Posted on 05/05/2017 9:14:08 AM PDT by CharlesOConnell
[ Sounds like you’re better off without a gun. ]
Or keep a number of them stored in seprate parts spread around your property....
Attempts at gun confiscation always assume there are a set number of guns to be confiscated.
The term “Yankee Ingenuity” is around for a reason.
Poke around the internet for a while, and you’ll find detailed instructions for how to make a gun out of all kinds of common household materials. If you have even a basic grasp of physics, it’s really not that hard. (Dangerous, yes. But not hard.)
You cannot confiscate what you cannot control. Even assuming the government managed to confiscate normal guns without triggering a full-scale uprising (not likely), as soon as they started, there would be an increase in homemade guns to take their place.
The challenge is not finding and confiscating any one individual’s firearms. The challenge would be sustaining that effort beyond the first few innocent victims.
Yeah, people tend to become less enthusiastic about their job when it pays very little and can easily get you killed. Funny how people react that way, huh?
Oh how we burned in the camps. If only we had resisted even if it was with shovels and axe handles. The State may have run out of people who would risk their lives to do the job rounding people up. If they had to worry about whether they were going home at the end of their shift, there have been fewer people willing to do it.(Im paraphrasing)
Bury you guns? It had better be on property not your own and not owned by a gun-owner. They can be found from the air 10 or more deep. Perhaps find a place in the country where old washing machines are thrown in a pile and bury them there, or a landfill that has a lot of metal in it.
Returned Democrat control is a much more serious prospect than continuation of a Democrat presidency would have been. The charge to the total state would seem rapid in a Clinton presidency but a return to power after a Trump campaign has cheated them out of their Revolution will bring on a rapid, probably violent, purge of the military and replacement provisionally of left activists. That will go all the way down to reserves and National Guard and the police forces will be federalized and purged. Then they finish it.
This is my take on letting the Democrats back into the Presidency. And Republican continued "control" of Congress, well, we have seen how that goes.
Mike Vanderboegh is now, sadly, deceased. But his bottom line answer to gun grabbers who had no respect for God-given rights was, “Take our guns, we’ll kill you.”
I don’t advocate that, especially not in some hypothrletical discussion, but a lot of folks would be contemplating it in a real life situation .
And I agree with the poster that said no one can prove a negative. It’s contrary to the rules of logic and science.
Generally, only demagogues, trolls, and government agitators use that kind of tactic. Is there some other reason you are asking that kind of question?
You got that right...
This is also my take and it explains my unrelenting anger at the NeverTrump crowd. I'll never forgive or forget what they did.
“I got rid of my guns 35 years ago because I had an accidental discharge in the same room in which my infant son was getting his diaper changed.”
Do you really want to be taken seriously? Please.
Not everybody has to be active combatants. That did not happen in the revolution nor the first civil war - think it was like 10% involved actively in CW1. In the revolution it was less like I think 3% - hence the 3% talk.
Plus, its an increasing number as it progresses, every tyrannical act of the oppressors will create more opposition. The more brutal it get the more will go active.
As to your first question, if they are coming for your guns all you listed are going away regardless.
I am a pacifist. I have cut back on my shooting so it’s only 50-100 rounds a day, other than .22LR, air rifle, and dry fire, because I’m a pacifist. Still, not everyone likes peace as much as I do.
There are some pacifists who like peace so much that besides following the old quote, “if you wish for peace, prepare for war,” they will take direct action to restore peace when faced with a threat to their liberty. Those who support government tyranny, whether from the left or from the right, would be wise to remember that many peaceful people are the exact folks they don’t want to rile up.
I am also a law abiding person. I am always aware that the Constitution of the United States has a special legal status: “this Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof . . . shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby.” As a law-abiding person, I get uneasy when anyone, even those who claim to act on behalf of government or otherwise under color of law, violates that Constitution.
There are some law-abiding people who have so much respect for the law that they read the words of 1776 when those from 1787-1791 are threatened.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.
I hope the rule of law under limited government can be restored peacefully. Unfortunately, I am more often reminded of Franklin’s skepticism “a Republic, if you can keep it” and Jefferson’s comment that “the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time.” We are much better armed than the Founding Fathers and their neighbors, and our arms are much more dispersed. The people can restore the rule of law, whether or not the government cooperates. I am hoping for cooperation and for limited government in the immediate future, because I am both a pacifist and law-abiding.
That is an interesting observation. How many private citizens in Russia owned firearms?
There were a lot of army and navy units that were on the side of the Bolsheviks and the most radical of their troops were the Kronstadt sailors who had the unmitigated gall to threaten Lenin’s revolution after the fact and were subsequently wiped out. (they should have scheduled their uprising until after the ice melted altho perhaps undercover Bolsheviks encouraged them to jump the gun).
The general population was more concerned with food than with weapons. Once all the White armies were destroyed, then the regime could turn on the populace.
The U.S. military was bogged down in Iraq for a solid decade by an ‘insurgent’ force that never exceeded more than a few thousand individuals.
We were at war with those people, and deployed almost every killing instrument in our arsenal against them, and yet, it still took us nearly ten years to achieve nothing more than a stalemate.
A general confiscation of civilians’ arms by the federal government, would essentially be a declaration of war against the American people, and a final overthrow of the U.S. Constitution. It would mark the disolution of the sacred compact between The People and their government.
Under those circumstances, you can expect the citizens to fully exercise their 2nd Amendment rights for their intended purpose.
At best, the federals can muster about 1,500,000 uniformed, armed troops. One hundred times that number of citizens are armed. If only one in ten stood their ground, and chose to fight the rogue federals, it would be a force 15,000,000 strong.
Remember that our military was stymied in Iraq by only several thousand enemy fighters. These numbers alone, destroy the paranoid fantasy of government arms confiscation.
And that is what those who claim no one will resist do not take into account. There are many of us out there with Military or Police experience who are getting up there in years, but are still in reasonably good shape.
Our kids are grown and even our grandkids are no longer small. We hold our God given rights to be sacred and are at a point where we just might decide to do something about someone taking those rights.
Younger people have a lot more to lose and may well not have the stomach for it. I believe it would be foolish to discount we old men however.
Grace, if the gubmint goons are busy confiscating guns, it's time to use them for their intended purpose - not hide them.
Aside from the fact that Minority Report was a sci-fi story revolving around incarcerated precognitive mutants...
What you’re contending is that the police, with modern & near-future technology, can/will be able to target a particular individual, easily scan their domicile for concealed weapons, and approach with such overwhelming force & speed that the subject will have zero time to do anything about it.
Yup.
Tyrannies past bypassed the high-tech angle by just jumping the guy, or shooting him at a distance, and making him & his disappear overnight.
Would take about a dozen cops (minimum!) to execute such a raid on a single individual. That’s fine, with a proper search warrant, time to research & practice raid, enough tech to scan the building & identify all weapons (not trivial as implied), and element of surprise.
I live in a well-off Southern community. Probably half the 150 homes have guns - a few with some rather substantial collections owned by hard-core “cold dead hands” types. Local police can muster maybe 12-24 officers to perform a raid, one house at a time, to sweep every home accordingly. ...thing is, it’s gonna be pretty obvious pretty fast to everyone in that single-entrance community what’s going on. At an _optimistic_ one house per hour, that’s going to take an entire _week_ to process the whole community. ...thing is, there’s a bunch of guys in that community who won’t sit around waiting for “their turn” at confiscation; some of them are going to politely walk up to the raid team leader, heavily armed, with more of ‘em discreetly positioned out of sight with big-bore deer rifles and/or machine guns (yes, they’re legal in these parts), and politely remind the team about the meaning of the 2nd Amendment, the officers’ oath to uphold the law & Constitution, how nice it is to attend church & schools together, and how the rest of ‘em are right now on their way to have a similar friendly chat with the raid team’s families who live within walking distance. Southern culture is real nice & friendly, even when making clear “if you do X, you gonna die.”
And that’s just a paltry little community of 150 homes. Is disarming this community so meaningful to the raid team that, regardless of their firepower & technology, a substantial number of them are sure to never see their families again? ...with a hundred more such communities to disarm?
There’s my proof the gov’t can’t confiscate them all.
>50,000,000 gun owners, with a substantial fraction quite willing & able to kill anyone attempting to confiscate.
Regardless of how fast each raid can be performed, regardless of how high the tech detecting the weapons, it takes time on the order of hours to perform a single raid. ...and it only takes minutes for every pro-RKBA owner in the area to show up and say “no.”
Americans (not yet called that) recognized the truth of that in 1775. They had already made life miserable for those attempting to profit from the Stamp Act. They had already organized a response to a Tea Tax.
It was the overt effort to disarm them which made them realize that the unacceptable conditions with which they were already contending would get much, much worse if they did not act forcefully, pledging their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.
It is OUR duty to ensure that this resistance to tyranny never falters. As we thank those in past generations who sacrificed for us, so too will future generations thank us for our sacrifices.
“Never pick a fight with an old man...”
“It will be a co-ordinated massive assault on thousands, perhaps a million high profile gun owners at one time.”
Er, how many will be involved in this “massive assault”?
There aren’t enough personnel to pull that off without giving enormous prior notice to the public.
Agreed; take my guns and I will just build claymores, make gunpowder, cook my own nitro, and buy more fertilizer and diesel fuel.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.