How far are you willing to go to defend 2A

Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Lonestar

Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2006
Messages
701
This subject came up on another thread, and unfortunately I did not have a chance to explain my reasoning.

At times I enjoyed reading and contributing to some of the treads on THR, but I usually avoided the L&P section, or thread that have nothing to do with firearms or tactics. I think it started when I first started posting on THR and seen a post that wished Sarah Brady would die. A little harsh, and the Mods were all over it. I did some searching and this seemed to have happened a few times, everything being edited or deleted by mods.

I also see the occasional my wife / girlfriend does not like guns thread which usually a dozen or so comments pop up that you should dump that girl and keep the guns. Again multiple threads, just do a search.

I am a big fan of fair, honest and sensible gun laws, that are made to punish criminals, and that reduce crime by keeping illegal guns off the streets. When I present this, I'm usually attacked for being an anti.

Then there is the RKBA threads that somehow get into what would happen if the government decided to make gun ownership illegal. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem getting politically active and making sure that would not happen, but after the 2006 election I have read some grumblings. If a total ban came down, would I take up arms to fight the government??? Heck No. I want to live, I have a family, and if it came down to armed police at my home looking for a piece of property, they can have it from my warm living hands. Of course like the bootleggers and speakeasys of old, I will try to hide a few, and go shooting with other underground gun owners, all the while trying to have the ban repealed through legal means.

The point is we are all here because we love guns and the shooting sports. There are gun fans on this board that are a little too radical, and unfortunately like Islam these radicals give the rest of us gun owners a bad name. Call me hysterical, but is THR a radical, moderate, or liberal site for gun owners? While the feds look at websites do you think THR is higher on their monitoring list then let's say www.KTOG.org , www.glocktalk.com , www.neardeathexperiments.com , www.buildanark.net , www.xdtalk.com and others? Even in the surivial sites I mentioned there is no talk of fighting the federals who are coming to take our guns, that has popped up a few times on THR.

I feel most gun owners will not defend the RKBA to the death. Also most gun owners would follow US law regardless of the direction the country goes, and will try to change bad gun laws by legal, non violent means. Do most of you on THR agree?
 
Lonestar, staying with the idea of "fair, honest and sensible gun laws" for now: I suggest you read "Under the Gun" by Wright, Rossi & Daly. Univ. of Fla. Press, 1985.

Their primary conclusion was that no gun-control law ever passed in Florida had ever had any effect on the rate of violent crime involving firearms. Remember, this must include federal laws as well--including the GCA '68.

If there is no utility to a law, why have it?

When members of Congress declare that private citizens should not be allowed to own firearms of any sort; when the phrasings of the media indicate an attitude that gun-owners are inherently violent, what do you suggest as our attitude? How are we supposed to feel?

When we are called "knuckle-dragging Neanderthals" by the anti-gun groups, publicly and in print, how should we feel? Are we supposed to enjoy being called such names?

The abuse and maltreatment of gunowners has been going on since I first got involved in the political issues in 1967. I'm rather polite here at THR, but leave it that my opinions of the anti-gun crowd could readily be expressed in seriously harsh words--with fluency in several languages.

Art
 
No-No-No, I do not agree. I took an oath to protect, defend - the oath was a lifetime oath. I mean it. Sorry if this rubs many folks fur the wrong way, but, I TOOK the oath. And, if this is a leftist, liberal "gun" forum, I'm in the wrong place.
 
Was the 2A not created to arm the citizens against an overcontrolling government. In my opinion, 2A should have been defended with violence at the first sign of infringement. That is it's entire point.

But it's too late for that. The politicians know that we'll never start an armed revival and that there isn't enough people to do it.

We, as Americans, have lost our way and forgotten where we have come from. We have eaten, purchased, and hidden ourselves to the point of laziness and pacifism. The politicians no longer support "We the people" because "We the people" have let them get away with too much. They will continue to take advantadge of us, the will continue to rape us, our land, our money, our futures, and worst of all, our rights.

Strength is in numbers, but too many Americans can't count past 1.
 
Call me hysterical, but is THR a radical, moderate, or liberal site for gun owners?
Click to expand...

It is whatever you want it to be.

Usually to posters who are easily offended, it is tho opposite of whatever they think it should be.

That way you can place yourself in the minority and get to feel picked on. Then you can start posts where you complain about stuff. It's the circle of life.
 
I think smart money goes with "live to fight another day".

But...

Although there's a lot of gung-ho chest beating here, especially on the topic of "molon labe" (or ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ if you insist) I don't get down on those who do it because if you can't vent once in a while at a forum like this then where can you do it?

I'm reminded of a quote by H.L. Mecklin
"Every normal man must, at times, be tempted to spit on his hands hoist the black flag and start slitting throats."
 
In my opinion, 2A should have been defended with violence at the first sign of infringement.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but as you pointed out, it's too late for that to matter. Now that we've had these infringements for a long while, it would be best to simply keep trying to work within the system and lobby for change. On CCW rights, look how far we've come in the past 20 years. Interstate travel protection, same thing.
 
The 2nd amendment is the sensible gun Law. Any law written since, that in ANY way restricts any citizen from owning or carrying any gun is wrong.
 
When it comes to threads along the "what if" line...

Remember this:
Before 1775ish, most of the colonists were not in favor of independence form England. Even most of those who would become the founding fathers, such a Washington, did not favor separation. True, there were people like Jefferson and Paine who advocated it from day one, but most folks just wanted a fair reconciliation. It took a series of events for those who would ultimately fight to come to the conclusion that it was necessary to do so, and even then, there were never a majority of the population on either side of the battle. Most folks remained neutral or indifferent, particularly as the war dragged out longer than anyone suspected.
My point is that you will always have the radicals and we will always have the cautious… Both of whom we need, and both of their voices should be heard. And, as with most situations, the majority will stand in the middle, idly waiting for the outcome, before deciding what to do, at which point it is usually too late.
 
I really think it depends.
That is, if the government really dropped the hammer: banned all guns period. Then started house to house searches for weapons, I seriously would consider standing my ground (once I knew that my wife was safe).
Having said that, I do not think that will ever happen. I think those that want to disarm us know that there would be too many that would react with a fight if they ever did that. They know, the way to disarm the public is to ease into it. The AWB was a great example of the perfect way to go. First get "evil" guns banned (after all, who could complain about guns that obviouly have no sporting use from being banned), then simply change what guns are evil. Slowly limiting what is allowed and what is not. Once you only have a couple of hundred "gun nuts" left, disarming them is easy. This is the same method that has been used to "socialize" America. A little bit at a time, until people now WANT more government influence in their life (for every problem in their life they seek the government as the solution). Those of us that want less govenment are a shrinking minority.
And as others said, there has been some good advances in the last 20 years in the law as far as TRKBA; however, there has been a steady slip in gun demonization. So, I really fear the end game is not going well overall (and the other side knows it).
The reason for all of this is a complex interaction of many of the -isms that have sprung up over the last 30-40 years, that has resulted in self-absorbed parents that are willing to let their child's complete education be delived by socialist government schools.
Can it all be turned around? Sure, and usually by the strangest of reasons. So hope springs eternal, I just wish I saw more encourgaging signs.
But hey, who knows what the future my bring:p
Just my $0.02
 
And, if this is a leftist, liberal "gun" forum, I'm in the wrong place.
Click to expand...

It has its share of "the government won't come after my expensive over
under clay buster" neocon globalists. They are outnumbered by the old-line
conservative isolationist original-intent-of-the-Consitution "machine guns
need to be legal for everyone again" red-blooded American Citizens.
 
I think Dickle's post is the best take on the matter.

From my observations the Clinton years were probably the time where the powers that be (PTB) were testing the waters on gun bans and the like. Pass a few tough gun control laws but with sunset provisions, infiltrate and squeeze the private militias, perform a few well publicized raids, and see what the public reaction is. Get a few states to increase their gun control laws (ie. New York and New Jersey) without sunset provisions and see what happens.

So what happened? Here's my take on it.

The test case for raiding religious seperatists was the Branch Davidians and it went down a whole lot worse then I think they intended. The sheer amount of cover-up and missing evidence speaks volumes to this, I think. The BD's didn't passively give up, let the compound be raided, and let the agents take the weapons. They fought back most effectively. The only way to contain the embarassment at that point was to kill everyone inside so they couldn't tell their side of the story. Regardless, the Feds could not play it down and got a good chunk of the public riled. So, scratch the idea of raiding those groups. It's a very bad idea. Unless you're going after pacificist anabaptists that is, but there's no reason to do that.

The test case for gun bans was the AWB. Why else would there they have agreed to a sunset provision? If the public took it without a fight, then it could be easily extended by the next administration. However, we made our displeasure known and the government had not the guts to extended it regardless of GWB's words.

It seems to me that the attack on OK City was used as a means to begin the vilification of the private militias. The BD incident was also tied into this vilification. The point being to get the media to push against these groups and see what pushes back. I suspect the Randy Weaver raid was a part of this. Attempt a tactical hit on small, armed, isolated group and see what happens. That went badly too, and as time went by it became clear that the private militias were not about to be pushovers in the whole thing.

The only tactic that I belive was really found to be effective was to bombard the media consuming public with the ant-gun message. That is the only one that still seems to continue to this day in a level that I have seen increase during the Clinton years and not subside since. Gone are the vigilante TV shows like the A-Team, McGuyver, Knight Rider, and various PI shows (not really examples of quality programming either but they make my point). In are the cop shows, to reinforce the idea that only cops should have guns, and mindless reality TV with lots of immature participants.

So, what do I think they've learned? That they cannot forcibly take our guns without risking an popular uprising. However, they can feed us lies through the media and school system and hope to eventually change the public perception of firearm ownership that way. When enough change has happened, after enough time has passed, maybe then they can ask Mr. and Mrs. America for their guns and they will happily hand them over.

So, the fight is not only against bad laws but it is for the hearts and minds of our fellow citizens. Win the latter and the former will take care of itself.

Fortunately, it seems that we have a great beach-head with the CCW issue. In states that have permit carry crime is down and the fears of shootouts over trivial matters were unrealized. In the places where carry is forbidden and ownership difficult, crime is up. Enough states have open carry that a case can be made for that to be the norm, so in time I think that is where the next push should be. Push the states that allow CCW, but not open carry, to make open carry legal. Later on, push to repeal the permitting process altogether. From there, on to the next fight.

Boiling the frog works both ways.
 
Agreed, but as you pointed out, it's too late for that to matter. Now that we've had these infringements for a long while, it would be best to simply keep trying to work within the system and lobby for change. On CCW rights, look how far we've come in the past 20 years. Interstate travel protection, same thing.
Click to expand...

No, it's not the best thing to do, it's the only thing we can do. The only thing we're capable of doing, that's probably the better way to put it.

There are only two solutions, either play by their rules, or start an armed uprising to stop them. People aren't going to start an armed uprising. Half are too lazy, the other half are too afraid. You'll have a few dozen that actually would attempt it and they will be burned at the stake by everyone because they will immediately be classified as either terrorists or a crazy militia. Even their own fellow gun owners will turn their backs on them.

No, we keep sending our money to the NRA who lobbies the goverment on anything anti-2A that comes down capitol hill. Whoopdy-do. That has accomplished nothing but further infringements on our rights. I'm sorry, but having to apply for a CCW permit or wait 3 days for a firearm or fill out any type of paperwork is an infringement.

Not once have I seen the NRA say anything along the lines of "Stop this now, it's violating our constitutional rights!" This is what should be said. Unfortunetly, "without infringement" seems to be lost on 99% of the population.
 
I wholeheartedly disagree with Lonestar's original question. If you anyone does someday take your guns don't bitch when they take your family and home too.

I believe in the 2nd so strongly that I am ready to die for it.
 
How far are you willing to go to defend 2A
Click to expand...

As with most things, how far I am willing to go to defend depends upon how great the threat is. Right now I'm a member of the NRA, GOA, VCDL, and IWLA. I pay my dues, occasionally donate a little extra, vote in every election, and try to set a good example personally. In other words, not much but more than most. If the situation changed, then I might consider doing more.

I think smart money goes with "live to fight another day".
Click to expand...

Absolutely. Who was the only winner of WWI? The US, because we waited until the fight was almost over then we jumped in with overwhelming force at the end. :D
 
I have a theory that it ain't bright to talk about shooting gubmint folk in order to defend your 2ndA rights on the www.

As the Norse say: "Never brag about something before you do it".

Biker
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

T
  • Locked
What is going on here?
Replies
4
Views
352
solareclipse
S
M
  • Locked
How far should we go to accomodate those with problems?
2 3
Replies
53
Views
2K
macmuffy
M
M
  • Locked
UK: Are you a gun owner? Let us in OR ELSE, say Blighty's top cops
Replies
19
Views
2K
Ignition Override
I
Sebastian the Ibis
  • Locked
THR cited in McDonald Amicus Brief
2
Replies
29
Views
3K
ohgrady
O
K
  • Locked
Conn. Officials tell gun owners to relinquish...
Replies
11
Views
1K
ugaarguy
ugaarguy
Back
Top