Molon Labe? Gimme a break.


PDA






Richard.Howe
August 16, 2004, 03:49 PM
First, let me don my flame suit...there...should be prepared for what may follow.

Many of us have rallied around the cry "Molon Labe" which means, literally, "come and get them." I must admit that upon hearing this RKBA mantra for the first time, I was thrilled with the symbolism and history of the phrase that has come to embody a high degree of dedication to the 2nd Amendment for many gun owners. Come and Get Them.

The more I thought about it, however, the more uneasy I became about its ultimate meaning. As a sincere proponent of Molon Labe, you are saying that if the government passed laws against gun ownership, you would actively resist. Come and Get Them.

Meaning that -- if laws were passed next week -- you would feel compelled by principle to take a shot at an LEO coming to your house to enforce the law. Or that you would participate in lethal resistance against our armed forces. Come and Get Them.

If you allow Molon Labe to reach its logical conclusion, these scenarios are very real. This phrase should belong in the nauseating company of "Vote From the Rooftops."

Before pointing to Nazis or Fascists to tell me why I'm crazy for not buying into this philosophy, please recall that both of these dictatorships leveraged horrible atrocities on their people. These violations are exactly the sort of thing that should meet with armed resistance, and I and my 300 Win Mag would be first in line.

The true test-parallel would be modern Australia or Great Britain. Ought these citizens "rise up" and violently rebel against gun prohibitions? Or, if we could go back in time to the period immediately following passage of ownership restrictions, would you encourage gun-owning civilians to tell their local PD to "Molon Labe?"

I'm not a latin expert, but I would propose replacement of Molon Labe with a latin translation of "Go and Find Them." Because if our government ever passes laws against gun ownership, I might promptly lose -- or have stolen -- all of my guns; because I know that it is only the beginning of a far darker time to come.

What I will NOT do is put a bullet in Barney Fife on my front porch because the Senate happens to be particularly stupid.

Take care and be consistent,
Rich

If you enjoyed reading about "Molon Labe? Gimme a break." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Thumper
August 16, 2004, 03:55 PM
The Founding Fathers should be very proud of their progeny.

"Go Hide! Go Hide! The British are coming..." :barf:

444
August 16, 2004, 04:03 PM
"please recall that both of these dictatorships leveraged horrible atrocities on their people. "

Please note that these horrible atrocities occured because the victims lacked the tools to defend themselves. The atrocities didn't occur when gun ownership was legal and you could meet them head on with your .300 Win Mag. Once the .300 Win Mag is gone, it is too late.
One phrase I have heard a few times that deseves some serious thought: The second amendment isn't about hunting. Our forefathers didn't write the bill of rights so that duck hunters could continue to enjoy their sport. The second amendment was written because our forefathers knew what happened when someone was unable to defend themselves against a tyranical government.
Another similar saying that applies to your post: If it is time to start burying your guns, it is time to start digging them up.
Don't trust a government that doesn't trust it's citizens.

I keep reading about saying your guns were stolen or whatever when they come to your door.
Please
Do you honestly think that is going to work ?
They will say, OK, let's see the receipts or some documentation. If you had a few thousand dollars worth of guns stolen, let's see the police report. Let's check with your insurance company.
If you don't produce the guns or some kind of documentation, they have all the leverage in the world to keep you in line.

Ewok
August 16, 2004, 04:04 PM
The true test-parallel would be modern Austria or Great Britain.

I think you mean Australia. According to the NRA: In Austria, every law-abiding citizen has a legal right to buy handguns, and roughly ten per cent of Austrians have done so (compared to 16 per cent of U.S. citizens).

BSlacker
August 16, 2004, 04:24 PM
Your view is narrow. When you say, Oh they fell over board when I was fishing the govgoons are just going to go away, you think. So you bury the guns, now you have no guns which was the goal of the govgoons. If you get the guns out later and get caught the govgoons will ruin your and everybodies lives that you hold dear. This is the evil that is gov. Belive me anybody who wants to ruin your life over gun ownership is NOT Barney!
So your way you lose the guns or run the risk of a life altering event such as 15-20 as a new wife for Bubba. You can't shoot your guns easily or display them.
If the founding fathers had your ideas nobody would have gone to the road to beat back the British and you would not have the guns you have now. Buck up man.

I will go too the road I don't quess we will be seeing you there. :D

Thumper
August 16, 2004, 04:28 PM
The more I thought about it, however, the more uneasy I became about its ultimate meaning. As a sincere proponent of Molon Labe, you are saying that if the government passed laws against gun ownership, you would actively resist. Come and Get Them.

I find it interesting that the true meaning of the phrase took so long to dawn on you.

I can understand your not wanting to be involved in what would be a bloody, thankless endeavor that had little chance of success.

...but somebody has to do it. Don't worry, there are plenty that will stand in your place.

Rebar
August 16, 2004, 04:40 PM
And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, polkers, or whatever else was at hand? After all, you knew ahead of time that those bluecaps were out at night for no good purpose. And you could be sure ahead of time that you'd be cracking the skull of a cutthroat. Or what about the Black Maria sitting out there on the street with one lonely chauffeur -- what if it had been driven off or its tires spiked. The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!

If... if... We didn't love freedom enough. And even more -- we had no awareness of the real situation. We spent ourselves in one unrestrained outburst in 1917, and then we hurried to submit. We submitted with pleasure! ........... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.
-Solzhenitsyn

Richard.Howe
August 16, 2004, 04:40 PM
Don't worry, there are plenty that will stand in your place.

And I will benefit from their principles, and be remorsefully thankful.

There are many that would kill to protect their possessions, but I am not one. Yet I benefit daily from those who do.

My guns are loaded and at the ready for those who would threaten not things but lives. Which is why I will never give them up.

But personal ownership of my Ruger 10/22 will not be justification to put a 230gr. JHP into center-of-mass of my local sheriff.

And other than theory-talk, you wouldn't do it either.

Thumper
August 16, 2004, 04:46 PM
And other than theory-talk, you wouldn't do it either.

I took an oath upon entering the service that I would to fight to preserve the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

I've fought the former. You'd damn well better believe I'd fight the latter.

Some of us who have actually seen what happens to a disarmed populace actually believe in this stuff.

Don't project your own shortcomings onto others.

Cosmoline
August 16, 2004, 04:49 PM
The whole point of the molon labe mindset is to prevent us from ever getting in the position of Australia or the UK. I believe the citizens of those nations would be well within their rights to revolt, esp. considering both nations are still under the rule of a monarch with no lawful claim to power and neither nation places any real limits on the power of central authority. The UK Parliament retains the power to issue a bill calling for the execution of a citizen, for example. There is no bill of rights, and the court system cow tows to the will of Parliament in all circumstances. It is a true tyranny of the majority.

The slogan isn't about killing LEO's, it's about drawing the line beyond which you will not tolerate federal action. If it ever comes to that point, I have no doubt that my own state will bar any state or local LEO's from assisting in enforcement of the federal ban. We did it with the Patriot Act. Indeed I would expect a second civil war to break out, where those on our side will fight under the authority of a breakaway state--an entirely lawful and proper position to take in spite of the garbage the Lincoln apologists have spewed out.

Can'thavenuthingood
August 16, 2004, 04:50 PM
They are coming to get them...........one city, county, state, or federal law at a time. One feature, caliber or safety device at a time. One child's mindset at a time.

The actual fight I think is in the classrooms of our school system. The zero tolerance mindset that anything to do with guns is not proper behavior for a child. Kids are being expelled and suspended for drawing a picture of a soldier or a gun. Don't point a finger, a might be loaded with further hazardous schooling.

Don't play dodgeball as it encourages violent behavior.
Stifle those feelings of frustration or you'll be put on Ritalin or some such drug.

Following the letter of the law is a primary concern for these adults. No point in looking at the intent of a law or regulation as it applies to a kids intentions as in a "show and tell" piece in school, throw the deviant out.

The schools teach the kids that a parent cannot discipline them or we can throw your parents in jail, you have rights you know.

Fewer youngsters are getting into the shooting sports because they don't see or feel the need to since they are taught that guns are bad and who needs a machine gun for hunting.

Who needs to hunt anyway? We have all the food we need in the grocery store. Animals have the right to live unmolested, ask PETA.

And then the children become politicians. The ones that don't already have the training to follow the rules and regulations or suffer the consequences.

The right to hunt wasn't an arguement way back then because it was a way for most people to get meat on the table or campfire, it was a given.

Like someone else on THR mentioned, I don't think they will come to my door and get my guns. They will go to the manufacturer and stifle ammunition production. Then all I have is a really big knife or a club.

Molon Labe is good in an armed conflict against a "seen" enemy. We are up against a majority of the educators and administrators of our education system supported by the mainstream media.

Of course thats just my opinion from where I sit in my little corner of the world.

Vick

Thumper
August 16, 2004, 04:52 PM
The slogan isn't about killing LEO's, it's about drawing the line beyond which you will not tolerate federal action.

Hopefully true. The LEOs that I consider my CLOSE friends would be in my fighting position anyway.

clown714
August 16, 2004, 04:54 PM
DITTO,

what thumper,said.

clown

sendec
August 16, 2004, 04:55 PM
after all, if I remember my history, the 300 Spartans were all killed, Athens fell, so it was pretty much a waste of resources. Dramatic, yes, but dead is dead.

And it is a little dramatic. Do people honestly believe that some day G-men are gonna fast rope out of Blackhawks for our guns? This is the same gummint who looses bowel control when a 19 year old GI puts a dog collar on a POW? The same government that screeched to a halt over hanging chads and the definition of "sex"? That's giving them WAY too much credit.

I've also wondered, hypothetically, if God or some omnipotent being offered us eternal peace and freedom from violence if we turned in our guns, how many would refuse to do it. I think for some people the "continuing crisis", be it crime or gun control, is half the attraction.

I'm not a big believer in sloganeering.

Gordon Fink
August 16, 2004, 04:56 PM
Where was the armed resistance in 1934? In 1968? In 1994? There wasn’t any. Will there be armed resistance in 2004, if the “assault-weapons” ban is renewed? Not bloody likely.

The stakes have never been high enough for anyone to fight back, and they never will be high enough unless the gun controllers make some horrible strategic blunder. They need not ever confiscate our guns. To win, all they have to do is make it ever more difficult to acquire new firearms. When it’s all over, our grandchildren—the few that bother with the hassle of owning guns—will be storing their single-shot .22s at those vanishingly rare gun clubs.

~G. Fink

Thumper
August 16, 2004, 04:58 PM
And it is a little dramatic. Do people honestly believe that some day G-men are gonna fast rope out of Blackhawks for our guns?

Nope, I don't. Nor do I believe that the local sheriff will ever forced into a position to have to do it.

But I do believe that you have to have some idea of what you WOULD do. The teeth of liberty are worthless without someone to pull the trigger.

I'll say this and somebody please try to argue it:

If you aren't willing to pay the same price the Founders were willing to pay,
you don't deserve the Rights they enumerated for you.

Harry Tuttle
August 16, 2004, 05:00 PM
perferating Barney,
or Andy would do nothing.
to stop a snake,
take off the head

Its all about Aunt Bee.

FPrice
August 16, 2004, 05:01 PM
"What I will NOT do is put a bullet in Barney Fife on my front porch because the Senate happens to be particularly stupid."

I haven't read all the reasoned responses to your post so I don't know how the discussion is going. But I will add my two cents.

I do not intend to start blindly shooting anyone, however I also don't intend to line up and voluntarily hand over my firearms.

But between now and then, I am doing what I can to prevent it from coming to that.

444
August 16, 2004, 05:07 PM
"But personal ownership of my Ruger 10/22 will not be justification to put a 230gr. JHP into center-of-mass of my local sheriff."

Two problems here: #1 You local sheriff isn't the one that enforces federal firearms laws. He might end up being put in that role but at present, this isn't the case.
#2 You appearently have chosen to become totally subservient to the state. Apperently it doesn't matter who they are, or what they are, you are going to be a good boy and do whatever they tell you. You don't care if the "laws" they enact and enforce are just or moral. For that matter you don't make any decisions about what is just and moral: you look to them for that. If they say it is right, it is right. If they say it is wrong, it is wrong. Appearently if Joseph Stalin was your local sheriff, you wouldn't consider objecting to anything he says ?

Hopefully everyone on here has seen the movie, Schindler's List. One thing that really struck me about it was that the things they were doing were perfectly legal. In their society, they were doing good. When you sent Jews to the ovens, you could go home and tell your mother what you did and she would be proud of you.
I remember taking a Philosophy class in the short time I attended college and we were discussing right and wrong, morals, laws etc. The professor made a statement that hit me with the same impact as the movie: in Nazi Germany, the law was whatever Hitler said the law was. If it changed daily, then it changed daily. And the people were expected to follow it, no matter what it was.
You appearently are one of those followers. You don't have a set of priciples that you will defend, not just for yourself but for your family and the future generations to come. You will stand by and let it happen knowing in the end that you respected a badge that didn't deserve that respect.

R.H. Lee
August 16, 2004, 05:09 PM
The notion that door to door confiscation will immediately follow legislation banning all firearms is a huge stretch, not to mention a leftist's wet dream. Then to further extrapolate that each one of us will be forced to shoot the local sheriff showing up to accomplish said confiscation is even more far out.
(Although, if the above were to happen, you'd better start shooting, because there will be much worse in store for you anyway.)

Your premise is flawed.

"Molon Labe" means that as an American, my government operates and exists at my pleasure and with my permission. "Molon Labe" means that I have a natural right to self defense that cannot be compromised or abridged by any government. "Molon Labe" means that I understand my natural rights, that I am an American, and I will not suffer tyranny or slavery without resistance.

Do you remember the Cold War and the acronym MAD? It means "Mutually Assured Destruction", and served as the operating principle to preserve peace during the arms build up between the U.S. and the former Soviet Union. Each side was able, and willing if necessary but only if necessary to obliterate the other. The fact that we are armed serves as a deterrence to tyranny in this country. It is my sincere hope that we remain armed and that no further action will be necessary..

RealGun
August 16, 2004, 05:15 PM
Sounds like a good case for serious militia activity.

The Rock
August 16, 2004, 05:17 PM
I'm not really sure what to say, so, in the interest of keeping it civil, I will leave you with a quote from Samuel Adams.

"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."

TR

R.H. Lee
August 16, 2004, 05:19 PM
To win, all they have to do is make it ever more difficult to acquire new firearms. When it’s all over, our grandchildren—the few that bother with the hassle of owning guns—will be storing their single-shot .22s at those vanishingly rare gun clubs.


Although valid to some degree in large urban areas, I think that's an unrealistic assessment. They cannot "disinvent" the firearm and it will always exist until antiquated by a superior technology.

BTW, Hope is the first step on the road to great achievements, also. :)

GunGeek
August 16, 2004, 05:25 PM
I took an oath upon entering the service that I would to fight to preserve the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic

I've fought the former. You'd damn well better believe I'd fight the latter.

Some of us who have actually seen what happens to a disarmed populace actually believe in this stuff.

Don't project your own shortcomings onto others.

DITTO, for some of us Molon Labe says it perfect.

I don't condone revolution, it's just not that bad, but if it ever got that bad who do you think will win? The side with the guns or the side who gave them up?

fjolnirsson
August 16, 2004, 05:30 PM
There are many that would kill to protect their possessions, but I am not one.

Neither am I. I would , however, kill to protect my liberty, and that of my daughter. I would kill to keep my family from being subjects rather than citizens.
Personally, if it can to a mass confiscation, I don't think it would be Barney. I think the UN would be called in to help. I would have no problem making those blue helmets ring like church bells.
As someone else said, whatever happens, we need to have an idea of what to do.
As for voting from the rooftops, If it came to large scale gun confiscation, ie Australia....
Well, I don't find it so detestable that someone would follow the advice of our founders.

444
August 16, 2004, 05:34 PM
One thing that I rarely see mentioned is: What would be the reason "they" chose to ban guns ?
You see, we are always on the defensive. We are used to giving arguments why we should be permitted to continue to own OUR guns. Seldom is the reason for their confiscation asked.
Of course the knee jerk response would be, to end gun violence. Ok, but do you really think the people who make laws care about that ? After all, they specialize in violence. They send our troops to other other countries to kill and to be killed. Do you think they really care that a crack dealer in Detroit got killed ? In addition, we know that the present gun laws don't stop or even deter criminals. And the big wigs in Washington know this also. You have to give them credit, they are intelligent, they are highly educated: they didn't get where they are by being stupid: they know that gun laws don't stop violence.
So what is it about then ? What is this law that you are so willing to follow.

Well, of course I have my own opinion summed up in yet another saying: Gun control isn't about guns, it is about control.

Think about this: how much of the anti-gun retoric centers around keeping the "authorities" better armed than the citizen. "High Cap Magazines", "Assult Rifles", "Cop Killer Bulllets", suppressors, full auto. These are all buzz words used to describe a condition where the average Joe is gaining parody with the "authorities" and the "authorities" demand to keep the upper hand.

Brat7748
August 16, 2004, 05:36 PM
Hmm lets see now the last stats I remember reading are that about 90 Million households have firearms of some sort and that the total number of firearms estimated to be in the hands of the general population is 250 million...Even given the number of sheeple who would go along with whatever the govenment said was best "for the Chillin" I don't think they have enougth blackhawks and other resourses to gather up the rest before the voting from the rooftops cahnged their minds.

Oleg Volk
August 16, 2004, 05:39 PM
But personal ownership of my Ruger 10/22 will not be justification to put a 230gr. JHP into center-of-mass of my local sheriff.

Of course not. If coming to confiscate your guns, they would be wearing armor. Head shots, not COM shots. :D

You can give up guns. You can't give up the skills...so you'd always be a motivated and dangerous enemy to them, and your life would be as forfeit a that of the officers slaughtered in Katyn by NKVD.

Fighting against organized, trained and numerous opponents is a bad pastime. Giving up the means to do so is worse. Fighting doesn't mean trying to match MP5s with your 10/22. It can mean what the Iraqi guerillas are doing...using remote-controlled mines, executing collaborators and making this country look like Iraq or Northern Ireland or Chechniya overall. Not the future anyone sane wants to see. Maybe that is why the opposition isn't pushing us harder...maybe they know that we, including enough of the military and peace officers would do them in with no mercy or regret.

PS: I don't really care for the 300 Spartan analogy, either. Nazi Signal magazine compared the Stalingrad "heros" with the Spartans and it was an apt comparison. Sparta was no model of civil virtue, though an improvement over Persia. My favorite analogy would be the Finnish approach to Commie eradication in 1918 and again in 1939-45. And, as with us, they won the first war, lost a little in the second one, then lost the peace by becoming more socialist over time.

Carlos
August 16, 2004, 05:40 PM
I've fought the former. You'd damn well better believe I'd fight the latter.

What happens when the enemy is the government itself? You surely won’t be dying “for YOUR country.” It’ll be an abomination of what was once a great country. Sure hope I didn’t read your post wrong. Anyway,

I took the same oath over 30 years ago and am no longer under any obligation to protect against enemies foreign and domestic. However, I will, until the government turns against me and other liked-minded citizenry.

I’ve got nothing to lose, but my Freedom, which includes my guns. All of them!!!!! I am willing to die for it.

:fire:

Thumper
August 16, 2004, 05:50 PM
You surely won’t be dying “for YOUR country.” It’ll be an abomination of what was once a great country.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

hillbilly
August 16, 2004, 06:03 PM
Cajuncoona, you should really do a lot more historical reading.

In the American Revolution, often times figting for freedom did indeed mean putting a musket ball through the chest of someone who was your neighbor, who you saw on the street on a daily basis, or who you might have even shared a pint of ale with.

The American Revolution, when it happened, was not a very popular cause. Most of the citizenry in most of the colonies were against it, especially at first.

Especially the farther south you went along the colonies......Lots and lots of colonists from Georgia and the Carolinas wound up fighting for King George III, not against him.

In the south, it was often colonist fighting colonist.


The American Revolution was not an easy thing to come to.

Read Frederick Douglass' speech given on July 5, 1852. He points out that while in 1852, everyone could say that the American Revolution was the right thing to do, that was definitely not the case in 1775.

Douglass was making the same point about slavery in 1852....while it was not easy to say in 1852 that slavery was wrong, he hoped that years and years after he was gone, people would look back and say of course slavery was wrong.

And in case you haven't figured it out, it doesn't really matter whether you own the Ruger 10/22 or not.

What matters is if you have the freedom to decide for yourself.

And that freedom always has been and always will be worth putting a musket ball or a 230 grain .45 ACP through the chest of those who would deprive you of that freedom. Even if it comes down to seeing those you know as the enemy....

That's exactly what happened in the American Revolution and the American Civil War, and every other war fought over freedom.

When it came to "throw down" time, you had to decide which side you were on, and then start killing those on the other side.

I know which side I'd be on if wholesale confiscation ever started.

hillbilly

Bruce H
August 16, 2004, 06:15 PM
No you would be fighting for your country. The one founded with the Declaration of Independence and governed by the Constitution. Too many forget this.

cajuncoona go give Senator Feinstein a big wet one. She is definitely your kind of people.

Frohickey
August 16, 2004, 06:16 PM
Yes. Molon Labe. Absolutely.

Two quotes to you. First, from a courageous circuit court judge.
"The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed—where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once."

Second, from one of the first Founding Father, who held nothing back.
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace._ We ask not your counsel nor your arms._ Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you._ May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."

Molon Labe
August 16, 2004, 06:18 PM
You called? :D

It's really very simple: I have guns. Not many, mind you. But some of them are not politically correct (FAL, .50 BMG, etc.). If a law is ever passed that forbids my possession of these guns, I will not hand them over. Furthermore, if anyone tries to take them from me after their possession has been deemed "illegal," I will resist, and will use force and/or violence as necessary in an effort to retain possession.

jdege
August 16, 2004, 06:22 PM
I refuse to discuss this subject with anyone who hasn't read Jeff Snyder's essay "The Line in the Sand". (Included in his book "Nation of Cowards".)

Frohickey
August 16, 2004, 06:26 PM
These are all buzz words used to describe a condition where the average Joe is gaining parody with the "authorities" and the "authorities" demand to keep the upper hand.

Actually, the word is 'parity'. I know what you meant. But it never hurts to correct for the next time when someone, maybe an anti-gunner, would read our side's posts/columns, and it is always good to be intelligible.

Michigander
August 16, 2004, 06:29 PM
"The phrase "...shall not be INFRINGED" is what is written. We have already succumbed to INFRINGEMENT. Amendment II is already dead and has been for a long time now. A shame, but true nonetheless. If we really believed in Amendment II, we would have already done something about it."

- me


Now it's just a matter of whether or not they are going to ban the particular firearm make/models we own? Or maybe it's just a matter of whether or not they are going to confiscate this one or that one or all of them?

Amendment II has already been violated and tread upon.

What cut of the 1,000 are we on? 4? 428? 629? 902?

Gordon Fink
August 16, 2004, 06:32 PM
Indeed! Given that there will probably never be outright confiscation, where is the proverbial line in the sand?

~G. Fink

444
August 16, 2004, 06:43 PM
The line in the sand is something that only you can decide for yourself. If you have been paying attention, many people have already decided that the line has already been crossed and have been cut down by some agency or another. Their lives taken, their houses burned, their possessions lost, their names dragged through the mud. If you are looking for one defining moment when all will rise up together, I don't think it is going to happen.

Most of us feel that the line has not been crossed as of yet.

If I lived in **********, new jersey, the district of columbia, new york city.................. the line would have been crossed long ago. I wouldn't have engaged in an armed revolt, I would have simply left. We are just like any other animal. We will hide, we will run, but when we are out of places to run and our backs are to the wall, we only have one option left.

Carlos Cabeza
August 16, 2004, 06:44 PM
Better to die on one's feet, than to live on one's knees !
Just kidding Agent S.
:D God save the queen ! err, I mean Yes mummy..............:neener:

Molon Labe
August 16, 2004, 06:50 PM
Indeed! Given that there will probably never be outright confiscation, where is the proverbial line in the sand?The most likely scenario is that possession of certain weapons would be made illegal, and you'll have 30 days (or whatever) to "turn them in." Unless provoked, JBTs will not be going door-to-door confiscating weapons, even after the 30 day time period. Instead, you will be arrested if you're ever caught with a banned rifle (such as at a gun show, in your vehicle, at the range, etc.)

So here's my line in the sand: the day after one of my rifles is banned, I will "celebrate" by going in the backyard and shooting it as if nothing happened. As an example, if semi-auto rifles were banned, I would go in my backyard and let off 20 rounds from my FAL as fast as my index finger will allow. Remove empty magazine, insert full magazine, repeat. Any JBTs that show up as a result of my shooting exercise will be considered targets...

R.H. Lee
August 16, 2004, 06:50 PM
There is a difference between restrictive laws and their enforcement. Government already has a big problem with enforcement of the myriad of laws on the books. If they should demand I relinquish my firearms and move to actively enforce that demand, my line will have been crossed. Of course my line could be crossed earlier by some other government action. The point is, I will not voluntarily surrender my firearms, nor will I bury them or attempt to convince "authorities" I no longer possess them. Other than that, I won't discuss what I may or may not do if/when "the time comes".

Richard.Howe
August 16, 2004, 06:51 PM
OUCH! :(

Please, enough about boot-licking, chain-wearing, and Feinstein-kissing. Sure, it's great rhetoric, but not particularly relevant. And a great way to get this thread closed...just about as closed as some minds to discussing (this is a discussion board, right?) the appropriateness of this jingle.

- I'm a proud member of the NRA.
- I write letters to Congressmen and actively veto companies overtly sympathetic to anti-RKBA causes.
- I frequently carry non-shooters with me to the range to teach them about the fine sport -- and right -- of gun ownership, hunting, and self-defense.
- I compete in IDPA, IPSC, and sporting clays.
- I have my CHL and carry any time I leave the house.
- My significant cash contribution to the most RKBA-friendly presidential candidate was mailed two months ago.

You could make the case that I'm more politically and socially active than 90% of the gun owners out there for one reason: to protect my and your 2nd Amendment rights.

Reality check...if you're willing to vote with bullets, where were you during all of the progressive rights-abridgments? Were you down at the Legislature with your M4 as they passed the AWB way back when? Did you "vote from the rooftops" when we had to start undergoing background checks and waiting periods? If not, when were the staunchly-Molon Labe proponents being hypocritical -- then, or now?

Ahh...so you didn't say "Molon Labe" to that because they didn't actually come for your guns. So you are willing to have your rights phased out? At what time will you be prepared to kill for your pistols, when they're finally neutered down to single-shots? That's why I think this is just a bunch of fanaticized machoistic "let's shoot those blue-helmets where it counts" nonsense.

And that's my whole point. Our efforts as responsible gun owners should be firmly in the "everyday" context of walking the walk and supporting the cause. Not in sitting in front of our computer in our boxers and spouting hellfire, death, and furious damnation to anyone who would take our guns.

Because in the end, that's not how they're going to do it. To take comfort in the thought of armed revolution is fantasy and has nothing to do with preserving our rights today.

In that sense, Molon Labe is exceptionally counterproductive. It's a distraction.

Sam Adams
August 16, 2004, 06:53 PM
There are many that would kill to protect their possessions, but I am not one. Yet I benefit daily from those who do.

Several points:

1) A firearm is not a mere possession - it is the means of ensuring one's liberty. Would you willingly surrender a firearm to a common street criminal, as long as he promised only to take a $20 or a $50 from you? Or would you more rationally understand that once you gave up your only effective means of self-defense to him, that then the criminal could do whatever he wanted to, including raping your wife in front of you, then murdering you in front of her, then murdering her...oh, and then taking ALL of the money in you wallet, as if that would even matter any more. Well, Cajuncoona, replace "common street criminal" with "the government" and you'll get an idea of what could happen. Understand that EVERY SINGLE GENOCIDE AND MASS MURDER perpetrated by a government was possible only when the target group was disarmed. My wife's uncle was in Auschwitz, and he not only lost his whole family, but he saw his father and brother killed in front of him. He owns guns - very many guns - and would sooner die than give them up. Guess what: I didn't need him to tell me that this is the correct attitude to have, but his actions provide a LOT of positive reinforcement to me.

2) You are, in economic terms, a "free rider." You benefit from the actions and efforts of others. Those who aren't economists or educated in that profession's double-speak would call you a "leech." However, to your credit, at least you are honest about it.

3) About "Molon Labe" - no one in their right mind would ever want to be in a gun fight, let alone be in the position of shooting police officers or other government agents because our government had become a tyranny. We all value our freedom...but some of us (even if not veterans) understand that sometimes a price must be paid to obtain or maintain it. The Founding Generation (at least those that fought the Tyrant George III) understood this and rebelled at no small cost to themselves and their families - for FREEDOM and LIBERTY.

The simple truth about government - not just ours, but ANY government in ANY location at ANY time - is that it is by its very nature a destroyer of freedom and liberty, that it naturally sheds restraints against its increased power like a duck sheds water, until it becomes so powerful that nothing short of a revolution or invasion can destroy it. What those on this board and elsewhere hope to prevent, by the massive application of deterrence, is the movement of the government into the realm of such near omnipotence. We seek to maintain a balance of power, set up so carefully by the Founding Fathers, so that the temptations of one-sided power are not available to some future President, Congress or bunch of power-hungry federal bureaucrats. 85-90 million gun owners and 250 million+ guns is a pretty good deterrent, because if even a very small percentage of those people and weapons were used by determined individuals to fight the imposition of a tyranny, the results would be as devastating as those of the Civil War. I pray to G-d that I never have to pick up arms against my government, but I pray equally fervently that IF conditions warrant it, that I have the intestinal fortitude to do so, the smarts, training and the battlefield intelligence to do it well, and the good fortune of millions of like-minded individuals dedicated to freedom and liberty to help me out. You have made it clear that you won't be in that group - you're a good sheep, baaaahhhh!

What does your freedom mean to you if you are not willing to sacrifice for it? Evidently, not too much.

What would our collective freedom mean to the government if everyone believed as you do, and those intent on controlling us knew it with some degree of certainty? Not as much as a mosquito would mean to an elephant, and therefore a catastrophe would be far more likely. I am thankful that most on this board, and many, many that I have come across over the years, feel very differently.

Thumper
August 16, 2004, 06:53 PM
Any JBTs that show up as a result of my shooting exercise will be considered targets..

Tactics, brotha...if you're gonna offer yourself up as a martyr, at least be a successful martyr.

To the hills, young man...

WOLVERINES!

Sorry... :D

Molon Labe
August 16, 2004, 06:55 PM
But personal ownership of my Ruger 10/22 will not be justification to put a 230gr. JHP into center-of-mass of my local sheriff.If everything goes as I predict, your local sheriff will not be coming after you. Instead, he will be fighting along side you...

Thumper
August 16, 2004, 06:59 PM
Reality check...if you're willing to vote with bullets, where were you during all of the progressive rights-abridgments? Were you down at the Legislature with your M4 as they passed the AWB way back when? Did you "vote from the rooftops" when we had to start undergoing background checks and waiting periods? If not, when were the staunchly-Molon Labe proponents being hypocritical -- then, or now?

Your post ignores the fact that we are winning. Anybody that's been in the fight for longer than a couple of years can see that plainly.

Keep up the letter writing, the voting, the campaigning...but it's important not to forget that there are real fangs that insure that power remains in the hands of the People.

Tell you what, if they ever do come and I'm one of those that sits and whimpers, you have my permission to point at me and giggle:

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?s=&postid=434142



:D

Molon Labe
August 16, 2004, 07:04 PM
Tactics, brotha...if you're gonna offer yourself up as a martyr, at least be a successful martyr.I was only half-serious in my post. In reality, we should all try our best to stay alive and fight for the long haul. (A martyr is useless to us; they can't fight if they're lying in a coffin!) If you want to know what to do after the balloon flies, read a book on guerilla warfare.

As an example, do not stay in your house if they ever come a-knockin'. You will lose, and you will die. It didn't work at the Alamo, and it won't work for you. (Guerilla Warfare Rule #1: Never try to defend a position.) Instead, get out of your house before they get to the door. Get about 200 to 300 yards away (with rifle in hand) and observe the situation. Then go to the hideout to meet up with your fellow freedom fighters and plan, plan, plan...

Gifted
August 16, 2004, 07:06 PM
What happens when the enemy is the government itself? You surely won’t be dying “for YOUR country.” It’ll be an abomination of what was once a great country. Sure hope I didn’t read your post wrong. Anyway, Indeed. I'd hope that the President would be more worried about GBU-12s through the roof than a sniper's bullet. A lot of military members are gun owners. I'd like to think that there would be a big problem with desertion, though unfortunately it won't be the right kind. Perhaps a tank crew will rebel, but one tank can't do much, it would have to be the entire battalion. I suppose I could, but I'd be useless without a jet to load.

Fortunately, the biggest problem would be the secret police created to enforce the law. They would be the problem, until the subdued population is ground down enough to stomach tanks in the streets.

Thumper
August 16, 2004, 07:12 PM
If you want to know what to do after the balloon flies, read a book on guerilla warfare.

My Uncle Sam taught me that it takes seven soldiers to contain one guerilla fighter.

Let's do some math...

444
August 16, 2004, 07:12 PM
"Reality check...if you're willing to vote with bullets, where were you during all of the progressive rights-abridgments? Were you down at the Legislature with your M4 as they passed the AWB way back when? Did you "vote from the rooftops" when we had to start undergoing background checks and waiting periods? If not, when were the staunchly-Molon Labe proponents being hypocritical -- then, or now?"

Reality check for you: no, I didn't do any of those things: but some people did. If you read my last post you would probably agree that at every one of those points you mention, someone reached the breaking point. They were most likely killed and reported on the news as being a nut that the government saved society from. Once again, if you think that one day every gun owner in the country is going to say they have had enough, you can forget it. But, there will be a certain number of them that have had enough with every piece of legislation. Their reaction to it doesn't have to be opening fire, they might simply by-pass the regulations, they might move away from the state or local government that oppresses them. They might become a "white separatists" (that's new media jargon for someone that moves out in the middle of no where so they can get away from everyone that is bothering them, so the federal governement immediately bothers them) but some did start shooting and died as a result. You just wern't paying attention because you thought it would be some big dramatic civil war that had a definite start time and all the players were listed in the program. I am quite sure that no one here wants things to reach a point where it comes down to us or them. We continue to takes our lumps with our victories, but if things keep going the way they have been, there will be a point where our backs are to the wall.
The point at which your back is to the wall, is a personal decision only you can make.

Molon Labe
August 16, 2004, 07:18 PM
Were you down at the Legislature with your M4 as they passed the AWB way back when? Did you "vote from the rooftops" when we had to start undergoing background checks and waiting periods? If not, when were the staunchly-Molon Labe proponents being hypocritical -- then, or now?" A lot of people simply ignored the law after it was passed. Many people today continue to ignore the AWB. While such a "passive resistance" approach isn't very glamorous, it does take a certain amount of courage...

Sam Adams
August 16, 2004, 07:21 PM
In reality, we should all try our best to stay alive and fight for the long haul. (A martyr is useless to us; they can't fight if they're lying in a coffin!)

I like how General Patton said it: "Now I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."

sm
August 16, 2004, 07:25 PM
"Metal and Wood"


by Dennis Bateman

http://www.thefiringline.com/Misc/library/Metal_and_Wood.html



The following essay was originally published at www.TheFiringLine.com

It is a rare person who does not attach some sort of value or emotion to some physical object or to an event. A home becomes more than a building. A statue of the Virgin Mary, a crucifix, a flag or a song, or even a photograph can stir emotions greater than the value of the material item.

I have a piece of paper showing I served in the military until I was discharged honorably. But, oh, the memories that piece of paper conjures up. The friends, the fun times. The bad times. The times when we were bound closer to strangers than to our own families and, in frightening chaos, our lives hung by a thread.

Many of our friends died far from home. Ask us about the feeling of "American soil" upon returning to the land we loved. Ask those returning soldiers about America.

Remember the old, faintly humorous band of American Legionnaires, wearing out-dated military uniforms straining at the buttons. But, God how proudly they marched. Grinning, waving to friends and families, and always, always "The Flag!" Ask them if the flag is mere cloth, I dare you.

See the elderly lady sitting in a lawn chair watching the fourth of July parade. Three flags carefully folded some forty years ago into triangles now rest in her lap - one for each lost son. Ask her if those flags are mere cloth, I dare you.

Look at the old man quietly crying, leaning against the Iwo Jiima Memorial at Arlington Cemetery. As he turns to you, smiles with some embarrassment, and says in a choked whisper, "I was there." Ask him, "Is it just metal and clay?" Ask him. I dare you.

The Wall. My God, the Wall. See the young man lightly tracing the name of his father there inscribed. Ask him if its just rock. Ask him. I dare you.

My guns? They’re of little real value compared to my family and my home. They are toys, or tools, or both. But what those guns represent to me is greater than all of us, greater than myself, my family, indeed greater than our entire generation. What could be of such value?

The freedom of man to live within civil, self-imposed limitations rather than under restrictions placed upon him by a ruler or a ruling class.

Imagine the daring, the bravery of a few men to declare they intended to create a new country, independent of the burden of their established Rulers!

Those men we call our forefathers were brilliant men. They could have maneuvered themselves into positions of influence within the structure of the times, but they did not. They struggled to free themselves from tyranny. They wrote the Declaration of Independence. And they backed up their words and ideals with metal and wood.

They knew the dangers of such dreams and actions. They knew it was a frightening and dangerous venture into the unknown when they dared reach beyond their grasp for a vision - for an ideal. But they dared to dedicate themselves to achieve Liberty and Freedom for their children, and their children’s children, through the generations.

Imagine the dreams and yearnings of centuries finally being reduced to the written word. The Rights of "We the People!" instead of the "Powers of the Monarchy."

Our forefathers dared to create a new government - a new form of government. And they knew that any organization has, as its first and foremost goal, its continued existence. Second only to that it strives to increase its power. It plots, it devises, it maneuvers to achieve control over its environment - over its subjects.

Our Forefathers decided to make America different from any country, anywhere, at any time in the entire history of the entire world. This country, this new nation of immigrants, would be based upon the concept that people could rule themselves better than any single person or small group of persons could rule them.

Other countries have had outstanding documents with guarantees for its citizens - but the citizens have become enslaved. How, these great men pondered, can we ensure this new government will remain subject to the will of the People?

They wanted limits upon this new government. Therefore, our forefathers wrote limitations into the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. And one of those Rights was that metal and wood, as the final power of the people, would secure this country for the future generations.

Metal and wood were the means by which we won our freedom.

Metal and wood were the means by which we kept our freedom.

Metal and wood may be the means by which we regain our freedom.

Metal and wood are the final power of the people. Take away the metal and wood and the people become powerless - they can only beg, they supplicate for favors.

We are unique in our ability to rule ourselves but we are letting it slip away. Today we compromise. We try to appease man’s insatiable appetite for power by throwing him bits of our freedoms. But the insatiable appetite for power can not be appeased. The freedoms we feed him only make us weaker and him stronger. We must conquer him and again ensure the "Blessings of Liberty" won for us by our forefathers.

We must be ready to use metal and wood again, for if we are ready, truly ready, we may be able to conquer the monster with words - for in its heart it is a coward. But if we continue to feed the monster our freedoms, we will become too weak to win, to weak even to fight, and we will become a conquered people. We will have sold ourselves and our future generations into servitude.

If words fail us, we will use metal and wood, we will regain what we have lost, we will achieve what we seek, we will guarantee the America of our forefathers for the future generations.

So you see, our guns are more than metal and wood. They are our heritage of freedom. They are the universally understood symbol that the government, no matter how big and strong it may be, answers to us! They are the tools we will use to prevent tyranny in the land of our forefathers and our children. So, ask me what my guns mean to me. Ask my children what our guns mean to them. Ask us. I dare you.

sm
August 16, 2004, 07:33 PM
A Declaration of Civil Disobedience

Marko Kloos

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=34976&highlight=civil+disobedience



I will not register my guns. If such a law is ever enacted on the federal, State or municipal level, I will choose to ignore it. I was required to leave my personal data with the gun dealer when I purchased each of my guns legally, and this data is doubtlessly on record already. Let law enforcement look it up if they choose, but I will not register my guns: not now, and not in the future. Registration of handguns, or any other firearm, will not prevent a single crime from happening. It only serves to harass the law-abiding citizen for the sole offense of owning a politically incorrect item.

I will not surrender my guns voluntarily, ever. If the possession of handguns is declared illegal by any legislative body, I will choose to ignore it. If the owners of newly or soon-to-be illegal weapons are asked to turn them in for compensation, I will not comply. Let them try to enforce a law that is not enforceable, and declare a war on guns that will be no more successful than the war on drugs that has eroded most of our civil liberties in the last two decades. If they go from door to door to ask for guns, I will deny ownership; if they break down doors to search for guns, I will do my best to make their mission difficult. Confiscation of firearms will do nothing to make society safer. It merely takes away an essential basic right from the peasantry: the right to self defense. Without the means to it, the right itself is nonexistent except on paper.

I will never again concern myself with concealed carry laws. I will carry my sidearm as I see fit, and wherever I choose, whether I am in Wyoming or New York City. I will ignore unjust laws denying me the right to determine my own fate while exempting friends and cronies of the legislature and the executive from the same laws. I will try to comply with the law whenever possible and obtain a permit whenever given the opportunity; I do not wish to be a lawbreaker if I can avoid it. But I will no longer comply with the demands of legislators who want to leave us defenseless against those who will always prey on others with the help of guns no matter what the law says.

I know that I am not alone. I am part of a growing group of citizens that are fed up with being painted as radical, violent, ignorant and bigoted. Most of us are not camouflage-wearing conspiracy theorists. We are doctors, lawyers, soldiers, carpenters, nurses, computer programmers and convenience store clerks. We are fathers, mothers, grandparents, brothers, sisters and colleagues. We are "the American people" so often quoted and invoked by politicians. We come from all walks of life, all levels of income and education, all faiths and non-faiths. We share a common anger at those who want to take our self-determination away from us, those who blame us for every senseless and over-publicized act of gun violence in this country, those who are more than willing to trade an essential liberty for the illusion of safety. We are tired of politicians who create law after law to fight actions by people who by definition do not obey laws, in order to pacify a vocal and ignorant portion of the population. We also share the belief that the responsibility for our safety is up to us, and can never be completely entrusted to an understaffed, underpaid and overworked police force that is mostly tied up in an unwinnable battle against drugs.

We do not ask for special rights, we merely ask that our right to self-defense and self-determination is respected and not undermined. We wish to be left alone, and we do not want to surrender our integrity and our means to enforce our right to life and liberty for a social experiment that has already been a massive failure in those countries who attempted it. We are citizens, not peons. We are free men and women, not serfs who exist to provide taxes to the ruling caste.

We have tried to play by rules that have turned more pointless and nonsensical by the year. We have paid the fees, filled out the forms and subjected ourselves to the background checks. We have been fingerprinted like common criminals. We have tolerated the insults and the scapegoating of some of our fellow citizens, and that of the mass media. We have, where we could, taken all the steps necessary to go armed and obey the laws at the same time. Here we draw a line in the sand. Stop harassing us, for we are not the problem. Taking our rights away from us will not solve your problems, or make us all any safer against crime. We have done what we can to work with you when you came after us year after year. We gave up our military-style sporter rifles, and society did not turn any safer. We were forced to purchase guns with crippled magazines that limited their functionality, and yet society did not turn any safer for it. Yet you come back with sure regularity, asking for more of what is ours, in return for the promise of a safer society. You pass laws because it is the only thing you can do in the face of outraged soccer moms demanding that something be done to "stop the violence'. You cater to ignorance, and you willingly chip away at the rights of a group that is perceived to have little public support--minimizing the risk of election day backlash. Everything you have done has failed to improve society, yet you return and ask for one more restriction, one more "common sense" gun law, arguing that the last round of restrictions was just not severe enough.

We are tired of it. We know that if you made all guns illegal, it would have no effect on crime and violence, but we also know that you would not turn around and return us our rights and our guns after you are proven wrong by reality.

As an individual, I will choose to disobey whenever you enact a law inconsistent with my basic right to self-defense. Try to force us into registering our guns, or giving them up altogether, just so you can garner support for your next election, and you face the responsibility for whatever happens next. Many of us will refuse to obey, and then you will have a choice between trying to enforce this law or silently ignoring those who choose to disobey it. A law that is not obeyed, and cannot be enforced, does more harm to you than it does to those you try to govern. As Albert Einstein said after the repeal of the Prohibition laws, nothing will cause more disrespect of government than the enactment of laws that cannot be enforced. And make no mistake, a general gun registration or outright ban can only be enforced by sending the police from door to door, forcefully entering those homes which refuse to cooperate. How many dead citizens are you willing to tolerate before you repent? How many police officers are you willing to sacrifice? More importantly, how much of this is the general population willing to take? The war on drugs has brought about the demise of most civil rights, a war on guns would bring society to its knees. You've declared drugs illegal, yet they are available on most every street corner in this country. What good will a ban on guns do?

Law is law, but a bad law is just that. It was the law in Germany to refuse Jews access to public air raid shelters during World War Two, and many people chose to ignore that law. I am glad they did. I value my conscience and my integrity over your seat in Congress. Therefore I declare that I will no longer obey laws that are an affront to my humanity, laws that are nothing but elitist arrogant attempts to keep arms out of the hands of the unwashed masses. Pick another group for your social experiments, like the criminals for example.

We have no intention to commit crimes of violence with our guns, and we are deeply offended by the notion that you alone can make the decision who can be trusted with a gun, and that we serfs just cannot act in a responsible fashion when given access to guns.

No registration, no confiscation. Ever. If I should ever break your laws and get caught, you can arrest me. I'd rather live in jail with the knowledge that my spirit is free, than on the outside as a tax-paying serf knowing that I only serve as a worker bee with no rights and little personal freedom. I know that I am not alone, and let's see just how many jails you can build to accomodate all those who have had enough of your failed and unjust policies.

Sam Adams
August 16, 2004, 07:37 PM
A lot of people simply ignored the law after it was passed. Many people today continue to ignore the AWB. While such a "passive resistance" approach isn't very glamorous, it does take a certain amount of courage...

Without patting myself on the back too hard, I did just that with NJ's version of the AWB. In many trips to Pennsylvania gun shows, and via mail order to my job in NYC (of all places), I acquired very many magazines that could hold more than 15 rounds of ammo - after the NJ ban on mere ownership was law (and I violated no federal laws while doing so). Note that this law is no mere exercise in grandfathering - it is a true ban. Anyhow, years later while on my way out of the PRNJ I passed over the Delaware Memorial Bridge and saw the "Welcome to Delaware" sign. At that point I turned to my wife and said, "Now you won't have to bail me out of jail." She naturally gave me the bug-eyes and slack jaw that I expected, following by rather intense questioning. She was relatively new to NJ (to the US, for that matter), and didn't know a thing about the gun laws. I explained to her that NJ penalized (and still does) mere ownership of a stamped metal box with an internal spring, if such is deemed to be "too big," with a felony conviction and up to 5 years in prison. She asked me how many I had, and I merely replied, "Oh, there's about 200 years worth sitting about 2 feet in back of us." She then asked me if Texas had any laws like that, and I told her, "No, Texas is in America." It warmed the cockles of my heart to hear her say, "Good, let's stay there."

I like to tell this story not because it points out my courage (I don't think it points out anything except how pi$$ed off and stubborn I was), but because it is funny. However, I know of MANY people in NJ who did - and still do - defy the NJ ban as I once did. Yes, even in the lowly PRNJ there are heroes, people who won't become sheeple, and I have to believe that the percentage of folks in other states where gun ownership is not merely acceptable but popular who feel the same way is much higher...and therein lies the problem that the Feds have - there are too many of us and we're too well armed. They can never dominate all of us, even if they can kill some of us, kick our pregnant wives in the belly, stomp our cats and burn down our houses. In the end, we will prevail and this will be a free country - though I hope that the utter futility of trying to dominate us will become apparent, thereby causing "Them" to never try.

pinblaster
August 16, 2004, 07:39 PM
MOLON LABE !

Sam Adams
August 16, 2004, 07:44 PM
There are many that would kill to protect their possessions, but I am not one. Yet I benefit daily from those who do.

Here's Your Answer:

Metal and wood were the means by which we won our freedom.

Metal and wood were the means by which we kept our freedom.

Metal and wood may be the means by which we regain our freedom.

Metal and wood are the final power of the people. Take away the metal and wood and the people become powerless - they can only beg, they supplicate for favors.

From "Metal and Wood" by Dennis Bateman (thanks, SM, I had almost forgotten about that great essay)

sendec
August 16, 2004, 07:47 PM
Guns have nothing to do with freedom. They may make it easier to stay free, but y'all are defending things, not a concept. You do not need a gun to be free any more than possession of one makes you free. As a matter of nonfact, once we tie our freedom to the possession of a physical item, the existentialist/Kristoffersonian in me holds that you can never truly be free.

My mind is what makes and keeps me free. The gun is a tool to ensure that, but not the only tool and not a foolproof tool.

If, in the infinitesimal possibility that all guns are outlawed, I do not know what I'd do. But there is more out there than just guns. I'll innovate and adapt.

If somehow it could be guaranteed that violence was swept from the face of the earth, would you give up your guns? I would, I am not a sportsman and have no other need for my moderate collection than putting bullets into bad people. But I dont want to have to do that.

pinblaster
August 16, 2004, 07:53 PM
Some people just don't get it .

Sam Adams
August 16, 2004, 08:10 PM
Guns have nothing to do with freedom.

With respect, you are wrong. Guns (or, more accurately, weapons) have EVERYTHING to do with freedom. Maybe in some esoteric, philosophical sense, you're right, but we all live in the real world.

Tell those at the edge of the pit at Babi Yar in 1941, in what is now Ukraine, that "Guns have nothing to do with freedom." Oh, yeah, you can't - they're all dead, shot by rifles, machine guns and handguns in the possession of the Einsatzgruppen...weapons that they didn't have to fight back with.

Tell those in the cattle cars at Auschwitz in late 1944 that "Guns have nothing to do with freedom." Oh, yeah, they were all gassed and shorty thereafter burned into smoke and cinders - because resisting the SS men armed with submachine guns, rifles and handguns was futile, since they were all disarmed.

Tell my wife's uncle that "Guns have nothing to do with freedom." He had his entire family murdered by the Nazis, and even witnessed his father and brother being murdered - by Germans and Ukrainians armed with rifles and handguns. He had no weapon THEN, so he couldn't fight back...though he did after the war, when he and some of his fellow townsmen returned to their neighborhood to find that those who had pointed out "the Joooos" to the Nazis back in 1941 were living in their old homes. None of those informers saw the next sunrise - and THAT is what good guns are in the hands of those whom the government would oppress.

The example of the Warsaw Ghetto fighters is one of the few bright spots of resistance to tyranny in all of World War II among the civilian populace, and especially among the Jews. This motley group of starving, untrained civilians took a few dozen rusty old handguns and obsolete rifles and fought the battle-hardened SS and German Army. Yeah, they lost, but they took hundreds or more with them, and they died as men, not sheep - all because they had weapons. Would that 1 million more Jews, and a million of other oppressed minorities, done the same - the slaughter would have ended far sooner and with far less bloodshed.

You'll NEVER convince me that "Guns have nothing to do with freedom."

Clean97GTI
August 16, 2004, 08:22 PM
I have a very simple take on the subject. Molon Labe is, quite simply, the line in the sand. When a govt. says I must surrender my arms, I will tell them no. When they attempt to take them, my guns will tell them no.
The phrase is very simple.

see my signature for more details.

Jack T.
August 16, 2004, 08:36 PM
I've heard it said that there is no cause worth dying for that is not better served living for. That being said. . .

Most everybody has a "breaking point". A point at which they say, "Based on this (or these) actions, our government is no longer legitimate". For some people it is taxation, for others it is state's rights, for me it is gun control. Sure, you can look at Europe, who (for the most part) has Draconian gun laws and say "well, it's not so bad over there". I mean, it sure is better than the African continent, which is in serious turmoil.

However, without guns, are we still "The United States of America"? Is a government that completely ignores a cornerstone of its foundation the same as the original?

I've said it before (and seem to be saying it more frequently): I don't *want* to go through a revolution. I like America, I like what we stand for. But being an American brings with it duties and responsibilities.

On a slightly different note, part of the education folks were talking about earlier should include the fact that the 2nd Amendment is *not* about hunting or sporting. I'm not sure where that idea came from. . .

Molon Labe
August 16, 2004, 08:37 PM
Sam Adams: I think sendec is in agreement with us, but is just looking at it a bit more abstractly. In a way, he’s correct; freedom is a mindset. There are people who do not own guns, yet are free by virtue of their mindset and actions. And there are gun owners who are slaves. (We all know some of these guys!) But it cannot be denied the existence and "success" of the former group is dependent on environmental conditions, and hence cannot last indefinitely. There will always come a point where liberty-loving people must physically fight. And this I where the use of tools comes in to play... ;)

Molon Labe
August 16, 2004, 08:52 PM
I don't *want* to go through a revolution. I like America, I like what we stand for. But being an American brings with it duties and responsibilities.Very well said.

We sometimes forget that being an American requires certain duties and responsibilities. If all you want to do is make money, raise a family, live in a nice house, go to church, and save for retirement, and you have no desire to fight for liberty, then you are not an American in my book; you’re a moocher who places personal comfort and security above all else. Such a person is more than willing to take advantage of opportunities made available because other people have made sacrifices, but they're unwilling to make any sacrifices of their own. A despicable creature such as this is not worthy to be called an American.

As an American, it is my solemn duty to protect and defend life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

El Rojo
August 16, 2004, 08:52 PM
As bad as it might sound to some, the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to defent this country against tyranny. That means exactly what cajuncoona thinks it shouldn't mean. It means if the local sheriff decides to enforce the confiscation law, I am going to have to shoot him. Any law enforcement officer or military personnel that decide to enforce such a thing are fair game. I know if I were a cop or a soldier, I would desert. Just up and leave. If my CO and the rest of my comrades wanted to take up arms and resist, then I would go along with them.

The 2nd Amendment is about deterrant. We have to remain a credible deterrant and that means telling the local sheriff that if he is given an order to come get my guns, I will resist. It is then his decision whether he wants to take that risk or not. It is his decision whether he thinks the order and law is worth dying over. It really isn't any different than things are now. Law enforcement and the military believe there are things worth dying for, that is why they do their jobs today.

And what has already been said is we don't desire this outcome. That is why we are turning back the clock and getting some of the infringements thrown upon us overturned. We are fighting the easiest way right now, with our pens and our keyboards. However, the politicians and anyone they might attempt to have assist them need to understand, we are not afraid to do what it takes to preserve liberty. This is crucial to the entire point of our right to keep and bear arms.

sendec
August 16, 2004, 10:23 PM
No one died at Dachau because they did'nt have a gun - they died because evil people with guns killed them. There are no shortage of guns in Russia, Chechnya, Iraq, Sudan, Timor, and on and on. There is a surplus of bad people. I agree in the principle of freedom absolutely, I am just not going to tie it to the possession of one or more guns. Some people seem to rest policy on guns, I do not. They are tools, means to ends, and not ends in and of themselves.

For all the atrocities you cite there were resistance fighters, and opposing armies all trying to stop the killing. I would'nt believe those people were killed because they did'nt have guns (which is the opposite of "Gun Violence -that guns are responsible for death and injury) - they were killed by a lack of warriors in the right place at the right time.

mountainclmbr
August 16, 2004, 11:07 PM
Governments have killed more of their own citizens over the last 100 years than the other way around. Most banned guns first.

Protection of the Constitution from enemies foreign or domestic has never been more important. Please vote intelligently so it does not come down to Molon Labe!

Weimadog
August 16, 2004, 11:33 PM
mountainclmbr:
Protection of the Constitution from enemies foreign or domestic has never been more important. Please vote intelligently so it does not come down to Molon Labe!

So, is it vote for the Democrat, who has an "F" rating with the NRA, or for our President, who trounced the First Amendment by signing the Campaign Finance Reform Bill?
It will be more difficult to vote "intelligently", as there will be no special interest advertising allowed 60 days before the election.
Am I supposed to preserve the Second Amendment by voting for the bozo who's destroying the First Amendment?

From Some page at OMB watch (http://www.ombwatch.org/article/articleview/231/1/3/)

3. Issue Advocacy Prohibitions Corporations, including nonprofits, and labor unions are banned from broadcasting messages that include a federal candidate's name or image within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary, caucus or party convention. 501(c)(4) social welfare organizations and 527 political action committees can broadcast such ads if the audience is not made up primarily of residents of the state where the named candidate is running. Only donations from individuals can be used to pay for the ads. If over $10,000 is spent expenditures and donors must be disclosed to the FEC. An alternative provision provided if the 60/30 day ban is declared unconstitutional.

Voting well is a seemingly impossible task, when I look at all of my rights :banghead:

2nd Amendment
August 16, 2004, 11:34 PM
No one died at Dachau because they did'nt have a gun...

Really? So had those victims been armed a majority of them might not have lived? Had even a sizeable minority of them been armed a majority might not have lived? Had they not been disarmed from the start might they have never been IN that position? They died because they had no means to fight back, period.

rick_reno
August 16, 2004, 11:53 PM
They're not going to have to come and get the guns - the is an excellent educational program going on with the next generation that will take care of the confiscation problem. They'll turn them in when the time comes. Our enemy in this battle is persistent and patient and they're using our money to educate the next generation.

How do the "Molon Labe" folks touchtype while pounding their chests?

Librarian
August 17, 2004, 01:35 AM
[Art.] 10. [Right of Revolution.] Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind. New Hampshire Constitution (http://www.state.nh.us/constitution/billofrights.html)

I had [distant] relatives who were 'disappeared' from the old SSRs. I will not go quietly. Taking away the means to resist "arbitrary power, and oppression" is death.

R.H. Lee
August 17, 2004, 01:38 AM
Am I supposed to preserve the Second Amendment by voting for the bozo who's destroying the First Amendment?

Weimadog-you're confused-the President does not make law-that would be the Congress

hillbilly
August 17, 2004, 02:09 AM
Again, a lot of folks would do well to do a lot more historical reading about the American Revolution.

It wasn't someting that just sort of happened one day.

There was a definite lead-up and escalation with event piling upon event over a long time.

When the militia formed up to resist redcoats who were marching to Lexington and Concord, they just didn't wake up that morning and say to one another..."Hey, I'm bored. You wanna go like shoot up some British soliders or something?"

They had been pushed to the breaking point after years of oppression. The Boston Massacre had happened five years in the past by that time.....

Even after the first shooting skirmishes of April 19, 1775, it took more than a year later for that document called the Delcaration of Independence to get written and signed.....more than a year after actual hot, shooting combat had kicked off.

We are not at that breaking point yet.

As someone else has pointed out, we are beginning to win some...the AWB sunsets in less than a month, more and more states are getting CCW laws, more and more young people are getting into shooting (see Tennessee's Scholastic Trap program, for example).

If anything the pendulum is beginning to swing away from the the breaking point. We are, in my estimation, inching farther and farther away from "throw down" time.

Of course, leave it to a bunch of pessimist gunnies on an Internet board to be unable to see our side's victories.

Perhaps the best quote I ever read about how to tell if it is "throw down" time or not went something like this.

"The next time you think it's time to start the next American revolution, run out on your front porch with your gun. If you can't see any neighbors who've also run out on their front porches with their guns, then it's not time yet. "

Again, go read American history.

The colonists knew when it had come time, because it was way, way, way past time, and they were pushed until they had no other recourse but to form up against the redcoats coming to confiscate their stores of arms, powder, and ball.

And I really, really believe that people who actually believe that the frog will be slowly boiled, or that we will lose chip by chip by chip, inch by inch, and that the evil forces will never have to show their hand, but gradually wear us down over years and years and years have not read enough history.

That's not how things happen. Events do pile up for a while, but then there is action that happens rapidly.

That's how the American Revolution began. That's how the American Civil War started. That's how the Nazi's came into power in Germany, that's how huge, important historical things happen.....That's how England and Australia lost their guns......There were specific, definite moments when specific, definite, explicit, overt laws were passed calling for confiscation in both England and Australia.

Events do pile up over a few years, but there is always a period of overt, often times violent action that does happen. Let's do what we can to not get there.

But if we ever do get there.........................

hillbilly

goalie
August 17, 2004, 02:38 AM
I hope people are willing to fight as hard before the "revolution" as they are stating they will after it starts. As the saying goes, 99% of the time, violence is the last resort of the incompetent. Let's be competent and fight the good fight, not with violence, but with the pen, computer and fax machine. It is not time yet to embrace violence as a means to an end, and hopefully it won't be in my lifetime.

Justin
August 17, 2004, 02:59 AM
If somehow it could be guaranteed that violence was swept from the face of the earth, would you give up your guns? Sendec, this statement is as asinine as it is insulting. By even making such a statement you're tacitly stating that peaceful gun owners somehow really are to blame for violent crime.

Maybe we should ask all the SCCA members to give up their fast cars in order to end vehicular homicide.

:rolleyes:

Oleg Volk
August 17, 2004, 03:05 AM
Justin,

What he asked was "if you never needed weapons", woul dyou give up guns or keep them anyway?

Justin
August 17, 2004, 03:15 AM
Of course not.

I have arguably never needed a gun in my life. I have never needed a gun for self defense, food, or survival.

However, I derive great joy from owning and shooting firearms in competition and plinking just for the sheer enjoyment of it. Without firearms, I daresay that my quality of life would be rather less than it is right now.

If sendec can be just as happy leading a life without firearms, more power to him. He's certainly free to go find a web forum about philately, botany, furries, holography, rebuilding small block engines, wine appreciation, Dance-Dance Revolution, or any other of the countless hobbies that human beings enjoy partaking in.

:scrutiny:

Treylis
August 17, 2004, 03:20 AM
I'm not a latin expert, but I would propose replacement of Molon Labe with a latin translation of "Go and Find Them."

You mean Greek.

only1asterisk
August 17, 2004, 04:11 AM
Doing what is right is seldom easy, safe or popular. Doing right in this case requires me to resist any threat to freedom. This means fighting battles against restrictive laws in the legislature and courts, against would be dictators at the ballot box and any other possible threat with the legal means at my disposal. If this fails me, I'll have no choice. I will be compelled to do everything within my power to restore freedom. I dread this. I have no illusions of success, but I’m compelled to try. Maybe you don’t feel this obligation, that’s fine with me.


David

DesertEagle613
August 17, 2004, 04:42 AM
Returning to the world of the concrete... :uhoh:

A number of you have made the excellent point that the public schools are where the crucial battles are being fought today. What do you think would happen if we took a small fraction of the effort going towards grousing on the internet and put it towards pushing for school vouchers in your states?

Of course, the ultimate goal would be the destruction of the public school system. The goods that this would accomplish are far too many to list, provided that education was still available to those who need it.

Nobody wants to see a revolution (I hope), and the best way to prevent one is to oppose the statist infrastructure wherever it is found. I think some of us are so fixated on firearms as the ONE AND ONLY issue, that we lose sight of the strategic picture. The schools are the key.

goalie
August 17, 2004, 04:43 AM
If somehow it could be guaranteed that violence was swept from the face of the earth, would you give up your guns?

Nope, because my supply of guns and ammo would allow me to take over the world. MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!


In all seriousness though, no, I would not give up my firearms because I am human. Humans are a violent species, as are any other predators on the globe. It is actually not even possible in fantasy land for your scenario to play out, as we would have had to eradicate anything capable of inflicting violence upon man from the animal kingdom as well as somehow neuter the fight/flight part of the human central nervous system. Who eradicated the polar bears? Who eradicated the wolves? Who eradicated the venemous snakes? Who eradicated the lions? Who eradicated the Brown bear? Who eradicated the elephant? Who eradicated the leopard?

Whoever "swept" that violence from the face of the earth must have been pretty damn violent. I think I'll keep 'em.

sm
August 17, 2004, 04:53 AM
Molon Labe = Second Amendment [ For me anyway]

The Second Amendment is the Keystone in the Archway of Freedom.

Norton
August 17, 2004, 07:17 AM
goalie has beat me to what I was going to say. Sure, we're for the most part prepared to do what we have to in order to protect ourselves should the unthinkable happen and they "come and get them".

But....there's a strong chance that we can avoid that time if we are all proactive and write letters to the papers, write our legislators, take young people shooting, etc. If we are proactive we can avoid the ultimate reactive measures should more restrictive laws be enacted.

liliysdad
August 17, 2004, 08:12 AM
Goalie...I gather that you lack the capacity for abstract thought. Of course, it would be impossoble to guarantee against all violence...simply not possible...that wasnt the question. The question posed was IF it were possible, and the only way to achieve this was to give up all guns...would you? No strings of slavery or serfdom apply, its simply a question in and of itself.

If I could, you bet your a$$ I would. Guns are simply a tool..I derive great enjoyment out of them...but I would get much, much more enjoyment knowing my daughter would never see violence. I tend to agree with Sendec on this one..I believe most Molon Labe true believers derive more from the fight than from the reason....

sendec
August 17, 2004, 08:42 AM
Of course my vision of a peaceful world will never come to pass, but some of the reponses seem to indicate that the writers desire to possess weapons more than they desire a non-violent world.

Humans are competitive, and only violent as an abberration. We are violent when we cannot find other solutions to a problem. We are hardly predators, only binocular vision and rudimentary canine teeth remains of a predatory heritage. We need weapons because we dont have claws, shells, and are fundamentally weaker than many other animals.

444
August 17, 2004, 09:03 AM
"if you never needed weapons", woul dyou give up guns or keep them anyway?


Yes
As I have mentioned on this board many times before, the defensive (or in the case of this thread, the offensive) capabilities of firearms are way down the list of why I own firearms. I owned firearms as a young kid living in a semi-rural area without a care in the world about violence and crime. I own firearms for many reasons: this discusssion only deals with one of them.
Actually, I find this whole tihng kind of interesting. It is the battle that we constantly face in the gun rights struggle. It is the red vs. the blue states. People who come from "the city" see guns as weapons. People from "the country" see guns as tools, family heirlooms etc. I realize this is a generalization, but I think you get the idea.
Out of all the guns I own, I only consider a couple of them to be "serious" guns. The rest are for my enjoyment. I seldom carry a gun. I don't always have a loaded gun in the house for protection. But I wouldn't miss that next match.

BigG
August 17, 2004, 09:11 AM
It's not about shooting JBTs -- it's about 100 dollar haircut empty suit congress critters and robed idiots called judges. Those are your targets. ;)

Weimadog
August 17, 2004, 09:48 AM
RileyMc: Weimadog-you're confused-the President does not make law-that would be the Congress

... and Bush signed the Campaign Finance Reform Bill into law. He could have vetoed it.

Of course we can hold the President responsible for the bills he signs into law! :fire:

Don Gwinn
August 17, 2004, 11:34 AM
Now that we've moved on to topics such as how everything is Bush's fault (No it's NOT! Yes it IS!) and which of our fellow members lack the capacity for abstract thought, I think this one has outlived its usefulness.

On The High Road, by the way, the fact that someone refuses to play a game of hypotheticals with you does not give you license to insult his intellect. I hope I won't see that again.

2nd Amendment
August 17, 2004, 12:07 PM
Well then, Don, if it's run its course ya shoulda locked it! :)

If anything the pendulum is beginning to swing away from the the breaking point. We are, in my estimation, inching farther and farther away from "throw down" time.

I can agree with this up to a point. The problem with it is that it would take a minimum amount of energy to stop the movement our way. A Kerry victory, a loss of the Senate and/or House. Just the wrong SCOTUS appointment. We're winning but it is very tentative. It would be all too easy to lose all headway and slide back down the slope if we're not very carefule. Specifically very careful THIS election.

Sam Adams
August 17, 2004, 12:10 PM
I would'nt believe those people were killed because they did'nt have guns (which is the opposite of "Gun Violence -that guns are responsible for death and injury) - they were killed by a lack of warriors in the right place at the right time.

I respect your right to believe what you wish. However, I would hope that you'd try to be a bit less hypothetical and a bit more realistic - if a lack of firearms or other weapons in the hands of victims didn't have anything to do with their murder, then why did the Nazis pass and enforce laws that prohibited those very people from having weapons? There IS a connection. Yeah, it is theoretically possible for an intelligent and determined individual to resist tyranny without any manmade weapons (i.e. guns, knives, etc.), at least initially. Such a person can resist with a rock or a sharpened stick. Maybe they even have training in the martial arts, and can resist very well. Such a person may be successful for a while, perhaps even for quite a while. However, looking at the mass of people this is not possible. Most people will choose not to fight an extremely well armed group of police or soldiers without having an equalizer (i.e. guns) of their own. They view it as an exercise in futility - and maybe they beat themselves by giving up in that way but, again, this is how the mass of humans would act...especially considering that the mass of people don't have military or martial arts training. Give them guns and then things would be different - just look at the Warsaw Ghetto uprising for evidence of this. Oh, by the way, how is a 75 year old grandmother supposed to resist a 6'2", 180 pound trained soldier who is armed with a rifle or a machine pistol? Surely you don't expect her to become a warrior overnight, not when the most hostile thing she's ever done is to cut up some pieces of dead meat to throw in the oven for dinner. C'mon, Sendec, you're too intelligent to discuss resistance to a tyranny like the Nazi government and state that guns aren't needed.

If somehow it could be guaranteed that violence was swept from the face of the earth, would you give up your guns?

Probably not. I wouldn't, in such a fantasy world, keep my guns for self protection, or for defense against my government or a foreign invasion. But I've developed an attachment to them (esp. the older pieces that I have, which likely "saw" combat and "witnessed" world wars), and I like the hobbies of reloading and shooting. If violence has been eliminated, then I'm no threat to anyone either, am I? If that's the case, then why can't I keep them? What would be the reason why I'd need to give them up?

Besides, someone has to be armed when the aliens invade...:p

EricOKC
August 17, 2004, 12:22 PM
Of course my vision of a peaceful world will never come to pass, but some of the reponses seem to indicate that the writers desire to possess weapons more than they desire a non-violent world.
Far from it. I think the vast majority of us would prefer a non-violent world, but since we live in the real one, we recognize that such a thing will never occur. It runs counter to human nature. I see you're also saying that guns = violence. That part wasnt missed.

Humans are competitive, and only violent as an abberration. We are violent when we cannot find other solutions to a problem. We are hardly predators, only binocular vision and rudimentary canine teeth remains of a predatory heritage. We need weapons because we dont have claws, shells, and are fundamentally weaker than many other animals.
I wouldnt say we are only violent as an abberation or use violence when we cannot find other solutions. This presupposes the idea that all humans are the same and that violence is inherently bad. Some people, quite frankly, are bad - evil if you prefer. Because of this, they wish to do harm to others which requires those of us who are good - i.e. the rest of us - to put a stop to that harm. This frequently requires applying force, violence if you prefer, to the person doing the harm. After that, we go back to our normal, peaceful lives.

BTW - you forgot the single most important biological indicator - our brain size relative to body size. Predatory animals have larger brains - and humans have one of the largest - again, relative to body size. The larger brain seems to come from a need to solve problems, and in our case, invent tools. Our ability to adapt the world to our purposes is the equivalent of the claws of the lion or the shell of a turtle.

mec360
August 17, 2004, 01:01 PM
Seeing as how this hasn't been locked, maybe we can bring it back closer to the topic.

Why didn't / haven't the gun owners in the U.K. and Australia resisted violently? I mean this as a serious question and don't mean to be pejorative toward them or to those on either side of the debate here. If you search around on the Internet, you can find stories about gun owners in those countries standing in line at the police station waiting, with teary eyes, to hand in their guns, reminiscing about how "this was my dad's rifle from the war" or "this pistol belonged to my granddad, I don't know why I have to turn it in." There's also usually some graphic description of the sparks from the back-room diamond-bladed cutting wheel bisecting some irreplaceable firearm. In those places, gun confiscation isn't just something to speculate about on an Internet gun board - it has happened.

Take this situation as a hypothetical: There is a new federal law declaring all NFA weapons and all detachable magazine centerfire weapons to be contraband, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in. The practical effect of this (allowing for the "uh, I sold those" or "they were stolen" responses to 4473 traces) would be that you couldn't use these weapons in public / at a range for fear of being caught and imprisoned. My unproven (May it remain so! Vote!) assumption is that the molon labe spirit would motivate 500 of the people affected by the law to resist with violence and that only 1% of them would proactively resist with violence by going after Aunt Bee (see above, and note that I am NOT advocating this).

The usual excuse I hear for the absence of even a tiny violent response* to even worse bans in the U. K. / Australia is that people from those places don't have the kind of strong gun culture that we have in the USA; Henry Bowman doesn't live there. I don't buy it. My theory is that gun owners there, like many of us, have families and attendant responsibilities, and that they also, like nearly all of us, have a strong moral disinclination toward killing that hasn't been overcome in the absence of an immediate threat to their physical person (i.e., JBT's blasting down the door). "Hmm, I can turn in / bury this gun, or I can resist and be killed / imprisoned and my family goes on without me." Or: "I can violently resist and be injured / imprisoned / killed and nothing will happen except that the newspapers will print 'GUN NUT KILLED' in 36 point type headlines, or I can turn in / bury these guns." I hear the stories / jokes about how sales of PVC pipe went up dramatically in Australia when the new bans were announced, but what kind of answer is that?

FWIW, I'm with the gang that thinks that things are getting better in the USA and that if we keep writing / speaking out / voting, things will keep getting better. After the POLITICAL bloodbath that resulted from the last AWB, politicians will wait a long time before acting on those made-up anti-gun polls shoved at them from seldom-showered Michael Moore types. Politicians want to get reelected so they don't have to get a real job.

*If there has been such a response, I am unaware of it.

Edward429451
August 17, 2004, 01:01 PM
I didn't read all the responses yet but here's how I see it...

We are borrowing this country from our children & grandchildren, keepers handed the responsibility from our forfathers to keep it safe and deliver it in good shape. Failures have been made. We're already backed into a corner by such nicities as 'Don't like it, get out', 'It's the law' We'll kill you'

Blatent threats!

Molon Labe? Damn right its scary. Who wants to firefight? Only an idiot. It doesn't release us from the responsibility though. Inaction in the face of danger has a name. (Anyone? Bueller?)

Action in the face of danger also has a name. (Anyone?)

Being obligated to action in the face of danger has yet a third name. (Anyone?)

Our rights and country have been slipping away incrementally. One incident at a time, one precedent at a time. If we want to retain our country, our rights will have to be taken a stand for incrementally until restoration is complete. What does that mean? That means YOU, and you and you. I don't think it means relinquishing your rights now and going to court to beg for them back. Pipe dream extrodinaire. I don't think it means going offensive and blowing things up like McVeigh did either. I think it means taking a stand behind your blade of grass and not giving up. There can be no compromise at this point. We've compromised our country into extinction almost and what do we get for it? Robbed, hostility, jailed, killed...Where's our part of the deal in the compromise? Hollow promises?

Those of you who wont take a stand against the enforcement minions...say I'll be killed or jailed and my family needs me...what about your grandchildren? Don't they count? Tough tittie for them? I don't understand that. If you came home and someone was raping your daughter or wife and had a knife in their hand, do you back down and offer no assisstance because you might be hurt or killed yourself? Whats different because of an official looking uniform?

goalie
August 17, 2004, 01:19 PM
Goalie...I gather that you lack the capacity for abstract thought

First off, I would compare college GPAs with you any time for classes such as ethics, bioethics, philosophy and the like. I am capable of abstract thought, but I choose not to waste my time in a fantasy land that isn't even possible. In fact, my time would be better spent making a daily shopping list for when I win the lottery, because that might actually happen someday.

Let's face it, many of us would not even want to live in a world where danger from nature (let alone other man) didn't even exist. Use that enlightened imagination to picture a world where a firearm has absolutely no chance of ever being used in self-defense.

I always thought that song "Imagine" was infantile and intellectually sophmoric. I still do.

JohnBT
August 17, 2004, 01:40 PM
"In fact, my time would be better spent making a daily shopping list for when I win the lottery, because that might actually happen someday."

Good post !!!!!

JBT

Carlos Cabeza
August 17, 2004, 02:03 PM
Goalie, the place that Lilysdad speaks of will never exist. If it did he would be out of a job. Only after great suffering and tribulation will such a place be a reality. Fantasy and reality are polar opposites and one always prevails over the other. People are people and will continue to be human and follow human nature. It would take a major spiritual intervention to change this. I'm not willing to wager anything less than death when presented a choice of fantasyland or human nature. I wil live or die with the peace of knowing I didn't kneel and beg for my freedom. This is not the same amerika our forefathers left for us. It hasn't been for a long time. The fantasylanders have corrupted minds and given away your rights to others who blatantly abuse it.

Cosmoline
August 17, 2004, 02:03 PM
If somehow it could be guaranteed that violence was swept from the face of the earth, would you give up your guns? I would, I am not a sportsman and have no other need for my moderate collection than putting bullets into bad people. But I dont want to have to do that.

Gun control is not about guns. It's about the power of the state over its citizens. Fundamentally that power rests on a threat of violence from the state. The check the Founders preserved to balance against that threat of violence from the leviathan state was the right to keep and bear arms. If the world is without violence, then the state itself will vanish and the whole thing will be a moot point because there will be no entity to round up our iron.

And if violence ends because of deevine intervention, I'll really want to have my firearms to celebrate properly :D

Kaylee
August 17, 2004, 02:21 PM
Meaning that -- if laws were passed next week -- you would feel compelled by principle to take a shot at an LEO coming to your house to enforce the law. Or that you would participate in lethal resistance against our armed forces. Come and Get Them.

You know... I find myself strangely comfortable with that. ;)

Others have explained the reasoning and ethics behind it better than I can, but I honestly don't have a problem with the principle. And I like most cops I've met.

It is tactically stupid to go for the pointy end guys lining up outside your door though. If it ever does come to Molon Labe, I'd advise aiming higher up the foodchain.

ojibweindian
August 17, 2004, 02:30 PM
Meaning that -- if laws were passed next week -- you would feel compelled by principle to take a shot at an LEO coming to your house to enforce the law. Or that you would participate in lethal resistance against our armed forces. Come and Get Them.

Yep. Without compunction.

Gordon Fink
August 17, 2004, 04:31 PM
Ah! Maybe I can see that “line in the sand” after all. There is a perception that “we” are “winning.” Legal concealed carry is expanding. The “assault-weapons” ban is expiring.

If these “victories” prove hollow, then we may see the line crossed. Our hopes crushed by new gun-control legislation, some gun owners may resist. I still wonder about how it would play out. Would there be open, active resistance—gun owners actually fighting the powers that be? Or would there be only secret, passive resistance—gun owners hiding our proscribed weapons from the “authorities”?

And I don’t know if this is a good or bad thing.

~G. Fink

Cosmoline
August 17, 2004, 05:05 PM
Humans are competitive, and only violent as an abberration. We are violent when we cannot find other solutions to a problem. We are hardly predators, only binocular vision and rudimentary canine teeth remains of a predatory heritage. We need weapons because we dont have claws, shells, and are fundamentally weaker than many other animals.

?? Humans are not only predators, we are the ultimate predators--able to kill not just weak or sick animals but the strongest, indeed entire species. We don't hunt with our teeth, but with our brains and our tools. This does not mean we aren't designed to hunt. Indeed the human brain is set up to count, think ahead, play out hypothetical situations, and do all its other amazing things because these abilities were needed to hunt and kill. It's why we were able to figure out how to drive herds over a cliff, or to lure large predators into traps. Our brains are far more lethal than the claws of the biggest brown bear. If we're willing to use them that is.

So the only way you're going to eliminate violence short of divine intervention is by killing all humans on the planet. It's as fruitless and pointless as tring to end all suffering--which the PETA/Peter Singer types are obsessed with.

goalie
August 17, 2004, 05:32 PM
So the only way you're going to eliminate violence short of divine intervention is by killing all humans on the planet.

Or, as I said earlier, somehow neuter us. Either way, a better question might have been: "Would you want to actually live on an earth where there was no danger or violence at all from the animal kingdom or other humans?" Think about it, no predators, no prey. No circle of life. Nothing out there could possibly hurt you, otherwise you could still use a firearms for self-defense. I imagine it would make life like a video game where one has used the GOD cheat so that they cannot die. It would have to be quite unsatisfying, to say the least.

I think that the person accusing me of not having the ability to think abstractly was wrong. I think I am able to envision such a twisted "utopia" all to well, and it isn't somewhere I want to go.

Wildalaska
August 17, 2004, 05:49 PM
Im trying just to keep quiet here....:D

WildtoohottorantAlaska

Cosmoline
August 17, 2004, 06:19 PM
Nah, when it hits the fan you'll be the leader of the Spenard Citizens Militia and you know it :D

Thumper
August 17, 2004, 06:24 PM
"Spiff, hump this ruck for a minute...my bunions hurt."

sendec
August 17, 2004, 06:24 PM
Which is more likely, TEOTWAWKI or peace in our time? If you had to choose one, which would it be?

Would you shoot the first cop who came for your books?

What's more powerful, my guns or my computers?

What liberal, idealistic gutless organization uses the phrase "Peace Is Our Profession" as a motto?

Michigander
August 17, 2004, 06:34 PM
As for all the talk about a revolution... talk is good.

I'm sure there was much talk amongst our forefathers years prior to the American Revolution.

One can rant all day about how us "gun nuts" or "molon labers" sit in front of our computer screen and bravely type about how we will not surrender and how easy it is to say and talk is cheap, etc. etc. etc.

Well, I'm sure our forefathers spent many an hour at their desks in candlelight writing (in many cases, not all) similar sentiment to what we discuss here.

Go ahead. Rant how it is fruitless. I beg to differ.

2nd Amendment
August 17, 2004, 06:37 PM
Peace in any time is a fantasy. Never gonna happen. We haven't even made any headway towards limiting total violence yet. We've reduced open displays of violence at the personal public level some but otherwise? Nada. We're fighting as many wars for as many reasons as two thousand years ago and more. Murder is as common or moreso than ever. Rape, theft, abuse, assault. It fluctuates, moves from location to location and intensity waxes and wains but overall very little changes. That's the result of what we are. Our very predatory genetic nature.

And as I have said before, the US isn't immune from the tides of history, or that human nature. She isn't eternal. And considering our violent birth, equally violent coming-of-age and none-too-calm old-age I don't think there's any reason to believe our demise is going to be particularly peaceful, either.

We came in with a bang and we're probably going to go out with one, too.

Cosmoline
August 17, 2004, 07:21 PM
Would you shoot the first cop who came for your books?

Of course. So would most people. That's why they round up the guns BEFORE they round up the books. Ask Stalin and Hitler about that.

R.H. Lee
August 17, 2004, 07:36 PM
JBT's are not that tough and not that determined. They like to depend on overwhelming numbers and technology. Look at the goon squad at Waco. They lost, what, 3 or 4 and they're still cryin'. If they ever mobilized in force they would meet resistance the likes of which they never anticipated. Resistance from behind every rock, every tree, every structure.
Their lives and the lives of their families would be at risk 24/7. They wouldn't do it very long for a paycheck.

ctdonath
August 17, 2004, 09:50 PM
What I will NOT do is put a bullet in Barney Fife on my front porch because the Senate happens to be particularly stupid.Notice that the Barney Fife on your porch has a gun and it's his job to put a bullet in you if you don't do what the particularly stupid Senate decided you should do.

Justin
August 18, 2004, 12:24 AM
Of course my vision of a peaceful world will never come to pass, but some of the reponses seem to indicate that the writers desire to possess weapons more than they desire a non-violent world. No, the responses show that a number of the writers are refusing to play a silly game. The whole concept of your proposition is ludicrously designed to funnel the reader to a predetermined conclusion. Then, when someone doesn't respond in the affirmative you can then point out that they are either A)incapable of thinking abstractly or B)obviously unreasonable, if not unbalanced.

Personally, I choose option C) This is a silly question designed to pigeonhole a person into one predetermined category or another.

What's more powerful, my guns or my computers? Depends on the situation. Which was more responsible for the allies winning WWII? All those M1 Garands, or Colossus at Bletchley Park? Your entire query lacks any sort of context.

The_Antibubba
August 18, 2004, 05:17 AM
Sendec,

If God made me that offer, I'd be sure to get it in writing! :D And even then-well, if violence is now no more, then certainly no one will mind my enjoying my guns, for the sheer enjoyment of the sound and the smell and of hitting the 10-ring. Right?

Seriously. I don't like the idea of killing anyone. If a meth-crazed punk breaks my front door down and comes at me, I don't want to have to shoot him. But I wouldn't have to shoot him if he didn't break my door down. I don't want to shoot the sheriff-I'm sure he has a family that will miss him. But as others have said, history follows certain patterns, and weapons confiscation is not the end of the problem. It is the beginning. if you doubt American history on that score, read the biographies of the men and women who founded the state of Israel.

(Trivia fact: Dr. Ruth, long before she became a "good sex" advocate, was a Resistance sniper)

I do not want a violent revolution. Mostly, I want to left alone. But I grew up knowing too many older people with numbers tattooed on their arms to think that I will not do what must be done. Maybe it will end for me at my front door. Maybe I will live to fight another day. Hopefully, I won't have to make that decision at all-except on THR ;)

-------
Better to be carried by six than be judged by history.

NIGHTWATCH
August 18, 2004, 05:34 AM
****** READ MY SIG ******

sendec
August 18, 2004, 09:24 AM
Justin,

My questions are rhetorical questions designed to provoke thought, not your gastric juices. After countless discussion of TEOTWAWKI, black helos, JBTs, voting from the rooftops, Wolverines!, ad naseum, why does the antithesis of all these equally outlandish and unlikely scenarios provoke such vitriol? These are'nt silly games? Bottom line, are'nt most shooting sports just games played with guns?

FWIW, I do this for a living, having been in LE all my life and now as a trainer for whats left in it. I spend hundreds of hours a year teaching good people how to hurt bad people. I've seen enough, and dealt enough, violence that I have realized that it is a treatment, not a solution. I've never met a combat vet who did'nt value peace as a goal.

Cosmoline
August 18, 2004, 02:33 PM
Sendec, why do you think the scenarios are outlandish? They have happened before, many times. And indeed there are many parts of the world where they are happening right now. Armed resistance is not futile. It isn't always done for a just or noble cause, of course, but it's not futile or outlandish. There are many situations in our own history where armed resistance would have been the proper response, from the enslavement of entire races to the genocide of others.

ReadyontheRight
August 18, 2004, 03:03 PM
"I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it. "
-Deep Thoughts by Jack Handey-

BrokenArrow
August 18, 2004, 03:08 PM
The soap box, ballot box, and cartridge box, in that order.

Some will go farther than others, and some will stop sooner?

Some are talkin' loud but not walkin' very far...

So why haven't all the Patriots put their fortune where their mouth is, moved to Morton Grove or DC, etc to fight the good fight? Lexington and Concord were enough for the Minutemen, what are they waiting for? By the time the fight comes to them, it may be too late!

Lead the way! ;)

sendec
August 18, 2004, 03:43 PM
Cosmoline-

They are all equally outlandish - for any example of localized genocide or crisis you can cite I can cite another localized outbreak of peace and quiet. It's all a continuum anyway.

But last time I checked, the evil government, could'nt find the anthrax guy, could'nt frame Richard Jewel or convict OJ, cannot find Bin-Laden, could'nt arrest one gunhacker without causing a major incident, could serve a warrant without incident, spent who knows how long investigating the wrong guy at Sandia, cannot keep track of its own laptops and guns, cannot ensure that spies are'nt in the FBI, and cannot get its networks to actually work with one another, let alone spy on us, industry was held hostage by a guy with a Smith-Corona who lived in a plywood box, and on and on......And the UN? Ever read the bit about the Security Council deciding where to eat for lunch? Do you think they even take themselves seriously? Who are the Blue Helmets gonna be? The Pakistanis?

Reality check, kids. All that bottled water you laid back for the millenium collapse is gonna taste pretty funky right about now. Shumer, Feinstein et al have been at it forever and accomplished next to nothing in the big picture. They don't want to succceed anymore than you want them to - then what would they do ? Actually work on real issues? You think they want that? We survived 9/11, multiple blackouts, natural and unnatural disasters, wars, biowar and more. We invariably come out of these incidents in better shape than we were before they occurred. I am glad I had my guns thru all of these, but I actually needed and used my flashlights more.

Unfortunately, for some of you, we actually have it pretty good. There have been bad times, and there will be more in the future. But investing all your hope for the future in guns seems a little off.

Cosmoline
August 18, 2004, 03:53 PM
But as several explained here, the RKBA isn't about guns. It's about government power. A firearm in and of itself is just a tool. But a government coming to seize that firearm is a terrible threat. I might decide to sell all my firearms, or buy more. But this isn't about some fixation on a mere possession. It's about the power of the state to control its people, and whether or not that power has any inherent limitations. That's something worth fighting, and killing, for.

What I see is different from what you see, apparently. You see a bumbling federal government that poses no threat to liberty. I see a massive, extraconstitutional regulatory state supported by armed, highly militarized set of police forces. If UK style gun control were to pass at the federal level, I would very much fear for my well being.

Oleg Volk
August 18, 2004, 03:55 PM
Guns aren't the answer to most problems. Acquisition of new skills, getting more exercise, other improvements to self are more useful. But guns are a bit like religious faith -- they sooth the soul and made glad the heart. And, in a narrow set of circumstances, they can be useful...either directly or as deterrents. Guns are also the mine canary of the civil rights. Any threat affecting them can be counted to yield gulags at its logical conclusion. The lack of competency of the Fedgov is a minor matter -- the Soviets were even less competent yet produced millions of corpses.

One other note: small arms are defensive in nature. Heavy ordnance and explosives are the way to bring the fight to the enemy without exposure to return fire. We have not seen the Iraqui levels of IED use here yet. Providence willing, we won't. Antis pushing, we may well.

R.H. Lee
August 18, 2004, 04:03 PM
RKBA is about a balance of power and is most useful as a deterrent measure. Firearms ownership without some discussion of the when, where, and how of their use does not provide a "spirit of resistance." Read my sig.

Sam Adams
August 18, 2004, 04:13 PM
Heavy ordnance and explosives are the way to bring the fight to the enemy without exposure to return fire.

Largely true; however, I don't think that someone taking a single shot from a scoped bolt-action rifle from a well scouted-out position 300-500 yards from a high-value target would be subject to any return fire...hypothetically speaking, of course. Those of you who've read "Enemies Foreign and Domestic understand the reference.

patentmike
August 18, 2004, 05:04 PM
I saw that at least one poster is in MA. It's all too common on these threads for folks to fantasize about their heroics in some doomsday scenario with clear rules of engagement. Us vs. JBT. Such exercises are not as demanding as the day-to-day grind of trying to prevent erosion of our rights. Let us know what you find out about your senator.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=95561

Otherguy Overby
August 18, 2004, 05:44 PM
Hillbilly:

Perhaps the best quote I ever read about how to tell if it is "throw down" time or not went something like this.

"The next time you think it's time to start the next American revolution, run out on your front porch with your gun. If you can't see any neighbors who've also run out on their front porches with their guns, then it's not time yet. "


Well, out here in the Ozarks, the only person who might see me running out onto my porch with a gun would be a tresspasser.

Shoot I shoot him? Or ask him if it is finally time for the great American 2nd revolution? In thinking about this, should I ask him to take his ski mask off first? < big grin >

grampster
August 18, 2004, 06:21 PM
The ballot box is more effective than the ammo box. If as much effort were expended politically to salvage the BoR as we, it appears, are willing to give to mortally fight each other, the fight would never happen. But it is doubtfull the political effort will happen as we are mostly not willing to get informed, work at it, and or actually put up and vote for actual patriots over shiny pant suit wearers more interested in re election and lining their pocket with the grease from the pork they feed their constituents.

The blood has been shed, people, for the system we call a Constitutional Republic with representative government. The key is using it and honoring those that have given life and limb to create and preserve it.

Besides, what Thumper said about who'd be in my fighting hole with me. He'd probably be in bod's or wearing a badge takin' care of the JBT that were left over, and I don't think there would be too many to worry about.

In my county there are several hundred armed Americans to each LEO in the first place, not that there would be, as Thumper said, too many LEO's on the wrong side of that fight.

grampster

sendec
August 18, 2004, 08:23 PM
Cosmoline,

If it is'nt about the guns, how come we are going to have a collective orgasm when the AWB sunsets? So you'd be OK with just one then? Maybe a single shot .22?


;)

Thanks for the mental exercise, I enjoyed the debate. While I think that some of the ideas expressed here are borderline whackoreactionary, as the proud owner of nothing but evil assault weapons and guns with absolutely no sporting use, I would certainly defend your right to have whatever you can handle responsibly. I just think we are a long long way from the ovens, so to speak.

Cosmoline
August 18, 2004, 08:56 PM
The AWB has become a central symbol of a great "soccer mom" anti gun victory. So as such I'll celebrate it's death. Plus, I miss new high caps. The AWB's greatest direct impact has been to refocus handguns from high capacity to big bore, and I expect to see things swing back to high capacity once the ban is gone. Thirty or forty round tripple stacks maybe :D Or at least some high cap .22LR mags with loading devices so my poor hands don't get CTS.

jimbo
August 18, 2004, 11:30 PM
Cajuncuna, quote "Before pointing to Nazis or Fascists to tell me why I'm crazy for not buying into this philosophy, please recall that both of these dictatorships leveraged horrible atrocities on their people. These violations are exactly the sort of thing that should meet with armed resistance."

And which, pray tell, came first? Evil Nazi's or gun control. I'll give you a hint. Gun control imposed in the Weimar Republic set the stage for the evil Nazis to disarm the citizenry and commit their atrocities unopposed. Si?

So what "Monol Labe" really means is, we don't really want to wait for an evil dictator BEFORE we fight for our gun rights. We need to keep our guns to meet the rise of Dictatorship.

I don't pretend to say that I have the courage to do so, but I DO buy into the idea that anyone who wants to disarm you wants to leave you defenseless to Tyranny and therefore IS THE ENEMY.

Bruce H
August 18, 2004, 11:30 PM
Revolutions don't have to become big bloody fiascos. Most of them do because everybody wants to get their licks in. A revolution can be as small as one person killed. When the leaders fall several followers loose heart for the enterprise. Indescriminate killing is never the answer. Target aquisition is the really important factor.

Psssniper
August 19, 2004, 12:29 AM
Could we have a Tom Diaz in disguise here?? Hmmmmmmmmm.......
Stranger things have happened
Also the "vote from the rooftops" shirt actually has another entire phrase on it ! Amazingly it is almost always overlooked by the average Hoplophobe
Here is the missing phrase in type and also in a picture for the reading impaired. Dang that Molon Labe hat is in the pic too.
When all else fails vote from the rooftops

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?s=&postid=1190318

copyrighted image, no use without written permission

mountainclmbr
August 19, 2004, 12:41 AM
Chuckie Schumer...wet your pants tonight! There are those who would oppose your tyranny!

If you are going to die anyway, make sure you have company.

Justin
August 19, 2004, 12:42 AM
My questions are rhetorical questions designed to provoke thought, not your gastric juices. After countless discussion of TEOTWAWKI, black helos, JBTs, voting from the rooftops, Wolverines!, ad naseum, why does the antithesis of all these equally outlandish and unlikely scenarios provoke such vitriol?

Because it is an exercise in Reductio ad Absurdum. You are attempting to pass off a logical fallacy as a thought provoking rhetorical question, as opposed to just indulging in a Rambo fantasy.

I've seen enough, and dealt enough, violence that I have realized that it is a treatment, not a solution. I've never met a combat vet who did'nt value peace as a goal. Well, at least there's one thing we can agree on. :)

redhead
August 19, 2004, 01:10 AM
If it's time to bury them, it's time to dig them up.

Matt G
August 19, 2004, 01:23 AM
There's a lot of ways to deny a gungrabber their goal. Lot's of legal ways.

Capping a cop on your doorstep out of hand should be reprehensible to all of us.

If you or your family are under threat of imminent harm to life and limb, you of course do what needs doing, one supposes.

unixguy
August 19, 2004, 02:47 AM
Cosmoline wrote:But as several explained here, the RKBA isn't about guns. It's about government power. A firearm in and of itself is just a tool. But a government coming to seize that firearm is a terrible threat.

From Federalist Paper #46, discussing the influence of the Federal gov't compared to State gov't :

[Suppose] a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops.


(I've replaced the original "Let" with "Suppose" as the first word, because the context makes it clear that it's an exercise of the form "Let a=5, etc., etc.")

That snippet was preceded by a short premise, roughly paraphrased: "Suppose the people did somehow elect a traitorous government for enough years and just stood by and watched the traitors pursue an evil agenda (the specific evil mentioned in the paper was an military that was too strong)..."

Federalist Paper #46 made it more clear to me than I've ever seen anywhere else that the author (and presumably his peers) draws a very clear distinction between "the militia" and "the army", specifying that the army is under federal control and the militia would be the armed citizens who need to restrain the army from overreaching.

toro
August 19, 2004, 10:41 AM
I think you have figured out exactly what is happening. One childs mindset at a time. These children are sent to school to learn. What are they learning? Fear of guns. If they are even a little active in school they call the parents to put them on Ritalin.

Before I retired, all the ladies I worked with had children on Ritalin. They all said it was wonderful they didn't have to fight with them at home. It calmed them down. Well, I always thought any mind altering drug was dangerous. Why would so many children need drugs. My husband said he was very hyper in school. They would put a circle on the blackboard and he would have to stand on his toes till he said he would behave. Soon he was all calmed down. Teachers in the old days knew what to do to keep a class of 40 kids calm with one teacher per class room and no assistants.

Heaven forbid, but when he went to school they all had pocket knives. During recess they played mumbly peg with the teachers watching. What has happened? Now they play Sally has two mommies. These children are learning things we as parents would never teach them. As time goes by the younger generation will not even have guns. They will all be P.C.

There are some who are home schooling, these will be the ones who will keep our country strong. These are the ones who will not give up their guns. The only way to keep this a free country is to have guns in every household. I don't believe they will come after the guns in my lifetime. But I think they will try by the time my Granddaughter is grown. We need to visit our childrens schools and sit in on the classes and find out just what they are teaching. I always read my son's school books and checked with his teachers to see what they were teaching him. I don't believe that happens anymore. We want to keep our children willing to fight for their rights. I don't mean by shooting anyone, I mean through the NRA. Voting is important. Don't vote for anyone you think will take away your rights. I keep thinking about the Clintons and how they almost closed down several gun manufacturers and distrubutors. Now that is SCARY.


Mrs. Toro


__________________________________________________________
Mark 8:36to38
"For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels."

Kamicosmos
August 19, 2004, 01:52 PM
On my local news last night, a high school student that makes good grades was suspended, and will likely be expelled. Why? He tossed his little brother's toy gun in the back seat of the car. Someone saw him do that, and called the school. (I think this was in Illionois)

Even his own mother said 'He had so much going for him, and now he threw it all away'.

It's a toy gun people! He didn't break a law!!! Yet, he is about to be expelled from school, and have his whole life ruined (in theory) over a T.O.Y.
If I took a GI Joe to school, it might be taken away from me, but Expelled? Over a toy? ***, over?

It's about control. It's about generating fear in order to get that control. Look at how they're saying Terrorists will be able to get Assault Weapons after the ban. Uh...last I checked Terrorists all ready had what we would call NFA assault weapons.

The simple fact that we compromise means they're winning.

As far as the whole violence-free Utopia versus TEOTWAWKI: It's better to have a gun and not need it...

artherd
August 20, 2004, 01:05 AM
What's amazing, is this has actually HAPPENED. In CA, Robinson Arms M96 rifles were (briefly) confiscated, I belive on a voulentary basis. (they were eventually deemed 'legal' and returned, whopee.)

This is a very real question. What if they came knocking, just for your SKS? You could keep the rest, at least this week?

Is it too much for me to draw the line at the forced confiscation of ONE firearm? Because that is how it will come. Would I be out of hand in shooting that cop if he were to put a gun to my head and my wife's head and order us to surrender just one gun?

I say, no. I too have taken an oath to defend with my life the constitution of the United States with my life, against all enemies both forign and domestic.

And the very second that "Barney Fife" rings my doorbel with his hand on his revolver, to take my one gun or shoot me or lock me up (as that will ultimately be the case), he has become the sherrif no longer. He is now a domestic enemy and I will deal with him acordingly.

Those are my feelings on the matter.

jimpeel
August 20, 2004, 01:44 AM
Meaning that -- if laws were passed next week -- you would feel compelled by principle to take a shot at an LEO coming to your house to enforce the law. Or that you would participate in lethal resistance against our armed forces. Come and Get Them.Die on your feet, or live on your knees. Your choice.

one45auto
August 20, 2004, 03:00 AM
And it is a little dramatic. Do people honestly believe that some day G-men are gonna fast rope out of Blackhawks for our guns?

No, if it should ever come to that they will do precisely what the British did during the Revolutionary War. They will hire foreign mercenaries* who have no compunction whatsoever about firing on American citizens with arms. Given the level of rampant anti-Americanism in the world - and Europe in particular, I don't anticipate that they would have any problem finding willing recruits. In fact the application lines would probably make the tryouts for American Idol seem like a small town Boy Scout jamboree by comparison.



*The Democrats asking the United Nations to "monitor" the upcoming Presidential election (their usual "Bush stole it" whine) shows that they already have the mindset of seeking foreign help with what they perceive to be domestic problems. :fire:

Wildalaska
August 20, 2004, 03:14 AM
Blah blah blah blah...they already have confiscated guns in Chicago, NY, NJ....but thats OK...aint YOUR guns are they...nope dont see the true patriots rising up and fighting the gubmint....

Come and get them you JBTs...as long as you come for thee and not for me...

All talk no action.....

WildasformesushiAlaska

TheOtherOne
August 20, 2004, 05:24 AM
Blah blah blah blah...they already have confiscated guns in Chicago, NY, NJ....but thats OK...aint YOUR guns are they...nope dont see the true patriots rising up and fighting the gubmint....

Come and get them you JBTs...as long as you come for thee and not for me...

All talk no action.....

WildasformesushiAlaskaThat is the way I see it. For 99% of us, it's nothing but talk. As the years pass, they'll continue to confisicate without any real problems. That is proven by history. The VERY FEW who do happen to resist, will be dealt with.

RealGun
August 20, 2004, 10:24 AM
I appreciate that there are so many good arguments here supporting my intitial proposal way back the line in this thread.

Sounds like a good case for serious militia activity.

mec360
August 20, 2004, 05:33 PM
What WildAlaska said.

See: http://www.thegunzone.com/rkba/rkba-19.html

:fire:

As I asked above, where is the Australian Henry Bowman? Anyone? Bueller?

Mike

Sam Adams
August 20, 2004, 05:56 PM
They will hire foreign mercenaries* who have no compunction whatsoever about firing on American citizens with arms. Given the level of rampant anti-Americanism in the world - and Europe in particular, I don't anticipate that they would have any problem finding willing recruits. In fact the application lines would probably make the tryouts for American Idol seem like a small town Boy Scout jamboree by comparison.

It is one thing for our own government to gradually disarm us through incremental changes in the law - it is an evil thing, IMHO, but a smarter thing from the government's perspective, because the level of active resistance will be very low. In fact (and as this thread demonstrates quite well), most gun owners will even poke fun at those who say that will resist, so the chance of getting a reasonable number to actually resist is vanishingly small.

But that would all change the moment a single foreign soldier/mercenary got involved, let alone thousands or millions of them. It would be perceived far more as an invasion by hostile forces than as a mere law enforcement or political action, as is the case now. Tremendous numbers of gunowners would happily and gladly take shots a foreign gun grabbers, and they'd have the support of a sizable portion of the non-gunowning public. In such a case, I'm sure that we would provide such foreigners with a VERY warm reception to demonstrate our American hospitality. "VERY warm" as in "hot lead." There would be no moral compunctions about using the most brutal tactics imaginable against them (such that Kerry's description of what American soldiers supposedly did in Vietnam would actually be true in thousands of locations across this country). Take a look at "Red Dawn" to get an idea of what would happen.

That such a set of circumstances would be seen so widely as a naked act of aggression is, however, exactly why I think that it is the least likely "Molon Labe" scenario.

Hand_Rifle_Guy
August 22, 2004, 12:48 PM
Here in Korny Kaliforny, we gots us the Dreaded Precondition: Registration.

On record with the Cal-DOJ, along with my name and current address as per my gotta-have-it-to-pass-the-backround-check, listed-with-the-state-D.M.V., CURRENT VALID I.D. card, are:

ALL of my handguns, except for one antique.

A BIG LIST of assault rifles, none of which I actually own (I like 'em fine, as a concept. I just can't stand pistol grips. Funny ergonomics, to me.)


If (That's a big if. ;) ) door to door confiscation of guns is going to happen on any large scale, I imagine it'll start here in the Socialista-run Liberal La-La Land known sarcastically as the PRK.

The sunset of the AWB means nothing here, thanks to our "progressive" legislature and Mr. Gray "No-New-Gun-Control" Davis.

It's actually illegal to transfer (I.e. give, sell, or loan/lend even at the range!) standard-capacity magazines holding over ten rounds here, too. Doing their derndest to manufacture as many criminals as they can, yup. (How can they hope to enforce such a law? I don't get it. :confused: ) All it reall does is prevent the sale of old mags through regular commercial sources, thus creating a black market. A'course, we GOT one of those already as a result of the AWB, but that's going away, so mags'll only cost more HERE. :rolleyes:

Nobody I know or have talked too pays the slightest attention to the mag-transfer thing.They're just sure to look over their shoulder before handing 'em over. Law-abiding peaceful folks, made into casual criminals in the face of an unjust, unenforceable law that everyone thinks is ridiculous. This is an accomplishment? And manufacturing casual criminals wholesale does WHAT to reduce crime? Or improve anything? But I digress...

The Cal-DOJ reported at one point that they were somewhat disappointed at the estimated compliance rate for the assault-weapon registration deal. I believe they said that by their reckoning only about 10% of assault-weapon owners actually bothered to fill out and send in the paperwork. DOJ returned an acknowledgment, A copy of which must be producable on demand upon inspection of any given assault weapon by LE. Presumably the consequence of not producing said document on demand could result in a charge of possession of an unregistered assault weapon.

DOJ was really slow about sending out their returns. Something like 3+ months after the "That's all, folks!" deadline. Taking your gun to the range during that limbo-time was an iffy prospect. However, I know of zero cases of "unregistered assualt weapon" busts. None. Really effective, that law. Effective at WHAT, I don't know.

Correction: Effective at compiling a list of gun-owners and weapons to be confiscated under color of authority once a ban has been voted into place. But, wait a second, there was only a 10% compliance rate, so they'll never get 'em all...

--That's ok. They have a bigger list for the handguns that probably includes 99% of all the gun-owners in the state, so they know where to look. They're gonna pick 'em all up at once when they try to, anyways. Why bother with half-measures?...

Because the key-word here is "try". I have no faith in the success of that undertaking. Gubmint tries that, and the rural-er parts of the state'll build a wall 'round the Bay Area, L.A., and Sacra-tomato to keep the Liberaloons under wraps. Guess where the food and fuel to feed and operate those large metropolitan areas comes from? And how will those hungy, cold, immobile folks vote when they discover they can't leave, as they're surrounded by hostile rural areas all pointing guns at them when they try?

That's presuming the legiscritters don't immediately start getting "voted out" from on high. That could only improve things in this stupid state...

:evil:

2nd Amendment
August 23, 2004, 01:11 AM
Hey, I have guys wanting to buy a "Vote from the rooftops" shirts. Is there a source for these things?

R.H. Lee
August 23, 2004, 01:15 AM
Ditto what HRG said. The compliance rate is low here, IMO.

goalie
August 23, 2004, 02:31 AM
Blah blah blah blah...they already have confiscated guns in Chicago, NY, NJ....but thats OK...aint YOUR guns are they...nope dont see the true patriots rising up and fighting the gubmint....

Come and get them you JBTs...as long as you come for thee and not for me...

All talk no action.....

WildasformesushiAlaska

It has been my life's experience that, if the government does choose to tread an evil road and actually confiscate firearms from law-abiding citizens, it will not be the "talkers" that the government has to worry about.

As I said earlier, IMO, one would have to be a little "off" to spend any large amount of time dwelling on the possible future violent revolt that could occur if certain scenarios came to pass. That large amount of time would be better spent writing letters and being politically active, so as to ensure that no such evil days come upon us.


Lead, follow or get out of the way.

Pebcac
August 23, 2004, 02:54 PM
I haven't read this whole thread, so a whole lot of this might've been said already. If so, I'm just putting it in my own words. :)

There won't be any mass confiscation. The feds aren't that stupid, because someone will start shooting, and that could set off an armed rebellion, although it'd likely be on a very, very small scale.

What will happen is registration, and a ban to follow, and another, and another. The "citizens" will be expected to turn their banned arms in, maybe with compensation, maybe without. It will end there, until law enforcement has another reason to enter and search, be it on other issues, or off of a tip that someone has banned arms. Should that someone start shooting, we all know that the media won't represent it as defense of one's rights. Public opinion will be against it. Then the government will prosecute on illegal-weapons charges and start seizing property.

They will get us one by one this way, until those who have guns left - with no ammo, since it's also been banned - will start tossing them into lakes and rivers for fear of federal prison. Don't think an ammo ban is likely? Not right at the present, I'll grant you that, but we all know that Kennedy et al are already planting the seeds: 30-30 as armor-piercing sniper ammo, etc.

The initial fight is happening now, in the halls of Congress, and that means, for us, at the polling places. Should we lose the battle at the federal level, all we'll have left is the states. The states will be the last bastions of defense for the Bill of Rights, not just the 2nd Amendment alone. Will any states be willing to risk secession and armed conflict over it?

Everyone should be aware that this won't be a case of open social tyranny, such as taxation without representation and so forth. It will be incremental, back-door erosion of rights, piece by piece, person by person.

We must all get off our butts and vote, and drag as many other people to the booth as we can. Speak out, demonstrate, write letters and articles. Spend your money, and most of all, educate yourself and as many others as you can!

You know what always seems to be missing in these "Molon labe" discussions? The fact that the Revolutionaries did a whole hell of a lot more than just pick up a musket and fire it at red uniforms. They spoke out! They wrote constantly, appealing to the masses. They wrote essays, letters to the editor, pamphlets, articles, books, speeches, and, finally, when no option was left to them, a Declaration. But before the Declaration was written, they convinced their fellow citizens that they were all having their rights violated, whether or not they were individually affected by any issue in particular, and that they deserved to rule themselves by the vote!

Where's all that for the RKBA? Are we to rush to arms over a law passed by our own representatives before we speak our piece and get the message out? The beauty of our system of government is that, when it comes right down to it, every one of those pukes in Washington answers to the voters of their districts. Even Kennedy, Hillary, Kerry, and Feinstein. A lot of talk on a gun board means squat to the fate of the RKBA, and we all know it. We're preaching to the choir here, yammering about "molon labe" and "sheepdogs" to each other, when we could be out, like many here do, introducing new shooters to our philosophy and converting the opposition. The real fight is in the public consciousness, and right now we're losing. Badly.

ctdonath
August 23, 2004, 09:58 PM
My faith in the RKBA future just dropped a notch.

Hunter's conviction (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?threadid=57359&goto=newpost) speaks volumes. A major RKBA activist gets arrested for simple KBA while driving. After tremendous effort, cost, and intercession by other string-pullers, Hunter is thrilled to be convicted of a misdemeanor. ***?

Sure I'm happy that he gets to go home with practically no real punishment (suspended sentence, unsupervised probation, etc.) and gets all his stuff back. ...but...in the end, Ohio wins, RKBA loses: simply bearing arms (loaded (?) in a car) is upheld as a hardcore criminal act, and Hunter is "let off lightly" at the whim of the state. Next time someone is arrested for armed-while-driving in Ohio, out will come Ohio v. Hunter and another will be convicted - probably with harsher consequences.

I can't blame Hunter. I had a chance to fight for the Firearms Owners' Protection Act, but gave up when I just didn't know how to pursue it...and nobody wanted to help (even with a cop on tape stating "I am the law"). 'tis easy to pontificate in comfort, but the individual faced with personal loss understandably seeks individual survival.

And that's how RKBA is being lost: one crushed gunowner at a time. There's plenty of bravado about when "they" come for "our" guns ... but in reality, it's a matter of attrition, one at a time - quietly.

At least there is hope: AWB sunsetting, shall-issue spreading, every restriction selling more guns.

liliysdad
August 23, 2004, 10:03 PM
The Hunter saga is a poor example, IMO..he knew he was breaking the law, and chose to do it anyway..he deserved what he got, in my opinion.

R.H. Lee
August 23, 2004, 10:08 PM
Some of you talk as though .gov actually has the power to disinvent the firearm and erase the technology by passing laws. You can bet that if/when the time comes when private possession of firearms in this country is prohibited, whatever tyrants in power will have much worse planned for you. It will not be benevolence. Our demise as a free society will not be the result of banned firearms, it will come as a result of the theft and destruction of our culture.

ctdonath
August 23, 2004, 10:13 PM
[Hunter] knew he was breaking the law

So RKBA is simply at the whim of legislators?

and chose to do it anyway

Where is your line?

..he deserved what he got

May your chains rest lightly upon you.

dustind
September 18, 2004, 07:21 PM
"Would you shoot the first cop who came for your books?"
I and almost everyone else would probably revolt. Maybe not violently, but people would. I would have no problem with people doing that.

"Reality check, kids." More insults. What a surpise. FWIW I am completely out of everything to drink put tap water, vegtrable juice (yuk), and tap water.

patentmike: Do you have any evidence that those people that you disagree with are doing nothing politically?

artherd: I would hand over the SKS for practicle reasons, then get much more active.

Wildalaska: I bet the patriots are glad that they have your moral support though. ;) Almost no one knows that the confiscations exist. The people that lost their guns should have payed better attention to legislation, and they can move to other states. I will continue to fight politically until there are much bigger violations of people's rights.

If anyone wants to go after people (government or not) for minor violations of their rights, and that is their honest reason. I will not say that they are wrong.

Simon76
October 15, 2004, 03:46 PM
1) YES, I WILL shoot anyone who threatens the safety and security of me or MINE. It is not only my GOD-given right, it is my DUTY as an American citizen. (And yours, too, of course).

2) Don't bury ALL of your guns, and use the ones you keep to fight your way OUT of where you are and TO the nearest rifle. Fire, maneuver and survive after that. (S.E.R.E./Guerilla Warfare).

3) Political activism, in this day and age, only serves to either prolong the inevitable, satisfy a sheep's sense of "doing something", or as a distraction from what you're REALLY doing..."behind the scenes".

4) The existense of a non-violent world/all violence being magically swept away from the face of the planet, are pure fantasy and, therefore, have ZERO bearing on real world events. GET THESE NOTIONS OUT OF YOUR MINDS NOW. They are a waste of time. Leave Disneyland and LEARN SOMETHING.

5) The most important point is this: WE CANNOT LOSE. If you feel differently, get out of the way, you are dead weight. The name of the game is Hit and Run. Think a small force can't beat a massive, better trained, better equipped force? Tell that to the NVA or the Vietcong. In 2,000 years they've (The Vietnamese in general) NEVER been taken by force. NOT ONCE. While I do NOT agree with their politics/philosophies in the least tiny bit, their ability to employ guerilla tactics against a seemingly overwhelming force, cannot be argued. I study the masters, so should you. THIS is what it will come down to.

Simon.

(Not intended as a "flame". Intended as thought provoking and educational.).

Wildalaska
October 15, 2004, 03:56 PM
Bwaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahah

WildbestresponseunderthecircsAlaska

cuchulainn
October 15, 2004, 04:09 PM
NVA or the Vietcong. In 2,000 years :scrutiny:

Dave R
October 15, 2004, 05:14 PM
And it is a little dramatic. Do people honestly believe that some day G-men are gonna fast rope out of Blackhawks for our guns?

History test.

1) What were the British coming to do in Lexington and Concord?

2) What was the 'legal' excuse for the 'invasion' at Waco?

goon
October 15, 2004, 05:29 PM
You make it sound like the choice is only yours.
When faced with the prospect of confiscating your weapons, "Barney Fife" has a few options. He can ignore your guns and avoid a fight for sure, he can take your side and be on the right side of the fight, or he can side against you and against the Constitution.
You are not the only one making a choice here.
The thought of shooting other Americans sickens me and I personally feel that we can and should stop it before it ever gets close to that point.

I personally feel that in the event of an edict ordering us to surrender our weapons, we should just all openly and very publicly ignore the law. I am talking AK's and FAL's slung over many, many shoulders while grocery shopping. It sounds rediculous, but it is a way to step things to the next level without actually starting a fight.
Brinkmanship.

Black Snowman
October 15, 2004, 07:25 PM
I would HOPE (but don't count on) that there would be considerable resistance to finding people for the job of disarming Americans wholesale. Hense the incramentalism. Get us down to where we're harmless enough it would work.

For instance I know my local Sheriff would be more likely to call for armed men to support the officers in repelling the JBT than he would be to go door to door saying "Please turn them in."

Friends, relatives, and aquaintences at the local USMC and Airforce bases I know would take exception to the activity as well. If the feds really pushed it before they got enough people disarmed and brainwashed it would be a very nasty civial war and any country with the means would take it as the chance to try and wipe us out.

If they continue to gain ground and slowly erode our rights generations will suffer for years until there are enough atrocities to stimulate another rebelion. It's the cycle of history for nations in our position. The other historical end to a civilization is foriegn invasion, which seems unlikely as we're currently too powerful and modern WMD make this a dicey proposition at best. More likely we'd be simply wiped out at a point we are weak to remove competion and left a diseased and radioactive wasteland.

I think fighting for our gun rights now will delay this outcome enough to be worthwhile. Whether we have to do it with legislation (or lack there of) or ammunition is really up how badly they want a disarmed populace.

If you enjoyed reading about "Molon Labe? Gimme a break." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!