1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Where's the Line? -- again

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Mark Benningfield, Dec 28, 2002.

  1. Mark Benningfield

    Mark Benningfield Well-Known Member

    Hello All.

    There have been quite a few posts both here and on TFL regarding where we would each "draw the line" personally in a given SHTF situation. I would say that there is a pretty fair consensus that at a certain point, we would each take action to defend our rights, particularly the RKBA. Here's my question:

    Given that situation, would we want help from like-minded persons, and conversely, at what point would we (each of us) consider helping someone else? To put it another way, can we envision a situation in which we would actively respond to the plight of another?

    Now, for the benefit of the Committee for State Security, I am certainly and definitely NOT advocating armed insurrection against the Government. I consider this topic of discussion purely hypothetical, and a natural extension of the question of where each of us would draw the line.
  2. 2dogs

    2dogs Well-Known Member

    When they come to take your guns (they will) they will do it one household at a time. First they will ask that all law abiding folks turn them in voluntarily- many will. But it will be alot harder for you to decide at the moment of truth to fight back, if it's just you and your wife and kids, than it would be if you and all your neighbors had thrown up the barricades.

    I suppose it would be wise to decide well in advance where your own personal line is, what you are willing to sacrifice when the time comes.

    But to answer your question, I suppose that I would be willing to fight to help others who were fighting in the same cause.

    I don't think there would be a USA if folks had not banded together.
  3. 2nd Amendment

    2nd Amendment member

    I see these threads as a good thing. They help acheive a consensus. Slowly and maybe somewhat limited, but it's a start. Peoples "lines" get closer together, converge.

    That's a good thing I feel because I'm not going to offer any disclaimers at all.
  4. 80fl

    80fl Well-Known Member

    This topic is, for most, a dichotomy.

    #1: Where "IS" your line?

    #2: Where would you "LIKE" you line to be?

    To answer, from a personal level:

    #1: My absolute line, at this time, is unknown. In all honesty, and I'm sure results will be similar for most, my line has shifted.
    For years I swore that I would NEVER purchase a firearm that would require my signature on a .gov piece of paper. For several years after the 4473's, I abided by that self imposed "line". But then, there were a few items that I wanted and could not get without that dreaded signature. My line shifted.

    For years, I swore that I would never apply for a concealed carry permit. I abided by that self imposed "line" for quite some time. As time passed, I decided that it was not worth the risk to myself and family were I to get busted for "illegal carry". I finally got a CCW. My line shifted.

    #2: Where would I like my line to be?

    Well, unfortunately, I have already given up ground, as noted above. I would like my line to be: "I will never, under any circumstances, acquiesce to ANY government edict that will in any way interfere with my 2nd amendment rights.

    Will I ever hand in "unregistered" firearms? Not a chance.
    Will I ever hand in "registered" (4473) firearms? Possibly.
    Will I ever "register" existing unpapered arms? Hahahaha(uh NO)
  5. Derek Zeanah

    Derek Zeanah System Administrator Staff Member

    I don't think things will ever play out like that

    I wonder if we'd ever actually know the plight of another.

    Look back at the atrocities that keep being mentioned as far as government abuse -- waco, ruby ridge, whassisface in Malibu who was shot while state officers were hoping to find pot growing on his property so they could seize it (and who later refused permission for fire trucks to travel on gov't peoperty so the widow lost the home to fire), etc...

    How many of those incidents were accurately reported in the media? Would you willingly risk everything to help a cultish child abuser and crystal-meth pusher who was stockpiling arms and firing on government agents who were pursuing ligitimate complaints? You mean that's not what happened? Then how would you know the truth in the next situation?

    Ths issue is that if it's not you or people who are very close to you, the inclination is to buy the official line -- "yeah, it's bad what happened to so-and-so, but he shouldn't have broken the law by doing xxxxxxxxxxx." I don't see that changing very soon.

    So, if we get to the point of "crossing a line," I'd guess it will be individuals acting alone, rather than like-minded people rallying to the defense of one another.

    Just my take on it though.
  6. G-Raptor

    G-Raptor Well-Known Member

    IMO, where the line is depends on what exactly hits the fan.

    In the case of significant "civil disturbance" or general lawlessness, I think the line is pretty clear to most people. People will naturally band together to defend their families, neighbors and friends. Of course there will always be people who will try to hide under blanket and hope that trouble passes them by, others will attempt to wait until "the authorities" arrive to restore order, but a significant number of people would recognize the situation for what it is and stand to hold the line.

    The line is less clear when the issue is political oppression. The question is often asked, "what will you do when they come to take your guns?". I think the more appropriate question is "what will you do when they come to take your neighbor's guns?"

    If squads of blue-helmeted UN troops began marching through the streets, kicking in door, and confiscating firearms I believe the firefight would be immediate and intense. Most people would see this as an invasion and respond accordingly.

    OTOH, if the police are quietly going house to house to search for "illegal" weapons, the response would be slower but I think the end result would be the same. Eventually (and it won't take long) somebody will resist and they will be killed. That will cause more people to resist down the line and the police will have to use more and more harsh measures to force compliance. Ultimately they will be seen as "blue-helmeted invaders" as well. If you believe that "you are next", do you wait until they are standing at your door before you do anything?

    While government force is perceived as isolated and "reasonable", most people will wait. The "line" has not been crossed. When that force is perceived as widespread and "unreasonable", resistance naturally occurs.

    The "civil rights" movement of the 60s is a good example - although a largely non-violent one.

    Racial oppression in the south, including beatings and lynchings was perceived generally to be the result of isolated actions by individuals and small groups. The Jim Crow laws were perceived to be "reasonable", to those not affected by them, since there was no widespread resistance. However, when video was shown on national television of armed police (i.e. government) attacking peaceful (unarmed) marchers (men, women, and children) with clubs, dogs, and firehoses, the perception rapidly shifted. The people in all parts of the country, including in the south, saw this as government sanctioned oppression and violence. It was clear to all that if this type of force could legitimately be used against blacks, it could also be used against whites, as was demonstrated later at the Democratic convention in Chicago and "peace rallies" like Kent State.

    "The line" had been crossed and they demanded the situation be "corrected". Had the federal government not intervened, I believe that a widespread civil disturbance would have resulted.

    The situation is similar with the "gun rights" movement. For most of the last 150 years, "gun control" only applied to blacks and immigrant "minorities". It was generally perceived that blacks and immigrants had a "criminal nature" and prohibiting them from possessing firearms was considered "reasonable" by most people. Beginning in the late 60s, gun control - although still largely directed at minorities - began to expand to include the general population. As it became clear that the rights of all citizens were now at risk, (nonviolent) resistance began to build, cluminating in the various "gun rights" organizations we know today.

    For most people, particularly those not involved with firearms, gun control is still perceived as a crime control issue and therefore reasonable. However that perception is shifting as more people begin to see it as a matter of "disarmament". When that disarmament is percieved as "forced" and widespread, the line will have been crossed again.
  7. Orion

    Orion Well-Known Member

    Boy you gun owners sure do have a lot of thinking to do. I sure am glad I sold all my guns before things ever got to the point of confiscation and turning them in.
  8. Neal Bloom

    Neal Bloom Well-Known Member

    "Committee for State Security"

    Is this a bureau or a sub-department of Homeland Security?:D
  9. GhostShooter

    GhostShooter Well-Known Member

    Wow G-Raptor, that was an outstanding post. As for the absolute line in the sand (and I think everyone will agree with this one) is when they take away your right to vote for a change. Also, isn't it sad when we have to (or feel the need to) put disclaimers on messages we type to like minded people because someone in the Government might take it the wrong way.:mad:

    As for helping your neighbor. Remember we either hang together or we will surely hang separately..

  10. TheBluesMan

    TheBluesMan Senior Member

    That was an excellent post, G-Raptor!

    The last couple of paragraphs of your post make me wonder if it would be better to come to your neighbor's defense with a firearm or with a video camera...
  11. Ian

    Ian Well-Known Member

    Bluesman - both! :D

    RAY WOODROW 3RD Well-Known Member

    The line gets closer everyday..........
    May it come during my lifetime and not my children........
    I hope it never will come...........
    God save us all if it does.......
  13. CAP

    CAP Well-Known Member

    Orion? Do you have paperwork on all the handguns you sold? At least in my area, the buyer would have to provide a legit permit to purchase a handguns. Long guns can be legally transfered without paperwork.

    Of course you sold them to someone unknown you never saw before or since. ;)

    As said before, try to figure out kinda of where your line might be, and plan accordingly. :cool:
  14. Justin

    Justin Moderator Staff Member

    One of the things that I think is absolutely killing the liberty movement is a total lack of media savvy. This not only applies to those who go on the air to represent our side, but doubly so in the event of 'the .gov has utterly overstepped its bounds' type situation.

    In the event of violent resistance, the media would spin it in such a way as to put popular opinion favor of the .gov. Instead of people fighting for their rights, the populace at large would be fed 'Joe Blow, BATF agent, father of 6 and regular churchgoer was gunned down by radical militia members during a raid intended to seize illegal guns.'
    Then they'd cut to still shots of Joe on graduation day, and video of his mourning family.

    Contrast that with handheld, eyewitness video footage of Joe Blow stomping someone's poodle and beating innocent people and suddenly the .gov is put in the position of having to defend their actions.

    For a case study, take the Elian Gonzalez episode: a single photograph of a BDU-wearing agent sticking a submachinegun into the face of a small unarmed child. Imagine if suddenly such images, both still and video were popping up all over the place. The public outcry would be impossible to ignore.

    The response to what I've typed above is that even if all the images were in our favor, it's unlikely that the media would air them without heavy editorializing, if at all.

    That's where the digital age comes to the rescue. Go into any electronics store, and there are going to be camcorders set up to record on Digital Video tape. Most home computers now come with video editing software as well as the ability to interface with DV camcorders. Voila: Instant video production suite. From there, you're only an upload away from disseminating video images of gov't run amock on P2P file sharing programs like Kazaa, and once that video's on the net, archived on systems all over the place there's no way to stop it from being sent all over the place.

    The most powerful weapon to fight a culture war isn't the pistol on your hip, the shotgun under the bed, or the rifle in the gunsafe. It's the one you're looking at right now.
  15. Kevinch

    Kevinch Well-Known Member

    The ironic thing is, that if it ever does get to the point that guns are confiscated & we don't comply, we have transformed ourselves into that "criminal" element that we always are shouting about, that don't obey the laws of our society.

    Tough choice. Do we illegally hold onto our weapons, & possibly put our spouses & children in jepordy of losing all their freedom; or do we hand over our guns & be rendered defenseless to the vermon that would stalk us?


    It just goes to show how we cannot let our guard down & keep the thumb on those who produce & impliment legislation.
  16. pax

    pax Well-Known Member

    An extended quote on this topic, from an essay by Milton Mayer, author of They Thought They Were Free. The person being interviewed was an ordinary German citizen during the Holocaust years.
  17. pax

    pax Well-Known Member

    I'm sorry that essay was so long. It's a good essay. You should go back and read it. It is well worth it.

    For those with short attention spans, the essay says that the good Germans never found a 'good time' to stand up for what was right. They were fearful of looking like fools, of being alarmists, and they kept thinking everyone else would see it when it got bad enough, and join them then. But things just got worse and worse. They kept compromising, redrawing their line in the sand. And there was never one big, overpowering, beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt moment to fight back.

    It applies to this discussion, I think ... but what it says is frightening, and perhaps too awful to think about.


    Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal. – Martin Luther King Jr.
  18. sm

    sm member

    Great read everyone
    we must never be complacent-never

    pax, IMO sharing your Essay was pertinent, not long.

    The reality is, it happened--we must learn and heed history
    Last edited: Jan 2, 2003
  19. ravinraven

    ravinraven Well-Known Member

    Where is the line???

    IF [when] it gets down to gun confiscation, it will be too late. We will be taken out one at a time. In my opinion, the answer is to have a very well organized, disciplined and secure group that can raise money to fight in court, or failing that, can raise men and guns to fight for our liberty just as they did at Lexington and Concord.

    Military people took an oath to defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. I am not advocating the overthrow of that constitution. I am advocating the defence of the constitution against any enemy government be it in Moscow, Bejing, Bagdad, Washington, etc.

    This group has to be a political party with teeth. We make every attempt to use the system to save itself, but if the present corruption of the system prevents it from being able to save itself, the teeth come into play and chew up the enemys of liberty.

    This is much more than a one man one day effort. If we are not capable of doing this, then liberty is over with and we'll all march to the Nazi drums as played by such liberal lights as Hillary and Chap-of-Quick-Dick Kennedy.

Share This Page