Rational Reasons Why We Should Not Surrender Our Arms

[ConstitutionCowboy]

From the colsed thread on "Would You Turn In Your Guns If..."

You do understand that the our movement generally has no better an understandng of our adversary than they of us? You do understand that they look at these continual protestations of "...cold dead fingers" as evidence of our instability and willingness to shoot those who oppose our beliefs. Are you REALLY prepared to shoot a LEO who is executing his duties by confiscating your weapons??? Because every time we type this rhetoric we make that assertion. The rank and file have a poor impression of us for a very good reason... we allow them to. We need to clean up our act. When an anti presents his argument, we need to be able to demonstrate reason... not resort to invective.

We are not willing to shoot those who oppose our beliefs and I doubt any one has ever done such a thing. We oppose and are willing to shoot those who send people to confiscate them(EDIT: our guns) and those who would carry out those unconstitutional and unconscionable directions.

Yes, I am willing to shoot a/any LEO/s who would carry out those unconstitutional orders. Now it is no longer an assertion. My "act" needs no "cleaning". I have right and the Constitution that has been agreed to by all to back me up.

Any time an anti presents his "reason", we listen. If an anti wants our guns, that anti will have to amend the Constitution, then pass law that aligns with that new constitutional amendment, and then bear up to the likely consequences of attempting to limit our Right to Keep and Bear Arms and actually take them. Note that even without the Second Amendment, we still have the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Simply abolishing the Second Amendment will not do. The Constitution will have to be amended to grant power to Congress to pass legislation limiting our Right to Keep and Bear Arms. None of this is violent or abusive language(invective). It is fact and explication of our inherent and inalienable right.

This is not an issue to be compromised away. It is an issue of constitutional law, and the inherent rights of man. These people who would infringe our rights need to be defeated at the ballot box. That is option one. If that fails, they need to be defeated on the battlefield. That is the second and final option. The choice of the option rests not with us on the side of right, for it is an inalienable right and it is our duty to never relinquish that right. To relinquish any of the right is the beginning of the end of freedom. We will do what it takes to preserve the right. The choice is in the purview of those who contemplate infringing upon it. How far are THEY willing to go? That is the question that needs answering.

Why we who are savvy of the right and its importance have allowed the infringements to go this far puzzles and vexes me. But, I do believe the level of tolerance has been exceeded and we are pushing back. Our resolve must never be tempered. We don't need to win these anti-rights people over. They need to be defeated. Let them listen to OUR reason. Let them study history and find out WHY the right must never be infringed. Let them study the statistics and figure out just how valuable armed citizens are to freedom from crime. Let them run their emotions out to exhaustion and they just might fall back on reason.

Don't kiss their feet. Stomp on their toes! They are screwing with our rights and the very freedom the rights protects. I'd rather sting them now than have them enslaved or killed by some tyrant or Islamofascist theocratic dictatorship after we can do nothing to stop it. I love my fellow countrymen as much as I love myself. A good kick in the ass may forgo a new civil war. Lord knows, mine has been kicked enough. I've learned. Now I'll teach my brothers.

Woody

"We the People are the government of this land, we decide who writes our laws, we decide who leads us, and we decide who will judge us - for as long as We the People have the arms to keep it that way." B.E.Wood

 

[Tommygunn]

Don't kiss their feet. Stomp on their toes!

I like that comment! -- Can I steal it if I need it?

Yeah, I agree with your post. It may eventually come to a shooting war.
It may not be ONLY the police, either.
Keep your powder dry and hope the ballot box is still viable -- and the jury box....

 

[ProguninTN]

Woody

Great post Woody. On that forum, I said

tyranny and usurption of rights goes up.

Basically, that there is an inherent invitation to tyranny. However, I think you put it more eloquently.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Tommygunn: Be my guest! (Note that I corrected the spelling from "stop" to "stomp".)

ProguninTN: Naw, I just have a bigger mouth!

Woody

 

[JCF]

Yes, I am willing to shoot a/any LEO/s who would carry out those unconstitutional orders. Now it is no longer an assertion. My "act" needs no "cleaning".

Wow.

 

[stlgunfan]

If they came in like the guys in LA, Chicago and come to take away all my guns and haul me off to ruin the rest of my life, they might as well just take me out and kill me. It would make it easier and less paperwork for the DA office anyways.

I cant imagine living with no 2A rights!!!

I'm suprised no one in LA has revolted against the LAPD when they come in and do their unconstitutional raids like they have been doing in KALI.

 

[NineseveN]

You know, I hear folks saying this, but somehow, I'm not buying it. The reality will be that maybe a handful of folks would resist, and they'd die trying and get stomped in the media for being a terrorist or a militia member...

 

[Standing Wolf]

When an anti presents his argument, we need to be able to demonstrate reason... not resort to invective.

Attempting to reason with anti-Second Amendment bigots is like trying to teach cockroaches to whistle and dance.

 

[crazed_ss]

I'm suprised no one in LA has revolted against the LAPD when they come in and do their unconstititionl raids like they have been doing in KALI.

Revolt against what? We have certain laws here. The vast majority of us follow them, even if they are complete BS. We're not gonna revolt against the LAPD because a couple guys decide they want to play chicken with the law.

If the law is going to change, it's going to be through a legislative proccess. Any "revolts" will just make the situation worse... The government will just say, "SEE.. these people ARE CRAZY.. they shoot at cops who are just doing their job and enforcing the law.. clearly they shouldnt have weapons!!!!"

 

[DKSuddeth]

the deal with the anti-gun groups is that they are not 'American' in the sense that they not only do not believe in individual freedom, but that they are incapable of dealing with that thought of independence. They see people as wayward individuals who need 'state' guidance and control to prevent wide lawlessness and anarchy. That is why the 'cold dead hands' statement sends them off in to the 'see? they are violent lawless people'.

The movement to remove guns is part and parcel to their agenda of totalitarianism, or any other ism, that puts the monopoly of power in the states hands. To them, we are lawless, even though we view it as being free. Their concept of freedom is limited to the ability to ask the government for permission to do something and having it granted to them. The ability to do said things without fear of any kind of threat of violence from another individual when they step on that individuals rights. Individual rights are foreign to them because individual rights hampers the advance of society as the 'whole', or the 'ism' of socialism, communism, fascism, etc.

The more power that these statists grab in politics, through BOTH political parties, ensures their forward momentum. Look at the republican party now. Gun rights, which once had no limits, now is looked upon as something that requires 'reasonable regulation'. That reasonable regulation amounts to limiting anything that removes the monopoly of violence from the state.

Laws are a big part of statism. Laws are how they will advance their statist agenda. Everytime the anti's make the claim that we are unbalanced because we wouldn't follow the law to turn in our weapons, they feel vindicated. It isn't any different than fanatical terrorists at this point. You can not reason with a fanatic. Brady, Sugarman, the VPC, the LCAV, the joyce foundation, soros, etc. They are all statist fanatics. That is because they get their power over you from the state, by laws. They like that power and want to increase their power, over you.

It will come down to a shooting war, eventually, and those who still believe in the original intent of America had better get used to the fact that you will have to kill those who are intent on statism, even though they are your fellow citizens.

 

[JCF]

Revolt against what? We have certain laws here. The vast majority of us follow them, even if they are complete BS. We're not gonna revolt against the LAPD because a couple guys decide they want to play chicken with the law.

If the law is going to change, it's going to be through a legislative proccess. Any "revolts" will just make the situation worse... The government will just say, "SEE.. these people ARE CRAZY.. they shoot at cops who are just doing their job and enforcing the law.. clearly they shouldnt have weapons!!!!"

EXACTLY.

This continual advocacy of revolution and prediction of "shooting wars" is destroying the credibility of the RKBA movement. Justifying shooting law enforcement... probably not the message we want to send.

 

[longeyes]

Laws are a big part of statism. Laws are how they will advance their statist agenda. Everytime the anti's make the claim that we are unbalanced because we wouldn't follow the law to turn in our weapons, they feel vindicated. It isn't any different than fanatical terrorists at this point. You can not reason with a fanatic. Brady, Sugarman, the VPC, the LCAV, the joyce foundation, soros, etc. They are all statist fanatics. That is because they get their power over you from the state, by laws. They like that power and want to increase their power, over you.

It will come down to a shooting war, eventually, and those who still believe in the original intent of America had better get used to the fact that you will have to kill those who are intent on statism, even though they are your fellow citizens.

Well said. There's a reason why lawyers are called "hired guns." Law is a gunfight by other means.

 

[Nio]

Well said. There's a reason why lawyers are called "hired guns." Law is a gunfight by other means.

I think that's the crux of it. Talking about RKBA is just one facet of law. The philosophical question is about law, and at what point an individual decides to stop obeying the law. What if the second amendment were repealed? That would mean a change in the law. At what point do enough individuals decide to disobey the law so that the law becomes unenforcable?

For example, what if a law was passed that said that the speed limit on the interstate was 5 MPH? How many people would obey that?

It doesn't have to come to a 'shootout'. Simple civil disobedience would be enough. If just 10% of the productive population just dug their heels
in and demanded to be prosecuted and, when they were found guilty,
incarcerated, the entire justice system would grind to a halt.

We're talking about 30 *million* people. The system simply couldn't handle
it.

Five per cent would probably do it.

We currently have roughly 1.5 million people incarcerated. The system has no way to deal with a one to two *thousand* per cent increase in just the
prison population, much less the court system.

This also isn't taking into consideration the loss or tax revenue or the amount to maintain 15 to 30 million prisoners.

They would back down.

The problem is that I don't think there are 15 to 30 million people in the country with the balls to do it.

Nio

 

[JCF]

Just out of curiosity...

Once we kill all these people who threaten us, thereby quashing tyranny and oppression, then what? How exactly do we maintain our hold on our free and unoppressed society? What happens when the anti-gun people regroup and begin advocating change through legitimate channels and processes again? Wait until they succeed and kill them all again?

 

[CAnnoneer]

Once we kill all these people who threaten us, thereby quashing tyranny and oppression, then what? How exactly do we maintain our hold on our free and unoppressed society? What happens when the anti-gun people regroup and begin advocating change through legitimate channels and processes again? Wait until they succeed and kill them all again?

The tree of liberty grows tall
when regularly watered
with the blood of tyrants, big and small.

 

[stlgunfan]

But why is the LAPD using ATF agents to enforce city ordinances, and state law? The one guy they agents. I dont want my federal tax money going to enforce some city ordinances, or unconstituional state laws.

Its pretty clear ATF is doing that for the publicity and plus election time rolling around. Hoping someone revolts, and another ruby ridge again to put them in the spotlight.

Chicago and ISP are pulling the same thing. they got a list of all multiple firearms purchase forms filled out since 1992 in the united states. Id love to seem them come over here to MO like Bloomers did with his boot licking thugs.

I dont like seeing anyone get hurt, or killed, but like in cases in LA people being opressed someones going to revolt against them when they come a knocking and will bite back.

 

[Tommygunn]

EXACTLY. This continual advocacy of revolution and prediction of "shooting wars" is destroying the credibility of the RKBA movement. Justifying shooting law enforcement... probably not the message we want to send.

While I understand the sentiment, and sometimes think it would perhaps be a better strategy not to be so vocal about this sort of thing, there are times when I think revolt might become necessary if certain social agendas should come to fruition someday. I dislike the idea of shooting LEOs myself, and outside of revolt, I would never, ever propose it, or agree with it. Many LEOs are good people who do tireless work in a thankless job and get regularly pissed on by many people in society. They are cursed when they aren't there when needed, and when they pull someone over for a traffic violation they are cursed for being there.
Yes, the RKBA movement could certainly be threatened by this, I think. That's why we have to be very clear and very precise when we're discussing this -- and even THAT won't stop the antis from taking things out of context and using them against us. But, they're wont to do that no matter what we do.

Revolt against what? We have certain laws here. The vast majority of us follow them, even if they are complete BS. We're not gonna revolt against the LAPD because a couple guys decide they want to play chicken with the law.

If the law is going to change, it's going to be through a legislative proccess. Any "revolts" will just make the situation worse... The government will just say, "SEE.. these people ARE CRAZY.. they shoot at cops who are just doing their job and enforcing the law.. clearly they shouldnt have weapons!!!!"

Well, under normal circumstances, I'd agree. But unfortunatly, it's not always possible to change law "through a legislative proccess." Our country's founding fathers found that out. Believe me, they didn't start by shooting redcoats. First they started "committees of correspondence" and tried more peaceful persuasive measures, then civil disobedience, like the Boston Tea Party. But they found those measures insufficient, so then came "the shot heard around the world."
We should be doing the same. We do need to keep pressure on our politicians first, and exhaust peaceful measures.
Patrick Henry warned us, 200 years ago that the time to revolt was before our guns were confiscated, not after.

Once we kill all these people who threaten us, thereby quashing tyranny and oppression, then what? How exactly do we maintain our hold on our free and unoppressed society? What happens when the anti-gun people regroup and begin advocating change through legitimate channels and processes again? Wait until they succeed and kill them all again?

Good question....I wonder what the founding fathers would have said.
I know it is said that Thomas Jefferson thought there should be a revolution every 20 years or so. Someone once said "the price of liberty is eternal vigilance." The fact is, as long as there are those who will see to it they are free, there will be those who will try to stop them from being free, and those enemies will be found both outside the republic, and inside it.
There's no such thing as a utopia. And the free do not get to sleep.

 

[Bruce H]

Shall not be infringed means exactly that. Anybody that doesn't understand it is a very real part of the problem.

 

[geekWithA.45]

I think we have to place "molon labe" into perspective.

The Right To Keep and Bear Arms is defended in depth, at least in America, and that is our saving grace, it is what makes any sort of a "final stand" a distant possibility.

There are many ditches, fences and walls, some of law, some of Federalism, some of organization, and some of culture that obstruct the core Gun Bigot's goal of disarming the populace.

All these bulwarks are what OBLIGE the core Forces of Organized Gun Bigotry to proceed in a long term, incremental approach, they know that in order to be ultimately successful, they must broach and conquer each and every one of these minefields.

"Cold Dead Hands" is the very, very, very, very last of these defenses, and is a noble affirmation of our national character, ESPECIALLY in that we are so very reluctant to jump straight to that final remedy, and are patiently willing to put up with all sorts of indignity during the "soft" fight.

In order to win, they must either use force, a risky proposition to say the least, considering that there are nearly 100 million of us, or slowly convince an entire society that has been borned and raised on the mother's milk of "we may have to literally fight to preserve our lives and liberty" to voluntarilly disarm.

Now, CFriesen mentioned that he came from " from a country where registration and confiscation is not theoretical. I have seen it first hand. I take the cause very seriously as a result, and I prize my right more than most."

I'm not sure which one that is, but most nations tend to view people's prerogatives as subject to majoritarian excercise.

Not so in the US.

Our foundation has placed certain topics, and the means to defend them above and beyond that which may be legislated, literally placing it outside the realm of what may be justly transgressed.

We are born into a nation that wrested itself from Britain's grasp on our own authority, and we have provisioned our laws, ethos and mythos with many protections from tyranny, be it the tyranny of one, or the tyranny of many. The knowledge that we may one day have to fight to preserve all that is good and just is in our bones.

I've long suspected that a fundamental difference between the US and most of the places where the Forces of Organized Gun Bigotry have won is that they know that if they win, there is at least the smallest fraction of us who will go totally ape****, and even the smallest fraction, be it several hundred, several thousand, or several tens of thousand is more than they can handle.

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is of sober and serious purpose.

If at the end of the day, you are unwilling to use your arms at least in theory to sweep monsters who have come to take your life and your liberty from the ramparts, then your grasp of the deep, sober and serious purpose of your arms is tenuous, and your worthiness of them is suspect.

There is true value in that credible threat of that smallest fraction.

It may appall some, and alienate others, but that's unnavoidable. You cannot sugarcoat it, and expect it to retain coherent credibility.

What can be done that may ammeliorate the concerns of some who are appalled and alienated is to show the very last ditchness of such measures, and illustrate the restraint that our gun culture shows on a daily basis. We can educate them to what happens when such resolve fails, the 20th century is littered with many examples.

 

[longeyes]

Once we kill all these people who threaten us, thereby quashing tyranny and oppression, then what? How exactly do we maintain our hold on our free and unoppressed society? What happens when the anti-gun people regroup and begin advocating change through legitimate channels and processes again? Wait until they succeed and kill them all again?

When we have arrested all the murderers, rapists, and muggers, creating a lawful society, and they regroup and start wreaking havoc again, then what? Arrest and prosecute them again?

YES.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

For Starters,

We on the side of protecting our Right to Keep and Bear Arms are not the aggressors here! It is the gun grabbers, the rights limiters, the Soros/Peters/Feinsteins et ilk and their army of sycophants who are the aggressors! It is our rights being attacked! What we do now with our rhetoric is defend our rights. Hopefully, that is as far as we will ever need to go.

Life being what it is, and those ignorant of history and gullible enough to buy the rhetoric of the anti-gun-rights faction in this country being what they are, it may come to a shooting war. BUT, LET IT BE KNOWN WE ON THIS SIDE OF THE FENCE ARE IN A DEFENSIVE POSITION, NOT ONE OF AGGRESSION! IF THERE BE BLOOD SPILLED OVER THIS ISSUE, IT WILL BE AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THE AGGRESSIVE AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTIONS OF ERRANT LAW MAKERS AND THOSE ENFORCERS TOO BLIND NOT TO RECOGNIZE AN UNLAWFUL ORDER.

There are hills worth dying on. This is one of them. On the other side of this hill lies tyranny, despotism, and enslavement. I will die a free man on this hill rather than rot in the ravine of despotism in the valley on the other side of the hill.

To those who would take our arms all the way down to those who think we should shut our mouths and do nothing stronger than look longingly at or arms and the right to them as they disappear, I say this:

"I'm sitting here, in front of my computer, a free man. I am not launching an attack on anyone. As long as I have my arms, I know I am secure from tyranny. I'll vote and espouse 'till I'm blue in the face. Just don't come here expecting to relieve me of my arms. Sorry, but it will not happen. I know my rights. I know the limitations upon government in the Constitution. I'm rather comfortable with that. No admonition, no fear-mongering, no being taken out of context will change that. You may lie to yourself and the gullible may believe you and cower in the corner where you want them to be, but it will not include me. I am a free man.​

Woody

A law that says you cannot fire your gun in the middle of downtown unless in self defense is not unconstitutional. Laws that prohibit brandishing except in self defense or handling your gun in a threatening or unsafe manner would not be unconstitutional. Laws can be written that govern some of the uses of guns. No law can be written that infringes upon buying, keeping, storing, carrying, limiting caliber, limiting capacity, limiting quantity, limiting action, or any other limit that would infringe upon the keeping or bearing of arms. That is the truth and simple reality of the limits placed upon government by the Second Amendment to the Constitution. B.E.Wood

 

[another okie]

the ballot box
the soap box
the jury box
the cartridge box

 

[Sistema1927]

The Second Amendment is the Founding Fathers' statement that tyrants will be met by force.

There is no sugar coating this truth.

Any tyrant or his henchmen should understand this fact, and "political correctness" be damned.

 

[Fosbery]

I've had to hand in firearms on two occasions (actually I chose to send them abroad rather than see them destroyed).

I made a topic about this actually. What could I do? The vast majority of my countrymen were against me, the law was now against me, and if I did not comply with the law then police would come and take them away anyway. I could have disobeyed and fought but to what end? I would end up killing police officers who, though misguided, were not exactly evil Gestapo.

Civil disobedience seems to be the most likely solution. When 35% of the population owns guns (as I believe is the case in the USA), you only need one in seven gun owners, or there abouts, to disobey the law for it to become unmanagable to prosecute them. The question is, will one in seven gun owners be willing to risk serious jail time for the cause? It's all well and good for one to now say "Yes, I would go to prison for the RKBA" but when the time comes and you have to choose between spending the next 5 years with your family or the next 5 years watching your back in the comunal shower, I wonder how many would really choose to disobey.

 

[Cromlech]

Fosbery is right. That is exactly why you should never let it get to the stage where they have restricted firearms to the level of being banned entirely. Every inch of ground lost to the 'enemy' now, is a mile later on.