72 Killed Resisting Gun Confiscation in Boston

[ConstitutionCowboy]

BY ARKANSAS PAUL -- My main fear isn't mass confiscation attempts and battles vs the government. I truly don't think that will happen.
The gun grabbers know that an attempt to forcefully disarm the American public would end in bloodshed. They're not going to attempt it outright. They're going to keep clipping away little by little at our rights. There will be no defining moment in the process I don't think. It will just get more and more strict until one day, many years down the road, gun rights will be a thing of the past.
The reason I think this is that the next generation will be a little more apt to accept it than the previous one, and the next a little more and so on and so forth. I'm afraid we are a dying breed that lives and breathes gunsmoke. I'm young, only 33 but I am aware that my generation as a whole has less die hard 2A supporters than the last. And I suspect it will only get worse. I'm doing what I can raising my child to cherish the RKBA and never give it up under any circumstances, but I really think in 50-60 years it will be drastically different.

Whether it's the progressive bit by bit or in one fell swoop, the gun grabbers will reach a certain point where the people will say "STOP!" I have that much faith in the people. The trouble is, the tyranny will likely already be upon us, and it will cost us many more deaths than if the tyranny is to be stopped while it is knocking at the door, pounding its fist on the podium, and selling us a bill of goods meant to make us ripe for the taking.

Depending upon government for our every need is the path to tyranny. Make it difficult for them. Keep your powder dry and close at hand.

Woody

 

[0to60]

Whether it's the progressive bit by bit or in one fell swoop, the gun grabbers will reach a certain point where the people will say "STOP!" I have that much faith in the people. The trouble is, the tyranny will likely already be upon us, and it will cost us many more deaths than if the tyranny is to be stopped while it is knocking at the door, pounding its fist on the podium, and selling us a bill of goods meant to make us ripe for the taking.

This is so incredibly unrealistic. The gun grabbers just MADE an attempt to do this and got beaten badly. And where is your tyranny? Your tyranny is busy preparing for the mid term elections where it's subject to "correction" from the voters. If the people feel he's too tyrannical, they'll make the proper adjustments by installing some new, non-tyrannical members of congress. And this process will happen every two years, insuring that tyranny can never gain a foothold unless its ok'd by the people.

All the guns and ammo in your house can't measure up to the freedom-preserving power of your vote.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

This is so incredibly unrealistic. The gun grabbers just MADE an attempt to do this and got beaten badly. And where is your tyranny? Your tyranny is busy preparing for the mid term elections where it's subject to "correction" from the voters. If the people feel he's too tyrannical, they'll make the proper adjustments by installing some new, non-tyrannical members of congress. And this process will happen every two years, insuring that tyranny can never gain a foothold unless its ok'd by the people.

All the guns and ammo in your house can't measure up to the freedom-preserving power of your vote.

If that were the case, we would never have written the Declaration of Independance nor engaged in the subsequent revolution. The only valid votes are the ones you can back up with force. No guns, no force. Ergo, no guns, no enforceable vote.

That said, yes, we've made some headway toward unfettering our RKBA, but the anti-RKBAers are forging ahead regardless of our restorations.

All nine Supreme Court justices agreed that the RKBA is a right of the people - a right of every individual - yet folks like Bloomberg, Fenistein, Schumer, et ilk forge ahead with their anti-RKBA agenda. Their disregard for the law(Constitution); their autocratic, arbitrary, and oppressive agenda; and all other means they employ point only to tyranny.

As the insightful Bill Engvall said, "Here's your sign!"

Woody

"Knowing the past, I'll not surrender any arms and march less prepared into the future." B.E.Wood

 

[Mike1234567]

This is so incredibly unrealistic. The gun grabbers just MADE an attempt to do this and got beaten badly. And where is your tyranny? Your tyranny is busy preparing for the mid term elections where it's subject to "correction" from the voters. If the people feel he's too tyrannical, they'll make the proper adjustments by installing some new, non-tyrannical members of congress. And this process will happen every two years, insuring that tyranny can never gain a foothold unless its ok'd by the people.

All the guns and ammo in your house can't measure up to the freedom-preserving power of your vote.

We allowed ourselves to be manipulated into a two-party system... and we perpetuate it still. Shall we vote for evil A or evil B? Both are chosen for us.

 

[HoploDad]

Reading these pages, I just had an ad pop up on this site which is directly connected to some internet browsing I did last week. Kinda freaky. Looking back, in the 1700's one's thoughts and actions were much more private compared to today.

I don't see an uprising happening in this country, unless it were discovered and proven that an election was stolen or something of similar magnitude... like the Athens, TN event. But if it did, modern surveillance technology would be the biggest threat to that kind of movement!

 

[0to60]

If that were the case, we would never have written the Declaration of Independance nor engaged in the subsequent revolution. The only valid votes are the ones you can back up with force. No guns, no force. Ergo, no guns, no enforceable vote.

You do realize that the Declaration of Independence was written BEFORE we had the power of the vote, do you? Since we won our independence we have not needed to threaten our gov't with our guns.

In the US, we vote. You wanna see people fighting their gov't in the streets with guns? Head to the middle east. In the US, we have a better system. Don't liken us to the middle east.

All nine Supreme Court justices agreed that the RKBA is a right of the people - a right of every individual - yet folks like Bloomberg, Fenistein, Schumer, et ilk forge ahead with their anti-RKBA agenda. Their disregard for the law(Constitution); their autocratic, arbitrary, and oppressive agenda; and all other means they employ point only to tyranny.

The gun grabbers are simply exercising their right to free speech. They have a right to do this. If you TRULY believe in freedom, how can you be so mad at people who's views differs from yours? You've got 300 million people living here. We're not all gonna agree on things. Some will disagree with you, and some of those people will be powerful, influential and vocal. That's life in a big country.

But the Supreme Court is there to insure constitutionality as best they can. The system works! Have a little faith in it.

 

[0to60]

We allowed ourselves to be manipulated into a two-party system... and we perpetuate it still. Shall we vote for evil A or evil B? Both are chosen for us.

A lot has been written about two party systems, and while some feel it is a product of things like the electoral college, others feel it naturally emerges from a democracy. Either way, its a bit dramatic to say we were "manipulated" into this.

Moreover, it could change if the voters demanded it.

 

[JustinJ]

The Afghans did not beat the soviets by each citizen grabbing his AR15 and running out to take on the red army. This idea is utterly absurd. The Afghans were supplied with modern military weaponry from foreign allies. They weren't shooting down Soviet Aircraft with ak47s. Against the US, by far their most effective weapon has been bombs and IED's, not guns. I don't know about the rest of you, but i don't have any artillery shells laying around my garage to modify into a roadside explosive. And no, they haven't beaten us militarily by any sense of the imagination. Their strategy is too simply outlast us as we can't stay there forever. That strategy doesn't work so well against an army on its native soil. The Syrian rebels also have received substantial military support from defection and foreign support. Again, not just a bunch of guys running into battle with their personal gun collections. Hell, the US army of today has such effective body armor that one has to wonder just how much longer guns will be of any use against it militarily.

 

[Pizzapinochle]

A lot has been written about two party systems, and while some feel it is a product of things like the electoral college, others feel it naturally emerges from a democracy. Either way, its a bit dramatic to say we were "manipulated" into this.

Moreover, it could change if the voters demanded it.

I studied comparative politics quite a bit, favorite subject in all my years of schooling.

The # of parties represented in a government, the power of minority representation, the flexibility of the government, all of these things are caused by the structures used to distribute the power.

In the US, all of our voting is winner take all in single-member districts. This lends itself to a two party system, because third place will never matter. In other systems, with different methods of distributing power through votes, getting 3rd can still get you a seat in the legislative body, so there is more incentive to support a non-mainstream candidate.

It isn't a huge conspiracy theory, just basic differences in how the government is structured. If we altered the structure, we would have different types of representation.

Sorry, not really firearm related anymore.

 

[Trent]

The Afghans did not beat the soviets by each citizen grabbing his AR15 and running out to take on the red army. This idea is utterly absurd. The Afghans were supplied with modern military weaponry from foreign allies. They weren't shooting down Soviet Aircraft with ak47s. Against the US, by far their most effective weapon has been bombs and IED's, not guns. I don't know about the rest of you, but i don't have any artillery shells laying around my garage to modify into a roadside explosive. And no, they haven't beaten us militarily by any sense of the imagination. Their strategy is too simply outlast us as we can't stay there forever. That strategy doesn't work so well against an army on its native soil. The Syrian rebels also have received substantial military support from defection and foreign support. Again, not just a bunch of guys running into battle with their personal gun collections. Hell, the US army of today has such effective body armor that one has to wonder just how much longer guns will be of any use against it militarily.

Without going in to too many details or reopening relatively fresh wounds, while you are correct in that not many people have artillery shells laying around in their garage to turn in to IED's, a couple of kids out in Boston illustrated why your argument isn't relevant. Prior to that, the Unibomber also operated with improvised explosives for years, anonymously. Law enforcement never could track him down; it took a journalist publishing the manifesto and a lucky call by a family member to bring it to an end.

As far as the strategy of outlasting on native soil... you are also wrong. Against any opposing military force, native or foreign, the people living on that land have the advantage. They can work 9-5 day jobs and appear to society as normal, every day people. For an instance of how small arms are effective against modern police and military might, and how invisibly citizens can operate under lockdown, refer to the DC sniper incident on the east coast.

The Syrian rebels also illustrate what happens if even a *little* of the military defects to the revolutionary side. They couldn't bring along armor, or artillery, or air power; they had to leave their tanks and big guns behind when the military units defected. (They lacked air power, or any means of keeping those units alive). So the troops that DID defect brought, essentially, nothing more than small arms with them. The "foreign aid" for the free Syrian army, didn't start for quite a while in to the conflict. By then they had taken quite a lot of ground.

Anyway, not by any means saying that people in this country should run out and take up arms; but I *am* saying that if they ever did, small arms and improvised munitions would be MORE than adequate to get things rolling.

With that said, I think this topic and conversation has drifted so far off firearms, and in to unpleasantness, that it really should end.

 

[JustinJ]

Without going in to too many details or reopening relatively fresh wounds, while you are correct in that not many people have artillery shells laying around in their garage to turn in to IED's, a couple of kids out in Boston illustrated why your argument isn't relevant. Prior to that, the Unibomber also operated with improvised explosives for years, anonymously. Law enforcement never could track him down; it took a journalist publishing the manifesto and a lucky call by a family member to bring it to an end.

What is not relevant to the discussion is the use of a couple of pipe bombs against an unexpecting civilian crowd. You honestly believe such a measure would be of use in defeating a modern military? In a state of war something tells me soldiers aren't going to just stand around on an open street while people walk up and drop off backpacks in the middle of them. Regarding the unabobmber, again, civilian targets. Let's also not forget that technology has come a long way since and even today at peace "important" people's mail is close scanned and scrutinized.

As far as the strategy of outlasting on native soil... you are also wrong. Against any opposing military force, native or foreign, the people living on that land have the advantage. They can work 9-5 day jobs and appear to society as normal, every day people. For an instance of how small arms are effective against modern police and military might, and how invisibly citizens can operate under lockdown, refer to the DC sniper incident on the east coast.

The DC sniper occurred at a time of peace and in no way threatened those in power. I'm not sure what kind of armed insurrection you envision but average joe playing resistance at night ain't going to cut it in a country as large and developed technologically as the US. The fact is that technology has steadily and consistently increased the disparity in force between the people and the government, both in weapons, defensive technologies and intelligence gathering. Terrorizing a populace in peace time is something else entirely than defeating an army.

The Syrian rebels also illustrate what happens if even a *little* of the military defects to the revolutionary side. They couldn't bring along armor, or artillery, or air power; they had to leave their tanks and big guns behind when the military units defected. (They lacked air power, or any means of keeping those units alive). So the troops that DID defect brought, essentially, nothing more than small arms with them. The "foreign aid" for the free Syrian army, didn't start for quite a while in to the conflict. By then they had taken quite a lot of ground.

I could be mistaken but I don't believe that is accurate. As I understand it military defections did in fact bring along advanced weaponry. Defections and widespread support allowed them to also take military bases early on. The syrian conflict though is a more traditional war though with actual fronts. Regardless, the Rebels aren't doing so well today.

 

[Mike1234567]

In the US, we vote. You wanna see people fighting their gov't in the streets with guns? Head to the middle east. In the US, we have a better system. Don't liken us to the middle east.

Since we won our independence we have not needed to threaten our gov't with our guns.

Really? The Civil War... race riots... union thuggery?

 

[JustinJ]

Race riots and "union thuggery" are reasons to threaten our government with guns?

Not sure I see the logic on that one.

 

[Mike1234567]

Race riots and "union thuggery" are reasons to threaten our government with guns?

Not sure I see the logic on that one.

Maybe race riots is a bad example... should've been lack of racial equality. Thuggery of big business vs. unions: How many times did police and National Guard side with big business?

 

[JustinJ]

Maybe race riots is a bad example... should've been lack of racial equality. Thuggery of big business vs. unions: How many times did police and National Guard side with big business?

The point though, I think, is that so long as their are peaceful means to address such grievances armed conflict is not justifiable. No matter how much one strongly disagrees with government actions, to use force to override the democratic process is in itself an act of tyranny. The challenge though, is balancing the rights and wishes of the majority against those of the minority. I think most would agree that during slavery and for some time after, blacks would have been fully justified to engage in armed rebellion. However, it's hard to argue that they would have been actually rebelling against their own government given it did not even recognize them as actual people.

 

[Mike1234567]

The point though, I think, is that so long as their are peaceful means to address such grievances armed conflict is not justifiable. No matter how much one strongly disagrees with government actions, to use force to override the democratic process is in itself an act of tyranny. The challenge though, is balancing the rights and wishes of the majority against those of the minority. I think most would agree that during slavery and for some time after, blacks would have been fully justified to engage in armed rebellion. However, it's hard to argue that they would have been actually rebelling against their own government given it did not even recognize them as actual people.

Points well-taken. However, I don't think anyone can honestly argue the point that no one has ever had the right to take up arms against our own federal government. ALL governments are flawed requiring adjustment here-and-there. After all, they're operated by human beings. Furthermore, without the fear of its citizens fighting back... what stops a government from becoming a total tyranny?

 

[0to60]

Points well-taken. However, I don't think anyone can honestly argue the point that no one has ever had the right to take up arms against our own federal government. ALL governments are flawed requiring adjustment here-and-there. After all, they're operated by human beings. Furthermore, without the fear of its citizens fighting back... what stops a government from becoming a total tyranny?

The VOTE is what stops it. The VOTE is the adjustment. And "here and there" isn't good enough. We do this once every two years at the federal level, and more at the local level. And why is this? Why bother? So that the citizens DON'T have to take up arms to affect change.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

You do realize that the Declaration of Independence was written BEFORE we had the power of the vote, do you? Since we won our independence we have not needed to threaten our gov't with our guns.

We used the power to vote before we were free of England.

The several states elected representatives to form and attend the Continental Congress which first met in 1774. The Second Continental Congress drafted, signed, and sent the Declaration of Independence to Briton. That vote for independence from England was ignored, and our independence was not secured until we won the war. Our government at the time was England, and we had to back up our vote for independence with arms. Otherwise, we'd likely still be subjects of England.

In the US, we vote. You wanna see people fighting their gov't in the streets with guns? Head to the middle east. In the US, we have a better system. Don't liken us to the middle east.

Not to liken us to the middle east, but have you ever heard of the "Battle of Athens, Tennessee"?

The gun grabbers are simply exercising their right to free speech. They have a right to do this. If you TRULY believe in freedom, how can you be so mad at people who's views differs from yours? You've got 300 million people living here. We're not all gonna agree on things. Some will disagree with you, and some of those people will be powerful, influential and vocal. That's life in a big country.

I could care less what the gun grabbers say. It's what they do that is the problem. Introducing legislation in flagrant disregard for the Constitution earns them the distinction of being autocratic, arbitrary, oppressive, and dictatorially tyrannical.

But the Supreme Court is there to insure constitutionality as best they can. The system works! Have a little faith in it.

No less than four ninths of the Supreme Court is bent so far away from the Constitution that insuring constitutionality is fallacious. But, yes, the system works when the Constitution is adhered to.

The VOTE is what stops it. The VOTE is the adjustment. And "here and there" isn't good enough. We do this once every two years at the federal level, and more at the local level. And why is this? Why bother? So that the citizens DON'T have to take up arms to affect change.

Except when those in government ignore and/or corrupt the vote - such as the corrupt politicians who had to be removed at gunpoint in Athens, Tennessee.

The only reason we haven't been overrun by a tyrant or a tyrannical oligarchy is because we are armed. Don't kid yourself into thinking otherwise. Why else do you think the likes of Bloomberg, Feinstein, Soros, Obama, Schumer, et ilk want us disarmed?

Woody

Look at your rights and freedoms as what would be required to survive and be free as if there were no government. Governments come and go, but your rights live on. If you wish to survive government, you must protect with jealous resolve all the powers that come with your rights - especially with the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Without the power of those arms, you will perish with that government - or at its hand. B.E. Wood

 

[goon]

As much as it challenges the myth of the American Revolution, we damn near didn't succeed.

Had it not been for the French jumping in on our side, we'd have been in some deep doggy poop.

We like to think it was all farmers with their muskets and hunters with their rifles just a-bangin' away at redcoats that won us our liberty, but what it really amounted to was equal parts determination, luck, and the French looking to settle a score from about 15 year earlier. And it still wasn't decisive enough because the British came back during the War of 1812 and burned our capitol to the ground. The only thing that won it back for us was a tornado.

As for the efficiency of our political system, it's pretty flawed at times. But it's also better than having at each other with sharp sticks.

 

[Lethal Threat]

It has already started in the major metropolitan areas, and not a shot fired. The power of a few will control the many. There are more weak than strong.

 

[powder]

It has already started in the major metropolitan areas, and not a shot fired. The power of a few will control the many. There are more weak than strong.

Absolutely: In Milwaukee the TSA is doing federal deputizations of Milwaukee P.D. and Milwaukee County S.O., to go through the trains and do search/frisk stops, w/o probable cause. Consent searches, but does anybody know that? No. IS there any news sources covering it? No.

Dane County Airport, Madison , WI: The local TSA in the airport cannot keep employees on hire, as most object to what they are being ordered to do, to airline passengers. Pushing the boundaries and changing the playing fields.

Shut down, what was it, 25 square miles of Boston, for a search and seizure exercise? Just to see what would be tolerated: how much "strength of presence" is necessary to get them to lie down? The forces went from telling citizens to "shelter in place" which changed to get out of your house, ****, and don't come back til we tell you. No media were allowed beyond the roadblocks.

This is termed to be the reclamation period which we are in now, wherein private property and our overall sovereignty goes to the highest corporate bidder(s).

Yes, whoever it was who pointed out the political alignments of our forefathers was correct: the forefathers would today be pigeon-holed as liberal/Democrats, fighting the tyranny. That discussion is only a divider, not a THR avenue...

Here in WI the Koch Brothers backed Gogebic Mining Corporation has unleashed a reclamation exercise: claim public property for an out of state mining corporation, authorized a Security team from AZ to "guard" the wooded 3500 acre area in full battle gear, AND acquire the "set-aside" CRP tax benefits of keeping land out of farming with fast-tracked legislation passed just last month. How much will you swallow?

 

[Potatohead]

Keep in mind how many we do still have within the military that honor their pledges and consider that many of those would defect along with much of that military technology. We would would have a decent quantity of jets, bombers and drones on our side in my estimation. Not saying it won't be a bloody, dragged out engagement and not saying there won't be plenty of cowards who would rather bury their guns for a "sunny day", but I don't think we would get decimated like some liberals seem to believe. And as others pointed out from our experience in Afghanistan and Nam even a lower tech force with enough determination can hold off the mightiest army the world has ever seen.

We could fight a guerilla war succesfully IMO. Maybe not win outright, but at least drag it out (ie Vietnam)

 

[TrickyDick]

We are a constitutionally limited representative democratic republic.

We are not a Democratic Republic, North Korea is the "Democratic People's republic of Korea" We, the USA, are a REPUBLIC. Please see Article 4, Section 4 of the US Constitution.

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a REPUBLICAN Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."

 

[mr.trooper]

Yea the jets, choppers, tanks, & smart bombs are quite the disparity. I'm not real sure how that would work today.

Can't really talk about that hereon THR, but suffice it to say you do not need to fight fire with fire. Sometimes water works better.

Look at the news.

 

[Sam Cade]

. Sometimes water works better.

Indeed.

A study of the means and methods of modern asymmetrical warfare is very valid expenditure of time for the politically conscious citizen. However, a detailed discussion of such is beyond the comfort level for THR