What if...

[Combat-wombat]

This is kind of a follow-up on NIGHTWATCH's post about if the government took away your gun rights completely. Anyway, say some armed federal agents came to your house demanding your weapons, or else they would storm your house and arrest you. (of course this is assuming that this is happening nationwide to all gun owners that have not committed any crimes) Would you shoot back?

 

[Jason Demond]

Sorry officer, I sold all my guns a long time ago.

Anyone busting into my home would be considered the enemy, and appropriate action would be taken.

 

[AZTOY]

The first thing i would do is get the WORD OUT on this forum and others.:banghead:

Then well....................................

 

[Airwolf]

If it was as you stated, a general "we're coming to get them all" act then I'd say that things must already be in the toilet and that there would be very little to lose since it would be obvious that most of our rights were gone.

Try and get the word out to as many people on-line as you can, lock, load and stand by to repel boarders.

As has been pointed out before, Nazi Germany may have ended up a quite different story if Jews had met the SS troopers at their door with a bang rather than a compliant “yes, sir.â€

 

[cratz2]

I think many folks are in the same situation as me. If all the guns in my safe and cabinet disappeared, I'd certainly be upset, but I wouldn't be unarmed. And if the guns that might not be in the safe or the cabinet are found, I still wouldn't be unarmed.

It pays to have friends or family that you trust absolutely implicitly.

To answer the question, if someone knocked on my door or yelled at our house through a megaphone, all would go peacefully. If agents were walking up my hill and shot my dog, there would be another Ruby Ridgin' goin' on. And if agends batter my door down and come in with guns, I'm going down fighting because that's exactly what this country is founded on.

There's a right way to do things and a wrong way to do things and eventually the government along with all of its abbreviated agencies will figure that out.

 

[PATH]

It is hard to speculate about what one might do. One never knows until the moment arrives. I hope and pray it never does.

 

[Feanaro]

Unless I am caught flat footed and I am sure my family would be killed/captured, I won't shoot back. I'll shoot first.

 

[telewinz]

This poll is a little bias, a 3rd response might be "as a law abiding citizen" I will obey the law but will work to see this law repealed by due process. To say that banning gun ownership is living in tyranny is narrow minded and inaccurate. Every right we have is regulated to some extent, its called government. You demand others obey the laws you agree with but YOU get to pick and choose? How do you stand on abortion, thats an unpopular law also, I guess you support people's "rights" to destroy clinics and kill law abiding citizens. They get to pick and choose the laws they will obey just like you. What about drunk driving? Boy, I bet a great many more people would choose not to obey that one. Your idea of freedom and rights amounts to nothing more than a suicide pact. Next you are going to say what a great patriot you are, like the guy that blew-up that government building a few years ago (your name isn't Tim is it?). Or the 911 terrorists (patriots) that took down the twin towers, they got to pick and choose just like you. Where does it stop and where is the logic?

 

[12.7x99mm]

Sure... of course I would.

 

[Dionysusigma]

In agreement with telewinz, I too think that the wording here is a little biased. But I still went with #1. If the government ever gets to the point when they decide that they're above what they are founded upon, then it is not only our right, but our duty to revolt.

I'd stop by the gun shop too. They might have a few sales on arms and ammo I could take advantage of before defending my god-given rights.

 

[Beav]

If we ever let it come to that, I would probably move to another country.

 

[Combat-wombat]

Telewinz brings up a point. But like Dionysusigma said, it is our duty to revolt. Ensuring that our freedoms are protected is our number one priority as citizens of the U.S.

 

[Admiral Thrawn]

Well, by the time I was old enough to get my "gun license" here in Australia last year, the tyranny was already well in place: and legislation was (and still is) in the works to ban even more guns: this time, the majority of defensive handguns, cultimating in another horrid, futile and wasteful "buyback" at the end of this year.

:banghead:

 

[telewinz]

"Our duty is to revolt" c'mon, the prisons are full of people you and I happily put their because they revolted against the system. Democracy demands just as much tolerance and responsibility as it does freedom, it has always been a political compromise that requires intelligent and responsible people to succeed. The situation stated was "they are coming to get your guns", 80 years ago they were coming to get your bottle(s) of Jim Beam or Mad Dog. For the last 70 years, most of us can drink our Jim Beam legally, the law was repealed by Due Process. The system works, he didn't say democracy had been flushed down the toilet. Hmmm, sounds like we have a few "Sunshine Patriots". We gun owners have lost and will lose a battle on occasion (as does any special interest group) that doesn't mean we lost the War. Classified Ad: FULL-TIME HELP....... Looking for a few Law Abiding Citizens, part-timers need not apply. Take the High Road even if it hurts, in the long run you will win more converts and the WAR.

 

[Captain Scarlet]

no, I would not want a confrontation with LE, you cant fight the
government, unless you want to get killed? if they want the guns
that bad they can have them, my family and my life are more important than material objects.

 

[dog3]

I keep seeing this issue come up over and over and over again. Always with the same result. However, I submit that we have pretty much been losing this battle for our rights under the 2nd for about 70 years. We haven't won anything, only lost. Yet no-one has played the "From my cold-dead hands" trump yet.

I keep posting this noise over and over again in some form or another trying to get either a really good rebuttal so that I'll shut up, or a concensus that things resemble what I perceive them to be.

Please, I am not trying to be inflamatory, only trying to get a discussion of the heart of the matter to the forefront. Please know that I only me "you" or "we" in the literal sense, not the read sense.


"I quote myself from our Alma Mater

"They" won't come and get "your" guns.

"You" will turn them in.

----------------------------------------------------
Please, this is just rhetoric, don't construe this to mean that I believe anyone here will or won't turn in their guns. I'm just working with the wording of the question. About "accepting" tyranny an all.
----------------------------------------------------

Moving right along.

"We the People" have a right, enumerated in the Bill of RIghts to keep and bear arms. Simple.

"They" have no claims on this right, by law.

However, they do make claims on this right, like saying that one cannot bear arms. In what many consider to be the best cases, without a permit.

So, folks go out and get permits.

Now, on a purely pragmatic level, this is the only sensible way to proceed.

However, on a more philosophic level, this strongly implies that those who applied for permits accept the claim of the government over RKBA.

A devils deal if you will.

From a point of pure ideology, a ccw is a concession to the states claim over your inalienable right to keep and bear arms. From a point of pure practicality, a ccw is the only practical approach.

So, by extension, "They" will not need to come and get "your" guns. All they need to do is keep narrowing the definition of what you can and cannot own (National Firearms Act) and making it not too horrible to comply with the laws, until there is hardly anything that fits the profile of a legal arm, without those arms being fully registered and tracked.

Then, as time goes by, they will do buy-backs and turn-ins, until eventually, the only folks who have firearms are the "They" of which you speak and outlaws.

The good and decent law abiding will have disarmed a long time ago.

I'm not saying it will be easy, I'm not saying that there won't be a lot of fuss, but in the end, as in the all years since 1934, "They" will get them all. Time favors the patient in this, as in most things.

The pressure is on us, not them."

 

[Devonai]

I imagine there would be a standoff, at which point I would demand confirmation of the warrant. If the warrant was valid and they had the right address (my greatest concern IMO), then I would surrender.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Everyone is a tough guy on the internet.

If "the government" kicks down your door with you, your wife, and kids in the house, and you decide to fight back, everyone is going to be killed. Count on that.

 

[telewinz]

The whole problem lies with the way the 2nd amendment is written, it's not as concise as the 1st amendment. It is and logically can be interperated several ways (as the Bible is) by educated and intelligent people with a biased or unbiased view. Yes, I've read what our forefathers had to say on the subject but it's not enough, that why the BAN against slavery has never been overturned in a court of law. So the battle continues, it not for the weak minded nor the "SunShine Patriots". We have to win the hearts and minds of the American voter by our responsible actions, not by threats and loud voices. McVee, Ruby Ridge, and Waco are hardly worthy to be considered the "Poster Children" of the Pro-gun movement. They were guilty felons who refused to answer for their actions to the proper authorities, or are we still picking and choosing which laws we respect. At the time of WACO, no one I spoke to thought the government acted harshly, we were angry that the government took so long to subdue the "nut". When the women and children were killed, the public washed their hands of all responsibility. The stand-off was ended only because of the political pressure bought to bear by John Q. Public, how quickly some forget.

 

[Combat-wombat]

If the rebels in the Revolutionary War had an attitude like Captain Scarlet, we'd all be speaking with a British accent right now.

 

[firestar]

Are those the only choices?

 

[telewinz]

Combat-Wombat, We are like our Revolutionary war "heroes"

Only about a 1/3 of the colonials actively supported the rebellion the rest were either against it or indifferent. In truth, the colonials were treated and taxed much less (1/25th) than an Englishman living in London or anywhere else in the empire. If all the taxes imposed upon the colonies had suceeded, combined they would not have paid the expenses incurred by the British to protect the 13 colonies, they only wanted the colonies to help defray their expense, not bear even a major portion of the cost. Ben Franklin left to negotiate with the crown to avoid war, he was instructed NOT to except ANY OFFER no matter how reasonable or fair it was.
There is high school history and then their is the real thing. HMMM, I wonder what the tax rate was for the average citizen AFTER we won our freedom (you will recall that our soldiers were by and large "stiffed" by the U.S. after the war for years). What do you want to bet it was much higher? I can't think of one new freedom we gained from our victory, we were even permitted to have our own flag if we wished, all we had to do was obey legal authority. Things sure are different today.

I'm going to start a poll to see if we should repeal our Declaration of Independance, we have been had!

 

[Combat-wombat]

Okay, so it seems most of us enjoy freedom, but a few of us are socialist pigs. The good news is that if you feel you are suffering from SPS (Socialist Pig Syndrome), you can get help. SPA (Socialist Pigs Anonymous) meets the first Tuesday of every month at 7:00 PM in your local church basement. Remember, the first step is admitting you have a problem.

 

[general]

I bent my tinfoil hat!

what other evil lurks....

 

[John/az]

Boy, I don't come here much, but this one got me to post back, mostly because of some serious flaws in the logic.

Telewinz posted:

...I guess you support people's "rights" to destroy clinics and kill law abiding citizens. They get to pick and choose the laws they will obey just like you. What about drunk driving? Boy, I bet a great many more people would choose not to obey that one. Your idea of freedom and rights amounts to nothing more than a suicide pact. Next you are going to say what a great patriot you are, like the guy that blew-up that government building a few years ago (your name isn't Tim is it?). Or the 911 terrorists (patriots) that took down the twin towers, they got to pick and choose just like you. Where does it stop and where is the logic?

Gun ownership is not an infringment upon someone else's right to life, or property. To say that allowing people to hurt other people or to destroy their property is okay because they have that "right" is entirely flawed.

We have the right to worship who, where, and what we may, BUT if you choose to offer human sacrifice to your god(s) that is just a bit of an infringement upon the life of the sacrifice, don't you think? And as such you would be charged with murder. Now, if you don't agree with the law, and you start crying, "It infringes upon my right to worship!" you've got some seriously mixed up values that need some straightening out.

Those who cry, "He has a gun! He's infringing upon my right to feel safe!" really don't understand what a right really is, nor do they understand what personal responsibility is. And when fighting against this warped thinking in the legislation and the courts does not work, then people who DO understand these principles are left with only two choices: Acquiesce or start shooting.

It seems to me that about 1/3rd of the colonists chose the latter (according to you).

While I think this poll is biased, I ceratinly can't agree with your flawed logic against it.