Gun Control and Civil Disobedience

[ilbob]

If there were one pro-gunner with a backbone on the jury of every case involving someone not turning in their newly illegal guns that stood up and refused to convict, the resulting hung jury would gain a pass for the defendant.

they would just retry them with another jury.

or maybe without a jury at all. I seem to recall the SC ruled jury trials are not required if the maximum sentence is 6 months. maybe they charge them with a crime that has such a sentence.

 

[Tommygunn]

Quote:
If there were one pro-gunner with a backbone on the jury of every case involving someone not turning in their newly illegal guns that stood up and refused to convict, the resulting hung jury would gain a pass for the defendant.

they would just retry them with another jury

.

If they got a "not guilty" verdict then double jeopardy would apply. They could only try them again if the jury came back hung. Even then, depending on the case and what the D.A.'s caseload is, they may not reprosecute.
If, however, a number of trials got bollixed this way, this tactic might become effective.

But I won't hold my breath waiting for American people to fall in love with the Constitution and BOR again . . . . .

 

[1911Tuner]

Go back and read my posts about how we're supposed to fight modern mechanized infantry, armed aircraft, armored vehicles, etc.

The Afghan Mujahideen managed to hold off the Russian armored vehicles and attack helicopters and tanks and such armed largely with Lee Enfields and '98 Mausers long enough to capture more advanced weaponry from their enemy...and the Russians eventually threw in the towel.

It ain't the size of the dog in the fight. It's the size of the fight in the dog...

 

[sonyhoppes]

1911Tuner, it wasn't antiquated rifles and captured enemy weapons that saved them. The Afghans were getting waxed hard by armed Soviet helos. They would have surely fallen had it not been for the US provided (NOT captured) Stinger anti-aircraft shoulder fired missiles which turned the tide. But I will give you this...they did find a way to get the weapons they needed. Not sure that was a good thing for us to do but, hey, it happened and now we're fighting a bunch of these "fundamentalists" to this day.

It ain't the size of the dog in the fight. It's the size of the fight in the dog...

Spare me the David and Goliath fairy tale. You really think a pissed off wiener dog is going to win a death match against an angry pit bull, dobie, German shepard, etc? Better yet, let's put you in a cage with a Siberian tiger or a grizzly and see who comes out the winner. After all, you have the same four limbs, nails, teeth, etc, right? I'm sure you'll be the victor. Hey, that grizzly thing worked out pretty well for Timothy Treadwell, right? And, remember, the bear was outnumbered as it was two humans on one bear.

 

[Evil Monkey]

No, their antiquated rifles wasn't what saved them. The Afghans were getting waxed by armed Soviet helos. It was the US provided Stinger anti-aircraft shoulder fired missiles that turned the tide.

Hmmm......maybe a hundred years from now, someone will post the exact same thing, with some minor changes.

"No, their AR-15's wasn't what saved them. The US citizens were getting waxed by armed US military helos. It was the [insert black market source country here] provided Stinger anti-aircraft shoulder fired missiles that turned the tide."

 

[sonyhoppes]

I highly doubt it. Much of the world hates anything and everything US related. Who would provide us superior weapons to get back the America that everyone else hates? I think even our current allies would turn their backs on the US "rebels/freedom fighters" and would like to see the world power balance shift to their terms. And that includes the "on the fence ones". Don't think for a second we'd see an ounce of help from Russia or China... Canada doesn't care. Mexico is already invading. There isn't ONE nation in the world that ever had America's back in a knife fight. We were always protecting THEM. UK, France, etc...it goes on and on. Sure, they'll help us when the US is leading the charge, but not the other way around.

 

[1911Tuner]

The Afghans were getting waxed hard by armed Soviet helos.. It was the US provided Stinger anti-aircraft shoulder fired missiles that turned the tide

Yep...but they had to hold their ground until they could get the Stingers...and they did.

Spare me the David and Goliath fairy tale.

I don't believe in fairy tales I saw a Jack Russel take on a Chow and win once...and I very much resent the tone of your response. Uncessary and un High Road.

 

[sprithitler]

Superiour tactics, superiour knowledge of the battleground and the ability to fade into the population in the area are things that makes an partisan force highly effective against a technologically superiour foe. A M2 Bradley on patrol rolls down the street. As per usual, the Chief of the wagon stands up in his hatch. Suddenly at an intersection a .50 BMG bullet blows through his helmet and turns his head into pink mist. Now, to find the shooter and confiscate the weapon they have too search through four skyscrapers, roof to ceiling, and check every inhabitant for gunpowder residue. How do you do that?
War also makes strange bedfellows, perhaps some ouside source decides to sell or give more effective weapons to the insurgents, and all of a sudden not only the chief of the Bradley gets blown away, but the entire crew is killed when an insurgent hidden in a shrubbery fires his AT4 at the patrol.
And what happens later? when mexico wants california and texas and the US Fed Gov is allready stretched thin due to civil war?

 

[sonyhoppes]

They weren't holding their ground. They were losing BADLY and that's why we stepped in with the Stingers. Look at South Korea and Vietnam. SK only "won" because we maintained a presence there, NOT because they themselves won the North. We left Vietnam and everything fell back to the Soviet backed VC. Those people would have NEVER stood a chance on their own fighting their own superiorly armed countrymen. In all these cases, the US stepped in to "stem the red tide". They would have been eradicated left to their own "devices", pun intended.

 

[MarcusWendt]

It is interesting that while people, in the hundreds and thousands, protest the for the rights of people to break our laws an enter our country illegally, I don't think I've seen 10 people march, riot, protest, or much more than shake a fist at the prospect of us loosing something guaranteed to us by the bill of rights.

 

[bogie]

Guys, could we stop slinging testosterone over "we'll take up arms" and all that, and see if we can do something BEFORE we have to start shooting?

Like, maybe, working on major opinion gatekeepers at colleges and universities? They've got their minds at least semi-open right now - You gonna take advantage of it, or are you going to keep up the posturing rhetoric?

Or should I just **** and go away?

 

[sonyhoppes]

Guys, could we stop slinging testosterone over "we'll take up arms" and all that, and see if we can do something BEFORE we have to start shooting?

Exactly. We will lose when the REAL conflict begins.

Or should I just **** and go away?

No, you have a very valid point.

 

[MarcusWendt]

Bogie, action does need to be taken, but as you say, it need not be armed resistance...yet.

I keep wondering why we don't see large groups of gun owners and 2A rights supporters assembled at some of these political rallies for the various candidates. Why aren't we out there load and being seen?

I don't think I've ever seen one organized anywhere.

We are talking about protecting our rights.

I think I'll write the NRA and suggest this. We need national attention. Maybe blocking access to a major roadway near the White House or congress or something. Why aren't we marching in the street as our government chops up the bill of rights?

 

[sonyhoppes]

I don't think I've seen 10 people march, riot, protest, or much more than shake a fist at the prospect of us loosing something guaranteed to us by the bill of rights.

Guess you've never heard of the NRA, JFPO, GOA, VCDL, etc.

 

[phoglund]

Sonyhoppes

I highly doubt it. Much of the world hates anything and everything US related. Who would provide us superior weapons to get back the America that everyone else hates? I think even our current allies would turn their backs on the US "rebels/freedom fighters" and would like to see the world power balance shift to their terms. And that includes the "on the fence ones". Don't think for a second we'd see an ounce of help from Russia or China... Canada doesn't care. Mexico is already invading. There isn't ONE nation in the world that ever had America's back in a knife fight. We were always protecting THEM. UK, France, etc...it goes on and on. Sure, they'll help us when the US is leading the charge, but not the other way around.

I agree with you on your post quoted above.

I still beg to differ with you on your basic premise however. I just don't see the U.S. Military going to war against the citizens on this issue. After all, UCMJ isn't much different than the civilian legal code the people you propose the military would attack are breaking.

I also agree that in a pitched battle civilians cannot hope to prevail against the organization, training, discipline, and weaponry of the American military. However, if such a conflict would come to pass I doubt seriously dissenting civilians would choose massed combat tactics. Those that do will lose.

I also don't suggest that what amounts to civil war is a desirable outcome. Essentially if things get that bad we as a country have already lost. Indeed the United States might cease to exist in it's current form and will in all likelihood lose its current position in the world both economically and politically.

One has to realize that if we lose our rights under the 2nd Amendment the United States will no longer be the country we all love.

We must continue to carry on the fight to keep our rights recognized by the Constitution by working within the Constitution ourselves to protect those rights.

We must also realize what the founders of this country realized. Sometimes those in power don't recognize the rights of the people, and if that happens those that wish to remain free must risk all.

Let's all hope it doesn't come to that.

 

[yokel]

It is the solemn duty and responsibility, of every patriotic American, to risk their lives to endorse freedom and defy fascism and the subordination of citizenship to group identity.

This is the way it must be, and not simply bellicose rhetoric or wild-eyed chest thumping.

Let us not waver or rest until the domestic enemies of liberty, our homegrown anti-patriots are mercilessly crushed and destroyed!

 

[bogie]

One major problem is that we're so damn fragmented that we've got at more organizations involved than we can count without taking our shoes (or pants...) off...

The most influential lobby is AARP. No competition. Us, well, we fight within ourselves, and we're so into "being the winner" that we destroy our allies.

Yeah. Us. You. I'm talking about YOU.

And me, but hey, I'm trying to play nice...

WE... That's the ticket! WE need to do something.

Now, can we work at what WE need to do? Because unless everyone agrees, or at least volunteers to stay the heck out of the way, we'll have problems.

Now, I'm saying that we REALLY need to contact opinion makers/gatekeepers at colleges and universities. The adminstrations (presidents, VPs, deans, etc.) and faculty (the profs/teachers), and sow the -seeds- of logical self protection. Now, I don't figure that we'll be able to go back to that field of knowledge in 30 minutes and harvest a complete crop... We gotta be patient. We're the farmers of gun rights.

Are you with me?

 

[sachmo]

The best we can hope from any government is that they leave us alone so that we may live our lives in peace. Of course despite the best efforts of our founding fathers we all know thats not how it works. Government is insatiable especially on the Federal level. It will continue to grow continue to increase taxes and interfere more in our daily lives until critical mass is reached.
Rest assured gun ownership for us is and has been on the endangered species list for some time. Its not like you wake up one morning to the sounds of dogs barking and blue helmeted Frenchmen kicking your door in. It will be done the same way it was done in Brittan, Australia, Canada etc. little by little bit by bit by laws passed to make us all safer of course.
However at the next major event the president whoever he or she is has the legal authority to declare martial law and the constitution, any rights you think you might have will become a footnote in history.
look around the world, most governments have already made firearms ownership by their populations illegal our own government is just a little slower getting to that point thats all. The last time a bunch of folks got together and decided they didn't like what the Feds were doing caused a hell of a mess. Sure you may get a few Military or LEO types who decided to follow their conscience but the majority will follow orders and if told to pick up your guns thats just what they will do and if you decided to resist think Ruby Ridge or Waco but by then I think they will have long dispensed with anything resembling due process and the issue will be settled quickly and violently.
When the call or knock comes I suspect most of us will begrudgingly turn them in. Until then fight as best you can through the political process but looking at the current presidential frontrunner's I fear this is also a lost cause. we are only delaying the inevitable.

 

[antsi]

I agree it is much better to take civil/legal/political action than gleefully bring on a state of armed insurgency. The price for such would be terrible indeed.

However, I think the jury is still out on whether an indigenous insurgency with small arms and improvised explosives can maintain resistance against a modern military. So far, the folk in Iraq are continuing to cause problems for us despite our hardware and training superiority.

Ultimately a victorious revolution often involves the inner collapse of the existing regime as much as a victory of the rebels. The Reds could never have defeated the Tsar's army at the height of its powers - but they didn't have to. By the time the Reds were fighting the Tsar's army, large numbers of the Tsar's forces had defected to the Reds and the army was collapsing from within.
The alternative to "collapse from within" is "help from without." Sometimes it is both.
In general, history has not been kind to those who say "it can never happen here."

Generally, I agree with those who say I genuinely hope it doesn't come to that. Even in terms of legal political action within the system, however, I don't think we as gun owners have been very smart about political strategy. We tend to fight idealistically instead of realistically.

 

[sprithitler]

-sachmo.

It may be inevitable, but it is still worth delaying.
If you manage to stop the next administration from Pi****g on the constitution, and then manage to stop the next and so on, you will only delay the "inevitable" by a couple of years each time, but that is all it takes. Good men (and women) standing up for whats right, every single time a wrongdoer wants to take their liberty away. This time it is your responisbility, in 20 years, your sons and daughters will stand by your side in the fight, in 50 years your grandchildren will join you in the fight, and in 100 years futher new generations will be waging this same war. We can never reach a lasting victory, but as long as we avoid a lasting defeat, we have won.

 

[johninminnesota]

It will continue to grow continue to increase taxes and interfere more in our daily lives until critical mass is reached

Amen. The real answer: TERM LIMITS.

I have a question - has "elimination" of guns in Australia and GB reduced violent crime? How about gun violence?

 

[sprithitler]

-marinepilot81

You are not entirely right.
Vietnam VS USA: was not a "small lowtech army" they were well supplied with russian and chinese arms, besides which, The US didnt loose the war, You withdrew from it after loosing at home. With better rules of engagement and better support from home USA might have won.

Afghans VS Russia: The mujaheddin had given up and fled to Pakistan when CIA gave them Stingers to take down the russian gunships.

Palestinians VS IDF: The palestinians are harrassing Israel, but are insignificant from a military point of view. The only people harmed by the PLO and Hamas waging their eternal war on Israel are the palestinian people. The culprits here are the UN as well as the arabic neighbouring countries. The palestinians are very few, and could easily be resettled, but the UN as well as the arab countries wants them in Gaza and on the west bank to serve as eternal victims of "Sionist Aggression".

Somalians VS USA is a conflict i dont know much about, but as far as i know that one is a matter of huge armed militias hiding in a population they dont give a damn about, fighting against a small hightech military presense charged with avoiding civilian casualties.

This is not to diagree with the thesis that a small techologically inferior force can give serious pause to and even defeat a numerically and technologically superiour enemy. The Partisans of Balkan in WWII was a serious pain in the posteriour for the Wehrmacht, as was the Finns for the red army.

 

[bogie]

Nope. It's just next to impossible to defeat a committed guerrilla force.

The times that there were actual "battles" (such as Tet), the modern armies kicked major butt. Heck, the Blackhawk Down bit in Mogadishu - we had casualties in the dozens. The Somali militias had casualties in the hundreds, if not thousands.

Modern militaries refer to scenarios such as those as "target rich environments."

When our troops in the revolutionary war got up on their hind legs, and tried fighting like the brits, they got waxed... But they were excellent guerrilla fighters - the brits would stand in the middle of the field of battle, wondering when we were going to attack - while they were taking hits...

 

[FourNineFoxtrot]

I honestly don't understand why this thread hasn't been locked.

Do I really have to be the one to remind us all that our words are being read by more than just forum members?

This is neither the time nor the place for such talk. Civil Disobedience is one thing, something which I would support and be active in if it were done right. Armed resistance is not something to be talking about even hypothetically on a public internet forum.

Not only is all this talk about armed resistance, "cold dead hands", and the like making us look even crazier, but it's going to draw attention if it hasn't already.

If you need to make a decision and a plan for when That Day comes, then do so privately, and with whatever friends and like-minded folk you can get together. But for **** sake, be discreet. Please. This isn't the right time. The right time will be when something like this actually looks like it's about to happen. Then you can start talking if you need to. Frankly, I would just suggest a nice, quiet threat proposing localized regional meeting places for members to congregate to discuss their options. Nothing illegal about that. Peaceful gatherings, quietly agreed to online. And even then, only if That Day comes.

I just want to say for the record that I do not condone any sort of armed resistance against a legitimate government. I am a peaceful and law-abiding citizen and wish to remain that way.

Discretion, people. Chest-thumpers get noticed, and dealt with.

 

[Rachen]

I'm truly sickened by some of the pessimistic responses.

The enemy of our freedom exists within this forum, in the RKBA community.

Okay, what he meant by that last statement is not that there is a traitor hiding amongst us, but WE ARE ALL ENEMIES TO OURSELVES AND OUR CHERISHED FREEDOMS. What happens during an important election, when 100,000,000 people are expected to vote, for example. One person becomes pessimistic, and says to himself "Well, so what, one vote can't make a difference", and then, doesn't go out and vote. What if, everybody has the SAME pessimistic attitude, and puts down all effort into voting? What going to happen? Chances are, the outcomes of that election is going to be sh*tty.

This is what it means. We are all enemies of ourselves. If we keep having this attitude, with this "I am a target shooter, I am better than you combat shooters", "Oh, people say .45 is better than 9mm, but MY 9mm is better than your .45", or "We can't keep our freedoms being taken away", or any of this adult-baby-like attitude, our future would be really cloudy with excrement.

This thread has been going on for so long, but nobody has mentioned MIKE VANDERBOEGH. He is a true AMERICAN PATRIOT, and you guys should read what he says. After all, he is a Militiaman.