What happens then?

[Combat-wombat]

We all know that guns are necessary to protect freedom and give us the power to rebel against the government if need be. So I was thinking about what would happen if it became necessary to rebel. When the day comes that we must fight against our government, (hopefully it never does, but the way our country's moving it might someday) what will happen? How will the people be organized? Will it just be complete chaos with people scattered around shooting? What do you think?







Note to moderators: Feel free to move this, I just wasn't sure where to put it.

 

[Zundfolge]

I expect we'll see a whole bunch of Wacos and Ruby Ridges ... if we're lucky we'll see an organized civilian militia here and there rebel (and maybe even secede from the union).

If we're real lucky our military will turn on the government and re-instate our constitution (right after monkeys fly out by butt) :banghead:


Honestly I don't exptect we'll ever rebel ... we'll all be on the cattle cars headed to the camps by the time we realise we've lost the constitution.

 

[winstonsmith]

I think that the civilians will rise up and prove themselves to be not be sheeple. They will conquer the military! And then we'll live in anarchy for a few years before the power vacuum is filled. But most of us will survive that, for sure. And then the next country to occupy this land will let us live in true freedom. No facism!

'Course, we'll have to dodge flying pigs and spend all our time sewing a winter coat for the devil.

Seriously, if there is a need for a revolution, I have a feeling the time will pass, just like it did in Nazi Germany. (Excepting the Warsaw revolt) If this happens, I suspect then one will have to choose either to go underground or to die.

$.02
Jack

 

[amprecon]

I don't suspect we would ever be rebelling against our government as we know it.

I think an attempt to usurp our freedom will be done through "legal" actions by the U.N. or some other "unified" foreign entity.

All that will be required for us to lose our freedom is to have a weak moment and elect another Clinton clone into the White House who will not hesitate to sell us down the river as long as a "legacy" exists as a reward for his/her actions.

Imagine the U.N. passing a resolution which would negate our Constitution in favor of their "new and improved" united nations or united europe consitution. One that would be legally binding if the wrong person were president.

Imagine the EU sending troops here under direction of the U.N. and a standing president giving our troops orders to not intervene with there passage onto our shores. With orders to shoot any person or persons obstructing their "invasion".

Clinton's legacy has been fulfilled if his goal was to turn people into paranoid schizophrenics that believe there is a conspiracy hiding behind every word from every politician.........hmmm, to scrutinize the government more than before? Not a bad thing.

But that's how I see it coming down the road, in the guise of friendship.

 

[Carlos]

then one will have to choose either to go underground or to die.

You going underground?

 

[Edward429451]

I think we're already into it. They're just using unconventional long road tactics which make it hard for lots of folks to comprehend that it is happening and real and malicious. Plus they wont come on the tube and say 'patriot slain while defending his country', they say 'Gunman opens fire on agents/police, gunman slain, many illegal weapons taken off the street' or some such drivel.

 

[Kaylee]

rmmm.....sounds less like "general gun discussion" than "legal and political" to me... "war being an extension of politics" and all that.

Hang on to your hats boys and girls... away we go.


-K

 

[Kaylee]

And now that the official bit is done..

I tend to think if it ever comes to violence, it won't be a "war" in the conventional sense. Rather, a protracted "West Bank" type situation... a politician is assasinated one day, your internet friend suddenly stops answering his mail a few weeks later 'cause he's in the clink or "disappeared," maybe a bombing here or there.. scared citizens signing over everybody's liberties in the name of safety... classic cell or LoneBowman type things.
Just general depressing nastiness, basically.

I don't know if it would ever get to the "tanks in the streets" situation.. which is both good and bad.. bad 'cause that kinda thing doesn't end gracefully with an "okay, you captured our capital and your army is parked on the Mall.. you win" but rather drags out for years..decades.... how many centuries have the Irish been killing English trying to get 'em out of Ulster?

Futher... if history teaches us anything, it's that the ensuing peace is oftentimes worse than the war. There's already a very loose, shakey alliance between the libertarian-minded folks and the traditional-conservative minded folks, that often gets down to harsh language even now when the pressure ain't no worse than a bulletin board conversation. "After the war".... I wouldn't count on bloodshed stopping.

wow... and here I call myself the optimist.

-K

 

[Autolite]

Interesting question but moot ...

I agree with Edward429451. We're already there! The loss of rights and freedom has already past the point of no return. It's has been happening so slowly that it's a done deal by the time most folks have figured it out. The generations following us will have an even lesser understanding of what's been lost so the chances of massive revolt diminish proportionally as time moves on ...

 

[Battler]

What you describe would never happen - don't know how anyone could possibly want it to. The horrors of revolution can exceed the horrors of any tyranny.

As man moves further from free human to being, effectively, livestock, he does so with no principled opposition to that which is going on - he can't oppose any given incremental step on its own, and probably clamored for it. He will not notice tyranny, because it won't be too different than anything he remembers.

The capacity of man without principle, for oppression, seem to not have a limit, up to, and including, his own death.

Look at Cuba. People living there have never known anything different - the only reason they possibly COULD know anything different is due to the existence of places like the US.

What if every nation was like Cuba? If a sole person spoke of freedom, he would be denounced by all as a radical who threatened the fragile fabric of civilization - and be blamed for any given famine.

Looking again at cuba, however, I fear for OUR future for other reasons.

First off, Cuba and the Soviet union suffered under marxism; but had not denounced modern technology. They did not have "environmentalists" trying to deprive humans deprived of liberty and a decent economy of the internal combustion engine as well. The marxists really DID intend for people to live better, and their vision happened to include machines taking the burden off of men.

While environmentalism for us really only serves the purpose of presenting a catachlysmic consequence to individual liberty (the lie "if you were free, you'd destroy the world with carbon dioxide", for example). I sincerely hope it does not last beyond serving its purpose - the though of a Soviet/Cuban life minus the internal combustion engine is quite horriffic.

My second concern is the capabilities of law enforcement. When the laws are not compatible with your very survival, they have to be broken. Cubans subsist through being able to trade food on the black market - the "law abiding" would starve. But they get away from it, and humans survive biologically as animals, if not being able to live as humans.

I like police to have the capability to capture murderers and thieves. But in a place like Cuba, where the government's job IS murder and theft, if the police were as competent as in the west, folk would have to become law-abiding and they would starve under unlivable laws.


But again, if you consider some sort of revolt in western nations - consider those who protest now. Those who are the loudest and most pi**ed are those who mislabel the way we live now "capitalism", and blame whatever liberty remains for all ills. Any economic problem caused by socialism raises more voices in support of socialism - win-win for them. If there were a revolution, it would be a communist revolution, not one that is pro-liberty. And any revolution such would turn the world into Mogadishu - a hell from which the chains of a Stalinist state would be a pleasurable release.

Want some hope? If there is any at all, it is in the US. In the US, there is little; but it lies in those who defend liberty not just in areas where it affects them; but as a principle on which there should be no compromise.

The best weapons are not the feeble restricted crippled guns you have; but in educating others. Another is the US constitution. It may or may not have been flawed at the onset, it is certainly defiled now regardless - but government procedures and the constitution present opportunities to stall future losses of liberty. Filibusters, getting laws thrown out as unconstitutional, electoral colleges and representative boundaries, etc.

I am not certain that the optimistic scenario is possible; but if it is, it involves:

Working within and fixing the Republican party, both bringing it to victory and leveraging the pro-liberty minority of the party to control the strength of the votes of the majority of the Republican party.

Working within and fixing the USA. Any destabilization occurs in the US (however unlikely) and we lose - socialist countries will be stronger, game over. As I said above that a revolution would likely be socialist anyway, this would be a win-win for those people.

Along the way, delete Osama Bin Laden and every other terrorist who's still wasting oxygen. Sharing the earth with them and their activities just ain't gonna work.

There are sufficient institutions at many levels in the US - with the smallest being the liberty-loving individual, the larger being America's good name, military and economic strength, etc.


Anyway, that's MY late night rant.

 

[Feanaro]

The unfortunate thing is that if we have to revolt then there will be a high death toll. No one other than ex-military types and crazy militants know how to fight a war. That's just something that most people never have the chance to be taught except in the military. However I think that many groups of people will retreat into the woods with ex-Army/Marine/Air Force/Navy service-wo/men. They won't be seen for a while because the regular people are learning from the ex-service-men.

Then the raidings will begin, we will likely suffer high casualties because, again, people simply don't know how to make war. But if only half of the firearm owners revolted, that's 30 million people compared to a military of a few hundred thousands. And I think the military would largely be on our side if we truely have to revolt. Even if the UN or something like it attempted to do so we could win. Especially if we can recruit more to our cause.

Or maybe it would be on a smaller scale. A politician is having a speech. BANG! You're friendly neighborhood Gestapo comes home from his work to find a package at home. Or a big public figure steps off the plane and does a permenant Ford fall. A BATF agent having a smoke wonders why that van is parking at HQ.

If we, as Americans, were to form local militia groups that meet every week or three, performed drills and practiced? Trained in terrorist tactics(Not civilian killing terrorist tactics, more like the one examples above), open and hidden warfare? It would be very hard to lose unless we give ourselves up.

And there is the rub. Are the members of this nation ready to say "I shall not wear the chains of oppression, I will not go quietly into the night! I am free and ever shall I toil to pass that freedom on"? I am not sure. And that saddens me.

 

[Hal]

Plan of attack- -

1.) Demonize the gun; associate use of one as being cowardly. Good guys hang up their guns, and only resort to them in fits of rage. (see any one of several 50's era cowboy movies)
2.) Tax the gun.
3.) Restrict ownership of guns; make sure only bad guys aren't allowed to have them.
4.) Tax the gun AND the accessories.
5.) Tighten the restrictions by redefining bad guys.
6.) Tax the gun AND the accesories AND create agencies to restrict where guns can be bought/sold and fired.
7.) Tax the manufacturer.
8.) Further redefine what a bad guy is.
9.) Tax the shippers of firearms and accessories.
10.) Redefine bad guys again.
11.) Tax the channels of obtaining a firearm either directly or via increased paper work.
12 - 99) More of the same.
100.) Sit back and sip coffee. The lone nut that wandered out into the woods will come in of his/her own accord at the first sign of the flu or a sniffle.

 

[winstonsmith]

Go underground or die?

I don't know. I don't think that a glorious death would really do anything to help the situation. If this happened and I could press a button to make it all stop, but I would be dead, then I would. But stuff like that doesn't happen. To die for a cause I probably would have to be able to be sure that my death would save more lives than just mine.

Frankly, I think people who are thinking "I'd shoot up the BATF agents in my house instead of running" are wasting themselves. I think that if everyone went underground instead of standing their ground in futility, we could band together and create exoponentially bigger results than just killing a few SS .. err BATF agents.

 

[Oleg Volk]

The other side requires control of the army, police and the distribution of the basics (food, medicine)...then they can do obedience for survival swaps. They haven't got to that point yet. I think that we can keep it from getting to that point.

 

[cuchulainn]

There will be no revolt over rights. Period. Deal with it.

The sooner everyone realizes that the mythical "third box" has become nothing but adolescent, laughable fantasy and inane mental masterbation of the the same ineffectual caliber as MMMer sheeple singing kumbaya around a campfire, the better off the RKBA will be.

Why? The first act of violent rebellion will be painted quickly and effectively (and perhaps correctly) as terrorism, and no one will be willing to even voice sympathy, much less help.

And we can't even get half the gun owners to vote RKBA. Run off to the woods* to fight for intangible "rights" and miss the new menu items at Taco Bell and next round of American Idol? Spare me.

Get off your duffs and double or triple your efforts to keep if from getting that far because once it gets there, that's it. We will have lost.

*Yeah, great strategy, that running off to the woods. Way to separate yourself from the people, making it easier to attack and demonize you. Oooh, look at me, I'm The Ghost in my swampland hideout. Better watch out Lord Cornwallis!

 

[stevelyn]

You folks seem to have forgotten some rather recent history.
Would anyone care to explain Poland, the fall of the Berlin Wall and subsequent fall of East Germany, Romania and the very public execution of the leader and his wife, Czechoslavakia, Yugoslavia and the rest of eastern Europe and the Soviet Union? It would seem to me that these nations which were deemed enemies of ours due to political alliances had the people under the control of the gummint jack-boot. Revolutionary overthrow didn't seem possible Yet they successfully overthrew their oppressors from within and no outside help.
The domestic enemies of our Constitution are well aware of this. That's why they attack our freedoms the way they do.

 

[themic]

yes, but this is a democracy, and democracies tend to vote themselves into oblivion.

read Fareed Zacharias "Rise of the Illiberal Democracy" (not directly related but you can draw connections) and anything by Tomas Paine.

 

[Henry Bowman]

I never want it to come to this, but . . .

If you need an instruction manual, read "Unintended Consequences" by John Ross.

 

[cuchulainn]

Revolutionary overthrow didn't seem possible Yet they successfully overthrew their oppressors from within and no outside help.
The domestic enemies of our Constitution are well aware of this. That's why they attack our freedoms the way they do.

Indeed.

If it ever gets that far, ours will be a tyranny of comfort -- not fear of the state but fear of the loss of comfort that the state provides.

In order to make the people rebel, you would have to take away their comfort. But by taking away their comfort, you would make them stronger allies of the very comfort-granting power that you want to rebel against.

Those taking away our rights are not doing it out some maniacal hatred of freedom. They truly are doing it with good intentions -- to protect us and to make us more cofortable.

With comfort comes docility and hatred of any rebel who seeks removes the comfort.

There will be no revolution. Deal with it.

 

[Battler]

I know posting a pure "ditto" post is kinda dumb; but cuchulainn
is right, right and right.

Heed his points: (I apologize if I got this wrong).

1. Any prohibited activity, and opposition to laws against that activity, will be seen as terrorism, and generally NOT cause a groundswell of support.

My addition: Think of someone being carted off for having an "illegal machine gun". Imagine if he "fought back", how much "support" he would have. A guerilla insurgent force would get even less press than HIM.

2. Tyranny of comfort.

I will agree here, not that the tyranny provides comfort but that GREAT discomfort is the only alternative. In essence, the civilization that we all want to live in is held to ransom for some growing fee that can engulf our lives yet never match the horrors of violently opposing them.


To those who talk of revolution, I put forth this:

Maybe the big talk is just hot air, maybe it isn't.

But devoting your ENTIRE LIFE to educating others on liberty and writing letters to politicians, and supporting good politicians' election campaigns, will take less hardship than a week of being a "freedom fighter" who is being hunted down like a dog.

And you'll live longer.

And you may actually get something done.


In any discussion of these matters, I see the "oh well, there will be a revolution later" as, in some ways, an act of complacency.

Let us all choose and EMBRACE the other option I mentioned - PEACEFULLY bringing the idea of liberty to the world as missionaries brought civilization to savages. Because that is what it is. It's not easy; but it has more chance of working than anything else, and nobody gets hurt.

 

[Thumper]

I can't remember who made this point a few months back, but it's a pretty good one:

It's hard to motivate gun owners to reliably write letters to their congressmen...you really think they'll fight?

Sad, but something to consider.

 

[Gordon Fink]

A funny thing about revolutions is that they tend to occur only during times of rising expectations. Conditions must already be improving for a significant fraction of the people to find the necessary motivation. If the powers that be then make some backwards step, a revolution may be triggered.

In our case, in the U.S., conditions are still very good and eroding only slowly. The greater mass of the people is thus complaisant. We must slide all the way into the depths of tyranny and oppression, before the glimmer of something better outweighs the attraction of present comforts. By the time this happens, though, we will already have been thoroughly disarmed.

In the meantime, few people will understand why the “terrorists†are fighting against Homeland Security agents for their right to own calibers larger than .22 LR and magazines that hold more than four rounds of ammunition.

~G. Fink