And if it passes? (Y'all know what "it" is)


PDA






Dionysusigma
July 5, 2004, 01:53 AM
Several threads here on THR and TFL and many other websites are on the topic of the AWB sunset. There are a ton of opinions, most of which are of the nature that it will die and never be seen again, end of story. Others are... well, not so optimistic.

Let's say (for some godawful reason) that Kerry is elected. Or, Bush remains in office but the new AWB gets to his desk and is signed. Or, he vetos it and it still lives. Either the old ban is renewed (with or without an expiration date) or a newer, tighter one is enacted. Simply, something happens and the AWB doesn't die like everyone here wants it to do. And gun "control" legislation continues down its path.

What happens? Someone's sig is "Give me liberty or I'll sign a harshly-worded petition." We've done that. A lot. What happens next? "Vote from the rooftops?" Does anyone really think that they/we/someone can do that and have it help our cause?

To take it even further, the occasional discussion talkes about armed resistance. But how can a mostly untrained (yet vast, nonetheless) group of people with pistols, rifles, shotguns, limited supply of ammunition, and maybe the occasional MG face the world's greatest army with all their tanks, aircraft, tracking systems, training, and other fancy equipment. We can demoralize them, but we ultimately cannot even hope to win such a fight.

This wouldn't be anything like the Revolutionay War either (except for a few of the locations). That was fought with both sides having the same equipment, and with the King of England and the bulk of his troops a looong boat ride away. Communications were far from instant.

The courts are seemingly against us. The media is against us and, proportionally, most of the population. Some of the many gov't agencies are certainly not helping.

So my question is this: Not to be confused with what we want to do, but what will we actually do?

If you enjoyed reading about "And if it passes? (Y'all know what "it" is)" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
2nd Amendment
July 5, 2004, 02:51 AM
OK, I have been doing something tonite that I never do: Drinking. As such I am pickled. 5 shots of God knows what plus whatever else I have been handed. As such I am not feeling particularly nice to those I don't like(OK, Call me a mean drunk, see if I care).

The most powerful military in the world simply won't exist if it gets to that point. We will not be confronting our own troops. Firstly, this government won't put them here because they know a large percentage simply won't be able to pull the trigger(this happens in conflicts against foreign opposition). Another sizeable segment will desert. A fair number of them will desert with weaponry. Local armories will become wide open treasure chests. Next up, this nation covers too much territory to wage a war against a guerrilla force. It's just too big and there's too many foes.

IF it came to armed conflict the federal government would lose. Badly. The question is, what comes after? And who will occupy the military position afterwards? That answer is the UN and a divided America. We have sat around for years talking about UN troops and UN control and we seem to miss the point. The UN doesn't have to supply a viable force. Let the country disintegrate into warring factions battling an increasingly demoralized federal military. The end result is a gutted Fed dependent on the largesse of an all too willing global organization which doesn't have to do more than contribute a token force for appearance sake while the conflict goes on.

Afterwards, pick up the pieces, keep things at a low boil and enjoy the power that a world free of US balancing would provide. So, it's NOT a question of would we win, it's a fact that it would be a Pyhrric(sp) victory. Unless somewhere in the near future is a singular group with the vision and leadership of the Founders of this nation we're heading for a feudal state. For the portion of the world which wants to subjugate US spvereignty what could be better, or more easy? And, OTOH, what choice do we have except to raise cain and, essentially, hand the global interests what they want?

[/end drunken rant]

Majic
July 5, 2004, 06:47 AM
Our military is great against large organized armies, but faced with thousands of small roving bands of random sniper attacks will drive them nuts. Noticed how they rolled over Irag, but are still scratching their heads about Afganistan.
They can't afford to launch air strikes, call in artillery support, or commit tanks to sniper warfare that could cover the entire country. Plus civilians make up a large part of the military support organization. The pro-gunners in those positions can cause a big disruption to those needed services.
As they say, there's more than one way to skin a cat!

c_yeager
July 5, 2004, 06:56 AM
First of all the very idea that more than a TEENSY handfull of people actually feel strongly enough about the AWB to kill people over it is laughable.

Now once you have that TEENSY handfull of people who SAY they care that much you have to figure for about an 80% woose out factor.

Now out of the remaining 20% of a handfull you have probably about 50/50 able bodied vs couch potatoes (at best).

Of those who are able bodied im thinking about half of them can actually shoot and seek cover worth a damn...

So, how much of a chance are these guys gonna have? Bear in mind they arent just gonna be fighting against the US military. They are going to be fighting against the majority of the PEOPLE of America (including myself i might add).

boofus
July 5, 2004, 09:49 AM
If another AWB gets passed I will simply ignore the thing. Has anyone heard a story of anyone being prosecuted for the AWB besides dealers at gunshows? I've only heard of that 1 big sting where ATF targeted a bunch of dealers in that CA (?) gun show.

The only people drooling in anticipation of the death of the unconstitutional and ineffective AWB are law abiding folks. Gangbangers and mob bosses don't know what's happening in Sept and don't care. That fact alone tells you enough about the effectiveness of that law in reducing crime. :cuss:

DMK
July 5, 2004, 11:17 AM
So you guys are talking about initiating a civil war just because you can't have a 30 round mag or a flash supressor? :rolleyes:

Even if it were possible to succeed, morally and ethically killing people requires quite a bit more justification than that. :scrutiny:
This wouldn't be anything like the Revolutionay War either (except for a few of the locations). That was fought with both sides having the same equipment, and with the King of England and the bulk of his troops a looong boat ride away. Communications were far from instant. No it would not be anything like that in the least. Read the Declaration of Independance. There were many very serious, grievous reasons why our countryment took up arms against the government.


2nd Amendment, for a drunken rant, your post makes a lot of good sense.

Also keep in mind that at the time of the Revolutionary war, the United States was a non-player globally. We were also pretty much self sufficient compared to modern times. Disruption of commercial trade and having entire states cut off did not hinder the colonials from functioning. Individuals could still grow food and hunt to eat. They could cut wood to warm their houses. It would not take much to cause massive disruption today. Millions would starve and freeze to death without oil to provide electricity and warm their houses. The trucking industry would grind to a halt and food would be scarce.

Lone_Gunman
July 5, 2004, 11:26 AM
Bayonet lugs and flash hiders are not worth killing fellow Americans and probably dying over.

They are nice and look way cool, but I don't think they do much more than that from a pratical standpoint.

Certainly, a post-ban AR is just as good a defense against tyranny as a pre-ban.

So, if the ban got renewed I would be willing to write letters and vote against the people who renew it, but not much else.

I think the AWB is stupid, does nothing to reduce crime, and limits what our guns can look like, but I am not sure I would even say it definitely infringes on the 2nd amendment. Its a cosmetic law only.

If Congress passed a law that said all guns had to be polka-dotted, the guns would work just as well, they would just a little too gay for most people.

buy guns
July 5, 2004, 11:29 AM
this is what we do.

http://www.lizmichael.com/windowwa.htm

if it worked before it can work again. imagine going on all of the message boards and coordinating a country wide window war to occur during a single night. the govt would ???? themselves.

fix
July 5, 2004, 11:31 AM
I'd like to see the ban sunset in Washington, but regardless of whether that happens or not, it is sunsetting at my house. That magpul stock is going on my carbine the morning of September 15...period. If they come to take me away for such a trivial thing, then so be it. If they storm the place like a bunch of idiots, I'll fight. If they knock on the door and politely explain that they are here to serve a warrant, I'll go quietly...but that :cuss: stock is going on my rifle!!!

Justin
July 5, 2004, 11:47 AM
Sorry. This one's treading too close to advocation of lawbreaking.

If you enjoyed reading about "And if it passes? (Y'all know what "it" is)" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!