Rational Reasons Why We Should Not Surrender Our Arms

[JCF]

Quote:
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.

The law enforcement officers who would potentailly carry out their ostensibly lawful duties by confiscating outlawed firearms are equivalent to murderers, rapists, and muggers? They are to be treated as a hostile enemy and shot dead? Really?

We are to engage in RKBA activities through legitimate and legal democratic process up until such a point as we are legitimately defeated, at which point we are to kill those who oppose us; thereby affecting a free society - free of tyranny??? Really?

Good heavens people, look at what kind of message you are sending... regardless of the "context". This is unbelievably bad business. Little wonder they make us look like fools.

 

[longeyes]

You said tyrants and oppressors, not law enforcement. My answer to you is you deal with threats to your liberty as they arise, as completely as possible, and often as you need to. Don't create straw men. My remarks were not aimed at legitimate law enforcement--and I think you understood that. I was giving you an example of when repeated action, in the service of preserving liberty and peace, is required.

 

[Alex45ACP]

My main "rational" reason for never giving up my guns is that I don't want to end up like this guy:

 

[geekWithA.45]

We are to engage in RKBA activities through legitimate and legal democratic process up until such a point as we are legitimately defeated, at which point we are to kill those who oppose us; thereby affecting a free society - free of tyranny??? Really?

And the alternative would be....what?

Again, the premise of our polity is that there are certain areas into which the will of the masses, expressed through governance, may not go.

The deep respect for democratic process only extends so far, democratic process cannot ever be deemed to legitimize such an extreme, perverse outcome.

Ideally, democratic processes actively PREVENT such perverse outcomes, and there are those who would argue that a democratic process that fails to protect those natural rights which have not been ceeded has failed. Knowing this, the founders knew that nothing was perfect, that things can indeed turn to poop and darkness, and wisely left the ultimate veto in the hands of the citizens, where it rightly belongs.

I have friends who live in Hungary. They were tossed into concentration camps, their homes and goods stolen, and by the standards of the time, they got off easy, in that they lived through the experience.

Each and every outrage, which was visited upon every third family was performed in full accordance with the law, enacted through democratic process.

Allow me to introduce Madga, and her son Peter:

http://geekwitha45.blogspot.com/2006_09_01_geekwitha45_archive.html#115708657563474416

Allow me to acquaint you with what happens when monsters get control:

http://geekwitha45.blogspot.com/2006_09_01_geekwitha45_archive.html#115726283640236335

Are you telling us that what I've written about is acceptable? That there are no circumstances under which you would take up arms?

The law enforcement officers who would potentailly carry out their ostensibly lawful duties by confiscating outlawed firearms are equivalent to murderers, rapists, and muggers? They are to be treated as a hostile enemy and shot dead? Really?

Would you NOT have shot dead those soldiers, ostensibly carrying out their lawful duties of hauling Magda and her family away if you had the means?

Where they not IN FACT hostile enemies, fully eligible and worthy of being shot dead?


So, to answer your long string of if...really?

YES. THERE ARE CIRCUMSTANCES, THAT ARE BOTH REMOTE AND EXTREME, AND DEVOUTLY TO BE AVOIDED, WHERE I AND OTHERS LIKE ME WOULD INDEED SHOOT DEAD THOSE WHO CHOOSE TO IMPLEMENT EVIL.

There are days when you simply have to hide the Jews and shoot the Nazis, in whatever their guise, and I pray that I never see them.

 

[JCF]

You said tyrants and oppressors, not law enforcement. My answer to you is you deal with threats to your liberty as they arise, as completely as possible, and often as you need to. Don't create straw men. My remarks were not aimed at legitimate law enforcement--and I think you understood that. I was giving you an example of when repeated action, in the service of preserving liberty and peace, is required.

I am in no way attempting to distort your assertions. The post you responded to dealt with the issue of advocating the shooting of LEO's who are charged with carrying out the act of confiscation; the agents of the oppressors as it were. I understand the basis of the molon labe / cold dead hands premises fully... and I agree in principal. What I am saying to you is that others do not understand. The community at large does not. Particularly those who are bent toward supporting gun-control. To these people all you are doing is advocating what I described. We need the support of those people, and we will never get it by portraying ourselves as unstable and criminal militants willing to distort the principals of democracy to suit our specific interests. WE look like the tyrants... and with good reason I might add. Molon labe / cold dead hands = nutjob to the greater part of society.

Think about it. Regardless of whether we are right in your beliefs... is this the best way to approach this very important fight???

 

[JCF]

Would you NOT have shot dead those soldiers, ostensibly carrying out their lawful duties of hauling Magda and her family away if you had the means?

Where they not IN FACT hostile enemies, fully eligible and worthy of being shot dead?


So, to answer your long string of if...really?

YES. THERE ARE CIRCUMSTANCES, THAT ARE BOTH REMOTE AND EXTREME, AND DEVOUTLY TO BE AVOIDED, WHERE I AND OTHERS LIKE ME WOULD INDEED SHOOT DEAD THOSE WHO CHOOSE TO IMPLEMENT EVIL.

I agree with you... but I think that we would all do well to very clearly define those circumstances, and exercise some very, very serious reservation in our proclamation of our apparently VERY ZEALOUS WILLINGNESS TO DO SO. Take careful note of how frequently posters proclaim, with near glee and no shortage of humor, their willingness. Take a look. Take a look at how many times the words Molon Labe appear. It doesn't matter if you aren't actually willing to shoot... if you keep telling everyone you are they will use it against you. It's damaging. It makes us look unstable. People complain continually about giving anti's ammunition. This practice is going to turn into an anti A-bomb if we don't get smart.

 

[TallPine]

Some battles are worth fighting even if you know you are going to lose.

 

[PirateJoe]

It would be one house at a time, with 20 - 30 SWAT operators. You wouldn't stand a chance. They are trained, prepared, and they know when its going to happen. Ever wonder why the Police have access to building and safety? Becuase they have the layout of your house and know where you will be sleeping...

Keep the armchair commando crap where it belongs, at the counter in your favorite Mall Ninja supply house, AKA paintball warehouse. Everytime I hear someone say "If they come for mine, they'll have a real suprise waiting..." Actually, YOU will have a suprise COMING...

Don't think that your 2 years in the Army, 25 years ago will help you either, or your surplus flak jacket, etc. etc. etc.

Someone posted a funny article recently entitled "The tactical guy." Its worth reading. Sounds like we have a few tactical guys here...

please. you don't give gun owners enough credit. sure, one person can't go up against a swat team, but what gun owner in their right mind wouldn't organize something at the first sign of mass-disarment? i know i've already got such a plan in place.

 

[Fosbery]

SWAT team? No problem, just get yourself an FN 5-7

Serious question: Can SWAt teams in the US do explosive entry? In the UK, only military anti-terrorist units can do those.

 

[JCF]

what gun owner in their right mind wouldn't organize something at the first sign of mass-disarment? i know i've already got such a plan in place.

Are you listening geekwitha.45?

 

[longeyes]

CFriesen, I am going to assume you are consciously dramatizing in your shepherding of this thread exactly what the process of backing law-abiding gun owners against the wall would be like. If so, thanks for the theater; if not, well... Various posters have made clear to you that armed resistance would only be a very last resort; they have also underscored the fact that some of us are serious about fighting to defend what we consider to be an absolutely essential civil liberty. Anyone we would take arms against would have to be viewed as a patent tyrant or an agent of a tyrannical state. I don't know any responsible adult who is licking his or her chops to get into a dust-up with local police, SWAT teams, or representatives of the U.S. military. We consider ourselves loyal Americans, and most of us are very clear about what we are loyal to. We hope that law enforcement and military also remember the oaths they have sworn and refuse to function as mere order-takers when confronting fellow citizens. When you describe us as appearing like "unstable and criminal militants" because we understand how crucial it would be not to allow this nation to be forcibly disarmed I consider your remarks to be gratuitous baiting of everyone on this forum. I really hope you are not just trolling for quotations for some irresponsible hatchet job aimed at law-abiding gun owners.

 

[carlrodd]

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.
__________________
The Second Amendment is an intrinsic, inextricable part of the system of checks and balances upon which our Republic is based.

We gunnies know that each and every newbie is precious to the continuation of America as a nation of armed citizens, and don't take kindly at all to those who abuse them.
- geekWithA.45


everyone needs to read this again...CFriesen especially. This an incredibly eloquent synopsis of why we keep arms in this country. there is no way to misinterpret the message. great insight into the american mind when it comes to this topic. sport, hunting, collection, general enthusiasm etc., are all reasons that are completely eclipsed by the most important reason we keep arms......by owning them, we are charged with the defense of our sacred constitution, and our home. our right to keep and bear arms is not only written into the constitution, it lives in the bones of our land.

 

[JCF]

Various posters have made clear to you that armed resistance would only be a very last resort;

You've no need to convince me of this. You are preaching to the choir. I understand the principals. The problem is that there are throngs of individuals who do not understand what the sam hill we are talking about, and formulate their opinions on the issue based upon a very superficial and misguided interpretation. We need those people to understand that we are reasonable and rational. We cannot do that by continually reiterating our assertion that we will kill and die for the cause. We look exceptionally poor in the eyes of the public when we do this, and we lose favor as a result.

Anyone we would take arms against would have to be viewed as a patent tyrant or an agent of a tyrannical state.

And we have succeeded thus far only in establishing that such persons would be those engaged, lawfully, in carrying out what WE have determined to be unconstitutional duties in contradiction of the wishes of the greater portion of the population; law enforcement officers enforcing ostensibly legitimate and democratically established laws. Laws that we happen to disagree with and define as illegal despite the wishes of our fellow citizens. And we call THEM tyrants and oppressors. Again... I understand the principal, but that is very, very poor and, at least superficially, illogical campaigning.

I don't know any responsible adult who is licking his or her chops to get into a dust-up with local police, SWAT teams, or representatives of the U.S. military.

Then you need to spend more time reading in this forum. Whether they are actually eager to or not, they certainly portray themselves so. Every Molon Labe, every "cold dead hands" represents further proof of this to the general populace. These continual invitations to battle are, in my opinion, unnecessarily inflammatory, irresponsible, and damaging to the cause.

When you describe us as appearing like "unstable and criminal militants" because we understand how crucial it would be not to allow this nation to be forcibly disarmed I consider your remarks to be gratuitous baiting of everyone on this forum.

I am not attempting to bait anyone. I am trying to draw attention to the fact that we need to fight a more refined, sophisticated, and politically astute battle. Our opponents are no joke, and we need to stop treating the issue like a schoolyard rivalry. Enough with the taunting and name-calling.

I really hope you are not just trolling for quotations for some irresponsible hatchet job aimed at law-abiding gun owners.

Seriously now. If that were the case I would hardly need to invest this level of energy in the matter. Virtually every thread in this category is filled with statements that make me cringe. Almost any half-witted anti capable of using his cut and paste could have a field day with what is found in this place. That is exactly my problem.

 

[Alex45ACP]

Oh, and as a LEO I find the whole "I'll kill a cop in cold blood" thing quite distasteful. Honestly, what makes you think that were such an unconstitutional order actually carried out (after 9/10ths of us quitting and joining the other side) that you would have any chance against the SWAT teams that would show up in force to get your guns?

What makes you think that if they start confiscating guns I'm simply going to sit in my house and wait for them to kick in my door at 3 am? I have plans for if this were to happen, plans that I would never post on an internet message board...

And as Tallpine said... Some battles are worth fighting even if you know you are going to lose

 

[JCF]

everyone needs to read this again...CFriesen especially. This an incredibly eloquent synopsis of why we keep arms in this country. there is no way to misinterpret the message. great insight into the american mind when it comes to this topic. sport, hunting, collection, general enthusiasm etc., are all reasons that are completely eclipsed by the most important reason we keep arms......by owning them, we are charged with the defense of our sacred constitution, and our home. our right to keep and bear arms is not only written into the constitution, it lives in the bones of our land.

I read the post. I agree fundamentally with most of what it says. My issue is that our final stand should be exactly that... we have allowed ourselves to be interpreted as pistol wavers by virtue of our overzealous desire to show solidarity and resolve; not much better than threatening and posturing street thugs. We are predominantly responsible, law-abiding citizens, and we are doing ourselves a profound injustice by throwing all caution to the wind. We need to refine our image if we are to maintain any credibility. If you think that unpatriotic so be it. I am not prepared to throw away the fight to protect the desire of some loose cannons to admire their muscles in the mirror while everyone laughs.

 

[JCF]

I have plans for if this were to happen, plans that I would never post on an internet message board...

Case in point.

Violent posturing, self indulgent language... self-honoring and damaging rhetoric of the sort that makes the antis squeal with glee. We are manufacturing coffins and nails.

 

[longeyes]

Coffins and nails, indeed. I think, Mr. CFriesen, you are displaying what I'll call passive-aggressive posting. You know that people on this forum are passionate about what they believe in, then you goad them by telling them that by expressing that passion they are proving to the antis of the world that they are loose cannons. I have one word for that and I'm done with this thread: crap.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

CFriesen

We need the support of those people, and we will never get it by portraying ourselves as unstable and criminal militants willing to distort the principals of democracy to suit our specific interests. WE look like the tyrants... and with good reason I might add. Molon labe / cold dead hands = nutjob to the greater part of society.

If anyone were to read what has been said here, they would see we are not militant criminals, we do not distort the principles of democracy, and it isn't for our own specific interests. Your pretense does betray your agenda. Our goal is the immortality of freedom. What is your goal - beyond standing in the way of those of us willing to defend the right necessary to the immortality of freedom?

And you cannot get away with ignoring that IT IS NOT US WHO ARE THE AGGRESSORS thwarting our rights and freedoms. THEY are the aggressors. THEY are the ones ignoring the Constitution. THEY started this, not us. We mean to stop it. We mean to revert it back to the Constitution.

If the rest of the population does not understand, it is because they have been lied to and have not yet read the truth. If you want to continue to include yourself in this fight to unfetter our right to keep and bear arms and prevent any infringements of it ever, go to work on this problem you have "discovered" - that no one out there understands. EDUCATE THEM! You're literate. You can do it! I'm workin' on it, too!

Calling us names will not help, either.

Those circumstances you mention in your 6:07 PM comment have been clearly laid out. Look back and you will see them. It will be when unconstitutional action begins to carry out disarmament.

Medula Oblongata

I'm glad you would not participate in any such unconstitutional debacle. I believe you would be correct in your 90% estimate of non-compliance with such orders. But, don't think we are unaware many of us would succumb to SWAT teams(if any are left active) and any JBT teams from the feds. Once a sweep is begun, how long do you think it would be before those SWAT and JBT teams would be surrounded? People are not going to sit around and wait patiently for them to go house to house.

CFriesen

In response to PirateJoe's quote that caused your jaw to hit the floor, What, you don't have a plan?

I believe Longeyes may have you pegged. You may even be trolling for anti-government militants for all I know. Who signs your pay check?

I am a Canadian citizen residing in the US. Although I personally very strongly disagree with the gun laws on both sides of border, the decision to follow laws in either country isn't optional based upon one's personal belief systems. The decision to be truthful to a sworn law enforcement officer isn't optional either.

Well, CF, we're talking the Constitution here - one of the rights specifically protected in it - not our "personal beliefs" as to what law we will obey or not. Fortunately, we live in the United States and can express our opinions. Is it this good in Canada?

You would have us all shut up. After that, we would need to hand over our guns, right? Maybe all those rights that have been infringed(or were never allowed to be exercise) in Canada is a result of you and your ilk cringing at what it takes to preserve them - or even claim them for yourselves and your posterity. And, for your edification, we are fighting a refined, sophisticated, and politically astute battle in every state, and at the level of the Union. What we are discussing here is the last straw. We hold it, and when it comes time, if it ever comes time, we will break the camels back with it.

I don't know where you get your impressions that everyone who reads what we have quoted here will be interpreted as coming from knuckle-dragging, gun crazy, blood thirsty, raw meat eating troglodytes. You insult their intelligence. Those who do think we are knuckle-dragging, gun crazy, blood thirsty, raw meat eating troglodytes have always thought that. We'll never win them over anyway. We don't even want them on our team. Those who do understand just might join the cause. At the least, they won't get in the way.

So, go to those web sites where everyone thinks we are knuckle-dragging, gun crazy, blood thirsty, raw meat eating troglodytes and explain to them who we really are and what we stand for.

....we have allowed ourselves to be interpreted as pistol wavers by virtue of our overzealous desire to show solidarity and resolve; not much better than threatening and posturing street thugs.

Got proof of that? And you keep saying "we". I thought you were "above the fray" the way you admonish the rest of us.

Violent posturing, self indulgent language... self-honoring and damaging rhetoric of the sort that makes the antis squeal with glee. We are manufacturing coffins and nails.

Umm, just which "we" do you belong to here, the antis squealing with glee making coffins and nails? I have seen no violent posturing here. I've seen no self indulgent language, either. All I've seen is statement of fact. And, none of us are so full of ourselves to think we are the first or the only ones to take a stand. All you've seen here is resolve.

I almost missed this:

What happens when the anti-gun people regroup and begin advocating change through legitimate channels and processes again?

There have been no such legitimate channels and processes used by the anti-gun people. To date, every gun law infringing upon the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is unconstitutional.

Again, I'll remind you that they started this, they are the aggressors, they violated the Constitution, and we are the victims. We aim to rectify that.

Woody

"Revolution is the Right of the People to preserve or restore Freedom. Those vested with power should never deprive the people the means, for it may compel such recourse." B.E.Wood

 

[DKSuddeth]

I'm sure that the colonists were thought of as violent and lawless, especially when it was known that General Gage was coming for their muskets and powder. The anti's love it that they can portray us as violent and unstable when we talk about violently defending ourselves, again it's because they have not the ability nor desire to understand the concept of freedom. It is an alien idea to them. Look at some of the editorials and columns we've read in the past. One quote stands out very clearly that a statist society, where the government is responsible for providing them with what they need, is what they desire because they are incapable of dealing with that responsibility themselves and it is "In a free society, we MUST depend upon the police for our protection".

If freedom and liberty makes us look unstable, then i'll look unstable. I've no problem with that. As soon as the 100 million of us gun owners ALL come to understand that realize that we must all hang together, or we shall surely hang seperately, then no amount of SWAT or Military will be able to force us to disarm.

 

[geekWithA.45]

OKeeydokee.

Now the CFriesen has essentially conceded that there are at least _some_ circumstances where "molone labe" is valid*, I think there is some value to be had in considering his primary concern: " we have allowed ourselves to be interpreted as..unstable..etc... pistol wavers" by forces that are smart, well organized and effective.

As I scratch my chin on that, I consider that a certain amount of ...circumspection...is certainly called for, a certain amount of sleekness in our public relations.

We oughtn't make it too easy for our opponents, gratuitously handing them ammo.

Flipside, to some extent, it is innevitable that we will be painted as wild eyed pistol wavers, largely because they seek to do so. As the saying goes, "anything you say will be taken down and used against you, and if you remain silent, we'll make it up". To that point, the only way to avoid handing them _any_ ammo is to reduce ourselves to silence, or simpering innoffensiveness.

Methinks we ought to consider the core of his warning, and give at least some consideration to public appearances. "Cold Dead Hands" rhetoric ranges from responsible to irresponsible. I'm not saying we should be silent or eliminate such rhetoric from our discourse, but we should consider it in light of how responsible such utterances are. Some utterances are well reasoned and well intentioned, some are in fact chest beating, some are very ill considered, and yet others appear irresponsible, and yet are merely shorthand for responsible, well considered positions without all the supporting material.

How best to deal?





*Although I think he needs to think some more about majoritarian excercises and perhaps too eager acceptance of the outcomes of democratic processes....if 99% of the nation wants to rape you, and in full accordance with Robert's rules of order and the established laws of the land legislates the legality of doing so...how valid is that?

 

[Wesker]

The whole time I was reading that I imagined I was an unwashed surf, and you were on a horse and had on blue war paint, trotting up and down a long line of followers.

You guys should know by now theres no reasoning with anti's. Every single anti I've dealt with, when defeated both with logic and fact, falls back on using stupid and unintelligible anecdotes and hypothetical situations. This results in his co-anti's chortling in agreement that 'dumb rednecks' should have their guns smelted down to provide the iron for their great state-owned steel mills.

Because I don't have my own thread for this, and because I just don't have the time I would like to point out a huge character trait I've noticed. It seems to ME, that any person who is against allowing someone the CHOICE of FREEWILL to do with their BODIES, LIVES, and RIGHTS are one in the same. The person that is anti-gun is most likely pro-life, etc.. The more you ask these people why they think that the lives of a countrys people should be regulated by the government, the more you can refute their claims with undeniable reason why they're wrong. Yet, to them, you're a dangerous individual who needs psychiatric evaluation and they have the right people in the right places, lest you go on a baby killing shooting rampage with your automatic assault rifle.

 

[longeyes]

My experience with Americans in general is pretty simple. Americans are apathetic to ANYTHING happening to someone else. They will sit on their front porch and watch SWAT kill you and your whole family for entertainment, then brag to their friends as to how they "told the sons a' bitchez off as they were leaving..." I wouldn't trust my neighbor to take out my garbage cans if I were in bed with leprosy, let alone coming to my aid if the proverbial "Jack booted thugs" were at my door. They will do what most Americans have been doing for years... Piss and moan at the TV cameras as they put their dentures back in their mouth.

If you're right we have a lot more to worry about than gun confiscation--but then we know that, don't we? In the end we can't separate RKBA from good citizenship and an understanding of what makes a strong society.

 

[Fosbery]

Just about everything Hitler did during power was legal. Would we denounce German resistence fighters as "unstable and criminal militants"? Of coruse not, we know in our hearts that what Hitler did was wrong, whether it was legal or not. And not just wrong like lying to your wife, fundamentally against the inherent human rights of those he opressed.

If we ever have to fight to keep our arms, we will be criminals, I'm sure of that. But we will be right, and that is what matters.

Some people may not understand this, to be sure. But I would explain it thus: If the government made children illegal, and tried to take away your children, wouldn't you fight to keep them? I may not love individual firearms as much as I love my wife (I don't have kids) but to me, they keep my wife and I safe so they're the same thing. I won't let anyone take away my wife, neither will I let anyone take away the means with which I can stop them doing just that.

French resistence fighters during WW2, and insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan today, and countless other groups at different times and places have done a damn good job of resisting an armed opressor (at least in their opinions) with overwhelming superiority in numbers, arms, training, technology etc.

 

[Tommygunn]

My experience with Americans in general is pretty simple. Americans are apathetic to ANYTHING happening to someone else. They will sit on their front porch and watch SWAT kill you and your whole family for entertainment, then brag to their friends as to how they "told the sons a' bitchez off as they were leaving..." I wouldn't trust my neighbor to take out my garbage cans if I were in bed with leprosy, let alone coming to my aid if the proverbial "Jack booted thugs" were at my door. They will do what most Americans have been doing for years... Piss and moan at the TV cameras as they put their dentures back in their mouth.

"Justice will be served until those who are unaffected will be as outraged as those who are."~~Benjamin Franklin.

"For this can be said about the generality of men: that they are ungrateful, fickle, dissembling, anxious to flee danger, and covetous of gain. So long as you promote their advantage, they are all yours...and will offer you their blood, their goods, their lives, and their children when the need for these is remote. When the need arises, however, they will turn against you."~~Niccolo Machiavelli, THE PRINCE.Chapter 17. 1513.

MO, you might be right, but these tendencies are neither new or exclusively American, as I believe the above quotes suggest.
You may recall during the American Revolution, only about 1/3 of the populous supported the revolution and even fewer mustered out for militia duty. And of those who did, many turned up drunk, unarmed, and slovenly -- to General Washington's horror. But, with necessary "on the job training" and a successive number of defeats and routs, Washington pulled victory out from the jaws of defeat at Trenton.
In more recent times, the federal siege at Waco spurred the growtrh of the Militia movement. While some of these were "weekend warriors," or "ninja wannabes" some of them were ex-military. I fear if "the balloon goes up," we will again need a LOT of "on the job training."
People caught inside their homes, surrounded by SWAT, are dead. Period. You're right about that. It is those peoples whose sacrifice "might" provide the lessons for the rest and the kick in the butt needed to spur real action.
How?
Guerrilla warfare. Asymmetric warfare. Fifth Columnists in France well knew the advantage a German Panzer had. And some learned how to improvise devices to take them out, or immobilize them. In fact, at that time, one rifleman with 1 rifle could immobilize the tank by shooting the driver's viewport. The bullet was unable to penetrate the thick bullet resistant material, but it cracked it and obturated the driver's view.
While that's not possible today, other methods can be found to immobilize armored vehicles'
I suspect that the reasons people might "sit on their front porch and watch SWAT kill you and your whole family for entertainment" is because, as things stand today, when we see police move in, most people assume they are the good guys and they are after people who are bad, and dangerous. If I saw a SWAT van pull up to a nearby house and pour out SWAT members, and I didn't know @&***@#% about what was going on inside the house, no way would I get myself involved. In fact, I would seriously consider exiting, stage left, muy pronto, to avoid possible stray bullets if the unsubs inside did start shooting. I can watch it on the news at 6:00PM in safety.

If I were ever to engage in a revolt, the first thing I would do is abandon my house. The greatest advantage a guerrilla army could have would be mobility, patience, and a damn good understanding of WHEN to engage and WHEN NOT TO.
Aside from mobility, another principle is to use small arms to acquire larger arms. And ambush tactics.

And it may even then still end badly. The North Vietnamese used guerrilla tactics and while they prevailed in the end, that was due chiefly to our lack of political will. We won every ground battle with them. I've spoken to vets who served during the Tet Offensive and they said the only difference they saw was "more targets to shoot."
But they did prevail politically...and maybe there's something there. Political will. Will the govt have the will to pursue such a civil war II as thoroughly?
Look at how we're divided with regard to Iraq now. I wonder if the people have the stomach for a bloody battle here at home.
During the Civil War the Battle of Gettysburg took nearly as many American lives in three days as we lost in 'Nam in a decade. We stuck it out though.
We've lost 3% of that in Iraq, and we're a "house divided."

Can we win politically in a theoretical civil war in the future through "fatiguing" the federals?
...
I have absolutly no idea.
We can learn some lessons from history, make some intelligent...or stupid...guesses... but I must admit I have no crystal ball.
I only hope it never, ever, comes to another civil war. The only experience America has with them is very, very bloody. And that's when you CAN muster enough men to fight.

"The ballot box,
The jury box,
the cartridge box."
In that order.
PRAY the first two work!!!!
Just my 2 cents.....

 

[progunner1957]

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

Exactly.

Antigun bigots are like two year old children (or Paris Hilton) - they want what they want when they want it with no regard to issues of right and wrong, no regard for how it affects other people and with no regard to the consequences of their tantrum.