Dogsoldier
Member
Guns...what guns?? I sold those evil offensive things off at the gunshow years ago...
60 days to disarm
- Thread starter Rebel Gunman HK
- Start date
- Status
2nd Amendment
member
Depends. First would be to attempt to use those 60 days to organize individuals I know well and who have similar tendencies. If I could do this then i could logically assume other people would be able to do this and would do it. If that is the case then we have the proto-revolutionary force established and the game is on.
If I were unable to organize/network with like-thinkers whom I trust, they being unwilling to stand and fight at that point, then I would hide my firearms and wait until things got bad enough people were forced to take action. And I'd pray that all those people who were unwilling to take a stand at first were at least willing to defy the criminals in power and do the same as I did in the beginning and were still able to arm themselves. If that failed then I suppose at some point I'd be the lone gunman you read about in the newspaper...if they allow news then.
"Stupid Armed Fool Killed By Loyal Government Troops, Safety of Nation Preserved!"
If I were unable to organize/network with like-thinkers whom I trust, they being unwilling to stand and fight at that point, then I would hide my firearms and wait until things got bad enough people were forced to take action. And I'd pray that all those people who were unwilling to take a stand at first were at least willing to defy the criminals in power and do the same as I did in the beginning and were still able to arm themselves. If that failed then I suppose at some point I'd be the lone gunman you read about in the newspaper...if they allow news then.
"Stupid Armed Fool Killed By Loyal Government Troops, Safety of Nation Preserved!"
geekWithA.45
Moderator Emeritus
I'm sure the Agent Schmukatelli's of the world...
are guaging the pulse of the nation.
Something I've never heard discussed on this board:
The value of the MAD principle.
Anyone remember mutual assured destruction? As long as both sides _believed_ the other would go ape???? if someone lit a nuke, neither side would actually light a nuke.
Similarly, as long as the forces of evil (and stripping the citizens of their arms is an evil act, make no mistake) believe that some significant number of us are willing to go ape???? and "vote from the rooftops", should certain lines be crossed, their actions will be.....circumspect.
And that, my friends, is the VERY PURPOSE of 2A. To keep a lid on these clowns. Certainly, they wish to be unshackled, and have a free hand, but it is literally OUR arms, the very duck guns and target pistols and {gasp} politically incorrect firearms with military pedigrees that sit in our closets that restrain them.
As for me, I am a peacable, decent, moral, and ethical human being. No JUST basis on which to demand that I should surrender my arms exists.
Therefore:
Any attempt to disarm ME, and the millions of other peacable, decent, moral, and ethical humans just like me, is UNJUST at it's very root, no matter what "laws" have been enacted to give it seeming justification.
The question very quickly becomes: "should this come to pass, despite our best efforts, should we, who are in the position to do something about it, and have the means to resist, ALLOW OURSELVES to become the victims of that, injustice, and any subsequent injustices that may then be visited upon a disarmed populace with impunity?"
That is the question that we endlessly grapple with in these threads that deal with "SHTF", "What would you do?" and "Where is the line?".
We grapple with the question precisely because we ARE moral, because we seek to be just, and because we know the value of human life, even the lives of those who seek to destroy us. (Destroy us in the sense that if we no longer keep and bear arms, we cease to be who we are: gunowners) We know that the clear cut, black and white scenario is unlikely to materialize, and we're smart enough to recognize that the method of incrementalism is designed precisely to deny us that clean, justification for taking to arms that would be easily recognizable to the public at large.
We will do our best and work to prevent that this day would ever come. We write our letters, make our contributions, join the NRA, GOA, NJCSD, vote intelligently, and excercise jury nullification.
Our best efforts may not be enough. What many people don't understand is that the system of checks and balances can break down, and the Republic CAN FAIL. It doesn't take much: an executive that oversteps his power a little, a legislature that infringes a little, a judiciary that refuses to reign them in, and a populace free only to say "We are free", as opposed to actually BEING FREE.
I'll say it again: The Republic CAN FAIL. That sort of thing has happened before. In a similar vein, entire continents can be in thrall to bad ideas and outright lies for GENERATIONS, and the cost of human suffering and lost opportunity is incalcuably IMMENSE. We came awfully close to losing it entirely in the 20th century, as Fascism swept through Europe unchecked, and as most of Asia and central Europe went insane and embraced communism. Earlier centuries had their own horror shows, as well: The Inquisition, the Burning Times, and The Dark Ages were no picnic.
As humans, we seem doomed to forever dance on the edge of disaster.
The Declaration of Independence spelled out a bold promise, and the Constitution sought to deliver on that promise and make it durable, but to make it work requires that it be implemented by Humans of Intelligence, Vision, Integrity, and Honor. Do we have such now? Humans are never perfect, but on the whole, where do they weigh in the balance?
are guaging the pulse of the nation.
Something I've never heard discussed on this board:
The value of the MAD principle.
Anyone remember mutual assured destruction? As long as both sides _believed_ the other would go ape???? if someone lit a nuke, neither side would actually light a nuke.
Similarly, as long as the forces of evil (and stripping the citizens of their arms is an evil act, make no mistake) believe that some significant number of us are willing to go ape???? and "vote from the rooftops", should certain lines be crossed, their actions will be.....circumspect.
And that, my friends, is the VERY PURPOSE of 2A. To keep a lid on these clowns. Certainly, they wish to be unshackled, and have a free hand, but it is literally OUR arms, the very duck guns and target pistols and {gasp} politically incorrect firearms with military pedigrees that sit in our closets that restrain them.
As for me, I am a peacable, decent, moral, and ethical human being. No JUST basis on which to demand that I should surrender my arms exists.
Therefore:
Any attempt to disarm ME, and the millions of other peacable, decent, moral, and ethical humans just like me, is UNJUST at it's very root, no matter what "laws" have been enacted to give it seeming justification.
The question very quickly becomes: "should this come to pass, despite our best efforts, should we, who are in the position to do something about it, and have the means to resist, ALLOW OURSELVES to become the victims of that, injustice, and any subsequent injustices that may then be visited upon a disarmed populace with impunity?"
That is the question that we endlessly grapple with in these threads that deal with "SHTF", "What would you do?" and "Where is the line?".
We grapple with the question precisely because we ARE moral, because we seek to be just, and because we know the value of human life, even the lives of those who seek to destroy us. (Destroy us in the sense that if we no longer keep and bear arms, we cease to be who we are: gunowners) We know that the clear cut, black and white scenario is unlikely to materialize, and we're smart enough to recognize that the method of incrementalism is designed precisely to deny us that clean, justification for taking to arms that would be easily recognizable to the public at large.
We will do our best and work to prevent that this day would ever come. We write our letters, make our contributions, join the NRA, GOA, NJCSD, vote intelligently, and excercise jury nullification.
Our best efforts may not be enough. What many people don't understand is that the system of checks and balances can break down, and the Republic CAN FAIL. It doesn't take much: an executive that oversteps his power a little, a legislature that infringes a little, a judiciary that refuses to reign them in, and a populace free only to say "We are free", as opposed to actually BEING FREE.
I'll say it again: The Republic CAN FAIL. That sort of thing has happened before. In a similar vein, entire continents can be in thrall to bad ideas and outright lies for GENERATIONS, and the cost of human suffering and lost opportunity is incalcuably IMMENSE. We came awfully close to losing it entirely in the 20th century, as Fascism swept through Europe unchecked, and as most of Asia and central Europe went insane and embraced communism. Earlier centuries had their own horror shows, as well: The Inquisition, the Burning Times, and The Dark Ages were no picnic.
As humans, we seem doomed to forever dance on the edge of disaster.
The Declaration of Independence spelled out a bold promise, and the Constitution sought to deliver on that promise and make it durable, but to make it work requires that it be implemented by Humans of Intelligence, Vision, Integrity, and Honor. Do we have such now? Humans are never perfect, but on the whole, where do they weigh in the balance?
abaddon
Member
I've thought about this a lot and I think there is a distinction between what I call individual revolution and community revolution. As I use the terms, individual revolution is when people take the law into their own hands without the support of the people. Community revolution would be when the people as a whole decide to overthrow the government. I think the Declaration of Independence was talking about community revolution.
As you see here, "people" is used, not person. Thus, I take it that our political foundations allow for community revolution, but not necessarily individual revolution. (Technically, since this philosophy of community revolution is the basis of our law, community revolution would not even be revolution.) If the weight of the people was against the government I would engage in community revolution.
If the weight of the people was not against the government I'm not sure what I would do. At the very least I would hide my guns and hope that the people change their minds. But I'm not sure if I would engage in individual revolution. I wouldn't rule it out, there are some situations in history where it was justified (i.e. third reich), but it would depend on the situation.
Jeff
(not an exact quote, as it is from memory)
As you see here, "people" is used, not person. Thus, I take it that our political foundations allow for community revolution, but not necessarily individual revolution. (Technically, since this philosophy of community revolution is the basis of our law, community revolution would not even be revolution.) If the weight of the people was against the government I would engage in community revolution.
If the weight of the people was not against the government I'm not sure what I would do. At the very least I would hide my guns and hope that the people change their minds. But I'm not sure if I would engage in individual revolution. I wouldn't rule it out, there are some situations in history where it was justified (i.e. third reich), but it would depend on the situation.
Jeff
Henry Bowman
Senior Member
It would be time to "feed the hogs."
revlar
Member
Since when is the defense of the Constitution an "illegal" activity?
Seems to me there's only one answer to this scenario - "Molon Labe".
Seems to me there's only one answer to this scenario - "Molon Labe".
Where does it say ANY private citizen may LAWFULLY act based on their PRIVATE opinion/definition of the Constitution? I thought that was part of our system of checks and balances, the Judicial Branch of our government. If you disagree with a law, what you are saying is that its OK to do what YOU feel is right and force your values on the majority. Just what form of government (if any) do you wish to force on the majority?
anarchy:
Absence of any form of political authority.
Political disorder and confusion.
Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.
anarchy:
Absence of any form of political authority.
Political disorder and confusion.
Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.
Rebel Gunman HK
member
Thank you for taking the time to answer. The responses you gave are the ones I hoped for. I just hope there is enough of us to make sure this never happens in the first place. Until then take care and buy ammo. And make sure your friends in family know what to do with it. Looking forward to getting my CCW permit here in NM when it becomes availible next year.
Baba Louie
Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2002
- Messages
- 3,831
http://keepandbeararms.com/Mancus/liberty.asp
telewinz writes:
Just the one we're all supposed to live by... thats all. Not the one "The Majority" wants... When any of you have the time to read Mancus' manifesto (which is brilliant by the way), pay particular attention to Item No. 52.
Read it slowly. Re-read it again and take some notes. He, and the others who assisted him, may not be Federal Employees, and I know that rankles some here, but... it IS worth a read. Even if it isn't sworn testimony by a duly authorized federal paycheck bearer, which seems to be a standard for judgement some have locked into, that and the majority thing I read in previous posts.
The American Founding Fathers (most of whom were not federal employees at the time of the country's political makeup by the way) knew what they were doing, or at least I agree with their written words and I do tend to read them literally. I do comprehend English and having read several various legal entreaties from SCOTUS and others, wonder where they learned to write and how they comprehend such things as "The Sky is Blue" at times if their political leanings see a different shade of blue or their definition of Sky coincides or differs with the Executive Branch, Attorney General's or the general populace.
I will plainly state that SCOTUS has been wrong, as has the Executive and Legislative branches from time to time (not to mention various State Assemblies) and its our job, as citizens, to call them on it when necessary, i.e., Slavery is OK, women can't vote, suspend Habeus Corpus, prohibit men of color from bearing arms or voting, Prohibiting mfg and sales of liquor (OK That one sort of passed muster but was repealed a bit later), Infringe ownership of milita weaponry from the citizens... just a few that come to mind.
Should any of our governmental agencies actually decide on a 60 day period for total disarmament, things would get interesting, thats for certain, neh?
I, like Rebel Gunman HK, also wonder where any and everyone reading this thread would stand in such an event? (Don't ya love "what ifs"?)
Adios
telewinz writes:
Just the one we're all supposed to live by... thats all. Not the one "The Majority" wants... When any of you have the time to read Mancus' manifesto (which is brilliant by the way), pay particular attention to Item No. 52.
Read it slowly. Re-read it again and take some notes. He, and the others who assisted him, may not be Federal Employees, and I know that rankles some here, but... it IS worth a read. Even if it isn't sworn testimony by a duly authorized federal paycheck bearer, which seems to be a standard for judgement some have locked into, that and the majority thing I read in previous posts.
The American Founding Fathers (most of whom were not federal employees at the time of the country's political makeup by the way) knew what they were doing, or at least I agree with their written words and I do tend to read them literally. I do comprehend English and having read several various legal entreaties from SCOTUS and others, wonder where they learned to write and how they comprehend such things as "The Sky is Blue" at times if their political leanings see a different shade of blue or their definition of Sky coincides or differs with the Executive Branch, Attorney General's or the general populace.
I will plainly state that SCOTUS has been wrong, as has the Executive and Legislative branches from time to time (not to mention various State Assemblies) and its our job, as citizens, to call them on it when necessary, i.e., Slavery is OK, women can't vote, suspend Habeus Corpus, prohibit men of color from bearing arms or voting, Prohibiting mfg and sales of liquor (OK That one sort of passed muster but was repealed a bit later), Infringe ownership of milita weaponry from the citizens... just a few that come to mind.
Should any of our governmental agencies actually decide on a 60 day period for total disarmament, things would get interesting, thats for certain, neh?
I, like Rebel Gunman HK, also wonder where any and everyone reading this thread would stand in such an event? (Don't ya love "what ifs"?)
Adios
Baba Louie
Who said we are all suppose to live by your rules. I am governed by "living" people who were legally elected. I refuse to be governed by men who have been dead for 200 years because YOU agree with SOME of their views.
My system works in that it permits all parties to be heard but does not profess to make all parties happy. The pro-guns and the anti-guns have had their say and the majority in this country seem to fairly content with our system of government.
Why do right-wingers always assume that ALL pro-gun people are also anti-government and would join the very few misfits (failures?) in armed revolution against the United States? You sir are a dreamer. I for one will defend this (inperfect) government against fools and malcontents and I do not feel I am alone in my convictions. There are loyal American citizens everywhere!
Who said we are all suppose to live by your rules. I am governed by "living" people who were legally elected. I refuse to be governed by men who have been dead for 200 years because YOU agree with SOME of their views.
My system works in that it permits all parties to be heard but does not profess to make all parties happy. The pro-guns and the anti-guns have had their say and the majority in this country seem to fairly content with our system of government.
Why do right-wingers always assume that ALL pro-gun people are also anti-government and would join the very few misfits (failures?) in armed revolution against the United States? You sir are a dreamer. I for one will defend this (inperfect) government against fools and malcontents and I do not feel I am alone in my convictions. There are loyal American citizens everywhere!
Zach S
Member
SodaPop
member
I'd go out and get a shovel for all the politicians that are about to be buried.
unbelievable
I read:
"Let's just say it would not be in Agent Schmuckatelli's best interest to find out..." and the post by GeekWithA.45 and I have to say:
It sounds like you all are not yet towing the party line. Now repeat after me:
"I am willing to destroy the American Way of Life to Save it".
There, you should now feel better. You are in good company. Our own Attorney general John AshKroft (oops) is on a bandwagon tour pumping up the PATRIOTact, with a message similar to the mantra we all repeated above.
All the media reports that although he has gotten lukewarm receptions in general, he was has been wildly popular with law enforcement.
I just don't undeerstand why you can't see the good in this.
Agent S-
I read:
"Let's just say it would not be in Agent Schmuckatelli's best interest to find out..." and the post by GeekWithA.45 and I have to say:
It sounds like you all are not yet towing the party line. Now repeat after me:
"I am willing to destroy the American Way of Life to Save it".
There, you should now feel better. You are in good company. Our own Attorney general John AshKroft (oops) is on a bandwagon tour pumping up the PATRIOTact, with a message similar to the mantra we all repeated above.
All the media reports that although he has gotten lukewarm receptions in general, he was has been wildly popular with law enforcement.
I just don't undeerstand why you can't see the good in this.
Agent S-
seeker_two
Member
cpileri: When you read my quote, read it like you are either:
A. Blofeld talking about Agent James Bond, or...
B. The Cigarette-Smoking Man talking about Agent Mulder.
That should give you the tone of my post.
Anyone else here seeking answers....
A. Blofeld talking about Agent James Bond, or...
B. The Cigarette-Smoking Man talking about Agent Mulder.
That should give you the tone of my post.
Anyone else here seeking answers....
Baba Louie
Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2002
- Messages
- 3,831
tel,
We'll have to agree to disagree here my friend.
I believe we are a nation of laws, governed as defined in the Constitution. Written by men who died 200 years ago, elected by their constituents. Stop. Change that by adding the words "supposed to be", in that I believe we are "supposed to be" a nation of laws, goverend as defined in the Constitution.
You might disagree with that as you state you are governed by "living" people who were legally elected. That's fine.
Pro-gun and anti-government? Nah. Not me. Just anti-anti-gun elected officials who have sworn to uphold the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic
A few quotes by "living" (well, they were when they said these) elected people:
"The Brady Bill is the minimum step Congress should take...we need much stricter gun control, and eventually should bar the ownership of handguns, except in a few cases.
--U.S. Representative William Clay, Democrat (quoted in the St. Louis Post Dispatch on May 6, 1991)
Banning guns is an idea whose time has come.
-- U.S. Sen. Joseph Biden
Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe.
-- Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Associated Press, Nov. 18, 1993
We're here to tell the NRA their nightmare is true! ... We're going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy. We're going to beat guns into submission!
-- Rep. Charles Schumer, NBC Nightly News -- Nov. 30, 1993.
We have to start with a ban on the manufacturing & import of handguns. From there we register the guns which are currently owned, and follow that with additional bans and acquisitions of handguns and rifles with no sporting purpose.
--U.S. Representative Owens, Democrat
This is not all we will have in future Congresses, but this is a crack in the door. There are too many handguns in the hands of citizens. The right to keep and bear arms has nothing to do with the Brady Bill.
--Craig Washington, Dem.
If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them: "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in," I would have done it. I *could not* do that. The votes weren't here.
--U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), CBS-TV's "60 Minutes," 2/5/95
Only the police should have handguns.
--B.J.Clinton
I'm personally all for taxing guns to pay for health care coverage.
-- Hillary Clinton, Nov. 4, 1993 New York Times
No, we're not looking at how to control criminals ... we're talking about banning the AK-47 and semi-automatic guns.
--U.S. Senator Howard Metzenbaum, Democrat
The only thing a rifle scope is good for is assassination.
--U.S. Senator Ira Metzenbaum, Democrat
The national guard fulfills the militia mentioned in the 2nd amendment. Citizens no longer need to protect the states or themselves.
--Sen. Diane Feinstein, Democrat
Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Public Health and Safety Act of 1993 on behalf of myself and nine of my colleagues: Mel Reynolds, Bill Clay, Jerry Nadler, Eleanor Holmes Norton, John Lewis, Nydia Velazquez, Ron Dellums, Carrie Meek, and Alcee Hastings. This legislation, first introduced in the Senate by Senator John Chafee, would prohibit the transfer or possession of handguns and handgun ammunition, except in limited circumstances. It would go a long way toward protecting our citizens from violent crime. The need for a ban on handguns cannot be overstated.
-- Representative R. Owens (Democrat, NY)
I'm not advocating the overthrow of anything tel... this is a "what if" scenario for pete's sake, started by Rebel Gunman HK. Here, now, at the good old THR forum.
It is a reality in Thailand, I take it. Here and Now.
And yes sir, I am a dreamer. I see the reality of non-elected official's (within our government) actions, rread their words and sometimes, they are downright scary. That form of government can easily slide into an oligarchy as we are witnessing daily (see the above quotes) in that "They" know whats "best" for "us" in order to placate a majority of voters into keeping "them" in office a little longer.
I dream of the words of Washington, Jefferson and Madison.
I could offer a few hundred quotes by those three alone... but they're dead and no longer "elected" and would go unread anyway.
So, please lighten up while "on board", I wasn't attacking you, I was using your words to try to make a point and I guess I failed.
But what I really want to know Mr. telewinz is this... "What would YOU do if the government told you that they were confiscating all of YOUR firearms by November the 13th?"
I'm trying to get back on topic.
Adios Amigo (and I mean that)
We'll have to agree to disagree here my friend.
I believe we are a nation of laws, governed as defined in the Constitution. Written by men who died 200 years ago, elected by their constituents. Stop. Change that by adding the words "supposed to be", in that I believe we are "supposed to be" a nation of laws, goverend as defined in the Constitution.
You might disagree with that as you state you are governed by "living" people who were legally elected. That's fine.
Pro-gun and anti-government? Nah. Not me. Just anti-anti-gun elected officials who have sworn to uphold the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic
A few quotes by "living" (well, they were when they said these) elected people:
"The Brady Bill is the minimum step Congress should take...we need much stricter gun control, and eventually should bar the ownership of handguns, except in a few cases.
--U.S. Representative William Clay, Democrat (quoted in the St. Louis Post Dispatch on May 6, 1991)
Banning guns is an idea whose time has come.
-- U.S. Sen. Joseph Biden
Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe.
-- Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Associated Press, Nov. 18, 1993
We're here to tell the NRA their nightmare is true! ... We're going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy. We're going to beat guns into submission!
-- Rep. Charles Schumer, NBC Nightly News -- Nov. 30, 1993.
We have to start with a ban on the manufacturing & import of handguns. From there we register the guns which are currently owned, and follow that with additional bans and acquisitions of handguns and rifles with no sporting purpose.
--U.S. Representative Owens, Democrat
This is not all we will have in future Congresses, but this is a crack in the door. There are too many handguns in the hands of citizens. The right to keep and bear arms has nothing to do with the Brady Bill.
--Craig Washington, Dem.
If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them: "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in," I would have done it. I *could not* do that. The votes weren't here.
--U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), CBS-TV's "60 Minutes," 2/5/95
Only the police should have handguns.
--B.J.Clinton
I'm personally all for taxing guns to pay for health care coverage.
-- Hillary Clinton, Nov. 4, 1993 New York Times
No, we're not looking at how to control criminals ... we're talking about banning the AK-47 and semi-automatic guns.
--U.S. Senator Howard Metzenbaum, Democrat
The only thing a rifle scope is good for is assassination.
--U.S. Senator Ira Metzenbaum, Democrat
The national guard fulfills the militia mentioned in the 2nd amendment. Citizens no longer need to protect the states or themselves.
--Sen. Diane Feinstein, Democrat
Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Public Health and Safety Act of 1993 on behalf of myself and nine of my colleagues: Mel Reynolds, Bill Clay, Jerry Nadler, Eleanor Holmes Norton, John Lewis, Nydia Velazquez, Ron Dellums, Carrie Meek, and Alcee Hastings. This legislation, first introduced in the Senate by Senator John Chafee, would prohibit the transfer or possession of handguns and handgun ammunition, except in limited circumstances. It would go a long way toward protecting our citizens from violent crime. The need for a ban on handguns cannot be overstated.
-- Representative R. Owens (Democrat, NY)
I'm not advocating the overthrow of anything tel... this is a "what if" scenario for pete's sake, started by Rebel Gunman HK. Here, now, at the good old THR forum.
It is a reality in Thailand, I take it. Here and Now.
And yes sir, I am a dreamer. I see the reality of non-elected official's (within our government) actions, rread their words and sometimes, they are downright scary. That form of government can easily slide into an oligarchy as we are witnessing daily (see the above quotes) in that "They" know whats "best" for "us" in order to placate a majority of voters into keeping "them" in office a little longer.
I dream of the words of Washington, Jefferson and Madison.
I could offer a few hundred quotes by those three alone... but they're dead and no longer "elected" and would go unread anyway.
So, please lighten up while "on board", I wasn't attacking you, I was using your words to try to make a point and I guess I failed.
But what I really want to know Mr. telewinz is this... "What would YOU do if the government told you that they were confiscating all of YOUR firearms by November the 13th?"
I'm trying to get back on topic.
Adios Amigo (and I mean that)
gryphon said
I'm sad to say it but I agree.
The current crop of US Citizens are IMHO primarily SHEEP! They want to be led. They want to feel safe and secure and they expect to get that from the government. If the government demands that the sheep be disarmed so that they can feel safe and secure then the sheep will voluntarily disarm.
The few wolves amongst them will be overwhelmed by a government that will not tolerate wolves amongst the sheep and they will be eliminated in a short amount of time while the sheep look on with a dull look wondering how anyone could ever even think about taking on a government with only their safety and security in mind.
Sad - but the frontier spirit of those that built this country is almost dead.
I'm sad to say it but I agree.
The current crop of US Citizens are IMHO primarily SHEEP! They want to be led. They want to feel safe and secure and they expect to get that from the government. If the government demands that the sheep be disarmed so that they can feel safe and secure then the sheep will voluntarily disarm.
The few wolves amongst them will be overwhelmed by a government that will not tolerate wolves amongst the sheep and they will be eliminated in a short amount of time while the sheep look on with a dull look wondering how anyone could ever even think about taking on a government with only their safety and security in mind.
Sad - but the frontier spirit of those that built this country is almost dead.
No problem disagreeing but....
Most real Patriots have taken this oath, can You?
I, _____Your Name?_______________, do solemly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed overme, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
Most real Patriots have taken this oath, can You?
I, _____Your Name?_______________, do solemly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed overme, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
Travis McGee
Member
If freedom is lost in America, there will be nowhere to run to.
And any refuge where you have to pay off the local mafia to be left alone will be no better than paying off the local mafia in the USA.
And any refuge where you have to pay off the local mafia to be left alone will be no better than paying off the local mafia in the USA.
oldfart
Member
Telewinz, that oath you quote is only the most recent version. Earlier versions (like the one I took) didn't say anything about obeying the orders of the President, the officers appointed over me or the UCMJ. As a matter of fact, the UCMJ was only recently adopted when I entered the military. That verbiage seems to have been added to cover the butts of politicians and politically appointed officers within and without the military service.
On the eternal question of whether or not individual citizens should decide for themselves whether they should abide by what they consider illegal laws, let me remind everyone that the German guards who were prosecuted for 'war crimes' at the various prison camps were effectively told that it was up to them individually, to either obey or disobey their officers. If we put the shoe on our own foot, should we expect leniency from a prosecutor in the future?
We--- you, I and all the rest of us here-- have been brainwashed for most of seventy years. Some of us say things that might lead others to believe that it didn't "take" on us, but I submit that much of it has rubbed off without any of us realizing it.
For instance, if an official were consistently committing heinous acts against the citizens and getting away with it simply because of who he was and who he knew, he would need to be assassinated. But how many of us would be ready to assume the task? Instead, we'd hear about 'the justice system' or 'the law' or 'due process' or any of a dozen other tired phrases. What we'd really need is less philosophising and a man with a good rifle.
Yes, that's right, we'd need a man who was unafraid to buck the system and would rid us of a tyrant. Just like we expected those poor farm boys in German uniforms to do. Sure, our man with his rifle would probably pay with his life but the German guard would have paid that same price too. In the prison camp a few hundred Jews or Gypsies might have survived awhile longer and in our future world it might be Christians or Mormons or the members of some splinter group of Seventh Day Adventists like the Branch Davidians.
In any case, past, present or future, the final decision must be made by the individual, not the group. a bunch of individuals might band together to form a group, but they have to make their decisions separately. We've already seen this happening from time to time. A couple of years ago a sausage maker in California decided he'd fought with Big Brother long enough and when a group of bureaucrats came to close his business down they were met with gunfire. We were all told that he was a 'kook' and that what he did was 'reprehensible'. But was it, or was it just his "North Bridge"?
'A line in the sand' is a nebulous thing, suffering from vagaries of wind as it does. Perhaps we should refer to that point at which we-- as individuals-- would no longer sit idly by while our rights were trampled as our own "North Bridge".
So the real question isn't whether or not taking up arms to defend the Constitution is legal, but where is your "North Bridge"?
On the eternal question of whether or not individual citizens should decide for themselves whether they should abide by what they consider illegal laws, let me remind everyone that the German guards who were prosecuted for 'war crimes' at the various prison camps were effectively told that it was up to them individually, to either obey or disobey their officers. If we put the shoe on our own foot, should we expect leniency from a prosecutor in the future?
We--- you, I and all the rest of us here-- have been brainwashed for most of seventy years. Some of us say things that might lead others to believe that it didn't "take" on us, but I submit that much of it has rubbed off without any of us realizing it.
For instance, if an official were consistently committing heinous acts against the citizens and getting away with it simply because of who he was and who he knew, he would need to be assassinated. But how many of us would be ready to assume the task? Instead, we'd hear about 'the justice system' or 'the law' or 'due process' or any of a dozen other tired phrases. What we'd really need is less philosophising and a man with a good rifle.
Yes, that's right, we'd need a man who was unafraid to buck the system and would rid us of a tyrant. Just like we expected those poor farm boys in German uniforms to do. Sure, our man with his rifle would probably pay with his life but the German guard would have paid that same price too. In the prison camp a few hundred Jews or Gypsies might have survived awhile longer and in our future world it might be Christians or Mormons or the members of some splinter group of Seventh Day Adventists like the Branch Davidians.
In any case, past, present or future, the final decision must be made by the individual, not the group. a bunch of individuals might band together to form a group, but they have to make their decisions separately. We've already seen this happening from time to time. A couple of years ago a sausage maker in California decided he'd fought with Big Brother long enough and when a group of bureaucrats came to close his business down they were met with gunfire. We were all told that he was a 'kook' and that what he did was 'reprehensible'. But was it, or was it just his "North Bridge"?
'A line in the sand' is a nebulous thing, suffering from vagaries of wind as it does. Perhaps we should refer to that point at which we-- as individuals-- would no longer sit idly by while our rights were trampled as our own "North Bridge".
So the real question isn't whether or not taking up arms to defend the Constitution is legal, but where is your "North Bridge"?
Again your "illegal" orders are self-serving political beliefs not moral or religious beliefs and would not standup in a court of law IN ANY NATION. I swore to a different oath also over 30 years ago, but the intent is the same. You assume a great deal when you say myself and others of my beliefs are "brainwashed". Why? Because we disagree with right-wingers (and left-wingers) and maybe we need to be re-educated? I for one am very well read on history and do not need to be educated about YOUR "evil empire"
You miss a very important part of freedom, its called TOLERANCE. You want your freedom to be respected but ignore everyone elses. Again, our government is not perfect NO SUCH GOVERNMENT HAS EVER EXISTED! I'll take what I have and see it for what it is, one of the best FREEDOM LOVING governments in the history of man. An Anarchist will never be happy with any form of government, they hate them all.
You miss a very important part of freedom, its called TOLERANCE. You want your freedom to be respected but ignore everyone elses. Again, our government is not perfect NO SUCH GOVERNMENT HAS EVER EXISTED! I'll take what I have and see it for what it is, one of the best FREEDOM LOVING governments in the history of man. An Anarchist will never be happy with any form of government, they hate them all.
Baba Louie
Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2002
- Messages
- 3,831
telewinz
I would have no reservations whatsoever in taking that oath sir. In that there is no disagreement.
This next line is for others lurking and perhaps new to the history scene...
I agree with John Marshall's final sentence in Marbury vs. Madison in that any laws repugnant to the Constitution are void...
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/marbury.html
...scroll down to the final sentence.
However, sometimes the local citizenry do have to take the LAW into their own hands for the good of the majority, as in Athens Tenn after WWII (it was Tennessee wasn't it?) because the majority can sometimes be "sheeplike" and rightfully scared of local gov't figures. Those men who did fight back had taken the aforementioned oath and were correct in their actions (IMO). It depends on where your loyalty lies and where (as oldfart put it) your north bridge stand shall occur.
Rebel Gunman HK, it's not just about fighting for the 2nd. (Your third post in the thread I believe) Its the whole ball of wax which needs and depends on the aforementioned oath of allegiance, and its all worth fighting for.
And for the record, its far better to fight with ballots than bullets. Unless the local politicians are controlling the election boxes (on a related topic, you all might want to check out Jim March's Diebold discovery fiasco as it unfolds over in L&P), voting the elitist politicians out when you must.
I can't imagine it happening here in the US again, but from what I read Revolutions and Civil Wars can be really bad things.
Still and all, the nation survived and evolved each time. History loves the winner.
Final thoughts... Anarchists always lose. The frog in the pot will tolerate himself to death (as the saying goes).
Adios
I would have no reservations whatsoever in taking that oath sir. In that there is no disagreement.
This next line is for others lurking and perhaps new to the history scene...
I agree with John Marshall's final sentence in Marbury vs. Madison in that any laws repugnant to the Constitution are void...
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/marbury.html
...scroll down to the final sentence.
However, sometimes the local citizenry do have to take the LAW into their own hands for the good of the majority, as in Athens Tenn after WWII (it was Tennessee wasn't it?) because the majority can sometimes be "sheeplike" and rightfully scared of local gov't figures. Those men who did fight back had taken the aforementioned oath and were correct in their actions (IMO). It depends on where your loyalty lies and where (as oldfart put it) your north bridge stand shall occur.
Rebel Gunman HK, it's not just about fighting for the 2nd. (Your third post in the thread I believe) Its the whole ball of wax which needs and depends on the aforementioned oath of allegiance, and its all worth fighting for.
And for the record, its far better to fight with ballots than bullets. Unless the local politicians are controlling the election boxes (on a related topic, you all might want to check out Jim March's Diebold discovery fiasco as it unfolds over in L&P), voting the elitist politicians out when you must.
I can't imagine it happening here in the US again, but from what I read Revolutions and Civil Wars can be really bad things.
Still and all, the nation survived and evolved each time. History loves the winner.
Final thoughts... Anarchists always lose. The frog in the pot will tolerate himself to death (as the saying goes).
Adios
The voice of experience ?
I received an email from a fellow member of THR. IMHO his comments show another point of view with great insight. I have deleted any names so as not to offend.
Telewinz....
I agree with what you're saying. But on the High Road Liberation Army,
you'll just be a voice in the wilderness to a bunch of wanna-be radicals
who base a political philosophy on the writings of the science fiction
author Heinlen (gee, kind of like the Scientologists base their beliefs
on the science fiction author Hubbard, hmmm? Isn't that creepy?) See, I
used to be a REAL anarchist. I put my money where my mouth is and was a
member of the Industrial Workers of the World, an anarcho-syndicalist
organization. That is how I know it is utter BS. In the IWW, we couldn't
agree on where to MEET or a T-Shirt slogan. Or what causes to support.
And we were talking about running a society??!! What a joke! When I
bring this up to folks like *****, they just say "Oh, but you weren't
OUR kind of anarchist!" You know, like how the Bolsheviks told the
Mensheviks, well, you're not OUR type of socialist. They are ALL the
same thing. They are wanna-be dictators masked in the guise of
"liberators". None of them have the actual courage of their convictions
to JOIN an anarchist cell to see what the REAL thing is REALLY about.
It's easier to sit on the net and be a big, bad anarchist without a
single freakin' dues stamp in a membership book you have to carry to
meetings to get in. What a joke they all are! They probably all work
crappy, low-paying jobs, live with their parents or share a house with a
bunch of people (like *****) and use the government as the scapegoat
for their own failures in life (like Hitler blamed the Jews.) They are
pathetic. When I tore up my red membership book in the IWW (and also the Socialist Party), I came away with the knowledge that the Far Right and
Far Left actually meet in the middle in the back. I wouldn't know that f
I hadn't been, well, a communist for all intents and purposes. You know,
I was even an organizer for the IWW. I wrote articles for the rag they
call a newsletter. So I know EXACTLY what these people say and EXACTLY
what they mean behind those words. And you know what? The things all
those High Road "anarchists" say are EXACTLY things I have heard the
Revolutionary Communist Party (a Maoist cell in the U.S.) say. What
***** REALLY means is that she'd really like shooting the people she thinks are responsible for having to live in a shared house rented from Hso's dad. And she'd like the power to do so. Yes, these are the people that create anti-gun sentiment from the fence-sitters. I recently
blasted a couple threads on "anarchy" in the legal forum and got a email
warning about it. I couldn't care less I told them. The last two ******* that emailed me quit doing so when they lost arguments they couldn't moderate, censor or squelch because it was MY email account and
THEY emailed me unsolicited. See, THEY talk about "freedom" for
THEMSELVES---BUT---(and this is important) when it comes to FREEDOM TO
DISSENT, they stop it. See, the High Road ******* call it "personal
attacks" (but notice how THEY get away with that, particularly *****)
and they email warnings to you or threaten to ban you. Just like the
Soviets called dissent "counter-revolutionary statements". See the
pattern? That's why you cannot win on High Road. They are the same as
communists, except they think they invented what Karl Marx basically
said a hundred and more years before they did. Marx espoused an anarchic
system as the actual true success of communism. So did Kropotkin. The
commune/syndicate builds and is entitled to all they produce or can
trade for other things. Sound a lot like what **** says, right? Well,
Marx said that. The difference is Marx was talking about capitalists
"stealing" the fruits of labor of the working class and ***** blames
the federal government. But the equation is the same: Ruling Class+Theft
of Labor=Oppression. There used to be signs up in every socialist
meeting hall I ever saw that said "Government is Theft!" They can say
that because they believed the socialist government was a government of
the PEOPLE (and doesn't that sound like what **** says?) Collectivism
is everywhere and the people who scream the loudest about "tyranny" ARE
the tyrants.
I received an email from a fellow member of THR. IMHO his comments show another point of view with great insight. I have deleted any names so as not to offend.
Telewinz....
I agree with what you're saying. But on the High Road Liberation Army,
you'll just be a voice in the wilderness to a bunch of wanna-be radicals
who base a political philosophy on the writings of the science fiction
author Heinlen (gee, kind of like the Scientologists base their beliefs
on the science fiction author Hubbard, hmmm? Isn't that creepy?) See, I
used to be a REAL anarchist. I put my money where my mouth is and was a
member of the Industrial Workers of the World, an anarcho-syndicalist
organization. That is how I know it is utter BS. In the IWW, we couldn't
agree on where to MEET or a T-Shirt slogan. Or what causes to support.
And we were talking about running a society??!! What a joke! When I
bring this up to folks like *****, they just say "Oh, but you weren't
OUR kind of anarchist!" You know, like how the Bolsheviks told the
Mensheviks, well, you're not OUR type of socialist. They are ALL the
same thing. They are wanna-be dictators masked in the guise of
"liberators". None of them have the actual courage of their convictions
to JOIN an anarchist cell to see what the REAL thing is REALLY about.
It's easier to sit on the net and be a big, bad anarchist without a
single freakin' dues stamp in a membership book you have to carry to
meetings to get in. What a joke they all are! They probably all work
crappy, low-paying jobs, live with their parents or share a house with a
bunch of people (like *****) and use the government as the scapegoat
for their own failures in life (like Hitler blamed the Jews.) They are
pathetic. When I tore up my red membership book in the IWW (and also the Socialist Party), I came away with the knowledge that the Far Right and
Far Left actually meet in the middle in the back. I wouldn't know that f
I hadn't been, well, a communist for all intents and purposes. You know,
I was even an organizer for the IWW. I wrote articles for the rag they
call a newsletter. So I know EXACTLY what these people say and EXACTLY
what they mean behind those words. And you know what? The things all
those High Road "anarchists" say are EXACTLY things I have heard the
Revolutionary Communist Party (a Maoist cell in the U.S.) say. What
***** REALLY means is that she'd really like shooting the people she thinks are responsible for having to live in a shared house rented from Hso's dad. And she'd like the power to do so. Yes, these are the people that create anti-gun sentiment from the fence-sitters. I recently
blasted a couple threads on "anarchy" in the legal forum and got a email
warning about it. I couldn't care less I told them. The last two ******* that emailed me quit doing so when they lost arguments they couldn't moderate, censor or squelch because it was MY email account and
THEY emailed me unsolicited. See, THEY talk about "freedom" for
THEMSELVES---BUT---(and this is important) when it comes to FREEDOM TO
DISSENT, they stop it. See, the High Road ******* call it "personal
attacks" (but notice how THEY get away with that, particularly *****)
and they email warnings to you or threaten to ban you. Just like the
Soviets called dissent "counter-revolutionary statements". See the
pattern? That's why you cannot win on High Road. They are the same as
communists, except they think they invented what Karl Marx basically
said a hundred and more years before they did. Marx espoused an anarchic
system as the actual true success of communism. So did Kropotkin. The
commune/syndicate builds and is entitled to all they produce or can
trade for other things. Sound a lot like what **** says, right? Well,
Marx said that. The difference is Marx was talking about capitalists
"stealing" the fruits of labor of the working class and ***** blames
the federal government. But the equation is the same: Ruling Class+Theft
of Labor=Oppression. There used to be signs up in every socialist
meeting hall I ever saw that said "Government is Theft!" They can say
that because they believed the socialist government was a government of
the PEOPLE (and doesn't that sound like what **** says?) Collectivism
is everywhere and the people who scream the loudest about "tyranny" ARE
the tyrants.
seeker_two
Member
Think you forgot one, telewinz.....
...and I thought you pro-gov types were infallible...
chaim
Member
I'm in the "it depends on other factors" crowd. Keep in mind what you are talking about- civil war, killing fellow Americans just because they are wearing a uniform and may not understand all the issues. It wouldn't be pretty. I would look at the mood of the country as best I can tell. If it was only guns (unlikely) it is doubtful that the country would be behind us which means: 1)we'd lose, 2)we'd have absolutely no logistical support and 3)we'd possibly have to kill a lot of innocents because they would see us as terrorists and possibly turn us in or attack us themselves. If it was part of a bigger loss of civil liberties then I can see people being fed up and a better chance of success. I don't like the idea of having to kill a neighborhood cop because he is enforcing the law and doesn't necessarily understand or if it got big killing some 18 year old kid who happens to wear a National Guard uniform or Regular Army uniform (yes I know they are the same uniforms) when called to put down a rebellion. Also, if we actually had the support of many Americans then maybe some of the military and the police forces would be with us.
There really is only one area that would move me with or without support and that is if the US Gov't started killing people without due process and outside the rule of law- genocide, non-judicial killings, etc.
Now if you want to know if I'm ready if it is needed (and meets my criteria of also supported) then no I'm not. I'll never be ready to have to kill G-d only knows how many of my fellow Americans. In addition, logistically I'd feel much more comfortable with a few other gun options and more ammo. However, if it was needed I wouldn't have much choice and I do have the minimum gear and mindpower needed to do my part.
There really is only one area that would move me with or without support and that is if the US Gov't started killing people without due process and outside the rule of law- genocide, non-judicial killings, etc.
Now if you want to know if I'm ready if it is needed (and meets my criteria of also supported) then no I'm not. I'll never be ready to have to kill G-d only knows how many of my fellow Americans. In addition, logistically I'd feel much more comfortable with a few other gun options and more ammo. However, if it was needed I wouldn't have much choice and I do have the minimum gear and mindpower needed to do my part.
yayarx7
Member
I have in the past pondered the question that Rebel Gunman HK has authored here. As one who has more than once taken the oath above, and one who could be one of the "jack-booted thugs" (what the hell is a jack boot?) bashing down doors and snatching up all the registered guns, I wonder what I would do in the situation. Would I carry out my orders and quietly hide my guns? Would I rufuse my orders and probably go to jail for it? Would I martyr myself for the cause?
I know I would not turn all my guns in and gladly take up the party line, I cannot see myself doing that. I would like to think that I would stand up for my rights and probably die in honor, but cannot see myself shooting it out with my comrades in arms. But who knows?
I will take a less worrisome route and assume that I would not stand alone if it came to pass. I will assume that my fellow thinking service members would not let something like this happen. I will assume that the Law Enforcement types would refuse to carry out any gun confiscations. I will assume that as soon as such a "LAW" was passed that the people would come together and vote the fools out.
That way I can sleep at night. (with my gun under my pillow
)- Status