *all* firearms to destroy the little freedom left in America and to reduce us all to utter servitude. They just have to ban/confiscate the weapons that *matter* -- the ones that might actually be of some use in a fight against the government's hired triggermen -- that might allow an American to actually hold the forces of evil and tyranny at bay for a while, or perhaps even turn the tables on them. As Mr. Mcgee has pointed out so well in his book, high-powered centerfire *semiautomatic* rifles with *normal magazine capacities* are the only halfway-commonly-available (for the moment) weapons that can offer that sort of self-defense capability to ordinary Americans.

And, who can tell me why it is not treason, pure and simple, to advocate, pass, or enforce "laws" that are clearly and plainly not only unconstitutional but actually *anti*-constitutional and un-American as hell? Why would anyone with even an ounce of Americanness left in him even *want* a job doing that?


June 5, 2004, 09:12 PM
I'm in the Army National Guard. While I believe that the incrementalist approach is surely the one the antis will choose, I can see confiscation happening under certain circumstances. Iraq is under fairly strict gun control (one rifle per household, nothing else), and our guys are enforcing it. I get training in "civil disturbances" every year in the Guard. I swore an oath to defend the Constitution against "domestic enemies," which could easily mean gun owners with the stroke of the legislative pen.

I would quit the Guard immediately if ordered to confiscate firearms from American citizens. No question about it. If they put me in jail, so be it. It is clearly an unlawful order, and I am morally obligated to refuse unlawful orders.

However, most of my fellow Guardsman, I am sad to report, would obey such an order without hesitation. For the most part the three Guard units I've been in have consisted of:

1. Young kids who need college money. They generally have no deep convictions about patriotism, the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, or much else for that matter. They're only at drill for the tuition waiver, and will do whatever they're told. They just want to get out of drill (or off active duty) as quickly as possible and go back to dating, playing video games, and drinking beer. It would never occur to them to weigh ANY order against the Bill of Rights.

2. Gung-ho guys who should be on active duty. These guys are always looking for "a mission" to justify their training and the years they've spent in the Guard. They volunteer for every special duty that comes along -- tour in Bosnia, guarding the Olympics, etc. They pray for activation to go to Iraq, and feel slighted if the unit doesn't get the call. These guys would trip over themselves to obey such an order, since it is "a mission," and thus justifies the existence of the Guard in their eyes.

3. Guys waiting out their twenty years to get a piddly retirement income. These guys show up to every drill, pass their PT test and marksmanship quals, and stay between E4 and E6 forever. They make no waves, ever. They'd quietly shrug and go along with the order.

4. Guys who have lousy jobs or bad personal relationships in the civilian world, but feel they can exert some authority when they put on their BDUs. These guys usually make Sergeant very quickly, and then relish ordering around Privates and Specialists. These guys also apply for every single AGR (full-time Guard) job the state posts. Authoritarians at heart, they'd have no qualms about obeying a confiscation order.

5. Guys like me, who joined because they thought there was nobility in the citizen/soldier concept, and thought the Guard was the closest they could get to the old militia idea. I have met exactly ONE other guy who felt this way, in the two infantry companies and one artillery battery in which I've served. And this other guy was actually an MP. We prefer to emphasize the Guard's state mission, believe in the Bill of Rights, and would refuse such an order.

So out of, say, 300 Guardsmen, two of us would refuse the order. That's less than one percent. No, I can't say that this is true for all Guard units, obviously. But I think it bodes poorly for the country if confiscation is ordered.

There are, scattered through the Guard, folks who are hobby shooters and hunters. Some will refuse such an order; most will obey. This mirrors the general shooting public, I think.

You may wonder why I stay in the Guard, knowing all this. The answer is: I won't. Because of some provisions of the Patriot Act, and especially because of McCain-Feingold, I am not even considering reenlisting when my enlistment is up. If this is the way the country's going to be, it can do it without my support or moral sanction.


June 5, 2004, 10:04 PM
Anyone mentioning ''incrementalism'' .. I agree .. and quote again ... the Ayn Rand piece ..... "Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted ? and you create a nation of law-breakers ? and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with." Make more and more laws that make felons out of even the currently law-abiding ... and you chug along towards the goal. No single act - in and of itself - is enough to bring a call to arms. It is criticized, bitched about, but for most part grudgingly accepted.

In the end .. so many people have become criminals (technically) that they have nowhere to go ... they are up a blind alley. By this time, there are few left in relative terms who might resist - and if they did then they are immediately labelled ''terrorist'', ''gun-nuts'' or some other disparaging label, that the general populace will accept as fact.

Once again .. boiling the frog is the way these things happen. If it were attempted as a rapid grab then yeah .. things would get nasty, in short order.

tcsd ..... as ever, I not really quite sure where you fit in with the majority of us here.

June 6, 2004, 12:24 PM
This type of thread keeps popping up on THR over and over and over. As much as anyone I'm guilty of posting to and keeping them going (like now I guess). :banghead:

Over and over the problem is well and truly defined. We all know the problem; we all know that the end result is a when, not an if?

BUT, and this is a big but, that's where it always stops. What's the solution? Where does it all end. In every single thread of this nature very well thought out analysis is coupled with BS chest thumping. And chest thumping is all it is. :mad:

Incrementalism works. It worked in the UK and now it is working in the United States of America. We're all gonna lose our guns eventually - if not us then our children (will they even care - did they care in the UK? ). When I read these threads I'm reminded of the story of Lot and Sodom and Gemhorra where he starts out with 50 Righteous men and ends up down at 10 (I think) to keep S & G from being destroyed. That's THR. Sodom and Gemorha went down as we all know. Are there even 10 righteous men on THR? :confused:

What's the solultion to preventing gun confiscation? Where are the folks willing to implement the solution?

I doubt if THR is even the place to discuss such a thing - we are - as so many are so proud of pointing out law abiding citizens.

We revel in that fact - hell we wallow in that fact. :cuss: AND That fact is what will doom our cause. The FEDS are going to take away our guns - if not now then eventually and most all of us good, law abiding citizens will stand aside and watch - the rest will help load 'em into the vans. We know it's coming and since the confiscation will be done under color of law all the good law abiding citizens will get down on their knees, kiss the rings of their masters and hand 'em over. :barf:

The spirits of men like Thomas Jefferson, Nathan Hale, George Washington and all the other founding fathers must be looking down on us from their honored places in heaven shaking their heads in amazement, wondering just what happened to the once great nation they started. :(

June 6, 2004, 12:48 PM
Be proactive! Kill the legislative branch quick enough (and some judicial); won't have to deal with the executive then.

Not so jokingly said.

June 6, 2004, 03:05 PM
I would horde all the ammunition I could. If you come to take my guns, you better bring yours...you will need them.

I'll spray paint the 2nd Ammendment on my garage and pre-sight the entire property. Maybe a few "destructive devices" would be in order. If I'm going to be a felon, I may as well go all the way with it.

June 6, 2004, 03:20 PM
tcsd ..... as ever, I not really quite sure where you fit in with the majority of us here. LOL. I like to think of Jim affectionately as our resident borderline-JBT. THR welcomes all types, and it would make for a lot of one-sided discussions without him around. :D

June 6, 2004, 07:36 PM
Take a fence sitter shooting,it's for the children.

June 6, 2004, 08:56 PM
LOL. I like to think of Jim affectionately as our resident borderline-JBT. THR welcomes all types, and it would make for a lot of one-sided discussions without him around.

JBT? Hardly. Guess you guys need to hang around some Third World Police Forces to get an understanding of how realy repressive countries use their officers. I think you would probably appreciate US officers more. As for my views...I am more middle of the road than you give me credit for.After all, as an FFL, it would hardly make sense for me to be ANTI gun now, would it? I also , however, do not see firearms as something that should be available with NO restrictions, as some here and elsewhere would have it be. The topic is too broad for an easy, pat answer. I would have to answer each individual topic. As for broad, sweeping confiscation, I don't see it ever happening.

June 6, 2004, 09:03 PM
We revel in that fact - hell we wallow in that fact. AND That fact is what will doom our cause. The FEDS are going to take away our guns - if not now then eventually and most all of us good, law abiding citizens will stand aside and watch - the rest will help load 'em into the vans. We know it's coming and since the confiscation will be done under color of law all the good law abiding citizens will get down on their knees, kiss the rings of their masters and hand 'em over.

THE LAW is a contract, of sorts, between people and their government. The government has been breaking that contract for years. I've obeyed all the silly, nonsensical laws I am going to. Not one more step, say I. I will own what I want, I will keep what I want, and I will carry what and where and when I want. I will not go out of my way to break the laws, and I will not flaunt it. But I will not dance around the "law" and quake in fear of soccer moms and Dianne Feinstein no longer.
I would have trouble shooting good old Herman, who's been a Sheriff's deputy ijn these parts for the better part of 50 years. But Herman won't come for my guns. Herman might be standing beside me when they come.
It'll be Feds of some sort as come for 'em. Military, ATF, or UN Blue helmets, I don't know any of them, and if they come for me, the've started it.

It may be niavete on my part, and it might be I've misplaced my faith with men unworthy of it. But a lot of folks I know won't just roll over if it happens. And it won't take a whole lot of us.
Myself, I don't go in for much of the armed rebellion talk. I'd rather try to change things "legally", as it were. But if it fails, and the whole thing comes crashing down, I'll do what I've got to do.

And I'm sure the government is reading this right now. Any moment, there'll be a knock at my door, and y'all will never hear from me again. Until I'm on the news as a "Domestic Terrorist", and I'll be denounced by all you good, law abiding gun owners.

June 6, 2004, 09:05 PM
LOL. I like to think of Jim affectionately as our resident borderline-JBT. THR welcomes all types, and it would make for a lot of one-sided discussions without him around.

Jim's not a JBT, just a lot more "establishment" than a lot of folks here. I don't agree with most of what Jim says. But he's on our side, and I like him.
Most of the time, anyway.;)

June 6, 2004, 09:23 PM
The clowns on the Dallas City Council passed a no-smoking ban in the city. It is obeyed in roughly the same proportion as the speed limits. Now, restaurants that used to have smoking/non-smoking sections are all smoking all the time. I don't smoke, but when I smell tobacco smoke in a bar/restaurant in Dallas, it is the smell of freedom. There is some hope yet burning in the form of a Camel Unfiltered.


Most LEOs & service members would comply and confiscate, even those who believe in RKBA. It would take more intestinal fortitude than most have to resist. Are they going to put their freedom, livilihood, and family on the line for some "gun nut?" Don't bet on it. No slam on LEOs, just a slam on current culture in USA, of which they are a part.

Some jurisdictions would not enforce such confiscation and would quickly find their LEO establishment replaced by "team players." You can always find folks to oppress their neighbors.

As to what I'd do in the event...this ain't the forum to discuss such fun & games. I did, however, swear an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution from all its enemies. I don't recall anything on my DD214 releasing me from that oath.

June 6, 2004, 10:12 PM

I was going to start a new thread with this question, but this might be the place to start, because it makes a difference regarding the whole confiscation issue.

I'm not an attorney, judge, or law enforcer. I just happen to have heard some interesting legal explanations as to how and why our Republic is in the shape it's in, and some of the theories would explain some of the behaviors of federal judges and presidents, so I'm left wondering how valid they are.

For example, I was told that the gold fringe you see around the US flag flown in federal courthouses denotes the war flag. I've also heard that the Civil War was never officially declared over. Anybody have anything interesting to add to prove or disprove whether we are under martial law or not?

Warning: tinfoil hat zone - these are a few sites I found just now while googling "martial law" (there were many, many more):


Inquiring minds want to know.

June 7, 2004, 01:33 PM
pax said:

But it's okay. In the soi-distant future, when the goon squads are coming door-to-door to gather up guns, suddenly all the gun owners in America will grow a set of balls twice as big as the ones they had before.

Unfortunately, two times zero is still zero.


I guess we'll just have to depend on the female gun owners amoungst us. Probably for the best, they usually shoot better anyway.:D

June 7, 2004, 04:59 PM
:( I think it's already started. When I was born (1965) you could order a rifle through the mail. I grew up in a rural area where a 22 and a shotgun were rites of passage for a boy growing up.

Today, I live in the suburbs of Chicago. My kids are taught at school that guns are bad. Violence -- of any kind, even in the defence of right -- is bad. Mothers see their kids pick up a toy rifle and almost scream -- they quickly run over to take the rifle from their children's hands and tell them that good kids don't play with guns.

No, our rights won't be taken away from us. They've already been taken away from our children through methodical social engineering and brainwashing.

I for one am going to make sure my 3 suburban kids grow up knowing the fun, joy and seriousness of firearms and right of defense...I fear, however, that they will be seen as outcasts.

Very depressing...I think I better move to Idaho.

If you enjoyed reading about "L.E.O.s : Would you confiscate?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!