Question of the Day: Would You Defend Your Guns With Your Life?

There’s talk of firearms confiscation out there. Serious talk. On the 21st, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo mooted the possibility of mandatory confiscation. Ralph’s working on a post investigating the legal niceties, but Senator Feinstein’s federal assault weapons ban bill would prevent AR and high cap mag owners from selling their private property. In other words, they’d have to “sell” them to Uncle Sam. Hey, what’s another $50b+ to pork-powered politicians? And if there’s another spree killing, well, the niceties may not be so nice. Which brings us to Charlton Heston’s famous statement about prying his guns from his cold dead hands [Note to ATF: now would be the time to try.] Would you defend your firearms to the death?

avatar

About Robert Farago

Robert Farago is the Publisher of The Truth About Guns (TTAG). He started the site to explore the ethics, morality, business, politics, culture, technology, practice, strategy, dangers and fun of guns.

182 Responses to Question of the Day: Would You Defend Your Guns With Your Life?

  1. avatarDaniel says:

    Bury them.
    Then dig them up when they’re needed.

    To all: Think VERY carefully before posting. Do not betray OPSEC.

  2. avatarmike marriam says:

    I think it would be suicidal to publish on the internet what you would do.

  3. avatarOHgunner says:

    Not really something to talk about on a public forum that is more than likely watched every day by some .gov agency….

  4. avatarRKBA says:

    Sure is nice weather outside today…..

  5. avatarAustin says:

    Buy it from somewhere else but….
    http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/product/BAG-198

  6. avatarRKBA says:

    …but seriously…

    I live in *********. We don’t have nay guns here. The sheriffs deputy has a revolver, and he keeps it unloaded at all times. But, he does have a bullet in his pocket “just in case.”

  7. avatarOddux says:

    I have no firearms to register, I sold them at a gun show to some nondescript guy who paid in cash, which I then walked out and stuffed into a Salvation Army collection bucket. Shame about the lack of money trail since I never put it in my account and not creating a bill of sale, which are not required for private transfers. Wish I could remember the guy’s name and face, but he was just so… nondescript, ya know?

    • avatarAdam says:

      good one :)

    • avatarfrankgon4 says:

      I did a very similar thing for Christmas. All I have left is a Bow and Arrow

      • avatarqajaqon says:

        Same Here…. Got rid rid of all those bullet throwers, and bought me a bow for each hand and a trunk full of arrow shafts and wicked-sharp arrow heads.

        De Oppresso Liber

    • avatarBurnOut says:

      Funny, I did the same; except instead of giving the cash to the Salvation Army, I went on a coke-and-hooker binge. Yessir. I saw this coming and got out while the gettin’ was good.

    • avatarBLAMMO says:

      I don’t own any guns. Occasionally, I walk into a gun shop to do a NICS check, just to make sure I’m not on the terror watch list. But I don’t buy any guns.

    • avatarWilliam says:

      Oh MY! Memory is SUCH A FLEETING THING, ain’t it?

    • avatarspeedracer5050 says:

      I remember him cause I sold all of mine to him too. Long drive to get there though. Seems like it was 6 or 7 hrs.
      Remember him do I…6’3″, 200-230lbs, blondish black straight hair, hook nose, scar from his right eyebrow to his lower left chin, brown eyes, cross eyed real bad and spoke with a lisp and a southern accent!!

  8. avatarSCS says:

    No comment, Senator.

  9. avatarMatt in FL says:

    I hope to hell that none of us have to discover the answer to that question.

  10. avatarCyrano says:

    I was hauling my guns over a volcano with a helicopter held by a cotton rope which subsequently caught fire and the whole bunch dropped into the lava. I will miss my collection.

    • avatarDaniel says:

      Well, that was awfully damn careless. Sheesh, what were you thinking?

      Oh. OOOOHHH.

      Yeah, uh, that’s exactly what happened to me. Funny, that.

  11. avatarchuck bobuck says:

    I’m so glad that I don’t have to worry about this. Just last week I was moving my guns from a cabin back to my truck. They were all in my canoe while I was paddling across the lake, I stood up to take a piss and like a dumb ass, tipped over the canoe. You guessed it, in the drink they all went. I guess if the Gov. wants them, they can dive down to the bottom of the lake and look for them. What was the name of that lake again?

  12. avataruncommon_sense says:

    Whatever I would do, I would be clever about it. (That means I am not going to say what I would or would not do on a public forum.) The two most important objectives are to be part of a very large group and commence actions that would be effective. Effective action will be different for different people. As I stated on another post, the biggest gang with the MEANS to act and the WILL to act will prevail.

    This is how I am pretty sure government mandated confiscation would play out. Initially, law enforcement officers would go out in squads and knock on doors. Dumbfounded an unprepared, nearly all of the initial citizens would hand over their firearms. And early on major media would report anyone who resisted violently as a domestic terrorist. As reports would begin to circulate, the squads would encounter more and more uncooperative citizens and force would escalate until shooting begins. Then the squads would begin no-knock actions in the middle of the night en masse. There would be a lot more shooting. Once reports of that leaked out, it would no longer be possible to label hundreds of thousands of citizens as domestic terrorists. At that point I would not want to be a law enforcement officer in general much less part of a confiscation squad.

    • avatarWilliam says:

      At that point of which you speak, there will be a lot fewer confiscators and a LOT more resistors. At some point, maybe early on, whole units of the military will defect – they already know they will NOT be entrusted to take care of globalist bidness – and UN and NATO troops will take their place. Combat veterans, already on our side, will make things VERY difficult for invading troops. I would not be at all surprised if we find fighter jets on our side.

      But this is gonna be VERY nasty. It’s a desperation move, which is doomed to failure. But the blood of oppressors and blood of patriots will co-mingle in the streets and on the ground.

      Like I said… VERY nasty.

    • avatarRKBA says:

      “be part of a very large group”

      You mean, like Texas?

    • avatarSilver says:

      -Once reports of that leaked out, it would no longer be possible to label hundreds of thousands of citizens as domestic terrorists.-

      Watch them. And watch it work. Don’t underestimate how evil the media is and how stupid Americans are.

  13. avatarstateisevil says:

    They’re not getting my guns. Is it possible that fineswine could be this foolish? All that is required to is to boil the frog. Most gun owners tacitly accept NFA 34 and GCA 68, and the Reagan/Bush bans. Just do a 1994 ban but make it permanent. If it passed, we’d never get it repealed.

  14. avatarLarry says:

    Yes, but what I’m really defending are the freedoms of my children. My life has already been lived.

  15. avatarMattK1 says:

    The NRA is getting blasted for their ideas on school safty. Bill Clinton tried the same thing in 2000, a year after Columbine. Why won’t the media talk about that??

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/12/21/Flashback-Clinton-Cops-in-Schools

    • avatarRalph says:

      You know why the media won’t talk about it.

      • avatarLow Budget Dave says:

        I don’t think the media is talking about it because it isn’t true. National Review made it up a long time ago, and dozens of other sites have repeated it so much that people just accept it as fact.

        The Clinton program to reduce violence in schools was designed to prevent violence through mental health care and monitoring, not armed response. Although money was available for guards, it was such a small part of the total that most news articles don’t mention it.

        http://www.cnn.com/US/9808/27/school.early.warning/

  16. avatarST says:

    I think a down to earth definition of ” confiscation” is in order. The anti gun lobby may be stupid, but they’re not suicidal. There won’t be gangs of uniformed ninjas roving about taking arms. Rather, Big Government will just outlaw public gun ownership, set up an amnesty booth , and let time and circumstance do the rest. Don’t want to comply with a national gun buyout? OK. Better not give the cops a reason to search your apartment though. Good luck shooting an outlawed weapon at the local 3 gun meet. Better mind those spent casings too.Wouldnt want a cop to find a 5.56 round on your floor during a traffic stop.

    • avatar16V says:

      Exactly how it will happen. Australia is the model they will look to.

    • avatarWilliam says:

      Wrong. They realize time is on our side, and they are going to make stupid, hasty, ill-conceived and bloody moves.

    • ST, I think it could go just like that. I can’t imagine anything more than a voluntary program of turning in the high cap mags and certain “assault rifles.”

      I figure about half of you would comply.

      • avatarLarry says:

        So that would leave about 5MM remaining resistors. I would give that many armed indivuals pretty good odds.

        • Pretty good odds at what? Can’t you get out of the fantasy for a minute. No government thugs are coming for your precious guns, except in your wild imagination.

        • avatarRobert Farago says:

          What about post-Katrina New Orleans? Was that in my imagination?

        • When we say “coming for your guns” we’re not talking about a single city after a state of emergency which lasted a few days. When we talk about that we envision swat-like government men going door to door. That’s the alarmist and paranoid nonsense that you keep pushing and the post-Katrina anomaly doesn’t prove it’s even remotely possible.

        • avatarRobert Farago says:

          Katrina was the exception that proved the rule.

          The State of Emergency started on September 22 and ran to October 25. Click here for a copy. Facts Mike. Facts.

        • Robert, if you had facts you wouldn’t have to keep rehashing that same old video of the old lady.

          “Katrina was the exception that proved the rule,” indeed. The rule being that gun confiscations are the stuff of paranoid gun nuts or those, like yourself, with an agenda.

        • avatarMatt in FL says:

          Not to mention that quite a few of those people never got their guns back because they didn’t have the required “proof of ownership” and some of those that did see their guns returned found them much worse for wear from their vacation, due to rust, dents & dings, etc.

        • avatarMatt in FL says:

          The video of the old lady aside, what about all the other people that had their guns confiscated? The cops went door to door. 30 seconds before those cops knocked on those peoples’ doors, which were they? Paranoid gun nuts, or people with an agenda?

      • avatarTim McNabb says:

        Worldwide, the best compliance for gun turn-ins have been about 20%

        • Do you consider Australia part of the world?

        • avatar16V says:

          Just because many law-abiding citizens turned their guns in, does not mean that the bad guys gave theirs up.

          One can readily acquire an illegal firearm in the UK or OZ, all one needs is some cash and the stones to deal with some slightly criminal people. Even better, since one procures one’s illegal guns from the most ready source, they are generally full-auto diverted military hardware.

        • avatarLow Budget Dave says:

          16V: If fully automatic weapons are easy to come by in Australia, then how do you explain the total gun death rate of 1.05 per 100,000? How about the gun murder rate of 0.09?

          Seems to me that if the criminal element was armed with military rifles, and the rest of the country was disarmed, the murder rate and accidental death rate would be higher than the U.S., and not 10 to 40 times lower.

        • avatar16V says:

          Dave, Just because something is easy to acquire, doesn’t mean that one will necessarily avail oneself of it. Regardless, perhaps you should look at what has actually happened to crime rates in the land of OZ…

          In 2002 — five years after enacting its gun ban — the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner.

          Even Australia’s Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:

          In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
          Sexual assault — Australia’s equivalent term for rape — increased 29.9 percent.
          Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.

          Moreover, Australia and the United States — where no gun-ban exists — both experienced similar decreases in murder rates:

          Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America’s rate dropped 31.7 percent.
          During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
          Sexual assault — Australia’s equivalent term for rape — increased 29.9 percent.
          Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
          At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent.
          Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women.

        • avatarLow Budget Dave says:

          16V: I understand what you are saying, but I don’t necessarily agree with the statistics. The crime that is actually taken from police reports (murder) is down, but the crimes that are defined by self-reported surveys (everything else) is up? This might be true, but it also might not be.

          For most statistical purposes, the violent crime rate doesn’t matter anyway. In sexual assault, for example, the number includes cases where the woman knew the attacker. In Australia, like many other countries, this constitutes the vast majority of sexual assaults. Providing either of the two parties with a gun is not likely to change the number much.

          More to the point, of course, is that most Australians didn’t own a gun before the ban anyway.

          The best available data, as I understand it, is that the availability of guns neither reduces nor increases violent crime rates, except for murder, which can be reduced only in cases where firearms can be massively regulated.

          Since guns can’t be massively regulated in the US, that part of the argument is not applicable. It is also a long way off the original point. My original point was that no one is going to come take away your guns. Even in Oz, where the government did take away people’s guns, it has not been the unmitigated disaster that the NRA would have us believe.

          The crime rates do not seem to have come down by much, but there is certainly not much murder there to speak of. All things considered, that seems like a pretty decent outcome.

        • avatar16V says:

          Dave if you disagree with my numbers, you’re free to post alternatives and source them. I’m always interested in actual data.

          In the 10 years post-ban Australia has had huge growth in gun crime and gun-violence numbers versus pre-ban. Sure 650K legally owned guns were turned in out of 19MM folks. The rest are still out there, mostly in the hands of bad guys who know you can’t fight back.

          New ones come in every day, just like coke, heroin, and everything else the government deems verboten. Yet, that has never stopped anyone with even the slightest bit of determination.

          As to trading a massive growth in violent crime (esp rape) as a fair trade for a few less murders, once your wife/sister/daughter gets raped in your house because the burglars know you don’t have a gun, you’ll think twice. Once the home invader beats your 80 year father into a coma after raping your mother to death, you might get it. Once some bunch of idiots beats you senseless and leaves you for dead on a sidewalk just for kicks, maybe you’ll get it.

          All of those things are hundreds to thousands of times more likely to happen than the tragedy of a crazy person with a gun massacring children.

          You are perfectly free not to defend yourself or your family. It sometimes works and that’s a situational analysis that is yours to make, and is your right. I prefer to have a few more choices in my decision tree, which is my right.

          All of life is a series of risk/reward calculations. Incurring known orders of magnitude greater horrible events on the (completely unsupported) theory that perhaps we can prevent a few hideous, but freakishly improbable ones by doing so, seems to me a very sick trade.

        • Tim, in Australia 20% were turned in but most of the rest were registered to their owners. The compliance was 90%. You conveniently left out the registering part.

          http://mikeb302000.blogspot.it/2012/12/the-truth-about-australias-gun-laws.html

  17. avatarBilly says:

    I too hope that nobody has to discover the answer to that question. Such a shame that I lost my AR when my 4 wheeler got stuck in that slough… The sling just slid off my shoulder. A water moccasin appeared and ran me off before I could try to retrieve it…

  18. avatarChuckN says:

    There’s probably more than a few of us who had
    family miraculously live through Nazi Germany.
    Others may have family members that escaped
    Stalin. Still others managed to live through a
    variety of dictators. We know the history, some of
    us may have lived it. So the question should become:
    do any of us legitimately think genocide won’t
    happen after the government starts confiscation?

  19. avatarWildWest says:

    Ich spreche kein.

  20. avatarscottlac says:

    I really bugs me that Wal-Mart has a paper trail with that 4473. Ever since that time my boat turned over in the Ohio river and I lost all my guns I have worried that someday someone from the ATF will come looking for something I no longer have.

  21. avatarJR LORENCZ says:

    Living life to the fullest, the last thing they will pry from my cold, dead fingers, will not be my gun.

    • avatarConway Redding says:

      Gee, if the little ditty they used to teach soldiers to get them to call their weapons “rifles” rather than “guns” is to be heeded, your “gun” will be exactly what they will pry from your cold, dead fingers. The ditty went, “This is my rifle” (pointing to same), “this is my gun” (pointing to, um, a male anatomical feature); “this is for pleasure, this is for fun.”

  22. avatarMichael B. says:

    “And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?… The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If…if…we didn’t love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation. We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”

    ― Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn

  23. avatarGregolas says:

    Just a historical fact I’ve taught to various groups including a state Young Republican convention. Only an interesting point but a lesson from the Founders.
    What was the actual, immediate cause of the Revolution? What started the shooting? Taxation without representation? The Intolerable Acts that closed Boston Harbor and gave rise to Patrick Henry’s “Give me Liberty or Death” speech? All the other administrative, gubenatorial, and judicial outrages, along with quartering of troops?
    No.
    The colonists resorted to arms when British troops moved out to take the arms from the colonists. It was then that the government became intolerable and had to be fought.
    As Joe Friday says,”Just the facts, Ma’am”.

  24. avatarBud says:

    I turned inall my guns in to a Chicago gun buyback and got $100 Wal Mart gift cards for eavch one of them. I used the gift cards to buy big screen TVs for every room in my house including the upstairs bathroom.

    They refused to give me a receipt for my guns, but wanna see my TVs?

  25. avatarJohn F says:

    OH ! That will never happen here in the Good Old USA, our Government is here to protect us, in time of need.
    SWAT Teams going door to door, Zig Heil !
    I am 73 and have lived a full life, I may only take 1 or 2 of them with me.
    Then they can uncurl the dead finges from by EMPTY Gun.
    The bravest man in recent history is the Chinaman that stood in front of the Tank in Tienaman (sp) Square, China

  26. avatarLow Budget Dave says:

    Sorry, this is just silly. No one is going to confiscate your guns. This is the same boogeyman that the NRA trots out after every school shooting to scare people into donating more money and buying more guns.

    It works better than any other scare tactic on the right, because the average gun nut doesn’t understand how the Constitution works.

    If anyone ever does come to take away your guns, you can rest safe in the knowledge that the ACLU will defend you. So will I, and every other true liberal in the world.

    If you don’t understand why, you might want to Google the name “Robert Weinstein” in Pompano Beach.

    • avatarAharon says:

      The ACLU? The ACLU is openly anti-gun and has stated they don’t believe private citizens have the right to own guns.

    • avataruncommon_sense says:

      “This [government firearms confiscation] is the same boogeyman that the NRA trots out after every school shooting to scare people into donating more money and buying more guns.”
      Except the NRA didn’t trot this out … Bloomberg and Cuomo did.

      “If anyone ever does come to take away your guns, you can rest safe in the knowledge that the ACLU will defend you.”
      I don’t know what alternate universe you occupy. I am not aware of any lawsuit that the American Civil Liberties Union has ever filed on anyone’s behalf to restore firearms rights.

    • avatarThomas Paine says:

      come to the dark side, Dave.

    • avatarDonS says:

      “No one is going to confiscate your guns.”
      No. They’ll just demand federal registration and ban transfers. By definition, every so-called “assault weapon” is in criminal hands after one generation.

      “It works better than any other scare tactic on the right”
      But for gun sales, it apparently doesn’t work as well as Obama’s and Feinstein’s calls for assault weapons bans. In Colorado, a background check usually takes less than half an hour (my own maximum wait was 15 minutes). A week ago, it was 68 hours. Today, it’s 7 to 10 days. And that’s if you can find what you want in stock anywhere – a Very Big If.

    • avatarRalph says:

      Hey, LDB, aren’t you the same guy who told us that we had nothing to fear from His Highness?

      Salute the false flag, everyone.

      • avatarMattK1 says:

        I was deleted with my earlier comment, but Yes, Yes he was.

      • avatarLow Budget Dave says:

        Ralph, I stand by my earlier statements. I really don’t think the Obama Administration will ever come to take away guns from people who are just minding their own business.

        Is there a chance that the government might make it harder to buy and carry 100-round magazines? Yep. Not likely, but yep.

        As far as an AWB goes, I don’t think it will happen. Obama is under a lot of pressure to look busy, but when you actually see what passes, it will be a watered-down compromise just like the banking regulation was.

        If he really believed in something, he would have gotten involved personally, and not just turned it over to the “curiously ineffective” branch of the party.

        • avatarMatt in FL says:

          “…but when you actually see what passes, it will be a watered-down compromise…”

          Apparently you and I have a different definition of compromise. What, exactly, would I be gaining from this deal, while having to deal with new regulations and meaningless restrictions? Because a situation where I am negatively impacted and have to give up things, the terms of which are dictated by someone else, is not a compromise.

        • avatarLow Budget Dave says:

          Matt, What would you be gaining? If a compromise works, then you would be gaining a safer country that doesn’t trample on any actual rights.

          If the compromise is watered down as much as I think it will be, then you would be gaining another ten years with no meaningful regulation of gun sales, magazine size, or guns purchased.

          If that is not what you wanted, then you should speak up now.

        • avatarMatt in FL says:

          “Safer” is debatable.

          Well, it’s not from where I’m standing, because I don’t believe that any of the proposed or expected regulations would do anything to make this country safer in any measurable way. Therefore, the unquantifiably small potential gain does not justify any inconvenience on my part, even if it doesn’t rise to the level of “trampling” (which is a pretty subjective term in its own right).

          You think that additional rules and regulations would render us safer, while I think they’re meaningless at best while being a massive (subjective, I know) inconvenience to the vast majority of people who would never use their guns for ill purpose, even if there were no restrictions whatsoever.

          I think this is exactly where our last disagreement ended up, just a lot more quickly. I won’t prolong the agony this time.

    • avatarJohn says:

      Horsehockey. ‘Every true Liberal’ and the ACLU couldn’t and wouldn’t raise a finger to help, once the three branches of Government made confiscation the Law of the Land. Written properly, ANY law can survive the scrutiny of the Supreme Court when it is properly ‘packed’ and, no matter how heinous to personal liberty, that law will be enforced. One more Liberal justice, and the 2nd Amendment becomes the Right to Join the National Guard.
      If Government can dictate the shape of lightbulbs and the volume of flush toilet mechanisms, it can surely confiscate anything it chooses at any time.

    • avatarWilliam says:

      You’re not only low-budget, Dave… you’re low-intelligence.

    • avatarSammy says:

      The NRA is trotting out Fienstien? I think your trying to help cook the frogs.

      I’m getting the impression most here are accepting the passage of this bill as proposed. I’d like to know from someone with a legal background just what are the odds this bill has. In the mean time I’m investigating setting up a firearms trust. Has there been any comment by the 2a foundation or GOA?

    • avatarAnmut says:

      Does your version or reality include unicorns and rainbows by chance?

    • avatarWLCE says:

      i am fairly optimistic nothing will happen…political hyperbole aside.

      because the possibility always exists, it is up to gun owners to become proactive and buy things when the times are good so we can avoid another “out of stock, no backorder” orgy that is going on right now. Let this crisis be a valuable lesson learned folks! be proactive and stop making excuses!

  27. avatarAharon says:

    I don’t think a post should be asking people to comment about such a potentially dangerous and legal issue. It is um interesting timing that just when it seemed the ATF was on the verge of being dismembered by government it might be getting a second life and increased funding. It is um also interesting that this and other ‘crises’ occurred after the election. It almost makes you wonder…

    • avatar16V says:

      ATF was almost irrelevant and dismantled until Ronnie Reagan came along and made it what it is today.

      • avatarRalph says:

        What ever happened to “it’s all George Bush’s fault?” I liked that bullsh!t better.

        • avatarmikeinid says:

          Some folks are actually old enough to remember Reagan! Probably didn’t learn it in school, though. They said he was to busy napping and eating jelly beans, didn’t do a thing.

        • avatar16V says:

          Thanks, I’m quite well old enough to remember when Ronnie took our ability to buy new auto-guns away. As well as Nixon’s elevation of the ATF to Bureau status.

          To be fair, the NRA holds as much blame as St. Ronnie. Ronnie was about to neuter ATF completely and then the NRA flip-flopped 180, because they decided that rather than have all gun-related enforcement/rules cede back to FBI and LEOs, that they’d rather dance with the devil they knew. Because, it’s not like Ronnie would give the ATF any more power…

    • avatarJohn says:

      I think, in the long run, anything posted here is highly unlikely to arouse the interest of the Black Helicopter guys.
      What WILL pique their interest is your paper-trail of 4473s, your credit-card purchase records, your automated bank statements, all of those little bits of information that can be used should they wish to visit your home. If they feel the need for a search warrant (if the confiscation order isn’t written to absolve them of the need for one, it being an ‘exigent circumstance’ to save more schoolchildren if ever I heard of one), those bits of information will more than establish probable cause.
      You folks seeme to think that your Government will still play by The Rules if it decides to confiscate. Why should it? It’s already BREAKING all of The Rules NOW, and nothing happens. Nothing. Obama’s still President, Holder AG, Geithner Treasury Secretary, Reid a Senator, Clinton Secretary of State, all of the Apparatchiks still empowered to run their Agencies without let or hindrance.
      Go ahead, posture on the Interwebz. It’s not going to change a thing.

  28. avatarJoshinGA says:

    Guns? I don’t own any guns. Why are you even…oh, this isn’t progressives monthly, that sure was some typo.

  29. avatarCasey T says:

    Listen, while I understand that we all have our love for the Constitution and believe in it fully. I don’t think we should advocate death in support of our 2nd amendment rights as it makes us look near insane to the general public. What I plan to do (I am basically a single parent to a six year old girl so I have to put her first) is remind anyone who shows up to take the firearms that I have all sold in private sales or have been stolen that in the military, if you follow orders that are a crime according to the Geneva Convention, you will stand trial and will be found guilty. If any law enforcement or military show up to try to confiscate anything, I will point out that they are committing treason by violating the Constitution and should not be party to this. If this bill passes or one that is similar, I personally think we should all march on the capitol and get every gun owner or supporter to go too. If we could all pack D.C., we would be heard and we could probably even get a couple of senators to retire. Use our freedom of peaceful assembly to put forth our point.

    • avatarLarry says:

      I agree. If this thing looks like it’s moving forward then we need to march on Washington. All 100MM+. Make there lives miserable.

    • avatarspeedracer5050 says:

      I have said it before and I will say it again. Whenever everyone is ready to pack up their rigs an march on DC peacefully let me know!!
      I will be there, even if it costs me my job. I can always find work, but rights and freedoms lost are rarely if ever regained!!

    • avatarSilver says:

      -I don’t think we should advocate death in support of our 2nd amendment rights-

      Good thing no one told that to the guys at Lexington and Concord or you’d be sipping tea and munching crumpets.

  30. avatarKCK says:

    I posted a thing on the fienstien ban article about boat trip whoops and John Smith having recently buying millions of guns.

  31. avatarJSIII says:

    IF and thats a big IF a true gun grab started I think many of us would be surprised and disgusted by how many just turn in their guns. That being said it wouldnt take many people from each state to bleed the govt dry with resistance. One Waco Texas and Ruby ridge pretty much beat the Govt into submission for a time due to public pressure. Think about it guys with little more than Rifles, Training and the will to fight are giving us a hell of a time over in the sand box.

  32. avatarKCK says:

    But still, we all have to realize that if we have to break the law, by hiding and lying it is a sad day.
    But it is a catch-22 in reverse as in “the only time we need to burn the flag is if we are told we can’t.”
    Right now only the mentally ill go out and do mass murder. All the talk is about saving lives.
    How many lives will be saved by this legislation as US solders approach the patriots barricades. Google 1860-1865.
    What a world turned upside down if a black president from the Land of Lincoln starts a civil war of oppression. What a world, What a world.

  33. avatarShire-man says:

    Another question comes to mind. One for the LEO’s out there. Would you draw on and threaten deadly force against an American with a gun collection?

    Most of you probably have similar collections and simply owning a thing isn’t harmful or threatening.

    If yes would you feel a proud sense of duty completion as they drag the corpse of that father, mother, son, daughter out into the street?

    Simply wanting to be left alone and not bother anybody is becoming one of the most dangerous lifestyles in America.

    • avatarJohn says:

      Did an FBI sniper follow orders and shoot an unarmed woman holding an infant to death, all over a minor firearms violation? If the answer is ‘No,’ then you may hope for the best. If the answer is ‘Yes, at Ruby Ridge’, then your hopes will likely be crushed.
      Since the answer IS ‘yes,’ as we well know, it follows that the monstrous Lon Horiuchi, who is still alive and assumedly prospering, must feel a proud sense of accomplishment–considering that he was decorated by his organisation for his ‘service.’

    • avatarLarry says:

      I’ve already talked with a few that I know would immediately switch sides if that happens. Some wouldn’t, but I think most would be proud to support our cause.

  34. avatarRalph says:

    I’d fight to defend my guns from burglars and thieves. But from the G? Well, if they came like gentlemen, I’d respond in kind and make them coffee while I was at it.

    I suspect that they’d come with smiles. They learned their lesson from Ruby Ridge about coming heavy. They’re not going to go all Lon Horiuchi on decent Americans, right? I mean, they wouldn’t do that. Would they?

    • avatarOddux says:

      Maybe. There might be some ATF or FBI marksman who’d kill for an advertising gig with H-S Precision.

    • avatarLow Budget Dave says:

      Ralph, I suspect most gun owners are law-abiding citizens. The trail of comments on this site seems to indicate otherwise, but it is easy to make jokes on the internet.

      I don’t think the government will come in light or heavy, because I don’t think it will ever happen.

      • avatarJohn says:

        I’m pleased and reassured (NOT!) by your ‘thinking’ that something like this will never happen, but I must tell you that the power of your government has reached the point where those freedoms that you think you are guaranteed are at the point of flickering out forever.
        Your government has the power and ability to crush you, never fear. It can use the tens of thousands of federal felonies on the books, the power of the IRS, the power of the courts, the power of any agency at its disposal, to make you legally ‘disappear,’ or wish that you had. If you think that you are ‘safe’ from all of this, and that I am merely paranoid, then you are living in a Fool’s Paradise.

        • avatarLow Budget Dave says:

          John, You are completely correct that the government can (and does) force most people to comply with laws. The government can (and does) ruin the lives of people who chose to live outside those laws.

          But guns will not protect you. Indirectly speaking, gun rights will not protect you either. You can’t decide to break the speed limit just because you are heavily armed.

          More to the point, though, the government will not ever do this. The time to declare guns illegal is long gone. It won’t happen.

          The best the government can hope to do now is to impose some new taxes and/or a few new paperwork requirements. This is a bit like imposing a hefty tax on pot. All it does is slow people down a bit, and even then, only if they are really poor, or really lazy.

        • avatarWLCE says:

          “The best the government can hope to do now is to impose some new taxes and/or a few new paperwork requirements. This is a bit like imposing a hefty tax on pot. All it does is slow people down a bit, and even then, only if they are really poor, or really lazy.”

          Ill have to agree. If ANY legislation is passed then it will be in that form.

          I am strongly against it, but am also recognizing the writing on the wall.

          I cannot wait until nothing is done and the inflated prices are crushed under the weight of desperately ordered inventory rushing to gun stores.

    • avatarguzzimike says:

      “They’ll come at you sideways. It’s how they think. It’s how they move. Sidle up and smile. Hit you where you’re weak. Sort of man they’re like to send believes hard. Kills and never asks why.”

  35. avatargloomhound says:

    Always obey the laws set by our government to do otherwise is wrong. I personally would follow any directive passed down from them faithfully.

  36. avatarWilliam says:

    I would DEFEND LIBERTY with my life; that’s much, much bigger than just my guns.

  37. You’re seriously asking this? On here? That would be a definite NO COMMENT.

  38. avatarDerryM says:

    If laws are passed outlawing certain types of guns, the law will include a provision to turn the specified firearms in somewhere by a specified date or be subject to criminal prosecution, if caught with them after the “grace” period ends. The Government is not going to open the “confiscation” can of worms when they can declare you a felon and prosecute as they catch you by adding a few sentences to the law.

    Once your Rights are infringed by a gun control law, your Right has been taken away, or severely restricted, whether you like it/agree with it, or not. It may be challenged in Court and overturned (within a year or so), or become a long term matter. like the GCA of 1968 (the majority of law-abiding gun owners obey that law and other types are prosecuted for not obeying that law). Any fighting to the death you propose to do should be carefully considered for consequences and value-add to posterity. Not a pleasant reality, but reality nonetheless.

  39. avatarPhydeaux says:

    I’m wondering about any parallels there may be between Canada’s gun registry experience and potential legislation here. Wikipedia appears to have a remarkably neutral write up of the Canadian law.

    One thing that jumps out at me is the failure and recision of the long gun registry due to citizen noncompliance. Basically a major portion of rifle and shot gun owners refused to register their firearms, and the regulations that implemented that portion of the law was removed.

  40. avatarHimself says:

    The more we’re willing to declare in public our willingness to resort to arms to defend our rights, the less likely it is that we’ll ever have to do so–because the government is listening. Let them know what personal cost awaits them, and most likely they’ll never dare to make the attempt.

    I have for decades been disturbed by this propensity of the gun culture to make silly jokes and serious proposals for burying their arms, when their ancestors under the same conditions stood up to the world’s greatest empire.

    And won. Has everyone forgotten that bit?

    • avatarLarry says:

      Plus if they killed or imprisoned us gun owners, they would be giving up a very large chunk of the tax revenues. Most gun owners are the “makers” supporting the other half of the “takers”. Those liberals would then actually need to go out and find jobs to pay for their habits. Wouldn’t that be ironic? Remind your representatives of that when you call them.

      • avatarJohn says:

        I wish that you were right, but I’m sure that you are not. Your government would be DELIGHTED to make an example of someone like you.

      • avatarLow Budget Dave says:

        Larry: So are you saying that all the toothless goobers down at the local gun show are really small business owners? Because as far as I can tell, the only thing they are “making” is meth, and the only taxes they are paying is the sales tax on all that Sudafed.

        • avatarRalph says:

          Pardon, but your prejudice is showing.

        • avatarLow Budget Dave says:

          Ralph, I am not the one who said that gun owners were “makers” and liberals were “takers”. That is the same kind of Ayn Rand pseudo-intellectual claptrap that I hear repeated by everyone who has ever lost an argument.

          But yeah, every time I hear a gun nut tell me about how the entire U.S. economy revolves around conservatives, and that liberals are all just sitting around collecting welfare, I tend to throw it back in their faces.

          But go ahead. Please feel free to repeat to me about the 48% that doesn’t pay any taxes. Feel free to offer your own opinion that all the good ones are conservative gun owners, and all the bad ones are liberals.

          Because I might have missed it the first 50 or 60 times.

      • avatarWLCE says:

        larry thats true to a extent and untrue to another.

        there are plenty of liberals i know that are tax payers. Most gun owners I know are indeed private business owners but a few arent.

        hell, Im a adamant supporter of the 2nd amendment and lean slightly left on social issues.

  41. avatarSanchanim says:

    I plead the fifth! LOL

  42. avatarMy name is Bob says:

    I’m under the impression that resisting (either with or without force) would be the right thing to do. If you’re not going to resist when they start taking away your only RIGHT that has any ability to protect the rest of your rights, then when would you actually step up and defend your rights? If you don’t defend and preserve the 2nd amendment, how will you defend and preserve the rest?

    • avatarLarry says:

      Very well said.

    • avatarRalph says:

      Resistance for the law abiding requires a good lawyer and the willingness to use the legal system and the ballot box. But ultimately, all political power comes from the barrel of a gun. That’s why they want to take ours.

      • avatarLow Budget Dave says:

        Ralph, Oh for Heaven’s sakes. Political power does not come from gun ownership. If it did, there would be shootouts at every polling place in Miami. Political power comes from money.

        • avatarJohn says:

          Political power in a democratic republic comes from the will of certain special-interest groups to USE political power to gain MORE political power.
          That political power is gained originally by the dedicated few having the ability to convince a majority of the ignorant that the politically powerful know what is best for the rest of us. Once supreme political power is gained, along with the upper hand, that power can be used to do anything that the politically powerful desire. Naturally, when the politically powerful control the tools of power, such as the police, the courts, and the military, their power becomes absolute.
          Now, please explain to me how our current political masters can be trusted not to use the supreme power that they possess.

        • avatar16V says:

          So, all the 100+ governments that were formed and/or toppled in the last century at the barrel of a gun didn’t happen.

          All those wars and standing armies are merely decorative appendages, and have no nothing to do with who gets to run the place.

          Got it.

        • 16V: Correct. Governments are not toppled by handguns. Even in Syria, the government slaughtered armed rebels fairly easily until the Sunni majority started getting heavy arms and anti-aircraft weapons from Saudi Arabia.

          The key factor in this conflict, and every other, is not the freedom of the armed populace, it is money.

        • avatar16V says:

          Dave, so a handgun can’t be used tactically to acquire a larger weapon from the other side? Got it. If only you could convince 200+ years of military strategists.

          Were there no functionality or battle efficacy to the sidearm (pistol) no military would spend the money on them. Even militia whack-jobs in Africa supplement the AK with a pistol.

          Of course, this is all a maguffin, as you were earlier asserting that power somehow does not come from the barrel of a gun. Of course, your attempt to use Syria kinda contradicts that, as the money is traded for superior firepower.

  43. avatarRambeast says:

    I weep for our collective futures, but the writing is on the wall. When the social security checks stop, be prepared to witness the beginning of the most gruesome chapter of America’s history. Stock up, prepare mentally, and group up. If things go as I pray they don’t…well, it was great while it lasted.

  44. avatarAtime4Choosing says:

    “You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin — just in the face of this enemy? Or should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard ’round the world? The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazis didn’t die in vain. Where, then, is the road to peace? Well it’s a simple answer after all.

    You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, “There is a price we will not pay.” “There is a point beyond which they must not advance.”

  45. avatarWhilemyTZgentlyweeps says:

    RF’s questions bring to mind one of my favorite Clash songs, “The Guns of Brixton.”

    “When they kick out your front door
    how you gonna come?
    With your hands on your head
    or the trigger of your gun?

    When the law breaks in
    how you gonna go?
    Shot down on the pavement
    or waiting on death row?”

  46. avatarUcsbKevin says:

    no i would not defend my guns with my life. As much as i love my guns, they are not worth losing my life over as well as maybe taking a few poor law enforcement officers with me that were simply following orders. I would rather hope that this constitutional breach does not lead to tyranny and put trust in the people in government (ya, i know most of them aren’t worthy of it) to not do anything too stupid. I would defend the second amendment with all other means up to that point.
    Maybe i’m wrong though. convince me otherwise?

    • avatarsurlycmd says:

      You make your choice based on your principles and the research you do. I have made my decision based on the same. I will not try to convince you one way or another.

      Make your choice and deal with the consequences.

    • avatarAtime4Choosing says:

      “…taking a few poor law enforcement officers with me that were simply following orders. ” Much evil has been done by those “simply following orders”.

      • avatarUcsbKevin says:

        @surlycmd isn’t that what life’s all about?
        @atimeforchoosing you are most definitely right, but if all they were doing is taking my guns away and not menacing my family or population, without imminent threat of further government wrongdoing, i would probably still take my chances.

        • avatarAtime4Choosing says:

          Understand. However for me, when they attempt to take my guns by force they ARE menacing my family. They are menacing our republic and our liberty. At that time, they have become no more than SS Stormtroopers or KGB enforcers.

  47. avatarTheSleeperHasAwakened@wakeup.org says:

    All you TTAG regulars are finally waking up…..THANK GOD!

    I forgive any and all of you who have called those of that were awake before you “Nut Jobs” and “Bat Shit Crazy”.

    I hope you all are prepared…stay frosty!!!

    GODSPEED MY BROTHERS AND SISTERS

  48. avatarSammy says:

    The Second amendment foundation just got another lifetime member. Me. I’m giving to all pro 2A organizations, till it hurts. I’ve written to everyone from my janitor to governor, senate, and house reps. I didn’t correspond with the Jesus in The White House. I think Joe McCarthy underestimated these commies.

  49. avatarWacky Hermit says:

    I would gladly turn in my guns, except that I recently lost them all in a tragic boating accident. Sorry!

    • avatarWLCE says:

      man, you guys seriously need to be careful when youre out boating!

      there seems to be a boating accident streak this month for some reason…

  50. avatarPlumbum says:

    Yes, I would defend myself to the death. It is not a matter of defending my firearms, it is a matter of upholding the oath i took ten years ago. To support and defend against all enemies foreign and domestic.

    Yeah, yeah… opsec.. your mere presence here destroys it.

    I’t aboutdamn time we stop being afraid, and act like men.

    George Washington would still probably slap me, but, i’d be honored.

  51. avatarready,fire,aim says:

    after talking with my neighbors at our monthly resident meeting this evening let’s just say the gub-mint would have to carpet bomb our neighborhood to get us to give them up… bring it on

  52. avatarWLCE says:

    “Would You Defend Your Guns With Your Life?”

    dont ask questions you dont want the answer to…

    ;)

  53. avatarSilver says:

    Wouldn’t matter. The government and media know exactly what they’re doing, promoting hate crimes against gun owners and marginalizing them. It has all the signs of a genocide in progress. Go poke around the internet, see what leftists are saying and the kind of sub-human venom pouring from their stinking yaps, and you’ll see that most of them would only take a nudge to fully support the total fatal annihilation of gun owners. It’s the playbook of genocide: demonize, marginalize, exterminate.

    Those of you expecting Waco-style outrage at government’s heavy-handed murder of American citizens are fooling yourselves. It’s a brave new country.

    • Silver: “Gun Owners” are not a race of people. “Genocide” is a crime against God, not a catchy term for discrimination against gun nuts.

      • avatarSilver says:

        As defined by Merriam-Webster: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group.

        The latter two groups can both be applies to gun owners. Try again. I see by your continued usage of derogatory terminology and defense of demonizing practices that you’ll be first in line to throw the switch on the gas chambers. Color me unsurprised.

        Crime against God…rofl. It’s a crime perpetrated by people against people. It happens all the time and it can happen here, likely while people like you either turn a blind eye or willingly assist.

        • avatarLow Budget Dave says:

          Silver: Interesting, I had no idea that “political” groups were included in the definition. Putting aside the idea that the phrase “gun nut” is derogatory and the assumption that you know anything about me, this is actually an interesting point.

          The United Nations Convention on Genocide originally did not mention political groups. This only made sense at the time. Political groups were poorly defined and temporary. The United Nations did not want international law to be used to meddle in the internal political affairs of member countries.

          If the United States starts prosecuting liberals, for example, the United Nations cannot come to my defense, because of the CPPCG.

          The United Nations is allowed to get involved in Syria, on the other hand, because the conflict is technically sectarian, rather than political. (It is political only in the sense that the Alawites just happen to be in power, and the rebels all just happen to be Sunni.)

          But the idea that regulating guns amounts to “genocide” is still just playing the victim. The government is not killing people just for owning guns, nor is the government preventing you from having children.

          The idea that the government is going to break your door down in the middle of the night and take your children to New York to be raised by liberals is better than the plot of “Prometheus”, but still absurd.

          The world has had ample opportunity to change the definition of “genocide” since the Genocide Convention in 1948, and has chosen not to. What you are talking about, I guess, would be termed “politicide”, which might be a great name for a band, but is pretty unlikely in a democratic republic.

          But to follow this out to its logical conclusion: Yes. If the government starts rounding up gun owners for execution, then I will defend you. Not because I agree with your politics (I don’t), but because I feel no government should ever be allowed to round people up for execution based on political belief.

          Now look deep inside and ask yourself: If the government started rounding up liberals, would you do the same? Because if not, then you really aren’t in favor of freedom, you are just a gun nut.

  54. Hahahahahaha, he’s a troll. You guys need a thesaurus.

  55. Mikind: Oh, you meant “Troll”. Because in your mind, calling someone a “fool” (like you just did) is not name-calling? But I guess that is what passes for debate around your house, too.

    What I always find amusing is that the people who make the worst arguments on the website are the ones who think they are spanking me.

    Here is a hit: Just because you can cut and paste a few sentences off some random Freeper website does not mean that you are winning the debate. And if you feel that talk about gun control is offensive, then feel free not to read it. I actually have very little respect for any of your opinions, much less your “scorn.”

    For now, at least, the owners of the website choose to allow different opinions. Since they allow me to post, I usually do. I hardly ever call people a “fool” just because I disagree, but I do occasionally talk down to people who deserve it.

    And boy, do you deserve it.

  56. avatarCharles Bronson says:

    Cleopatra says there will be snow in the west.

  57. avatarDan USMC says:

    I have just posted this on a another TTAGs on high cap mags I believe its revelant so I will post it here as well..

    I have read and understood the above postings and what I believe is these goverments/countries seek is ultimate draconian control and law to do as they desire. They have accessed the collateral loss and accept…..”its citizens to die so that they may rule with an iron fist and distribute only enough to quell, apart from total loss of control”

    If we would be disarmed at the point as those in the syrian, egypt we would attempt to overthrow the a goverment with stones and nothing more. If an attempt of disarmament were to occur there would be those of us amercians and amercians alike who would stand. One day in the future a question would be asked……

    ” Why are you going to fight this war? ”Do you think you all are HEROS? No… there is no way in hell,….. nobody ask to be a hero it just sometimes turns out that way” …….would be the reply.

    Amercians….. must demand to retain Our Constitution All Of It and peacefully would be desired by all, call-write-email-tweet-facebook use any method to all elected officals all Democratic and Republic and Independents, and pray that it would not fall to the latter as to see the out come of draconian law in an attempt to use Loss of Life to enforce Firearms/type or style or amunition volume but its ultimate goal of Control ”disguised as of course prevention” but only as to prevent rights of is citizens.

    But Evil is Evil and you can not make a Law that would remove it from the Hearts of those Hell Bent on Destruction of Innocence!! Or of Life and Liberty.

  58. avatarpat says:

    Everybody on this forum will turn into a Gorilla (not Che style, I mean Ape/hairy/eat bananas, etc…).

  59. avatarTommy Boy says:

    3000+ Russian Spetsnaz aren’t just in Colorado for the Buds.
    National Guard isn’t just rolling down the bad parts of town to break in their vehicles.
    “Homeland security” is just amassing the largest stockpile of ammo ever, to teach our kids how to shoot.
    FEMA camps and millions of body bags and their 8 person tupperware containers arent for the annual picinic.
    It’s going to be BAD!

  60. avatarRichard says:

    Lots of high value targets to expend my life for. I’m almost 60, bad diabetic, probably won’t go another 10 years. I hate what is being done to the great Country in the name of ‘progressivism’, in other words, all of the adjectives used to describe socialism, fascism, communism and all the other ism’s. There are those in this country that are on this insane drive to destroy it. I’m not sure what they think their ‘rose colored glasses’ outcome will really be. Can they really believe the bullshit they spew. Personally, I believe the vast majority on the liberal left are mentally ill. The media in this country, controlled by the real people in charge, guide the drive for the downfall of this country. The media has become nothing but a propaganda tool. It no longer works for truth.

    So many say we have to do things at the ballot box. Even that is being stolen away from integrity and the honest vote. THIS COUNTRY IS BEING STOLEN AWAY and us complacent ass citizens are to blame. We are the ones that have fiddled while Rome(Washington) burned. We are to blame and now we have to have the guts to rectify it or just let this great Country fade into history’s night.

    • avatarLow Budget Dave says:

      Richard, I feel the same way that you do about conservatives.

      They are waging an all-out war on the working class, and voting every week to take away more of the benefits we worked our lifetimes for.

      The minimum wage, which used to guard the dignity of work, is now what they expect to pay indentured servants.

      Voting rights, which used to protect the political process from hijacking by a wealthy few, are now being denied to the disenfranchised.

      Veterans health care, which used to be the benefit for serving your country, was filibustered by Republicans in the Senate.

      The far right wing started a war that cost 4000 American lives. We now know that it was for oil, and that literally trillions of dollars went to war profiteers and corrupt corporations. After more than 17 embassy attacks, the right wing media picks out one that they feel was reported dishonestly, and lies about it in exchange for cash.

      Now you are willing to fight and die to keep women from getting health insurance? That isn’t “taking your country back”, that is buying into a religious war. It is the opposite of the principles America was founded for.

      We were founded to escape religious persecution, not to impose it on others.

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.