I’m fairly new (woke up 6 years ago) to what’s going on. Can someone compare how the “Right to bear arms” by the people is now as opposed to the mid 1990’s when the Assault weapon’s ban kicked in?
Meaning, are more people fed up and willing to stand up to tyranny now as opposed to then?
...Meaning, are more people fed up and willing to stand up to tyranny now as opposed to then?....
I’d say off hand tyranny is here and now...not something that may come in the future...
There is a lot of hot air out there about what's going to happen in the event of such a widespread confiscation attempt. The first line of defense after the ballot box is probably going to skip over the jury box and go straight to the cartridge box but only for a miniscule number of individuals. Assume for the sake of round numbers that there are approximately 100 million lawful gun owners. Of that number I completely believe that at least 90% will roll over, show their bellies and beg the government not to hurt them or especially their families. A lot of bravado has been aired by folks who probably would have put up a fight.... when they were in their 20's. But now, getting close to retirement with mortgages, college educations and pensions on the line, the voices aren't quite so strident. Besides, who wants to be among the first thousand test cases to see if it's real?
Still, that remaining 10% will be composed of at least 10 MILLION hard core gun folks. Folks with prior military or law enforcement who know what it feels like to swear an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic even at the expense of one's own life.
Remember the great post Katrina gun grab? Everybody (me included) thought the ragin' cajuns of Louisiana would put those cops and national guardsmen into their graves. Didn't happen. Though the national guard groused about the detail, they didn't mutiny wholesale. Not at all. Perhaps the vital difference was that Katrina was perceived to be a temporary emergency that would allow an eventual return to "normalcy" whereas the issues in CT appear to be more long term. A bright spot on that horizon is that in similar fashion to Colorado, the law enforcement community is stepping forward to defend the Constitution. But not enough of them. In Colorado, the numbers are near to 100% but in CT so far only about 20% (250) of the State Police ranks have signed an open letter refusing to enforce the law. That's good or bad. Good for the ones who signed, bad as an indicator of the level of tyranny that might already exist where the government's guns are concerned. Among local law enforcement, especially. Those guys are caught between a rock and a hard place. Imagine what kind of courage it's going to take to refuse a lawful order when you're only a couple of years from retirement? Loss of your entire pension and perks? For your loved ones? Imagine going into work one day under those circumstances and be told by the watch commander: "Here are the lists of gun owners in your neighborhood. They have refused to surrender their weapons. Go get them. Or join them with your family."
The real rebel forces, if they are to appear will be among the ranks of the retired or former military in a state, especially those who were noncoms or commissioned officers or the Warrants in special forces. Eric Rudolph drove the FBI crazy for six months or more (maybe it was more like 2 years) and his only training was that of an infantry private first class. Imagine what several thousand PO'ed SEALs, army Rangers, and other special ops types could do. Army special forces is the only force in the world that has as it's primary mission conducting combat operations against a large indigenious force using local militias they recruited and trained from among the populace. Do a search right here on FR for a thread I posted back during the Clinton era titled an "Open Letter from a Green Beret" drawn from the pages of the Special Forces Resister news letter. It will give you chills to read it...