When they come for your guns - what will you do?


PDA






dave3006
July 7, 2004, 05:37 PM
It is July 2005. Komrad Kerry is President. They have just passed AWB II. All military style semi autos (ARs, AK, Garands, FALs, ect...) have been banned. You refused to turn yours in at the deadline. They are now going through DOJ records and siezing illegal weapons nationwide.

Seriously, what do you do? Do you make a stand? Or, do you turn yours in?

No bravado. What will you do?

If you enjoyed reading about "When they come for your guns - what will you do?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
boofus
July 7, 2004, 05:41 PM
Guns? Those are dangerous, I don't have any guns. :p

Chipperman
July 7, 2004, 05:47 PM
Gee, I sold all of mine a couple of months ago.

JesusCow
July 7, 2004, 05:52 PM
Goodbye USA

LoneStranger
July 7, 2004, 05:58 PM
I'm poor and impoverished! I had to sell everything to afford food, rent, and medical care! :neener:

Sindawe
July 7, 2004, 06:03 PM
I'll send the bullets out first.

Not bravado, just the plain facts. I'd rather perish a 'free' man, and take some of the *$&#@^@ with me, than live on as a subject/serf/slave, which is what we will truely be if they come for the guns.

Michigander
July 7, 2004, 06:12 PM
What are the choices?

a) Turn 'em in and live peacefully and "lawfully" for a few more years with your spouse and child(ren), albeit with less freedom?

b) Turn 'em in and live peacefully and "unlawfully" by purchasing banned weapons on the black market?

c) Lie through your teeth that you no longer own said firearms and hope they do not obtain a search warrant and if they do, hope you have your banned firearms hidden well enough that they do not find them? And when they find them you go to jail for 40 years?

d) Same as c) except you turn in a couple in hopes that it appeases them and that they do not search for the others?

e) Have an armed stand-off at home until they accuse you of being a child molester and burn down your house (leaving your family no where to live, assuming they are not burned alive with you)?

f) Flee to some remote location with your banned firearms and you are never heard from again?

g) Flee to some remote location with your banned firearms and they track you down and when you surrender with your hands up they shoot you anyways?

h)

what other options are there?

Standing Wolf
July 7, 2004, 06:13 PM
Come get them.

rick_reno
July 7, 2004, 06:15 PM
They are now going through DOJ records and siezing illegal weapons nationwide.

Who is siezing illegal weapons? Last time I looked, the military was busy elsewhere dealing with the mess Shrub and his Dr. Strangelove clones created. LEO's sure aren't going to do this.

Given what I've observed from many of the chest thumping touch typists that frequent this and other RKBA forums, it's obvious most people would obey the law and turn them in. It'd be the right thing to do.

Cacique500
July 7, 2004, 06:30 PM
PVC pipe, large ziplocks, a shovel, and a GPS :neener:

DevilDog
July 7, 2004, 06:38 PM
Drawing on the Canadian gun registration fiasco - Alberta is estimated to have non-compliance as high as 60% (from one source I found).

Since Americans tend to buck authority at times, my guess is the majority of us will be putting our shovels to work.

Wildalaska
July 7, 2004, 06:45 PM
Look...up in the Sky..its an asteroid going to destoy life on earth..

WildamorelikelyscenarioAlaska

Matthew Courtney
July 7, 2004, 06:56 PM
It'd be April 19, 1775 all over again.

"Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? I know not what path others might chuse, but as for me... give me liberty or give me death."

Roc_Kor
July 7, 2004, 07:09 PM
They wouldn't get mine, no matter what.

Remember: YOU'LL TAKE THIS RIFLE FROM MY COLD DEAD FINGERS!

Molon Labe.

Zach S
July 7, 2004, 07:26 PM
Probably nothing. If the JBTs do their research, they'll storm the fortress while I sleep, which wont be very good for me since I keep my HD gun withing easy reach (ie, suspect was killed in a clean shoot), or they'll quietly get them at night while I work, and have a car pick me up there.

Cosmoline
July 7, 2004, 08:56 PM
Imagine Kerry et al actually did get their dream bill through. So what? There are thousands of federal laws on the books that are virtually never enforced. This would be one of them. The feds have no desire to get shot enforcing some stupid law. So instead of storming everyone's house, they'd simply use the law as one more tool in their bag. If they don't like you our suspect you're a criminal, they can get a warrant if some informant says he saw a verbottengun on your property.

Think of it this way. Where I live plenty of people are growing pot and smoking it (not that *I* ever inhale). Illegal, yes. But nobody gets arrested. Instead, the feds use it as a pretext to get access to persons and property they want access to.

So no armies of federales. Just a slow steady drumbeat of doom.

RAY WOODROW 3RD
July 7, 2004, 09:08 PM
Duck season?

Wabbit season?

NO

ELMER SEASON!

RW3

Splat Shot
July 7, 2004, 09:15 PM
rick_reno: "LEO's sure aren't going to do this".

Betcha a nickle a lot of them would if told to do so.

JohnKSa
July 7, 2004, 09:43 PM
LEO's sure aren't going to do this.
Wishful thinking--they already do in places in the U.S. where firearms/certain kinds of firearms are illegal.

madcowburger
July 7, 2004, 09:58 PM
I honestly don't know. I'd like to think I'd go down in some heroic blaze of glory, but you never really know until the time comes. I know I wish my home was defensible.

What good is it going to do, though, if they just pick us all (or as many as they want of us) off, one by one -- if we "all hang separately" in effect?

The big question is how resistance on a mass, organized, intelligently coordinated and led scale could be stirred up.

MCB

buy guns
July 7, 2004, 10:03 PM
they wont find me

White Horseradish
July 7, 2004, 10:11 PM
I'll take the shovel for $500, Alex. :neener:

Dave R
July 8, 2004, 12:07 AM
PVC pipe, large ziplocks, a shovel, and a GPS

There's an old saying about that.

If its time to bury them, then its time to dig them up.

R.H. Lee
July 8, 2004, 12:12 AM
I'm 58 now. My children are grown. I don't want to go to a nursing home. I will probably have some lead time in the above captioned scenario. Other than that, I won't speculate.

NIGHTWATCH
July 8, 2004, 02:35 AM
There are more of us than they. If they lose a member everytime around, they lose. :fire:

Tom Brokaw: The death toll of government agents killed while enforcing the recent gun ban has reached 8,612. This just one month into a national operation which calls for citizens to surrender their firearms.

Hmmm. One month? 90 million gun owners? Say nothing of militias forming and lone gunman hunting politicians...this is a modest estimate. :evil:

Wildalaska
July 8, 2004, 04:40 AM
Remember: YOU'LL TAKE THIS RIFLE FROM MY COLD DEAD FINGERS!

Yo Roc no offense dude yer a sophmore in High School, perhaps ya better get permission from yer folks to buy a gun before ya start warring with the JBTs...

:what: :neener:

WildcantresistsometimesAlaska

Cosmoline
July 8, 2004, 05:27 AM
But you know when that day comes, Wild's gonna be hunkered down, a whole platoon of federales surrounding his bunker on Old Seward. It's gonna be like "Death Hunt", with spin cocked leverguns and Enfields aplenty--wowing the feds and making them feel unmanly with their wee subguns.

RevDisk
July 8, 2004, 05:30 AM
If such a ban was issued, I of course would turn in all of my weapons as directed. :rolleyes:


Again, no one is ever going to do a nation wide gun ban. Heavy taxes or limiting the amount and types of new manufactured/imported weapons. Taxing ammo. Much more likely.

The Real Mad Max
July 8, 2004, 06:40 AM
And what if they didn't come for them???? :uhoh:

:rolleyes:

Bubbles
July 8, 2004, 06:54 AM
Shovel and PVC? I'm gonna need a backhoe and conex box!

The Last Confederate
July 8, 2004, 07:21 AM
what other options are there?


h.

Form a NEW Confederacy, and fight back for the glory of freedom and Dixie!

patentmike
July 8, 2004, 08:10 AM
In the meantime, I hope y'all plan to vote.

molonlabe
July 8, 2004, 08:20 AM
It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!


Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775.

Black Dragon
July 8, 2004, 08:36 AM
The Mountains of Montana will sound real good about that time.

My father and father-in-law have talked about something like this. Not sure
what will happens until it happens. We can talk all we want but when the
SHTF and action is needed that will be the real test.

dischord
July 8, 2004, 09:14 AM
The idea of armed resistance is a delusion that distracts from what needs to be done to stop confiscation in the first place.

When some of you are done thumping your chests, pehaps you should decide what your real options would be.

molonlabe
July 8, 2004, 09:42 AM
Maybe people need to read the whole piece.
http://libertyonline.hypermall.com/henry-liberty.html

Rebar
July 8, 2004, 10:48 AM
Confiscation would be just the first step. After that, they'll round up "enemies of the state" and send them to "re-education camps".

I for one wouldn't like to visit President Hillary Clinton's gulag, since the odds of my return from there would be about zero (read Solzhenitsyn's The Gulag Archipelago). So I see little choice about what to do when they come for my weapons.

Skunkabilly
July 8, 2004, 10:51 AM
I'd play nice.

Carlos Cabeza
July 8, 2004, 11:01 AM
Build a subterranian stronghold in the hills of Missourri with miles and miles of underground tunnels and fortified bunkers. Have electrical generation equipment and a reverse osmosis water purification system. Lay low and organize the resistance movement....................................................:rolleyes: Nahhhhh, I'd roll over like beaten dog.....................

W Turner
July 8, 2004, 11:20 AM
"Evil black assault rifles? Those things are icky......as a matter of fact I think I just pee'd my pants a little 'cause you mentioned them, can you come help me change my diaper?


Funny thing is, a bolt or lever gun in good hands is just as effective. You get 1/2 a dozen or so adequate shooters together equipped with scoped bolt guns and you can get all the EBR's you need in just a few minutes if you pick your targets well.....

W

DevilDog
July 8, 2004, 01:17 PM
The idea of armed resistance is a delusion that distracts from what needs to be done to stop confiscation in the first place.

When some of you are done thumping your chests, pehaps you should decide what your real options would be.
Worth repeating.

I bought a real gun safe when I realized that the expense of the safe was minor compared to what it held and the importance of keeping the wrong hands off certain things.

It may be a good idea for many of us to sacrifice the price of a few boxes of ammo, or the next accessory and instead send it to your favorite pro RKBA organization soon!


"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
- Edmund Burke (1729-1797)

oldfart
July 8, 2004, 01:22 PM
MCB postged this: "The big question is how resistance on a mass, organized, intelligently coordinated and led scale could be stirred up.


That is a very big question since such an undertaking would require both time and dedicated manpower and both of those ingredients carry the seeds of defeat. The length of time it would take to organize resistance would make a mistake more likely and the more people involved would increase the likelihood of a government agent infiltrating the group.

If any group of people-- even this group-- were to lay out a set plan for resistance to a government action, it would lay them open to charges of conspiracy. So daydreaming about the possibilities, as we are doing here, is as far as any of us can go. Besides, everyone knows the best results would come from small-cell, leaderless resistance. Whatever you decide to do--- just do it, but be prepared to die alone, 'cause that's how they'll set it up. And once you can no longer defend your name or reputation you'll become a drug addict or a child molestor or terrorist. When I see the way this country is going I sometimes wonder if I might as well become a drug addicted, child molesting terrorist now and avoid the last-minute rush.

utvols
July 8, 2004, 01:51 PM
Invoke my Fifth amendment rights.

TamThompson
July 8, 2004, 01:57 PM
The situation you mentioned is one of my own personal lines in the sand. I would start talking, very carefully, to everyone I know who has guns, and most likely join them and/or the local militia. I have a better chance of fending off gun-grabbing with others than alone.

I would also move right out of the city of Austin, Texas.

R.H. Lee
July 8, 2004, 01:57 PM
Invoke my Fifth amendment rights

Constitutional guarantees are temporarily suspended in the public interest.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.

shooterx10
July 8, 2004, 02:04 PM
Would you rather fight them (the gun grabbers) at the ballot box or in the streets?

If you have not read John Ross' Unintended Consequences, I highly encourage you to do so.

More importantly, read George Orwell's Animal Farm!

There may be a lot of "chest thumping" going on right now whenever this topic comes up on other 2nd Amendment forums, but you won't really know if you're going to take up arms when them JBT's come a knockin' until it REALLY HAPPENS!

Pray to God, that the situation and thinking against us will change.

charby
July 8, 2004, 03:03 PM
Tell my family and friends "via con dias" and head someplace real south of the border with anyone who cares to join me. I got skills and a strong back, granted my quality of life will not be the same but who cares along as I'm not told what I can and can't do by a bunch of bureaucratic socialist nitwits. I'm thinking one of those countries that has a revolution monthly might not be so bad. Find a shack in the hills, dodge a few bullets and try to live the best I can off of the land.

jnojr
July 8, 2004, 03:07 PM
Your guns are not welcome south of the border unless you're extremely (by Mexican standards) wealthy. You'll need to grease a lot of palms to stay out of trouble. And some palms will require occasional re-greasing.

Mulliga
July 8, 2004, 03:25 PM
I'm single with no children. All my immediate family members are independent and healthy. If it comes to fighting, then...

:uhoh:

NIGHTWATCH
July 8, 2004, 03:27 PM
Im not "thumping my chest" when I say this, but its a fact. If some JBT ever put his boot on my neck. If that day ever came when I was victimized by government. I would rather die. I would nolonger want to live.

Maybe when they knock on the door. Maybe after they disarm me, I dont know. All I do know is that I would rather blow myself to bits and take a few hundred or thousand with me and let them taste the bitterness of the phrase "Dont Tread On Me" than live as a victim. :mad:

And if that makes me guilty of conspiracy at that time (if ever), so be it. I would be in the company of our founding fathers who became criminals of the crown when declaring independence and faced hanging.

Everybody wants to go to heaven but nobody wants to die. Everybody wants freedom but doesnt want to pay the price ... BS. :fire:



http://66.96.177.64/picture_hosting/web_pages/paternoster/gadsden.gif

Frohickey
July 8, 2004, 03:30 PM
Are you sure its not President Gilmore, and the AWB2 was because of a Stadium Massacre? ;)

molonlabe
July 8, 2004, 03:37 PM
Nightwatch.

Well said. I didn't even give that comment the courtesy of a reply. There will always be people who sit on the sidelines while others fight for liberty. That’s been going on since the beginning of time. People were marched right into the gas chambers of Dachau believing up to the last minute that somehow it wasn’t happening or someone would save them. I have no use for sheep. Sheep deserve to be slaughtered. I and many other people I know would rather take a bullet while biting the nose off of the pig guard marching me into the gas chambers.

So that’s what I have to say about that.

Matthew Courtney
July 8, 2004, 04:03 PM
In late December of 1776, the Continental Army was reeling, having suffered defeat after defeat. General Washington realized that the best way to defeat a jack booted Hessian thug was to attack him while he's in bed asleep, rather than waiting until he attacks you.

Molon Labe
July 8, 2004, 04:45 PM
Cosmoline is correct… there will be no door-to-door searches. The law will simply be another tool in the Fed’s toolbox to bust “undesirable” people. You won’t be hassled if you’re a party member who tows the party line.

But if the JBTs do come a-knock’n, I will hope I’ll have enough time to get the hell out of the house before they get to the door! (Most of us seem to ignore this point.) I’ll get at least 300 yards away, where I can “assess” the situation. I’ll either try to pick ‘em off right then and there, or (more likely) I’ll go to a rally/safe point where I had previously cached food, water, guns, ammo, etc. From there I can meet my buddies, where we will plan on the next move.

People seem to be forgetting that you can’t fight if you’re lying in a coffin. You are no good to us dead, so don’t try to be a martyr! Instead, try to stay alive, and then get with your buddies and make plans on how to defeat the enemy in an intelligent (and proven) way. If you need a clue, get a book on guerilla warfare.

Wildalaska
July 8, 2004, 05:07 PM
Tell my family and friends "via con dias" and head someplace real south of the border with anyone who cares to join me

Oh yeah, Me hi co, now there is truly a free, non socialist paragon of human rights where everybody may be armed LOL

Im not "thumping my chest" when I say this, but its a fact. If some JBT ever put his boot on my neck. If that day ever came when I was victimized by government. I would rather die. I would nolonger want to live.

Whooa there Pilgrim...where ya posting from NYC...lets see...cant get a pistol permit for self defense unless you are somebody, have to register ALL firearms, no semi autos...sounds like the boots on your neck already...why are you chest thumpin here?:D

Sheep deserve to be slaughtered

Yeah well some of my relatives were those "sheep"..ya saying they deserved it? Let me know whether you are just serious or running off at the mouth? That way when I get tossed off for telling you exactly what I think of your bulls*it I will be doing it for a reason:cuss: :fire:

WildgonnaloseitAlaska

Linux&Gun Guy
July 8, 2004, 05:08 PM
Fighting sounds good(or running, regrouping and then fighting) but better to avoid the problem by voting and writting. Sure it may not help but at least you tried.

dischord
July 8, 2004, 05:15 PM
Nightwatch and molonlabe,

You guys are really missing the point. Strutting around thumping your chests about what you'd do -- by gum! -- when the JBTs come only distracts you from what you ought to be doing today to prevent it from occurring in the first place.

But the fact is that you both have proven yourselves unwilling walk what you talk. It's not hypothetical. You both live in states (NY and MD) that have some of the worst gun control laws in the nation -- far beyond what the Founders would have tolerated. Indeed, in Nightwatch's NYC, they have confiscated guns.

Yet neither of you have resorted to violence (thank God). Your peacefulness proves beyond a shadow of doubt that you both are willing to stand for extreme violations of your gun rights.

Spare us the threats of murderous terrorism ("blow myself to bits and take a few hundred or thousand with me").

Spare us the hypothetical hyperbole about gas chamber guards, which deflects attention from the fact that you are peacefully enduring extreme gun control at this very second in contrast to your chest thumping.

And how dare you suggest that those of us who don't strut around frothing over mass violence are "standing on the sidelines of liberty."

Don of Kalifornia
July 8, 2004, 06:18 PM
Looks like it would be our second civil war. I'm 48, no depends, and decided I never want to die like my dad did, drooling after 10 years of strokes. They can have mine, getting them bullets first.


********** assault ban registration, was my line in the sand, wanta push anymore it's fighting time.


Until they do come to collect my guns, I'll fight as hard as I can to prtect the Second Ammendment, doing my best with GOA, GOC, NRA and others.
And most importantly voting PRO-GUN!!!

NIGHTWATCH
July 8, 2004, 06:26 PM
dischord, you really need to take a look, a hard look, at the rules of this forum regarding personal attacks. :mad:

My response was based on "IF". I endure, yes. Because I am a gun owner living in a gun hating city. Who is not a criminal. Not a killer. But an advocate of civil liberty. I am living my birthright. And doing all that I can politically, financially and spiritually to pre-empt a national crisis regarding the RKBA.

However, "IF" the dark time ever came where I felt the pain of tyranny on my neck, I would give my life. Does that scare you? Make you uncomfortable? Or is it that you have yet to reach that resolve?... Im being polite.

Wildalaska
July 8, 2004, 06:40 PM
However, "IF" the dark time ever came where I felt the pain of tyranny on my neck, I would give my life.

Guess there is "tyranny" and there is "tyranny"...

Ya got the "tyranny" of being forced, by law, to give up certain guns, and having others registered, and in fact having to turn some of those in in the past, and youve got the "tyranny" that lets you thump your chest on the internet and talk about war like a kid playin with GI Joe...:)

I get real nervous about these threads....if only becasue of the reputaiton of this Board...

WildteotwawkiAlaska

Cosmoline
July 8, 2004, 07:03 PM
As things stand now, we have a kind of balance. There are many states with draconian gun control laws. But most of the folks who can't live with such laws have either left or never lived there to begin with. At the same time a growing number of states in the south, mountain west (plus AK, NH and some others) are going the other direction and making gun ownership and concealed carry easier than they've ever been. While I don't like this divergence, it does have the beneft of being a safety valve. As long as there's AK or Wyoming there won't be a revolution.

BUt if the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT passed nationwide laws along the lines of those found in the UK or some Eastern states I would worry a great deal about the results. The safety valves would be gone. As I said before there's no way the feds would mount a door-to-door search. But at the same time tens of MILLIONS of Americans would have to chose whether to give up their pride and rights or become felons. Whether the law would ever catch them is beside the point. The only analogy is prohibition--and we all know what the answer was there. Millions of Americans broke the law. But of course breaking that law by having a few brews was not a major crime. Breaking a federal gun ban is orders of magnitude more serious, esp. given how much more powerful federal law enforcement is now compared with the 1920's. It would not be a happy time.

SnakeEater
July 8, 2004, 07:05 PM
How many heavily armed troops do we have in Iraq? A very few resistance fighters(terrorists) are sure giving them all they can handle. Urban warfare is tough, very tough. It would only require a small percentage of gun owners to actively resist, it would be very nasty. Most of the legwork would be done by local LEO's who aren't prepared for this task, I'd think quite a few would quit their jobs rather than be killed. I don't know what will spark this insurgency, I don't believe it will be an outright gun ban. Something much smaller could very easily spiral out of control.

I don't think you'll ever see major combat in American cities. I can see targeted killings of federal agents, LEO's, and politicians if push comes to shove. Let's hope we never find out.

NIGHTWATCH
July 8, 2004, 07:44 PM
Ya got the "tyranny" of being forced, by law, to give up certain guns, and having others registered, and in fact having to turn some of those in in the past, and youve got the "tyranny" that lets you thump your chest on the internet and talk about war like a kid playin with GI Joe...

Maybe in Alaska you have that kind of tyranny. Not in New York City my friend. :(

Also, the title of this thread is "what will you do when they come for your guns"? Its obvious that some here would begin preparing a petition as there home is being destroyed and arms confiscated by those "sworn to protect us".

Molonlabe is right. And some are on the wrong side of history.

dischord
July 8, 2004, 07:54 PM
NIGHTWATCH: dischord, you really need to take a look, a hard look, at the rules of this forum regarding personal attacks. I violated no rules.

You said you were willing to murder thousands of people by blowing yourself and them up, and I criticized you. How dare you attempt to hide behind the rules against personal attacks to avoid criticism of your pro-murder, pro-terrorism chest thumping.

You suggested you would react with violence if the state ever tried to take your guns, and I questioned if that were true based on your currently docile response to some of the most draconian gun laws in the nation, NYC's.

You have proven beyond the shadow of doubt that you are willing to live peacefully under New York City’s draconian gun laws, so spare me the chest thumping that you'd react with murderous terrorism to draconian gun laws.NIGHTWATCH: However, "IF" the dark time ever came where I felt the pain of tyranny on my neck, I would give my life. Absolute B.S. Gun-wise, Mr. New York City, you already live under the tyranny of some of the most draconian gun laws in the nation, and you haven't "given you life." Spare me any further strutting and chest thumping.NIGHTWATCH: Does that scare you? Make you uncomfortable? Or is it that you have yet to reach that resolve?... No, I'm just sick to death of faux revolutionaries who claim they’d have murderous bravado in the face of tyrannical gun laws even as they already live peacefully under tyrannical gun laws.Wildalaska: I get real nervous about these threads....if only becasue of the reputaiton of this Board... Tell me about it. :( :barf:

Wildalaska
July 8, 2004, 07:54 PM
Maybe in Alaska you have that kind of tyranny. Not in New York City my friend.

Huh:confused:

Hmm...

So NYC allows open and concealed carry of any handgun, rifle or full auto weapon (if appropriate license is had) like Alaska does? No wonder you guys arent rising against the "man" (except on the internet)


WildholyautosearbatmangonnamovebacktoNYCAlaska

dischord
July 8, 2004, 08:08 PM
Wildalaska: Ya got the "tyranny" of being forced, by law, to give up certain guns, and having others registered, and in fact having to turn some of those in in the past, and youve got the "tyranny" that lets you thump your chest on the internet and talk about war like a kid playin with GI Joe.

NIGHTWATCH: Maybe in Alaska you have that kind of tyranny. Not in New York City my friend. Thus NIGHTWATCH proves he has no idea what gun laws he lives under or their history. I take this as proof that he has failed to do much, if anything, to work against gun control.

Those people who fail to work peacefully to stop draconian laws have no right whatsoever to strut around claiming they'd blow up thousands of people if such laws were in effect.

NIGHTWATCH
July 8, 2004, 08:17 PM
You said you were willing to murder thousands of people by blowing yourself and them up, and I criticized you. How dare you attempt to hide behind the rules against personal attacks to avoid criticism of your pro-murder, pro-terrorism chest thumping.

Are you on freaking drugs dischord!!!??? Cant you read english! Stop reading my words out of context and go change your panties if you going to have a sissy fit!!! :fire:

Yes, IF our government began confiscating guns, a criminal act against the American people. And I was harmed in that process, I would act to defend my country. What are you? A communist coward?!!! What would you do? Give them up and roll over? Than you are a coward! Deal with your cowardice and stop projecting your fears onto others! And how dare you call yourself a man!!! Coward!!! :fire:

And WildAlaska, you are blessed to be in a part of the nation that believes in freedom. Stop talking about tyranny. Because you dont know what it is like to live here and try to have a RKBA and remain hopeful.

You dont have a fu#@&* clue. :fire:

hammer4nc
July 8, 2004, 08:21 PM
Q: When they come for your guns - what will you do?

A: I'll read all the comments from the same old folks, who'll defend any action of the government; performing rhetorical backflips; telling everyone just how constitutional (and moral to boot) the confiscation action is....those who at the same time, will undoubtedly use that opportunity to denigrate & chastise anyone who would even think of opposing the action. Tinfoil...paranoid...loonie...chest thumping...copbashing blah, blah, blah. Noticing the same folks rarely offer anything positive/constructive? Anyway, the above would provide some brief entertainment value, but is not really central to the question.

Back on topic, I heard a phrase used today..."strategic ambiguity"; regarding Israel's nuclear capability, to outside officials of the IAEA. They (Israel) refuse to acknowlege or disclose even the quantity/type of armaments, much less any specific course of action in response to a hypothetical threat. This approach might be applied...i.e., when agent Schmuckatelli knocks at the door, will he be greeted by MK Gandhi, or D Koresh? Will the book of the day be "Teaching of the Gita", or, "TM31"? Who's to know? What day of the week is it?

The idea is to create uncertainty, as to the nature of the response, and to represent the possibilities with as large a dynamic range as possible. In that regard, what some criticize as "chest thumping", may very well serve as a sobering pause to prosepective confiscators (before the fact), and in itself may PREVENT the action from taking place.

Strategic ambiguity.

Moparmike
July 8, 2004, 08:24 PM
I get real nervous about these threads....if only becasue of the reputaiton of this Board...Umm, what "reputation" would that be, Wild? I dont quite understand what you are insinuating.:confused:

dischord
July 8, 2004, 08:24 PM
NIGHTWATCH: Are you on freaking drugs dischord!!!??? Cant you read english! Stop reading my words out of context and go change your panties if you going to have a sissy fit!!! You said -- in English -- that you were willing to murder thousands of people by blowing up yourself and them. You wrote: "All I do know is that I would rather blow myself to bits and take a few hundred or thousand with me and let them taste the bitterness of the phrase "Dont Tread On Me" than live as a victim."NIGHTWATCH: What are you? A communist coward?!!! What would you do? Give them up and roll over? Than you are a coward! Deal with your cowardice and stop projecting your fears onto others! And how dare you call yourself a man!!! Coward!!! That, however, is a violation of the rules against personal attacks. ROTFLMAO :D

BTW, yes, I am unwilling to murder thousands of people in the type of suicidal terrorist bombing you suggest you'd commit. If that makes me a communist coward, then so be it. :rolleyes:

NIGHTWATCH
July 8, 2004, 08:31 PM
"Give me liberty or give me death", does that mean anything to you?!! A "Spirit of Resistance"? What do you think the RKBA is about? Hunting? Target practice? Or waging war against people who would enslave us? Stop reading my words out of context and get on the right side of history!!! Coward!!! :fire:

Ed
July 8, 2004, 08:34 PM
I skipped to the end so sorry if it has already been said but:

Why would you burry weapons? If you bury them you can't use them, and what good are weapons you can't use? You either turn them in or you use them. If you believe that it is trully wrong for them to take them, then you either fold or you don't. I'm not advocating anything, Each person has a different view of what they are willing to do to defend what they believe in. If you have a wife and a few toddlers are you gonna put them at risk of dying to keep a firearm? Maybe, maybe not. But getting back to the main point, A buried gun is worthless.

Michigander
July 8, 2004, 08:36 PM
I'm not sure what kind of tyranny Wildalaska is referring to in NYC. Should I suppose that Wildalaska actually believes there are some "gun control" laws that are unconstitutional?

dischord
July 8, 2004, 08:37 PM
NIGHTWATCH: "Give me liberty or give me death", does that mean anything to you?!! A "Spirit of Resistance"? What do you think the RKBA is about? Hunting? Target practice? Or waging war against people who would enslave us? Stop reading my words out of context and get on the right side of history!!! Coward!!! What does committing an act of suicidal/murderous terrorism -- "blow myself to bits and take a few hundred or thousand with me" -- have to do with "waging war against people who would enslave us"?

Out of context? :rolleyes:

NIGHTWATCH
July 8, 2004, 08:43 PM
What meds are you on dischord. Tell us, maybe we can help. :rolleyes:

dischord
July 8, 2004, 08:52 PM
NIGHTWATCH: What meds are you on dischord. Tell us, maybe we can help.Your insults do not change the fact that you said you would murder thousands of people in a suicidal blaze of (non)glory. You said it -- it's there in black on grey in page 2 of this thread -- and you cannot deny it. :rolleyes:

Sindawe
July 8, 2004, 09:02 PM
Will you two chill the frell out before this thread gets closed! If ya wanna bicker and argue via personal attacks, take it to PM please.

Wildalaska
July 8, 2004, 09:05 PM
And WildAlaska, you are blessed to be in a part of the nation that believes in freedom. Stop talking about tyranny. Because you dont know what it is like to live here and try to have a RKBA and remain hopeful.

Dude I spent 20 years in NYC and NYS. I joined the NRA. I worked on political campaigns. I got involved. I wrote letters to the editor. I tried at all times to be calm, rational and non threatening. I fought bigotry with reasonableness. I didnt just chest thump on the net.


In that regard, what some criticize as "chest thumping", may very well serve as a sobering pause to prosepective confiscators (before the fact), and in itself may PREVENT the action from taking place.

Oh yeah thats just so...so...convincing to the vast majority of undecided people in this nation who could give a flying f**k about AR15s and the nuances of firearms...I can just see the screaming screaming headlines...

"Intenet Gun Looneys Threaten To Assasinate Political Figures If...(insert imagined horrible event here)"

I mean for petes sake ya got high school kids on this Board who cant in a even vote or own a gun following this murderous trend by screeching "cojme and get them" when they shopuld be doing constructive like putting up politcal signs...

Yep just we need on the High Road.....

And the rest of you in "Occupied TRerritories"...when did ya last do something? How bout you Nightwatch, living there in NY, callin other cowards, get started. Ya a memeber of the NY Republican or Conserbvative Parties.?You give em cash?. You work to get out the vote? You help draft position papers? You organizing grass roots? You getting involved as a reasonable gun owner?

Should I suppose that Wildalaska actually believes there are some "gun control" laws that are unconstitutional?

Absolutely..Ive said that before yes?


WildrantoffAlaska

dischord
July 8, 2004, 09:06 PM
Will you two chill the frell out before this thread gets closed! If ya wanna bicker and argue via personal attacks, take it to PM please. I have not made any personal attacks -- I simply have criticized someone who advocated murder and terrorism.

If this thread gets shut down, I have zero blame.

And sorry, when someone advocates murder and terrorism in public, I'm going to criticize it in public, not PM.

carp killer
July 8, 2004, 09:37 PM
Good advice for the kids Sindawe

dischord
July 8, 2004, 09:41 PM
Good advice for the kids Sindawe Yeah, it was wrong of me to ruthlessly criticize someone for advocating murder and terrorism. How very immature of me. If I were more of an adult, I would have tolerated fantasies about blowing oneself to bits and taking out thousands of other people. When, oh, when, will I grow up and learn to smile politely at people who advocate murder and terrorism. :rolleyes:

hammer4nc
July 8, 2004, 09:50 PM
wa posted...
...(insert imagined horrible event here)"

Interesting...to restate the plausible premise for this thread:
It is July 2005. Komrad Kerry is President. They have just passed AWB II. All military style semi autos (ARs, AK, Garands, FALs, ect...) have been banned. You refused to turn yours in at the deadline. They are now going through DOJ records and siezing illegal weapons nationwide.
While I'll concede that the premise is horrible, how can one call it imagined? Sounds exactly what Kerry is likely to do if he was elected, and had a majority congress. Please fill us in with Kerry's position statements (& Feinstein, Schumer, Kennedy...likely cabinet members and/or supreme court nominees, if Kerry were elected) that would convince a "fence sitter" that a Kerry/Edwards administration wouldn't start wholesale confiscation? As I recall, Kerry/Edwards, who have been absent congress for 1-2 years, saw fit to jet back to DC solely to vote on AWB amendment, is a pretty good indication where they're coming from, wrt RKBA!!


Maybe you're implying that Kerry winning the election is out of the question (and thus an imagined event)? I'd say its a toss-up at this point! I'm really searching here, as to what would prompt such an obviously unsupportable statement.

dischord
July 8, 2004, 09:57 PM
hammer4nc: Sounds exactly what Kerry is likely to do if he was elected, and had a majority congress.I have no doubt that he would if he could. That's why I want us RKBA-advocates to stop the chest thumping and start doing more to stop it from occuring.

The sad fact is that when it comes to the point where we'd be justified to react violently, we will be beyond losing. Any suicidal blaze of glory will fix nothing, the salved-ego of the "patriot" notwithstanding. :(

Anyone thinks their final act would be anything more than "suicide-by-JBT" had better think again.

hammer4nc
July 8, 2004, 10:02 PM
Here's the suggested (more acceptable) screaming headline:

Disarmed former gun owners threaten to march, and post political signs whining about lost gun rights...

(Kinda describes things in the UK present day, eh? See how much respect they're getting?):neener:

dischord
July 8, 2004, 10:06 PM
Disarmed former gun owners threaten to march, and post political signs whining about lost gun rights... Most gun owners (including many of the current chest thumpers) will not march before or after, so don't count on them for support in whatever violence might occur -- like I said: meaningless suicide-by-JBT.

And BTW, I suspect that 999 out of 1,000 chest thumpers would roll over when push comes to shove.

molonlabe
July 8, 2004, 10:13 PM
I just provided a link to Patrick Henry and made a personal statement as to how I would personally deal with being placed in a Gas Chamber. Then people infer that maybe I just chest thump do nothing for RKBA. Well lets see how I stack up. I have given thousands over the years to the NRA the CRAPA (yes that’s California). I wrote my congressmen representatives anyone who would listen. I have letters on this desk from MD congressmen. Became an NRA instructor and will take the time to train anyone who wants to know about firearms. In California we failed so I am making a stand here. If this state becomes like California, NJ then I will move from here. One other thing. I have on my wall a group of medals with the VSM awarded 5 times. I didn't receive that because I was afraid to die. Sometimes living is harder than dying. I spent over two and a half years there and I believe in the same Constitution today and oath of allegiance that I gave at my induction when I was 17 years old. The president takes a similar oath when he assumes office. I don't need to defend or justify to anyone what these words mean to me, and personally I don't care what the words mean to anyone else. I think this thread got out of control because people fail to respect other points of view. We live in a land that is relatively free and rapidly moving into a police state. Osama Bin Laden said at numerous times that he would destroy freedom in America that is part of his full spectrum warfare with the west. Maybe he will be successful maybe not. A Hypothetical question was posed about confiscation of civilian firearms. I can only assume that would also entail the suspension of the rest of the Bill of rights. If no one has noticed a lot of them have been eroded lately. Check message boards elsewhere.

By the way I don't give thousands anymore. I'm married and don't think you know me.

Presidential Oath of office.
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

dischord
July 8, 2004, 10:32 PM
molonlabe: made a personal statement as to how I would personally deal with being placed in a Gas Chamber. I see. So your statements had nothing to do with what you would do in the face of draconian gun laws. What was the point of making it then?molonlabe: Then people infer that maybe I just chest thump do nothing for RKBA. No, I observed that your claims about violent action sounds rather hollow when you currently peacefully endure some of the most draconian gun laws in the nation -- but apparently you were not saying you would react violently to confiscation, but were limiting your bravado to the off-topic point of gas chambers.

I'm happy that you have done your share in the peaceful part of gun rights -- but I never suggested or claimed that you hadn't done that. I simply questioned your violent bravado (that apparently had nothing to do with the topic of gun confiscation).

And, hey I guess we're in agreement. I'd react violently to someone who tried to put me in the gas chamber too. But what's that have to do with what either of us would do against attempts to confiscate guns?molonlabe: A Hypothetical question was posed about confiscation of civilian firearms. Right. Thus I interpreted your statement about violence and biting noses to have something to do with that question. But now you suggest you were not speaking of confiscation, but the off topic point of gas chambers.

standingbear
July 8, 2004, 10:42 PM
Just tell them that they need to double check the records or you could try "these arent the guns your looking for..those guns went off in that direction" ;)

Bill St. Clair
July 8, 2004, 10:44 PM
Should Mr. Kerry or Mr. Bush (or some other Republican president if Mr. Bush is prevented from running) sign a federal law making illegal a large class of currently legal firearms, there would be widespread unintended consequences. I hope that I would cause some of them, but if I did chicken out, I'd certainly applaud every time I heard about one.

Michigander
July 8, 2004, 10:56 PM
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Should I suppose that Wildalaska actually believes there are some "gun control" laws that are unconstitutional?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Absolutely..Ive said that before yes?

Actually, I remember you stating:
My point is the law is constituional till a court says it aint. Thats what a system of justice and rule of law is about.
According to you, no current "gun control" law can be unconstitutional.

Desert Dog
July 8, 2004, 11:40 PM
Back to the original question. Good debate by the way.

I would definitely hermetically seal and bury the specific now-illegal firearms in the ground, not that I currently own any that would be considered an assault weapon by modern standards.

"quietly disobey"

There is only so much you can do to sway the general ideal the stereotypical "soccer mom". I have debates with hyper-liberal snotnose engineers daily. Fortunately, in NM I have a lot of help in that regard as there are quite a few of us conservative, gun loving, hard working types to keep the kids in line... :D We even have a few resident FFL's who "run guns" on the side.

Anyway, as others have said or orated, the fiery descending handbasket continues to drop...:banghead:

Wildalaska
July 9, 2004, 01:37 AM
Michigan

According to you, no current "gun control" law can be unconstitutional.

Until a court rules that it is unconstituional, it is the law of the land..

That does not mean my beleif may not differ..

WildseethedifferenceAlaska

Michigander
July 9, 2004, 01:57 AM
Until a court rules that it is unconstituional, it is the law of the land..

That does not mean my beleif may not differ..
So the whole principle of an unconstitutional law being null and void upon it's creation is a fallacy to you?

Also, this means that a corrupt SCOTUS could "legally" render the Constitution irrelivant and that's that. What would be legal and/or lawful recourse in such a situation? After all, what Court could we appeal to? We most certainly could not appeal to the public, we the people, for we are not worthy to determine what our Constitution means.

Do I understand your view correctly?

deej
July 9, 2004, 02:02 AM
Until a court rules that it is unconstituional, it is the law of the land..



Actually, if a law is unconstitutional, it is void:



http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/9.htm (Marbury v. Madison)

Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.

Wildalaska
July 9, 2004, 02:06 AM
So the whole principle of an unconstitutional law being null and void upon it's creation is a fallacy to you?

Nope thats a well recognized legal principle that a court decides...

Also, this means that a corrupt SCOTUS could "legally" render the Constitution irrelivant and that's that.

Golly we back to that thread again :)


As for Molonlabe

I just provided a link to Patrick Henry and made a personal statement as to how I would personally deal with being placed in a Gas Chamber.

No, you insulted the memories of millions of MURDERED people incvluding my relatives who you say DESERVED to die and you dont have the guts to retract your statement and apologize. Your petty chest thumping while laughing on the gravers of the dead is really and truly pissing me off ...Im out of here before I tell ya exactly what I think of you.

WildlaterboysAlaska

Michigander
July 9, 2004, 02:26 AM
Wildalaska, I will try again...

Also, this means that a corrupt SCOTUS could "legally" render the Constitution irrelivant and that's that. What would be legal and/or lawful recourse in such a situation? After all, what Court could we appeal to? We most certainly could not appeal to the public, we the people, for we are not worthy to determine what our Constitution means.

Do I understand your view correctly?

Cosmoline
July 9, 2004, 04:11 AM
Is the Supreme Court the final authority for all federal court cases and interpretation of all federal laws? Yes.

Is the Supreme Court the final arbiter on political disputes about the constitutionality of a law. ABSOLUTELY NOT! NO! NEVER! Nothing in the Constitution forbids political dissent or political activism against a Supreme Court opinion declaring a law constitutional or not. Nothing forbids Congress from going to political war with the Supremes if the black robes go too far into the poitical arena (indeed we see just this happening in nominations through the Senate). Indeed there is nothing preventing Congress from adding fifty new justices to the court, as FDR tried to do. It would be perfectly legal and constitutional. Congress could also cut the funds for everyone except the Chief Justice--the only judicial officer mandated by Article III. And of course Congress and the states can pass new Amendments to quash court decisions.

The Supreme Court is still just a court of appeals. It simply hears select appeals on certain cases. That's all it does. So if they come out with a stupid ruling that gets the law wrong, none of us have to agree with them. We may be stuck with their ruling in certain judicial cases, but that's the extent of their authority. Indeed we can cooperate to reverse them. It's not easy, but it is a valid check on the third branch's power.

As far as gun control, I would expect the Supremes to intervene against draconian national gun control laws, especially if there turned out to be manifold enforcement difficulties and civil protests (which is where we come in). But if they don't, we are left with civil demonstrations and political action. Including, IMHO, active non-compliance with the law. Maybe it won't be possible to get Congress to change its mind, but I'll bet cash money our pals in Juneau will pass a law forbidding any local or state LEO's from cooperating with any enforcement activities under the new law. They did it with the Patriot Act, after all. Then the situation gets very interesting indeed.

JShirley
July 9, 2004, 04:21 AM
Silly scenario.

Such action, if possible, would galvanize even fence-sitters into action. Incrementalism is what actually has, and will, happen.

Not with bang, but a whimper...

John

patentmike
July 9, 2004, 05:05 AM
Reality check for gunstore commandos:

When you look down, do you see your toes?

Do you require medication on a regular basis?

Do you have the skills to stay alive in the woods? You are not talking about deer hunting once a year 100 yards from your truck. You are talking survival. That .50 super-tactical semi-assault rifle isn't going to feed you many rabbits and squirrels.

There are 4 states that have no right to carry whatsoever, why haven't you joined the freedom-fighters in resisting there? Or is some incrementalism OK?

For that matter, are you involved in your community now? If you aren't the type to volunteer a few hours here and there for what matters to you, what makes you think you will suddenly become a martyr for your toys?

Have you thought about what your rules of engagement? Are you going to murder every hiker, logger, or rancher who wanders into your woods, or only the jack-booted ones?

While you are out there waiting to be rescued and taken to the greystone buffet, some of us will be doing things regular people do. We'll be using the courts and all the mechanisms of representtaive government to try to get the laws changed. Of course, we'll have a challenge living down the sensational "gun-nut murders two policemen and heads for the hills" headlines. Maybe it will help if we suggest that all of your forfeited property (yes, it's all gone) be auctioned off to go to the families. Maybe it's a lost cause, but it's realistic.

Go ahead flame away Rambo. See you later at the all-you-can-eat buffet.

NIGHTWATCH
July 9, 2004, 07:09 AM
dischord, you seem to be facinated by the word terrorism. :rolleyes:

Let me explain some things to you and anyone else here on this 2nd Amendment forum, who would slam those of us who are of the opinion that violence may be actually necessary at some point in time (that is a reality with no buffet included).

#1 Our country was born of violence. Violence against oppression.

#2 History will repeat itself. Violence will come one way or another.

#3 I dont have to be in the military in order to have an opinion on this issue or to love my country to the point of giving my life for it. And the 2nd Amendment was written for us and not the military. Keep that in mind.

Now, as far as blowing myself to bits, Im not a terrorist. Terrorists are cowards. Terrorists seek to kill innocent people and civilians. Not military or government targets but women and children. :fire:

Its about WAR. And having the will of a KAMIKAZE in defending what you believe. To be willing to give your life in the fight. That is what a patriot is.

If congress acted to disarm America, it will have then turned criminal. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Understand that? Its simple. We fight. We fight against any government body or agency at that time that would seek to enforce that crime against us. Otherwise, we die in the death camps. Period. :fire:

Maybe that disturbs some people here. It disturbs me too. BUT THIS IS REALITY. DEAL WITH IT. :mad:

hammer4nc
July 9, 2004, 07:23 AM
While you are out there waiting to be rescued and taken to the greystone buffet, some of us will be doing things regular people do. We'll be using the courts and all the mechanisms of representtaive government to try to get the laws changed.

Once again, the premise for the thread was that newly elected Kerry had just passed AWBII, and was in the process of confiscating military SA rifles. Not silly at all, such an action would be declared constitutional, by simply resurrecting Clinton's theory that the Second Amendment only referred to the National Guard. Remember that one? Get the 9th circuit or SCOTUS to issue a ruling that backs up this narrow legal thesis, and theroetically any and every gun could be legally confiscated from normal civilians. Perfectly legal and consistent; no 2nd amendment problem whatsoever.

One presumes that the "regular people" (hahaha) would be first in line to hand in their guns, then back at the keyboard to tell everyone how they complied with the rule of law. Exhorting folks to get busy making political signs, continue to critiicise other who would actively resist the new law (i.e., "armchair commandos":D lol)

For those who have condemned any active civil disobedience, please tell us how effective the "regular people" in Australia or the UK have been, with their polite political activism.

hammer4nc
July 9, 2004, 07:24 AM
While you are out there waiting to be rescued and taken to the greystone buffet, some of us will be doing things regular people do. We'll be using the courts and all the mechanisms of representtaive government to try to get the laws changed.

Once again, the premise for the thread was that newly elected Kerry had just passed AWBII, and was in the process of confiscating military SA rifles. Not silly at all, such an action would be declared constitutional, by simply resurrecting Clinton's theory that the Second Amendment only referred to the National Guard. Remember that one? Get the 9th circuit or SCOTUS to issue a ruling that backs up this narrow legal thesis, and theroetically any and every gun could be legally confiscated from normal civilians. Perfectly legal and consistent; no 2nd amendment problem whatsoever.

One presumes that the "regular people" (hahaha) would be first in line to hand in their guns, then back at the keyboard to tell everyone how they complied with the rule of law. Exhorting folks to get busy making political signs, continue to critiicise otherw who would actively resist the new law (i.e., "armchair commandos":D lol)

For those who have condemned any civil disobedience, please remind us againl us how effective the "regular people" in Australia or the UK have been, with their polite political activism.

hammer4nc
July 9, 2004, 07:27 AM
While you are out there waiting to be rescued and taken to the greystone buffet, some of us will be doing things regular people do. We'll be using the courts and all the mechanisms of representtaive government to try to get the laws changed.

Once again, the premise for the thread was that newly elected Kerry had just passed AWBII, and was in the process of confiscating military SA rifles. Not silly at all, such an action would be declared constitutional, by simply resurrecting Clinton's theory that the Second Amendment only referred to the National Guard. Remember that one? Get the 9th circuit or SCOTUS to issue a ruling that backs up this narrow legal thesis, and theroetically any and every gun could be legally confiscated from normal civilians. Perfectly legal and consistent; no 2nd amendment problem whatsoever.

One presumes that the "regular people" (hahaha) would be first in line to hand in their guns, then back at the keyboard to tell everyone how they complied with the rule of law. Exhorting folks to get busy making political signs, continue to critiicise otherw who would actively resist the new law (i.e., "armchair commandos":D lol)

For those who have condemned any civil disobedience, please remind us again us how effective the "regular people" in Australia or the UK have been, with their polite political activism. :neener:

NIGHTWATCH
July 9, 2004, 07:44 AM
How bout you Nightwatch, living there in NY, callin other cowards, get started. Ya a memeber of the NY Republican or Conserbvative Parties.?You give em cash?. You work to get out the vote? You help draft position papers? You organizing grass roots? You getting involved as a reasonable gun owner?

Wildalaska, I have my own forum.NYC Alliance for the Second Amendment. (http://www.nycasa.com/) And we are close to bringing this political fight to the steps of city hall. So before you question anyones peaceful committment to the RKBA, get a clue and get off your high horse. :fire:

NIGHTWATCH
July 9, 2004, 07:54 AM
And just so YOU know wildalaska, here is our mission statement. Its straight and to the point. Its about reality. :fire:

http://p222.ezboard.com/fnycallianceforthesecondamendmentfrm1.showMessage?topicID=12.topic

patentmike
July 9, 2004, 08:12 AM
Wow, you must be some legal scholar to be able to know exactly what the courts will do in any given situation!
By the way, "civil disobedience" would be going to jail to call attention to an unjust law, like Henry David Thoreau. You are spouting off about your own personal uprising against laws you don't agree with, more like John Wilkes Booth.

NIGHTWATCH
July 9, 2004, 08:15 AM
I swear, I feel like Im dealing with liberals. :rolleyes:





Done.

Baba Louie
July 9, 2004, 08:37 AM
We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender. Sir Winston Churchill
He was talking about an external threat. They were forced to use guns supplied from where? 60 years later (1 1/2 generations) look and see what an elected government can do/has done.

An interesting hypothesis, our government prosecuting formerly law abiding firearms owning unorganized militia type citizens. It could happen. Maybe.

"Good morning Ma'am. We know your husband is at work right now, but We just need to check out yer husband's AR15 our records show he owns ma'am. What records ma'am? Got the records straight from our federally licensed dealers bound book. Just to make sure we clear him as a non-suspect in the recent tragic sniper shootings, you understand. We'll return the rifle to him once we're done with the testing. Have him give me a call if he's concerned. It's all legal, Ma'am. No, we don't think he's in any trouble. Just doing our job. Thank you for your cooperation with Your Government. How long will the testing take? Couldn't say Ma'am, that's another department. Our job is to just pick them up."

Nah. Couldn't happen here in the good old US of A. Blood in the streets?
Just like rousting Japanese/Americans and putting them in camps for the duration. Never happen.
Just like SCOTUS saying one man is a piece of property. Could NOT happen.
Just like an amendment to the Constitution saying beer is verboten. Nope. Not this here land o' the free.

Get involved, get all political, beat em up from the ballot box. Make sure your elected representative KNOWS where you stand because she/he knows your face, your voice, your position.

Bainx
July 9, 2004, 08:46 AM
c) Lie through your teeth that you no longer own said firearms and hope they do not obtain a search warrant and if they do, hope you have your banned firearms hidden well enough that they do not find them? And when they find them you go to jail for 40 years?

'Search Warrant"....I don't think so. They will envoke some sort of catch-all from the Partiot Act [I, II, II or whatever we will be up to at that point].
They won't need no stinking search warrant. They will merely rule you 'an enemy combatant' or some such junk and kick in your door.
You will find it most difficult to engage entire van loads of Federal flunkies.

dischord
July 9, 2004, 10:26 AM
If congress acted to disarm America, it will have then turned criminal. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Understand that? Its simple. We fight. We fight against any government body or agency at that time that would seek to enforce that crime against us. Otherwise, we die in the death camps. Period. No, Mr. New York City, you'd do exactly what you are doing now under similar New York laws. You'd rant on the internet.

New York City (where you live) already has acted to disarm you, and all you do is rant on the internet.

New York State (where you live) already has acted to disarm you, and all you do is rant on the internet.

So we're supposed to believe you'd do anything different if and when the feds act to disarm you. Spare me. I'd bet my house and my retirement savings that you'd do nothing but move your "line in the sand" to some other target, like the UN.Now, as far as blowing myself to bits, Im not a terrorist. Terrorists are cowards. Terrorists seek to kill innocent people and civilians. Not military or government targets but women and children.

Its about WAR. And having the will of a KAMIKAZE in defending what you believe. To be willing to give your life in the fight. That is what a patriot is.
Oh, I see. When you use a bomb big enough to blow up "hundreds or thousands" of people like you say, you would somehow magically assure that the dead:

A) would not include women, children and male civilians.
B) would not include innocent government workers.

Yes, you would use a magic bomb that killed only "hundreds or thousands" of JBTs. Would your magic bomb have some sort of JBT-seeking fireball? I heard that if you mix the right amount of kerosene and fertilizer that the fireball kills only JBTs while leaving the nearby innocent women and children unscathed. The fireball will pass harmlessly by women and children even if they are standing an mere inch away from the bomb. In fact, the fireball can actually tell if a government worker is innocent and decide not to harm her either. :rolleyes:

I might have given you a pass if you'd said you'd shoot any JBT that busted down your door and came in with a gun. But you didn't. You spoke of blowing up thousands of people.

Blowing up thousands of people is not a "molon labe" act. It is not a kamakazi act. It is terrorism no matter how you slice it.

patentmike
July 9, 2004, 10:28 AM
Just like rousting Japanese/Americans and putting them in camps for the duration. Never happen.
Just like SCOTUS saying one man is a piece of property. Could NOT happen.
Just like an amendment to the Constitution saying beer is verboten. Nope. Not this here land o' the free.

Excellent examples of bad laws being undone without an armed rebellion.

Michigander
July 9, 2004, 11:47 AM
...Nothing forbids Congress from going to political war with the Supremes if the black robes go too far into the poitical arena (indeed we see just this happening in nominations through the Senate). Indeed there is nothing preventing Congress from adding fifty new justices to the court, as FDR tried to do. It would be perfectly legal and constitutional. Congress could also cut the funds for everyone except the Chief Justice--the only judicial officer mandated by Article III. And of course Congress and the states can pass new Amendments to quash court decisions.

And if the SCOTUS and Congress (and POTUS) are in cahoots?

SaintofKillers
July 9, 2004, 01:04 PM
No chest thumping here just the facts as I see it, basically I think that the end result would be something along the lines of this.

A percentage of gunowners mostly the same ones who are the duckhunters and trapshooters, will more than likely turn their guns in and take up fishing or bird watching or something to that effect.
This percentage would be roughly 40 to 50 %

Another 40 to 45 percent would hide their guns and or say they lost them, sold them at a gun show something to that effect.

The other 5 to 10 percent are going to do one of 3 things IMO

1. Group together with those like minded be branded drug addicts, child molestors, gun runners etc etc. and basically attempt to defend themselves, and end up like the Branch Davidians.

2. Some will go it alone or with a few select friends, try and hold up somewhere be labeled gun runners, child molestors, drug addicts etc etc and end up with their friends and family killed by Agent Smuckatelli and comrades ala Randy Weaver. (May the Gods bless him and his family)

3. And a small group of us will end up Bushwackers, ala Outlaw Josey Wales and labeled terrorists and the Gods know what else and be hunted down like dogs, all the while giving the military and law enforcement one HELL of a beating. These folks will probably stay the way they are in society and no one will ever know what they have done or are doing until they are shot dead, or caught and captured.

I fall into the 0 to 100 percent range and aint saying what I will do so dont ask.:neener:

SaintofKillers
July 9, 2004, 01:10 PM
No chest thumping here just the facts as I see it, basically I think that the end result would be something along the lines of this.

A percentage of gunowners mostly the same ones who are the duckhunters and trapshooters, will more than likely turn their guns in and take up fishing or bird watching or something to that effect.
This percentage would be roughly 40 to 50 %

Another 40 to 45 percent would hide their guns and or say they lost them, sold them at a gun show something to that effect.

The other 5 to 10 percent are going to do one of 3 things IMO

1. Group together with those like minded be branded drug addicts, child molestors, gun runners etc etc. and basically attempt to defend themselves, and end up like the Branch Davidians.

2. Some will go it alone or with a few select friends, try and hold up somewhere be labeled gun runners, child molestors, drug addicts etc etc and end up with their friends and family killed by Agent Smuckatelli and comrades ala Randy Weaver. (May the Gods bless him and his family)

3. And a small group of us will end up Bushwackers, ala Outlaw Josey Wales and labeled terrorists and the Gods know what else and be hunted down like dogs, all the while giving the military and law enforcement one HELL of a beating. These folks will probably stay the way they are in society and no one will ever know what they have done or are doing until they are shot dead, or caught and captured.

I fall into the 0 to 100 percent range and aint saying what I will do so dont ask.:neener:

NIGHTWATCH
July 9, 2004, 05:57 PM
No, Mr. New York City, you'd do exactly what you are doing now under similar New York laws. You'd rant on the internet.

New York City (where you live) already has acted to disarm you, and all you do is rant on the internet.

New York State (where you live) already has acted to disarm you, and all you do is rant on the internet.

Mr. New York City? ... I like it. :D Kinda like being called Mr. Blonde.

Better than Mr. Pink.....right Mr. Virginia?

There are no laws in NYC or acts by the state that have yet to leave me bleeding in a hospital emergency room with bodily injuries for exercising my civil liberty. Nothing that would justify violence. I pay my unconstitutional renewal fees. And abide by these unjust laws hoping for change politically. Thats is a given. Most people who read my response understood that dischord.

The question was and IS , What Will You Do When They Come For Your Guns?
I had the cajones to speak my mind if my government turns criminal to the point of bloodshed. I would give my life and take as many JBT'S with me. What about you? Mr. Pink? Have any clue?

Judging from your rants here, your nothing but a flaming liberal who see's his gun as bargaining chip. Not a tool for liberty. In which the whole concept and purpose of keeping ARMS (not limited to guns) is lost.

And I have to tell you, I was not trying to be insulting when I asked what meds you were taking. You sound like your having a nervous breakdown in some of your posts.

dischord
July 9, 2004, 06:15 PM
NIGHTWATCH: Judging from your rants here, your nothing but a flaming liberal who see's his gun as bargaining chip. Not a tool for liberty. In which the whole concept and purpose of keeping ARMS (not limited to guns) is lost. As I said before, insult me all you want. It doesn't change the fact that you said you would blow up thousands of people.NIGHTWATCH: The question was and IS , What Will You Do When They Come For Your Guns? If you had said something like "I'd shoot any JBT that tried to bust down my door," I'd have rolled my eyes and ignored you. However, you called for terrorism -- blowing up thousands of people.

It's not a hard concept. Protecting yourself against govt. thugs (the subject of the question) is not the same thing as murdering thousands of people (what you said you'd do).

NIGHTWATCH
July 9, 2004, 06:36 PM
However, you called for terrorism. Blowing up thousands of people.
Are you NUTS dischord? What is your major malfunction? Speak within the context.
It's not a hard concept. Protecting yourself against govt. thugs (the subject of the question) is not the same thing as murdering thousands of people

So you would be comfortable, in your words, murdering , two? Three? Five?

How many dischord?

Wildalaska
July 9, 2004, 06:44 PM
Wildalaska, I have my own forum.NYC Alliance for the Second Amendment. And we are close to bringing this political fight to the steps of city hall. So before you question anyones peaceful committment to the RKBA, get a clue and get off your high horse.

no offense bud, but starting a forum where you and your five gun buddies can engage in self congradulatory chatter about the evils of the world DOES NOTHING to convince Mr. and Mrs Everyman in Syosset that NY Gun Control laws are abhoorent...and surely allying yourself with 'persons" who think that holocaust victims deserved to die becasue they were sheep aint gonna carry much weight with Mr and Mr Liebowitz in Manhasset..

Do something productive...

WildenoughofthissillinessAlaska

NIGHTWATCH
July 9, 2004, 06:53 PM
25 "buddies".

Its a start wildalaska, its a start. :(

dischord
July 9, 2004, 06:55 PM
Me: However, you called for terrorism. Blowing up thousands of people.

NIGHTWATCH: Are you NUTS dischord? What is your major malfunction? Speak within the context. You said, "Maybe when they knock on the door. Maybe after they disarm me, I dont know. All I do know is that I would rather blow myself to bits and take a few hundred or thousand with me and let them taste the bitterness of the phrase "Dont Tread On Me" than live as a victim.

I take that to mean you might blow up yourself and thousands of people just because the wrong government agents simply knocked on your door. NIGHTWATCH: So you would be comfortable, in your words, murdering , two? Three? Five? You aren't getting it, are you? Blowing up thousands of people has nothing to do with protecting yourself against government thugs.

NIGHTWATCH
July 9, 2004, 07:00 PM
dischord, here is the question for YOU because your liberal mind does not get it...


At what point would you declare war against the government?

Id appreciate a direct answer to the question please.

dischord
July 9, 2004, 07:11 PM
dischord, here is the question for YOU because your liberal mind does not get it... Like I said a couple of times before, insult me all you want. It won't change the fact that you said you would blow up yourself and thousands of other people.At what point would you declare war against the government? No, I won't play that game. You said you would blow up thousands of people. You were wrong. Stop trying to change the subject.

And by the way, blowing up yourself and thousands of other people is not war against the goverment. It is terrorism.

NIGHTWATCH
July 9, 2004, 07:17 PM
Answer the question and stop trying to dodge it with your liberal ramblings because this is no game....

At what point do YOU dischord, YOU declare war on the government?

Stop repeating yourself and answer a direct question.

dischord
July 9, 2004, 07:30 PM
Answer the question and stop trying to dodge it with your liberal ramblings because this is no game.... I'm not dodging it. I'm refusing to let you change the subject. You were wrong to suggest that blowing up thousands of people would be appropriate. Neither insulting me nor trying to change the subject will change that.

NIGHTWATCH
July 9, 2004, 07:34 PM
Answer a direct question relevant to the issue at hand and stop being a coward...

At what point do YOU declare war on the government?

Matthew Courtney
July 9, 2004, 07:40 PM
At what point do YOU dischord, YOU declare war on the government?

At the point that such a law as presented in the beginning of this thread exists, declaring war by patriots is not necessary, because the government will have declared war on us!

Collateral damage exists in war, and as long as such damage is caused by attempts to genuinely reduce the repressors ability to repress, such attempts are wrongfully defined as terrorism.

Attacking military or co-operating civil authorities is often wrongly described as terrorism. Terrorism is restricted to attacking civilian targets while attempting to impact your opponents resolve by affecting public opinion.

No person who attacks military personel or civil authorities in an effort to improve his party's tactical or strategic position is a terrorist. An enemy combatant, yes. A terrorist, No.

dischord
July 9, 2004, 07:43 PM
Answer a direct question relevant to the issue at hand and stop being a coward... The issue at hand is you saying that blowing up thousands of people would be justified. Your insults and attempts to deflect attention from that issue will not change the fact that you were wrong to suggest that blowing up thousands of people would be justified.

Cacique500
July 9, 2004, 07:45 PM
The issue at hand is you saying that blowing up thousands of people would be justified.

http://1911pistolgrips.com/img/miscwebpics/deadhorse.gif

dischord
July 9, 2004, 07:46 PM
No person who attacks military personel or civil authorities in an effort to improve his party's tactical or strategic position is a terrorist. Of course we're not talking about that. We're talking about the desire to "blow myself to bits and take a few hundred or thousand with me."

dischord
July 9, 2004, 07:50 PM
http://1911pistolgrips.com/img/miscwebpics/deadhorse.gif As long as Nightwatch stands by his claim that blowing up himself and thousands of people would be justified, the horse ain't dead.

Frohickey
July 9, 2004, 08:01 PM
What are the smileys doing to that ant-eater? ;)

Cacique500
July 9, 2004, 08:07 PM
What are the smileys doing to that ant-eater?

Ahhhh...reminds me of my college days & the sorrority sisters...but I digress ;)

Michigander
July 9, 2004, 08:33 PM
I think this thread has gone about as far as it is going to go.

Before it goes too far, CLOSED!




























oh wait, I'm not a moderator - nevermind.

ProGlock
July 9, 2004, 08:34 PM
During his march into Pennsylvania in 1863, Gen. Robert E. Lee issued the following order:

"It must be remembered that we make war only upon armed men and that we cannot take vengeance for the wrongs our people have suffered without lowering ourselves in the eyes of all whose abhorrence has been excited by the atrocities of our enemies, and offending against Him to whom vengeance belongeth, without whose favor and support our efforts must all prove in vain."

NIGHTWATCH
July 9, 2004, 08:42 PM
At the point that such a law as presented in the beginning of this thread exists, declaring war by patriots is not necessary, because the government will have declared war on us!

Collateral damage exists in war, and as long as such damage is caused by attempts to genuinely reduce the repressors ability to repress, such attempts are wrongfully defined as terrorism.

Attacking military or co-operating civil authorities is often wrongly described as terrorism. Terrorism is restricted to attacking civilian targets while attempting to impact your opponents resolve by affecting public opinion.

No person who attacks military personel or civil authorities in an effort to improve his party's tactical or strategic position is a terrorist. An enemy combatant, yes. A terrorist, No.
Thank you MC :)

dischord, whats the difference between me blowing myself up and giving my life for liberty against a hundred or thousand armed to the teeth government thugs ordered to kill us, and blowing up the same from a distance? Your definition of terrorism is flawed.

Now, again, for all of us. Answer the direct question that has been layed at your feet...


At what point do YOU declare war against the government?

Answer the question.

mountainclmbr
July 9, 2004, 08:46 PM
Take the fight to the ballot box!!!!!:cuss:

Gunowners voting for the CURRENT Democrats is like Jews voting for Hitler. EXACTLY the same. That Communist Komrade Kerry has always voted exactly opposite of the impression he is trying to make with the Phesant hunt and skeet shooting propaganda pieces. He has sided with every Communist regime that has existed since he left the military. He has never opposed other Communist countries that rounded up their political opponents and KILLED them. It is the price of maintaining ultimate power.

Kerry is a narcissistic, power hungry communist leaning politician. There is no room for private gun ownership under Kerry.

Gun owners kept Gore out of office. They can, and should, be a stronger influence this time around. The Senate races are also important because of judicial appointments. Can the Bill of Rights be twisted to mean total government power? It remains to be determined based on how the majority votes.

dischord
July 9, 2004, 08:57 PM
a hundred or thousand armed to the teeth government thugs ordered to kill us, Now you are trying to change what you said. You never specified who those thousands would be. You simply said you would "blow myself to bits and take a few hundred or thousand with me." In fact, you even put it in the context of perhaps blowing up yourself following a mere knock at the door.

So spare me the backpedaling that you really were talking about a pitched battle with legitimate military targets.

artherd
July 9, 2004, 10:27 PM
If they come for me, let them find me attop a pile of hot brass...

The point of confiscation by armed persons would be it for me I suspect. They enter my soverign property with intent to do harm, then they pay the price.


Finally: I highly doubt this will come to pass. But that dosen't mean I don't have loaded mags all the time.

itgoesboom
July 10, 2004, 01:48 AM
At what point do YOU declare war against the government?

Answer the question.

That, Sir, is a question most of us do not want to answer, because we don't want to believe that that particular course of action will be necessary.

We want to work through the system.

Violence, even justifiable violence, needs to be our very last resort.

The system can still work for us. In just a couple of months, the '94 AWB will sunset. More states are recognizing the right to carry, even if it is presented as a privlidge, it is still a step in the right direction.

States are announcing new reciprocity agreements frequently (see Washington).

We survived 8 years under Clinton, and we have emerged out the other side of the tunnel.

I want to make one more thing clear. I have zero fear regarding laying down my life to protect the liberty that has been granted our great nation. I want to make sure my children will grow up in the True Spirit of America.

But I will not throw my life away, especially when there is still time to prevent the violence that so many are talking about.

Forget what we will do in 2 or 5 or 50 years when they come for our guns. There are 80 MILLION of us nationwide. We have a military of 2.5 million.

2.5 Million people are not going to disarm 80 million people overnight. Instead, they will do it piece by piece through the legistlative process put forth in the Constitution.

So instead of focusing on what we will do then, lets focus on what we can do NOW!!!

First things first, if we don't hang together, we will surely hang apart. So stop your bickering.

On that note we need to start reaching out to the "golfers with guns" crowd and the "deer rifle crowd".

We need to convince them that all firearm owners are at risk.

We need to set good example of ourselves, as firearm owners, CHL holders, and sporting enthousiasts.

Rather than go off on these anti-government tirades, which convince anyone watching that we are a bunch of tinfoil hat wearing loonies (which is how the antis portray us), we need to work against this stereotype.

Right now the media portray us as Nazis, KKK members, back country Bubbas, and rednecks.

While there are plenty of Bubbas and Rednecks on this board (I may even be one of them), we need to show that we are not tolerant of the Neo-Nazi Facists, and the KKK. We need to show that its not just people in the South that own firearms. We need to show that Doctors, Journalists, Lawyers, Tradesmen, LEOs and business men and women own firearms. And not just for hunting.

We need to convince more firearm owners to pick up the "evil black rifles", just so that there are more of them being bought by honest, law abiding citizens. Each EBR that is purchased and NOT used in a crime is a contribution to our effort.

Every CHL holder that doesn't get road rage, doesn't get into random shootouts and is courteous if pulled over helps our cause. Lets show the Police that CHL holders and firearm owners are the good guys. Let's show the rank and file that they should support us. Lets show the Country that an Armed Society is a Polite Society. Every CHL holder that maintains his spotless record is a victory for us.

Sorry for the long post.

I.G.B.

Feanaro
July 10, 2004, 03:01 AM
You simply said you would "blow myself to bits and take a few hundred or thousand with me." In fact, you even put it in the context of perhaps blowing up yourself following a mere knock at the door.

Im not "thumping my chest" when I say this, but its a fact. If some JBT ever put his boot on my neck. If that day ever came when I was victimized by government. I would rather die. I would nolonger want to live.

Maybe when they knock on the door. Maybe after they disarm me, I dont know. All I do know is that I would rather blow myself to bits and take a few hundred or thousand with me and let them taste the bitterness of the phrase "Dont Tread On Me" than live as a victim.

Context, indeed, sir. A 'knock on the door' which could very reasonably, given the previous paragraph, be interpreted as "The JBTs coming to take my weapons away."

Wildalaska
July 10, 2004, 03:35 AM
Rather than go off on these anti-government tirades, which convince anyone watching that we are a bunch of tinfoil hat wearing loonies (which is how the antis portray us), we need to work against this stereotype.

Itgoesboom:D :D :D

Right on!

WildslowlythetideturnsAlaska

NIGHTWATCH
July 10, 2004, 07:23 AM
http://66.96.177.64/picture_hosting/web_pages/paternoster/pw.jpg
You never specified who those thousands would be.

dischord! Stop marring this thread with your idiocy. What did I have to specify? Specify what? Who else would be trying to disarm me? Civilians? It goes without saying. But you chose to read what I said out of context, to the extreme. I stated sacrifice and you went off the deep end. And despite my best efforts to allow you to redeem yourself as a man, you never answered the question.
At what point do YOU declare war against the government?
That, Sir, is a question most of us do not want to answer, because we don't want to believe that that particular course of action will be necessary.We want to work through the system. Violence, even justifiable violence, needs to be our very last resort.
I could not agree with you more, but the question remains.

Rather than go off on these anti-government tirades, which convince anyone watching that we are a bunch of tinfoil hat wearing loonies (which is how the antis portray us), we need to work against this stereotype.
If you will allow yourself to be silenced because of what others might think, be my guest.


I believe my question strikes at the heart of the matter for all of us.
Its not an easy question to answer. :(

Some people have children and families. Worked hard and sacrificed much to get where they are. Surrendering their guns would be the easiest choice for them. And I cant blame them. But even those folks would have a breaking point, if that very same family suffered loss (the film The Patriot comes to mind).

I could only speak for myself. My gut reaction. Thats just me.

Heres to those of us labeled "Worthless Internet Chest Thumpers" who are not afraid to speak their mind openly and truthfully. And for having the guts to do so! http://beaty625.com/rblicons/clap.gif

itgoesboom
July 10, 2004, 10:39 AM
Nightwatch,

Right now we need numbers. Our enemy is convincing those fence sitters that we are a bunch of anti-government, KKK, Nazi loonies.

That is a stereotype I wish that we would no longer feed. We have done a very good job of proving that we are not tolerant of the KKK types and skinhead types, but people still see us as anti-government.

As long as we are seen as anti-government, the average everyday joe fence sitter will be afraid to join us.

We need to work to increase our numbers, and the best way to do that is to show a positive image.

What are we each doing to create a positive image of gun owners? Are we offering to take our friends who are fence sitters to the range? Are we working to be good examples of law abiding, freedom loving firearm owners?

Or are we telling our friends and neighbors that they better arm themselves before the UN and the Black Helos start circling?

Which of the two options help us more?

The question of what do we do when they are coming for our guns, got news for you. They are already doing that through the legislative process. And no amount of internet posturing will change that. But we can work together to stop it, and we have been working together.

The more people we convince, the better.

The .gov is not ready to start to round up gun owners forcibly. They will do that with laws that will slowly erode our rights, and weaken us that way first.

We still have a long way to go.

Remember what I said above, 80 million gun owners. 2.5 million military personel.
They aren't coming to kick in our doors just yet.

Unless you give them an excuse, in which case you will be branded a terrorist rather than a patriot.

I.G.B.

obiwan1
July 10, 2004, 11:05 AM
What guns????????????:what:

LynnMassGuy
July 10, 2004, 11:08 AM
Whew. What would I do. Something sneaky for sure. Certainly not anything I would post to the world so everyone could know my course of action. Im am sure that histories great revolutionaries would not, even if the had the technology, post their intentions all over the internet for all to see.

Rebeldon
July 10, 2004, 11:33 AM
What guns????????????


Nobody's home...:D

standingbear
July 10, 2004, 11:58 AM
remember to say first.."Iwas in fear of my life"

Wildalaska
July 10, 2004, 01:57 PM
Kudos to itgoesboom agian!

WildsorefreshingAlaska

roo_ster
July 10, 2004, 03:17 PM
Whew. What would I do. Something sneaky for sure. Certainly not anything I would post to the world so everyone could know my course of action. Im am sure that histories great revolutionaries would not, even if the had the technology, post their intentions all over the internet for all to see.

They did not have the 'net. They did have books:
Mein Kampf
Communist Manifesto
...

Reno
July 10, 2004, 04:46 PM
itgoesboom, your 80M vs. 2.5M statistic, while more or less valid, isn't really relevant. You need to remember how many anti-2nd gun owners there are, the "handguns are just for killing people," "nobody needs an assault weapon," etc people who think the government would never come after their turkey shotgun or deer rifle.

NIGHTWATCH
July 10, 2004, 05:55 PM
Nightwatch,

Right now we need numbers. Our enemy is convincing those fence sitters that we are a bunch of anti-government, KKK, Nazi loonies.

That is a stereotype I wish that we would no longer feed. We have done a very good job of proving that we are not tolerant of the KKK types and skinhead types, but people still see us as anti-government.

As long as we are seen as anti-government, the average everyday joe fence sitter will be afraid to join us.

We need to work to increase our numbers, and the best way to do that is to show a positive image.

What are we each doing to create a positive image of gun owners? Are we offering to take our friends who are fence sitters to the range? Are we working to be good examples of law abiding, freedom loving firearm owners?

Or are we telling our friends and neighbors that they better arm themselves before the UN and the Black Helos start circling?

Which of the two options help us more?

The question of what do we do when they are coming for our guns, got news for you. They are already doing that through the legislative process. And no amount of internet posturing will change that. But we can work together to stop it, and we have been working together.

The more people we convince, the better.

The .gov is not ready to start to round up gun owners forcibly. They will do that with laws that will slowly erode our rights, and weaken us that way first.

We still have a long way to go.

Remember what I said above, 80 million gun owners. 2.5 million military personel.
They aren't coming to kick in our doors just yet.

Unless you give them an excuse, in which case you will be branded a terrorist rather than a patriot.



Itgoesboom, you are right. And I understand and agree with you 100%.

I would just say that our First amendment rights are just as valid and potent as the Second. The scenario, the question was "What will you do when they come for your guns"? My response was based a very big If, IF the government turned criminal.

Im sure there are some here who would consider that action (confiscation) "legal" simply because the government says so. But Im going by the inherent wisdom that I was created free.

It was a question. I answered it honestly. If my government turned criminal to the point of bloodshed and I suffered, I would not want to live. Id give my life. A non-white latino American.

I also believe that we are setting a dangerous example to those who may wish to speak their mind, when we are so eager to silence ourselves in order to win the approval of others or because of what they might think, or who is watching. The enemies of this country are out and speaking loudly on their agendas. In many instances, with all the vulgarity and deceit you can imagine. We dont have to lower ourselves to their level but we do need to keep speaking. Keep writing. Keep calling and letting them all know that we are here. And that gun control, the infringements of our freedom, if persued further, will eventually lead to a national crisis, brought about by them, that they will regret deeply. Because I believe a good majority of Americans feel the way I do.

So, Im with you. And I pray for peaceful political justice....but let us never cease from speaking our minds.

Bill St. Clair
July 10, 2004, 10:10 PM
Whenever this question comes up, in any of the forums where I've seen it, just about the same thing happens. A few people say they'd shoot it out, and a few other people tell them they're acting like loons. Remember folks, the shot heard round the world was prompted by an attempt by the British, the legal government at the time, to confiscate firearms. History has a habit of repeating itself.

Personally, I consider it rational and patriotic to let it be known, loud and clear, that if the government ever attempts to confiscate guns, their constitutional contract is null and void, and everyone who works for them is fair game.

Wildalaska
July 11, 2004, 04:01 AM
Personally, I consider it rational and patriotic to let it be known, loud and clear, that if the government ever attempts to confiscate guns, their constitutional contract is null and void, and everyone who works for them is fair game.

Well they have already done it in NYC, how come ya aint out shooting Mr. Rational Patriot??? Since every one who works for the government is fair game, maybe you should go over to like the Public Health Service and blow away some nurses:barf: That will make your point, hell McVeigh is still a hero in some circles and he got some kiddies...kill em before they turn into Feds I reckon

History has a habit of repeating itself.

Somehow the comparison between a bunch of armchair commandos self styling themselves as patriots and the educated, rational and philosophical men who founded this country escapes me.


Wildlurkersplease notenotallgunownersdeserveyourdisdaindisgustorfearAlaska

NIGHTWATCH
July 11, 2004, 07:37 AM
http://66.96.177.64/picture_hosting/web_pages/paternoster/wa.jpg
Well they have already done it in NYC, how come ya aint out shooting Mr. Rational Patriot???
Wildalaska, if there is anyone here who is consistantly ranting off about killing innocent unarmed civilians, its not me but you. Now nurses?....feeling ok bud?... maybe its time for your walk? Hmm? Get out of the cabin?
Remember folks, the shot heard round the world was prompted by an attempt by the British, the legal government at the time, to confiscate firearms. History has a habit of repeating itself.
And thats the truth Bill St. Clair, but some people "dont want to believe". And will not only turn a blind eye to history but perpetuate that very same tyranny by attacking those who want to see. Regardless ...
Those who would make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable. Those who renounce using their arms against a corrupt political machine are the very people that make that violence inevitable. Passivity only encourages the machine to expand. - John F. Kennedy

Even if you are a minority of one. The truth is still the truth - Mahatma Gandhi

Im on the right side of history. :evil:

Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! — Patrick Henry

mikemck
July 11, 2004, 08:32 AM
Somehow the comparison between a bunch of armchair commandos self styling themselves as patriots and the educated, rational and philosophical men who founded this country escapes me.

LOL..you hit that nail square.

I figured out a long time ago that despite all the lip service and "cold dead hands" hyperbole, if it ever comes down to it the majority will gladly hand over whatever they are told to hand over. Oh sure, they will have some excuse or other for why they did it and will gladly commiserate with each other on a net forum, and continue dreaming up various fantasy scenarios. SSDD, really.

There's a big difference between supporting a right and defending a right...

NIGHTWATCH
July 11, 2004, 09:05 AM
I figured out a long time ago that despite all the lip service and "cold dead hands" hyperbole, if it ever comes down to it the majority will gladly hand over whatever they are told to hand over. Oh sure, they will have some excuse or other for why they did it and will gladly commiserate with each other on a net forum, and continue dreaming up various fantasy scenarios. SSDD, really.
And?..... you have nothing to offer regarding the question of defending that right? :rolleyes:

Listen, you dont even have the cajones to mention here what you might consider your breaking point when the question has been asked. And your going to mock those who would??? You cant even discuss it here? On a 2nd Amendment forum???....

Now thats funny!!! ROTFL!!! http://beaty625.com/rblicons/rotflmao.gif

MacViolinist
July 11, 2004, 10:40 AM
To me, this issue comes down to one thing: Is it a clean shoot? I don't care if you're a jack-booted thug or a regular thug or anything else. The only question is whether or not I am in fear for my life or the lives of those I love. Just the same as any other situation, escape is preferable to deadly force. Lying is prefereable to deadly force. You don't walk around flashing your gun trying to kill anyone that makes some sort of injustice on another. If you do, I'll probably pull on you. The fact is this: guns should only be used to save your life or the life of another from an immediate threat. Period. That is all. If "they" come for my guns, I will let "them" decide how the situation goes. I won't give them up, but I won't let them kill me either.

On a more general note, *** is going on here? Why hasn't this thread been closed and deleted? Don't you people know that the CIA watches this board and many others? I can only assume that those of you that are advocating violent resistance to the government are people that are too dumb for me to associate with, if only for the fact that you are dumb enough to do it in public. Not to mention the fact that an officer of the law is not doing anything violent by asking you for your guns. Hello? Is there an epidemic of stupid going around that I haven't picked up yet? What is your major malfunction? You want to go off blowing people up because you can't stand to give a smile and a nod to your local cop and tell a bit of a fib? Jesus H. Christ, people like NIGHTWATCH almost make me think that gun control might be a good idea.

mikemck
July 11, 2004, 10:45 AM
Listen, you dont even have the cajones to mention here what you might consider your breaking point when the question has been asked. And your going to mock those who would??? You cant even discuss it here? On a 2nd Amendment forum???....

There is not anything that can be done on the net that requires cojones. You obviously do not understand that.

And furthermore, there is nothing to discuss. Either you will, or you won't.

fjolnirsson
July 11, 2004, 10:47 AM
"A Patriot is merely a rebel at the start. In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."-Mark Twain

Make of that what you will.

I am, and shall work towards peaceful restoration of our 2nd Amendment rights.
I am mature enough to realize I should prepare for the most unfavorable outcome imaginable.
It is often said, in favor of carrying a weapon: Because I have a fire extinguisher in my home, am I hoping for a fire?
Because I prepare for the worst while working to prevent it, am I really hoping for the worst?

I am dismayed to see High Roaders insulting each other. I understand that tempers flare. However, I would hope to see you all exhibit the same respect which I have for each of you. Regardless of personal differences and questions of semantics, we are all on the same side.

What will I do if they come for my weapons?

I don't really know at this point. I would like to say I would fight. But I have a 3 month old daughter.
On the other hand, I have a 3 month old daughter. I would not want her to live in a US without guns or the right to self defense. If I do not stand and fight then and there, rest assured I would be helping with the "gun underground" from then on. As for posting this on the net, well...
If, when they come for my guns, they are able to waste resources by having someone check all of my old THR posts for plans, we've already lost.
Doesn't mean we should give up.

With that said, I don't think this scenario will ever play out. We have made much progress in recent years. So long as we stand and fight the good fight in the political arena, we will win back those rights currently denied to us.
But I could be wrong.
And so, I train.

fjolnirsson
July 11, 2004, 10:50 AM
Don't you people know that the CIA watches this board and many others?

Damn, and here I am, out of tinfoil.......:(

MacViolinist
July 11, 2004, 11:17 AM
The only reason I say that the CIA watches this board and many others is that my girlfriends father is CIA and he told me.

NIGHTWATCH
July 11, 2004, 11:41 AM
You want to go off blowing people up because you can't stand to give a smile and a nod to your local cop and tell a bit of a fib? Jesus H. Christ, people like NIGHTWATCH almost make me think that gun control might be a good idea.
Ladies and gentlemen, at this point of the thread, despite all historical background and evidence. Despite the constitutional authority we have as citizens to defend ourselves from government sponsored genocide. Despite explaining myself within the context of the subject matter numerous times, I rest my case. Witness the hope of the gun control movement and the desired result of believing in benevolent government. Not to mention the favorite citizen child of every despot in history.

http://community.the-underdogs.org/smiley/armed/bomb.gif

Don't you people know that the CIA watches this board and many others?
Oh give me a break! We are having a political discussion here on a very relevant and serious issue! Im an American exercising my right to speak! Im not screaming FIRE in a crowded theatre! And there are no terrorists here! They would have much better luck finding them at the"Democratic Underground". So stop acting like a slave at his masters feet!!!

Art Eatman
July 11, 2004, 11:42 AM
Gee whillikins! I'm absolutely amazed that anybody would post anything on the Internet that they wouldn't say to an agent of any agency, or to a prosecutor or judge! Would anybody really do such a thing? :D

Art

R.H. Lee
July 11, 2004, 11:48 AM
The only reason I say that the CIA watches this board and many others is that my girlfriends father is CIA and he told me.

Well, tell him we're not getting our money's worth then. He and his buddies need to get busy and find some real terrorists. They're lucky they still have jobs after the failure known as 9/11.

Wildalaska
July 11, 2004, 11:49 AM
feeling ok bud?... maybe its time for your walk? Hmm? Get out of the cabin?

Now isnt that special...cutie little photos from the Freeedom Commandos...

Bwwwwwwwwwwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahaha

Hint..in the time it took ya to create that piece of modern art, ya could have...hmm...taken your 25 internet patriot buddies and started a youth shooting league...or written a letter to the editor...or...

Naw so much more fun to spout on the net, eh...well anyway, got to go, got to drive SWMBO to work and then go to a gun show...lots of machine guns there...got those in NYC do ya?...hey by the way, do ya know our VT style carry is the result of grassroots activism?

WildnolongeraNYCboyAlaska

NIGHTWATCH
July 11, 2004, 11:54 AM
Gee whillikins! I'm absolutely amazed that anybody would post anything on the Internet that they wouldn't say to an agent of any agency, or to a prosecutor or judge! Would anybody really do such a thing?
Art, I would... :D

Your honor...members of the jury. Yes. Its true. I said it.

The question was asked. "What would you do if they came for your guns"? What would you do if they came for your guns with guns. Prepared to kill me for exercising my birthright. And labeling me the criminal....yes, its true ladies and gentleman.

I would rather give my life at some point, than see America turned into a mass grave by those "sworn to protect us". With all of her hopes and her people perished forever. Yes....its true. I would not want to live as a slave.

Molonlabe


Im done.

MacViolinist
July 11, 2004, 12:00 PM
It's unfortunate that the CIA bit was the only thing noted in my post. I still think it boils down to a clean shoot. Is someone attacking you or not?

NIGHTWATCH
July 11, 2004, 12:05 PM
The only reason I say that the CIA watches this board and many others is that my girlfriends father is CIA and he told me.


Well, tell him we're not getting our money's worth then. He and his buddies need to get busy and find some real terrorists. They're lucky they still have jobs after the failure known as 9/11.

http://beaty625.com/rblicons/goodmove.gif

MacViolinist
July 11, 2004, 12:06 PM
BTW NIGHTWATCH,
YOUR USE OF PUCTUATION AND BOLD AND CAPITALS AND ????? IS REALLY GOOD N STUFF, IT REALLY HELPS ME TAKE YOU'RE POINT SERIUS,

NIGHTWATCH
July 11, 2004, 12:13 PM
It's unfortunate that the CIA bit was the only thing noted in my post. I still think it boils down to a clean shoot. Is someone attacking you or not?

That is a valid point. Did not mean to make fun of you in particular but just trying to lighten things up a bit. ;)

Would someone please beat NIGHTWATCH over the head with a clue x 4

Case in point. :rolleyes:

NIGHTWATCH
July 11, 2004, 12:15 PM
BTW NIGHTWATCH, YOUR USE OF PUCTUATION AND BOLD AND CAPITALS AND ????? IS REALLY GOOD N STUFF, IT REALLY HELPS ME TAKE YOU'RE POINT SERIUS,

Another example. :rolleyes:

MacViolinist
July 11, 2004, 12:16 PM
It seems that my point was lost on the topic of the CIA. I am simply saying that websites like this are being watched. I am also saying that under the Patriot Act, some of the posters on this board could be arrested and held without charges. When/if that happens is anyone's guess. But it's tough to argue with a prosecutor that is accusing you of advocating violence against government employees. If you must do so, I strongly reccomend PM's

MacViolinist
July 11, 2004, 12:21 PM
That is a valid point


Well then perhaps you should respond to it instead of all this junk about blowing one's self up and hopefully a few hundred or thousand with you.

NIGHTWATCH
July 11, 2004, 12:26 PM
I appreciate your opinion MacViolinist, I do. ;) I would also appreciate it if you changed your sig. :(

Its one thing for us guys to get into it on a thread, thats fun as far as Im concerned. But a lasting sig insult is not cool man.

And as far as this thread, I really think you need to take another look within the context from the begining. If I had to die for my country, I would want to take out as many thugs as possible...wouldnt you?

My 2.

MacViolinist
July 11, 2004, 12:45 PM
No, NIGHTWATCH. I would not take out as many as I could. I will "take out" exactly the number of people that try to kill me or my family and no more. What part of appropriate use of deadly force don't you get? I hope to God that you don't carry on a daily basis.

NIGHTWATCH
July 11, 2004, 12:53 PM
No, NIGHTWATCH. I would not take out as many as I could. I will "take out" exactly the number of people that try to kill me or my family and no more. What part of appropriate use of deadly force don't you get? I hope to God that you don't carry on a daily basis.
MV, what are you talking about? Appropriate use of dealy force in a war? Did you ever hear of the American revolution? I hope to God you dont vote on a regular basis.

Mmm, Im tired. You guys pooped me out. LOL! :D It was fun riling you up.

*Whisper* Which by the way, I love to do. :D

Goodnight/day all.

Don Gwinn
July 11, 2004, 01:23 PM
All right, we're done here. I am often struck by the pride I take in the way the membership at THR handles things. This is not one of those days.

If you enjoyed reading about "When they come for your guns - what will you do?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!