If They Come for Your Guns, Do You Have a Responsibility to Fight?

The D.C. Clothesline ^ | 3 January 2013 | Dean Garrison

[Windflier]

The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. -Thomas Jefferson

Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that is good. -George Washington

The Constitution shall never be construed….to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. -Samuel Adams

I could find hundreds of quotes like these. This country was built on the right to bear arms. It was built on the rights of an individual to bear arms, regardless of what his government or neighbor happened to think. This is crystal clear. Ironically the people who voice their opinions against this right have their free speech protected by your guns. Without guns in this country, all other amendments become null and void, simply because “We the People” will lose our power of enforcement.

We need to keep this in mind as our “representatives” try to push gun bans. I don’t care if 99% of people are in support of gun bans (which is far from the case), it is a violation of our constitutional rights, plain and simple.

A constitutional republic protects the rights of the individual even when their ideas are very much in the minority. If I were the only person in America who believed in the 2nd amendment, I would still be within my rights to call upon it. You would all think I was insane and possibly celebrate if I was gunned down, but in the end I would be the only true American among us.

Our framers were very clear on this. If my government comes to take my guns, they are violating one of my constitutional rights that is covered by the 2nd amendment.

It is not my right, at that point, but my responsibility to respond in the name of liberty. What I am telling you is something that many are trying to soft sell, and many others have tried to avoid putting into print, but I am going to say it. The time for speaking in code is over.

If they come for our guns then it is our constitutional right to put them six feet under. You have the right to kill any representative of this government who tries to tread on your liberty. I am thinking about self-defense and not talking about inciting a revolution. Re-read Jefferson’s quote. He talks about a “last resort.” I am not trying to start a Revolt, I am talking about self-defense. If the day for Revolution comes, when no peaceful options exist, we may have to talk about that as well. None of us wants to think about that, but please understand that a majority can not take away your rights as an American citizen. Only you can choose to give up your rights.

Congress could pass gun ban legislation by a 90%+ margin and it just would not matter. I think some people are very unclear on this. This is the reason we have a Supreme Court, and though I do not doubt that the Supreme Court can also become corrupt, in 2008 they got it right. They supported the Constitution. It does not matter what the majority supports because America is not a democracy. A constitutional republic protects the rights of every single citizen, no matter what their “elected servants” say. A majority in America only matters when the Constitution is not in play.

I just wrote what every believer in the Constitution wants to say, and what every constitutional blogger needs to write. The truth of the matter is that this type of speech is viewed as dangerous and radical or subversive, and it could gain me a world of trouble that I do not want. It is also the truth. To make myself clear I will tell you again. If they come for your guns it is your right to use those guns against them and to kill them. You are protected by our Constitution.

[EdReform]

If they come for our guns then it is our constitutional right to put them six feet under. You have the right to kill any representative of this government who tries to tread on your liberty. I am thinking about self-defense and not talking about inciting a revolution. Re-read Jefferson’s quote. He talks about a “last resort.” I am not trying to start a Revolt, I am talking about self-defense. If the day for Revolution comes, when no peaceful options exist, we may have to talk about that as well. None of us wants to think about that, but please understand that a majority can not take away your rights as an American citizen. Only you can choose to give up your rights.

Posted here by FReeper EternalVigilance

[Windflier]

I don’t understand how it is legal for Obama to take away a portion of your Bill of Rights by Executive Order. Because he wills it?

Strictly speaking, an executive order that conflicts with, or violates the Constitution, isn't legal, but that won't stop the treason lobby from trying. They'll take whatever we let them get away with. Just as they've always done.

[JimRed]

Do you really want to kill some cop or military member that may have a family and is just obeying his CO?

Nobody WANTS to, but will you have a choice? They are obeying an illegal order.

The alternative: turn in your "drop" piece, then later retrieve your real armament and go hunting for those who GAVE THE ORDERS to the CO. Start as high up the chain as you can reach. County Democrat Party chairman might be appropriate. Or a state-level RAT in any position.

[DesertRhino]

“Besides we’re talking about confiscation, not just someone coming up and shooting you first. Would you shoot first?”

According to the survivors, the nazi cop who lead the team that showed up to arrest Anne Frank’s family was unfailingly polite, had impeccable manners. After he saw where she had measured her growth on a wall, he even complimented her father on having such a wonderful young daughter.

Not a shot was fired that pleasant day.

I think the Frank should have shot first. The outcome could only have been improved.

[ctdonath2]

Just like coal: regulate the industry into oblivion.

Drag feet on mandated bureaucratic paperwork.
Refuse to accept applications.
Institute impossible standards with severe penalties.
Tie businesses up in court. Winning is irrelevant, just drag it out until the opponent gives up.

The firearms industry is small. Won’t be hard to strangle it.
Sure you can keep your guns and ammo. You might not even have to register them. You just won’t be able to get any more.
The goal: cut the supply lines.

[Windflier]

People who don't know when to keep their head down get it shot off...

People who think that the proper response to clear encroachments against our liberties, is to hunker down and be quiet, are only emboldening the enemy to do that very thing.

[stuartcr]

Yeah, you’re right, shoot them all.

[stuartcr]

ok

[Windflier]

Great post! Thank you.

You bet, Buff. I admire Dean Garrison for having the courage to write and publish it. The very least I could do was share it here.

[DesertRhino]

“However, it will not happen as there is no leadership, organization or will to fight”

And there never should be. Leaderless resistance. It was invented here and it extremely difficult to overcome. There should never be organizations, chains of command, State divisions like the civil war, etc etc.

[catfish1957]

The problem is they have to prove you have the guns. With no registration you could have sold them years ago.

Too bad all mine fell over during that boat accident of 2007.

[catfish1957]

When talks of U.N. ‘peacekeeping forces’ within the United States begin, that’s when you know gun confiscation is on the horizon.

There were a few hundred UN observers here during the '12 elections. UN forces won't be far behind.

[Windflier]

I am just telling you how and what to prepare for.

So, you're just providing a public service by explaining to the assembled how there's no possible way to resist Big Brother when and if he comes for our guns, eh?

Right. Your post was nothing less than a naked, transparent attempt to demoralize the good patriots here. I'd drop it, if I were you.

[onedoug]

[Windflier]

...it will not happen as there is no leadership, organization or will to fight.

Sorry, but I flat out disagree that there is "no will to fight." That will may not be evident among our so-called leadership, but I believe it resides in spades with the people.

The people don't want a fight, but they do have their limit. If pushed beyond it, something will erupt in this country that will be nearly impossible to extinguish. I believe the treason lobby knows this better than we do, and will do everything they can to keep from striking that match. It would be their end, and they know it.

[SampleMan]

If 30 cops and a SWAT team show up to take your guns...

They should be surrounded by a far greater number of citizens possessing greater firepower.

The first SWAT team that has to surrender and walk home in their underwear will be a powerful message to LEOs everywhere.

[brityank]

I predict, they will not come for your guns. They don’t have the numbers to get it done.

Au contraire, mon Ami - they will, and do indeed have the means to get the guns. Once their expiration date for whatever (short!) allowance they grant to meet their edicts, then beside the ruinous fines will be princely rewards to the comrades to turn in their neighbours, along with grandiose MSM exposure of the 'compound' they helped take down.

America has had it easy over the past hundred or so years; the last group that was forced out of our society were the Japanese in WWII, and for the most part they were treated kindly. Still they lost their property and lands, were forced to vacate their towns for relocation to where they owned nothing and had to rely on the benevolence of FedGov for their very sustenance. Much of the large towns and villages of Europe experienced the same with extreme violence, and those that fled had nothing. The strong survived by preying on the weak, as will happen here.

I pray for America and its Constitution.

[JimRed]

The method they will use is quite simple and requires very few people to be effective: it will work something like this; deadlines for turning in registered guns will be set and if citizens fail, first fine is $5000, second failure $10,000 etc. The have the power to electronically remove funds from your security accounts with a few keystrokes on a remote computer—this means from your checking account, savings, or by wage garnishment. This is how they will work it.

Then the key-strokers and their supervisors need to be terminated on their way to or from work. The same as those who would "come for our guns" would be. You don't face a superior force alone with no hope of winning, you pick them off one or a few at time.

Wait a minute, aren't they non-combatants? No, they chose to help the regime opress us.

[onyx]

Support FR and the Father of Our Country!

[WilliamofCarmichael]

I don't think that Obama, et al. want to risk outright confrontations on a mass scale.

There could be an executive branch FCC "Fairness Doctrine" approach.. made possible first by de facto registration of all guns in that it could be declared that each gun owned by a citizen is now "registered."

The registration would also be -- a kind of license -- and the "license" can be revoked merely by complaints filed by fellow citizens that the owner acts "irresponsibly."

The Second Amendment remains but is severely restricted..

That's how the "Fairness Doctrine" was used by liberal/progressives to restrict the First Amendment without having to repeal it -- they enforced "fairness" by threatening to take the radio station owners' licenses if citizens complained about their programming content

• "You might also think that they would recall the notorious Fairness Doctrine, which was used to 'harass and intimidate' right-wing radio broadcasts, in the words of one unabashed Kennedy-Johnson operative. When that censorious policy was ended in 1987 by former broadcaster Ronald Reagan, there was an explosion of talk formats that gave voice to popular concerns (for a while, Rush Limbaugh even billed himself as equal time)."
• As reported by Fred Friendly in his book appropriately entitled The Good Guys, the Bad Guys, and the First Amendment, this was part of a "massive strategy . . . to challenge and harass the right-wing broadcasters and hope that the challenges would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited, and decide it was too expensive to continue." This strategy was said to have been successful in almost all respects.

-- the liberals today are flooding the nation with warning screams of "'assault weapons' hiding under beds" and everywhere just waiting to shoot you. The uninformed voters would be tricked into being shills and complain to the authorities about a neighborhood gun owner.