State Laws Against Federal Gun Bans Set The Stage for Armed Conflict

There’s no getting around it: the conflict between gun control and gun rights advocates is bound to get bloody. It’s only a matter of time before some New York, New Jersey or other state law enforcement officer (LEO) tries to enforce a ban against “high-capacity” magazines and/or “assault rifles” and meets armed resistance. Ruby Ridge redux. Equally, if Uncle Sam’s SWAT teams try to enforce a federal AWB or mag cap law inside a “firearms friendly” state chances are they’ll face armed resistance from gun/mag owners and local law enforcement. Yes there is that . . .

Hundreds of sheriffs around the country have signed pledges promising not enforce any federal firearms law requiring confiscation. The stage is set for state vs. federal LEO armed conflict.

One wonders if local LEOs will walk the talk should push come to shove with federal firearms legislation. Will they [literally] stand with gun owners who own modern sporting rifles and standard capacity magazines?

This is no longer a pie-in-the-sky theoretical question (nor has it been since Hurrican Katrina). As foxnews.com reports, Texas is talking tough on the f-the-feds’ firearms frisking front.

Under a measure advancing in the Texas Capitol, local police officers could be convicted of a crime for enforcing any new federal gun control laws.

Rep. Steve Toth, a newly elected Republican from the Woodlands, said his proposal would prevent officers from carrying out any future federal orders to confiscate assault rifles and ammunition magazines.

“There’s a federal law, there’s a 30-round magazine right in front of you – what do I do?” Toth said in an interview. The measure known as the Firearm Protection Act “answers that question in spades,” he said. It moved Tuesday to the House Committee on Federalism . . .

“The federal government is not our boss,” [Texas rep Richard] Mack said. “If there’s any place that that’s applicable and true, it’s the state of Texas.”

So Texas lawmen will be required to resist Uncle Sam’s gun-grabbing goons. And there is another place where the “you’re not the boss of me” spirit will inform any federal push to ban any type of firearm or magazine.

examiner.com reports that one Badger State Sheriff is in the Hell-no side of the conflict and agrees that federal gun control spells big trouble in little China (so to speak).

Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke warned of a second American revolution if gun control and gun confiscation passed and said he would not enforce laws requiring confiscation in his county . . .

“First of all, to me that would be an act of tyranny,” he said of the gun control measures currently under consideration. “So the people in Milwaukee County do not have to worry about me enforcing some sort of order that goes out and collects everybody’s handgun, or rifles, or any kind of firearm and makes them turn them in.”

Gun rights advocates who’ve pronounced a federal assault weapons ban and mag cap laws dead in the water better be right. Otherwise, out west at least, there will be hell to pay. Otherwise there could well be another Ruby Ridge or another Waco. Or lots of them. Or worse.

And then what?

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.

133 Responses to State Laws Against Federal Gun Bans Set The Stage for Armed Conflict

  1. avatarXLT says:

    Problem is, Abbott, who helped draft the thing, doesn’t support the penalties portion of the bill.

    • avatarDaniel Silverman says:

      XLT, he may not like it, but he will go along with it. This was tweaked from the more Wyoming like bill to hold constitutional credibility.

    • avatarWiebelhaus says:

      Lamar Smith is the Rep for 21st, Sheriff Richard Mack lost (unfortunately) I really like the guy but there’s a typo, Mack is hanging around because he so badass but he’s not a Texas Rep. Yet anyway.

  2. avatarScottyV says:

    They should add a proviso that once caught taking the guns, they are lifetime banned from owning guns again themselves, and their State/County/City Pensions would be forfeited… Put some teeth in these measures….

    ;-)

    ScottyV

  3. avatarOkieRim says:

    Lefties and sotero would jizz for joy if a ruby ridge or waco popped up…..do you realize how much this would take away from jobs, federal debt, budget, health care and all the other crap that REALLY needs attention? Plus, face it, a few shootouts are easy for the thugs in DC to work, pass some laws, tell some lies, and make this seem like next big thing….save me a spot by the TV in the fema camp.

    • avatarThomas Paine says:

      hey, where’s that budget?

    • avatarIn Memphis says:

      “… save me a spot by the TV in the fema camp.”

      I would but I already called dibs for a spot at the kids table in Hell.

    • avatarC says:

      No matter how unconstitutional the law, some bloke getting into a shoot out with the cops when they come for the mags would be the absolute worst thing that could happen for 2A. It’ll be held up as proof that people can’t be trusted with guns, and then you better bite the pillow.

      • avatarC says:

        That battle is better fought in court.

        • avatarMy Name Is Bob says:

          And if we lose the battle in court, I think there may be little other recourse.

        • avatarTSgt B says:

          “better fought in court…..”, you say? That chance passe when the FedGov SETTLED OUT OF COURT with Randy Weaver, and he got millions of our taxpayer dollars. No, no more court fights. And cewrtainly NO MORE RUBY RIDGES. Time to draw the line (again, and for certain).

          To Hell with the courts if they try this. The courts are owned by the “government”, and either way, we’re screwed. I’d just as soon fight this fight NOW, when we have the greatest chance of victory, than to have my grandkids fight it later. This bullshit has been going on long enough. How may more times are we going to tolerate OUR EMPLOYEES violating their Oaths?

        • avatarpcrh says:

          You are absolutely right. One instance of armed resistance, and the true freak-out against guns will begin. You can’t resort to violence when you haven’t even exhausted your court remedies. It’s like being stuck in an elevator for ten minutes and already drawing straws for who gets eaten first.

    • avatarpat says:

      Somebody needs to make a list of people for patriots to……visit (so to speak)…….after hours.

  4. avatarscrewtech02 says:

    Maybe this is just the “push” this country needs to get back to its “roots” so to speak..
    With the blatent lack of any fiscal responsibility in DC, and my home state of “liberal” occupied IL, I’d say a DC “enema” is in short order…. Remember, the Founding Fathers would have been shooting by now…. IJS……

    • avatarRobert Farago says:

      Be careful what you wish for.

      • avatarAnmut says:

        Or you’re likely to get it. Pray for peace. Prepare for war.

      • avatarTSgt B says:

        Good advice, Robert, but we’ve been one Helluva lot more tolerant than we should have been.

        I’ve greatly enjoyed your works, and still do, but I didn’t serve 2 decades for this nation just to see it “pissed on by freegrazers”, to quote a phrase from a favorite movie.

    • avatarTotenglocke says:

      The Founding Fathers would have been shooting at LEAST as long ago as when FDR gave us the Raw Deal, if not after Lincoln’s war against state’s rights.

    • avatarMy Name Is Bob says:

      Yeah agreed, I’ve said the same thin!, Our founding fathers would have had way more than enough by now, and would have tarred and feathered feinswein, MAIG and their ilk.

  5. avatarstateisevil says:

    The Florida Sheriff’s Association has said they will not enforce any federal laws against the 2nd amendment. The problem is that they believe the right to bear arms means you have a right to own a single shot .22 and that’s about it. I suspect most LE agencies feel the same way.

    • avatarOkieRim says:

      sheriffs and local, yes….state and feds…maybe but banking on it…and certainly not in the alpha-bet gangs..FBI, ATF, USMS, etc.

  6. avatarMark says:

    The weapons bans are just the last straw in the barrage of socialist agenda that has half the country fed up. There is no reason to believe the left won’t keep pushing until they get pushed back hard enough to understand clearly where the boundaries are.

    • avatarMike says:

      Exactly ! My father said it best 30 years ago – ” You won’t stop communist expansion with cheap words. They use peace talks to weaken your position as they strengthen and expand their own”.

  7. avatarChuckN says:

    The feds will play it safe and claim suspected terrorism
    for every target. Local and county LE won’t be told jack,
    just that Fed agents need backup for taking down a
    terrorist. I can also see the Feds taking a few people (not
    politically motivated in any way. Really. I swear.) to
    make an example of ; but for the most part, rural America
    will be avoided. I think that after a few raids like
    Albuquerque and we’ll see local LE support to the Feds
    dry up preemptively. Why? The federal agents don’t
    live in the area. And in small rural towns, word will
    spread fast that the local LE can’t be trusted.

  8. avatartron says:

    I do not believe any local law enforcement will stand up to confiscations.

    • avatarRobert Farago says:

      I disagree. For one thing, there are Patriots amongst them. (Some even post here.) Second, there are combat vets who are LEOs who won’t be afraid of a “proper” gunfight. At all.

      • avatartron says:

        It’s not about being afraid. It’s about bowing to the fed when they come a’knocking. You might get a few in each precinct that would definitely stand up, but their fellow officers won’t, and those few either won’t go against their fellow officers, or will be “put in their place” by those fellow officers.

      • avatarChris Mallory says:

        They already enforce unconstitutional laws and use unconstitutional measures, why would they balk at another one? They will protect their paychecks and pensions until the cost of being a government employees gets too high.

      • avatarRoman says:

        It’s hard to address this because I am a DHS LEO and I am a Patriot. Things are getting bad but not as bad as some say. But bad enough. Know this, inside of DHS there are many factions. I am not a low level officer and I have superiors who think along the same lines as I do which is along the same lines as the posters on this forum. Many of us will not follow illegal orders. Some will. It may seem odd to some of you, but individually federal officers are buying weapons and stocking up as the rest of the population is, because as individuals we believe what this administration is doing is wrong. The administration is dividing this country in more ways than one. The worst case scenario from what I can see is that this country is being divided into zones/sectors/etc. Right now these zones are called states. Many states are falling such as California, New York, and Colorado. And yes, the only way the federal government has to combat this new patriotism in this country is to call it terrorism and/or right wing extremism. That is the way they want to fight it. That’s the only way they can fight it. All of us have already seen these actions written in many news articles around the country. Going after discharged military personnel, saying some are mentally deranged, going after constitutionalist, and others …. These Patriots must insure that they are at all times not seen as wackos, racists, etc. The MSM will, and has at every opportunity attempted to paint them as such.
        Additionally, an interesting thing is happening where some in the gun industry are refusing to sell their products to government agencies and LEO agencies in states that are violating the second amendment. This was unexpected by the administration and hasn’t spread to the larger gun companies yet but it will. I fully support these actions by these gun companies. The best thing about this failed administration is that the states are waking up. They are passing laws taking back their power from the federal government as it was intended. Not all states as we know, but these laws are being passed faster than federal ones. The federal government will have to fight these laws on many fronts. The most important thing is to fight legislatively every step of the way so we don’t have to fight physically. This administration does have four more years but it can get very painful for them. They can’t win again and I hope and pray that the American people will have had enough to insure that they carefully consider their vote in the next Congress as well as the next White House. Just know again that there are many Patriots in the DHS that will not follow illegal orders and there are many ways to fight this at many different levels. Some for now are not so obvious.

      • avatarTSgt B says:

        And also, Robert, there are many amongst us that are Patriots AND Veterans that still strive to live by, and follow, Our Sacred Oaths. We swore our very LIVES to this country; we have no choice.

  9. avatarThomas Paine says:

    look close at 0:47. Friggin Mosins!

    • avatarIn Memphis says:

      I just picked up my first 91/30 at my FFL lastnight. Its a 1926 Tula with a hex receicer and is in amazing shape. I found a few places that have plenty of bulk 7.62×54 in stock, pay day cant come soon enough.

      • avatarSixpack70 says:

        Have fun with your 91/30! I am thinking of going with a brass stacker setup and a pistol scope with my 91/30. My M44 has a scout setup with a red dot. I don’t have a place to shoot it around here unfortunately.

      • avatarTotenglocke says:

        Aim Surplus has 440 round cases of 7.62x54R steel-core for $80 each.

      • avatarjwm says:

        In the free state of California(I know, I know) I looked at my options and bought an SKS as my go to rifle for large scale disorder. I also have Mosins. They work and are fun to shoot. And with the Mosins I have a way to arm others that may need a rifle. Not a perfect solution, but a workable one.

      • avatarJohnny Geetar says:

        The Mosin Nagant 91/30 is an excellent weapon! I was watching video of some crazy fellow crushing cinderblock with the buttstock! It is designed to sustain maximum punishment, and to continue to function in the worst of conditions.
        During the battles of Stalingrad and Leningrad, the temperatures would drop to as low as 150 degrees CELCIUS. Not farenheit, celcius, and these firearms were functional whilst their German counterparts were chiseling ice! When the bolts froze on the Mosins, the crazy Russians would bang the bolt open with a friggin hammer, pour boiling water down the barrels, run a patch through em, and they were back to killing Wehrmacht meat socks! Try THAT with a modern .308 rifle……
        A very simple weapon functionally as well, per design as most Russkie stuff is. Like the AK-47 that came later, it was designed to take the dumbest farmboy from the Ukraine, drop him at a recruitment depot and have him completely versed with the weapon IN UNDER 4 HOURS OF TRAINING. Brilliant……
        One tip for SHTF situations and using a Mosin; the open sights are designed to place reasonably accurate shots at up to 300 meters. The 7.62x54r is a hot round designed to lose very little trajectory in flight, and it can tend to shoot a tad high. Recruits were trained to aim for the beltbuckle of opponents. If the round shoots high and hot, you’ll still get a torso hit with the round.
        Oh, and not to be Nanny G, but clean the things after shooting em. The surplus, while cheap and hearty, is corrosive, and WILL begin to pit the inner barrel if not cleaned. Anything with ammonia, like Windex, will do the job and neutralize the mercury salts of the corrosive surplus rounds.

  10. avatarThomas Paine says:

    This what’s going to start happening:

    Gun importers and dealers, forgetting to dot their I’s or cross their T’s, missing some ATF paperwork, will have their assets seized.

  11. avatarGC says:

    “There’s a federal law, there’s a 30-round magazine right in front of you – what do I do?”

    Ignore it just like you do the illegal aliens.

    • avatarTotenglocke says:

      Ah, but gun owners typically don’t vote to increase the power of the Federal government – illegals do because it means handouts.

  12. avatarRandy Drescher says:

    Sheriff Clark is as good as it gets. He wrote the book on common sense. When this guy talks someone should chisel it in stone. Sorry for the superlatives, after some of the asshats I need to cheer the guy on, Randy

  13. avatarmountocean says:

    Tenth amendment vs. commerce and supremacy clauses. There’s a chance these state laws lead to challanges in the courts before challanges in the streets.

  14. avatarRandy Drescher says:

    I heard that Texas issued a warning to grabber in chief. They said that when you get your nato troups together we’ll see them at the border, Randy

    • avatarTSgt B says:

      And those Baby Blue helmets would make great targets. “And my men are EXCELLENT marksmen.” (Benjamin Martin in “The Patriot”).

      Seems to me that we just witnessed a rogue former LEO tie up several LE “assets” at the local, state, and federal level for about a week. And that was just ONE guy. What are “they” going to do about MILLIONS of us?

  15. avatarScottyV says:

    Dude let his FFL Lapse because he did not want to track where the guns were going. IRS was involved as well.
    This was a bad guy selling guns to bad guys…
    Has TTAG done any further investigation into this story or are you guys just passing on the media version?
    ScottyV

    • avatarChris Mallory says:

      So, who was he using force or fraud against? Where is a victim of this man’s actions? Did any come forward and make a complaint? The IRS and ATF are the bad guys.

  16. avatarMark N. says:

    The Bob Adams case is an inapt example. His guns were seized not because he had “illegal” assault weapons, but because the ATF believes–with really no evidence at all that has been disclosed to date–that he may be involved in illegal gun sales, something fully within the ambit of their authority to investigate and prosecute. This so far appears to be part of the ATF’s continuing effort to shut down home based FFLs.

    • avatarRobert Farago says:

      Good point. Text amended, Heavily.

      • avatarAccur81 says:

        I’m not sure if this is the watershed moment or not. Regardless, DHS could use a whole lot more scrutiny, especially if they supported the idiotic “No More Hesitatation” targets. Under this administration, I don’t see much in the way of accountability. Ultimately, the DHS and ATF are payed by taxpayers and are accountable to the same.

  17. avatarBen in UT says:

    As a gun owner, a decently rational college student, and an American, it’s talk like this that honestly concerns me. Do you gentlemen ever really think what another American Civil War would be like?

    I’ve never been in combat. Have you? Are you really willing to see your house blown to smithereens over universal background checks? Do you want to apply a trauma bandage to your range buddy’s (or wife’s) sucking chest wound?

    Like most, there is a point when I feel a people have the duty to fight for their rights, freedom, and independence. For me, that moment is a long way away, and these types of statements make me incredibly wary. I hope I’m not the only one.

    What happened to gun reviews and Irresponsible Gun Owner of the Day, polled as some of the most popular items on the TTAG survey and earning the most page views? Maybe we should call this website the Truth About Political Rhetoric.

    • avatarSilver says:

      I’d be curious to know exactly where your line in the sand is, exactly at what point you’d “stand up.” If you can’t recognize the state the country’s already in and the treason that goes on every single day by our political betters, when will you recognize it?

    • avatar1911A1 says:

      I would ask the same question that Silver has, but instead I’ll let Winston Churchill ask it for me:
      “If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ”

      If you can’t read the handwriting on the wall I would humbly suggest that you have a reading or comprehension problem, or simply you are too young to know better. A knowledge of history would serve you well going forward. I would suggest you get some.

    • avatarLarry2 says:

      I would rather ask if the liberals sitting in their mansions sipping their wine and eating their brie are willing to die to take away my rights? I know where I stand on this. It’s not about protecting my rights, but my kid’s rights. Somethings ARE worth dying over. Freedom is one of them. Are we to the point of violence? Absolutely not. But don’t think for a second that there aren’t people willing to step up to the plate at huge personal risks or costs if and when that time comes.

      • avatarRuss Bixby says:

        I’m a liberal and I live in a shotgun shack andeat cheddar. Sharp cheddar. And bacon.

        I also own some firearms, which happen to earn their keep. Venison, y’know.

        Believing in Medicare does not make one un-American.

        Daemonize an entire group because you don’t like the New Deal and you risk alienating half your constituency.

        Let’s not be all polarized, ‘K?

        Russ, curmudgeon in Kansas AND a Democrat.

        • avatarLarry2 says:

          Fair enough point. That said, I’m also Registered democrat. I guess rather than using the term “liberal”, it’s probably more appropriate to use the term anti-freedom, anti-gun, or simply traitors. I admit I was painting with a fairly wide brush. I stand corrected.

        • avatarRuss Bixby says:

          Hmmm…

          This forum permits only so many levels of nesting, so this is my repy to the coment above which it’ll sit.

          Reply: Fair ’nuff.

          That said, I have to look at the modern pampered American and shake my head.

          The rigors of the past made for a people of a different mettle, and the new breed just doesn’t get it.

          I’ve worked all over the world, and seen some Truly Bad Places; stuff your wine and Brie crowd cannot even imagine.

          May I humbly suggest the term “statist,” those who wish to cede as much responsibility as they can to a benevolent dictator.

          Even when that works, it does not do so for long. Case in point: police who act more and more likes a military caste, akin to the military in Myanmar.

          It’s nice to have a powerful but limited state; strength in numbers, standards of practice, laws against dumping cadmium in watersheds and so on, but while Leavenworth County has excellent LEOs, the first defender of me and mine is and must remain me.

          Even the word police comes from the Greek for city-state, Polis, from whom the Citizen got a lot of support and which was the Protector.

          Yeah; I’ll use the term statist. It is non-polarizing, and ruthlessly accurate.

          Good day, sir.

          Russ, Kansan

      • avatarBen in UT says:

        I appreciate the clarification. It’s comforting to hear that amidst the sometimes aggressive words, most Constitutional, freedom-loving gun owners, such as myself, agree that now is not the time for armed action.

        There are many things worth dying for, indeed. Thanks for the comment.

        • avatarJohnny Geetar says:

          But Ben, beware that the line in the sand HAS been drawn by the American gun owner. If conflict arises, it will NOT be at our behest; it will manifest as a result of the federal government not knowing WHERE the line in the sand is, or by them not giving a damn WHERE that line is.
          Only a madman would covet another American revolution. Many of us find the prospect of shooting at our misguided brethren to be an unpalatable exercise.
          But lets be clear here; THE VERY MOMENT these federal meat socks become a threat to the safety of my family, the shooting starts, and there will be NO hesitation about putting these pants popcicles in zip up bags. THAT be the qualifier…..If they move into our cities and counties with chambered firearms bent on subjugation, then they pose an IMMEDIATE threat to hearth and home, and we will not tolerate it, I don’t give a flea’s balls WHAT uniform they are wearing….. there will be a rifle pointing at em from every 3rd window in America, and my fat ass will be ONE of em.
          As far as their MRAPS and such, those are easier to take out than they look……
          Bottom line; where this goes in the future and the eventual path it takes is not UP to us…. it’s up to them and how far they think they can continue to push us……

    • avatarADub from TTAC says:

      So really, the fear of death is enough to keep you from fighting? Wow. I’m glad there weren’t more men like you in 1941 or 1775. Serfs need to emigrate back to Europe.

      • avatarRuss Bixby says:

        There were lots of people in 1775 and 1941 who didn’t take up arme ’til there was no choice. Then they did.

        If someone came own this guys street kicking in doors and arresting all non-Christians, he’d likely take action.

        Over AR15s and 30 round magazines, perhaps not so much.

        That’s his right under the same constitution you claim to respect.

        There’s more to it than 2A, y’know. At least, I hope you know.

        Read the Federalist Papers some time.

        Russ, curmudgeon of the plains and stinkin’ intellectual. Ammendment: well-armed, stinkin’ intellectual.

    • avatarOkieRim says:

      there wont be another “civil war”, there very well could be political or sectarian type of violence. Even if only 1% really are willing to go the distance, that is still several thousand spread across a pretty damn big country.

    • avatarspeedracer5050 says:

      As the saying goes” I would rather die on my feet a free man than live on my knees as a slave”
      And yes I have been in combat, 3yrs as an infantryman.

      • avatarBen in UT says:

        Great quote. Thank you for your comment as well as your service.

        • avatarSixpack70 says:

          During a mortar attack in Iraq, an army infantry Colonel walked by a ditch with an airman in it. The Colonel said “I’d rather die on my feet than die in a ditch” to the airman. The airman got out of the ditch.

        • avatarRuss Bixby says:

          Hmmm…

          With all due respect to those of lieutenant Hawkins’ spirit, I’d rather sit out a mortar attack in a ditch.

          It’s a tidge tricky to launch a reprisal from the morgue, y’know.

          After all, about the only thing to do is fire back – with mortars – and they work just fine from ditches. Emplacements, rather.

          Here’s another quote for you:

          “I want you to remember, that no poor dumb bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it, by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country.”

          ― George S. Patton Jr., War as I Knew It

          Russ, Kansan

    • avatarDisThunder says:

      I get where you’re coming from, because, you’re right- nobody wants to die over background checks. Nobody wants to die over a 30rd magazine. The trouble is, they’ve kinda dropped even those pretenses- they want registration, to be followed by confiscation. I certainly didn’t want to believe that’s where we’re at, but it’s gearing up to happen in CA and NY. Hell, it IS going to happen in CA and NY.

      You ever see the movie Suckerpunch? Terrible movie. But there was one great line- “If you don’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything.”
      I think you’ve already elected to stand, that’s why you’re here, and I don’t think it’s cowardly or non-committed, or anything else to hope it doesn’t come to this, because I’m right with you there.
      But I’m not about to fall for anything, or any one.

    • avatarAsh says:

      To apathetic college student Ben from UT.

      Yes
      Yes
      Not over background checks
      No, I would probably use an asherman if it happened
      People have different concerns now

      Political rhetoric? Sounds like you should just stick to watching FPS Russia.

      • avatarBen in UT says:

        To answer an above question and to somewhat defend myself, I feel that armed provocation by a federal agency (including confiscation of firearms) would probably be enough to make me personally take up arms (the arm of choice probably being my S&W M&P-15 OR). However, I feel the aforementioned political gestures are just that, gestures, and will likely never cause any type of confrontation between local/state and federal officials. On the other hand, any student of history knows that one of the main precursors of the Civil War was the attempts of state nullification; perhaps this is a similar situation. Only the future will tell.

        Interestingly, it’s been my study of history (which is my primary focus in higher education) that has led to my convictions of personal rights, the liberty of choice, and the incredibly important role that personal firearms ownership by a prepared citizenry that is willing to fight its government plays in the social contract. I own four firearms, all of which I’ve purchased in the last six months, solely because of the intense ideologies of self-reliance, independence, and distrust of government that my studies have shown to me is prudent for all men to possess.

        As a student and lover of history, I do, however, feel that it is a significant stretch to compare current legislative assaults on the 2nd Amendment to 1941; 1775 is perhaps less of a gross nonequivalence. Once again: When the British Army comes marching west from its Boston garrison to confiscate powder, arms, and ammunition, I believe the time has come for violent action. Personally, I believe we are quite a ways away from the modern equivalent happening in our current political environment; perhaps history will prove me wrong. In response to other comments, I completely acknowledge my youthful inexperience in many aspects of life. My opinions still stand. I sincerely appreciate all of the responses I received from you. Things to weigh heavily, certainly.

        Best Regards,

        Ben Robbins

      • avatarBen in UT says:

        I apologize, my above comment was intended to be in reply to myself as to address the whole thread.

        Thanks for the comment as well as your service.

      • avatarRuss Bixby says:

        Asherman?

        Please pardon my ignorance; what is?

        Russ, Kansan

        • avatarTom Collins says:

          High tech chest seal. Much better than using your ID card…

        • avatarRuss Bixby says:

          Alright; that I knew, havng been an EMT and still keeping current.

          Thought mayhap there was an arm of that name…

          Thanks!

    • avatarGlimmer says:

      You are not the only one, Ben in UT. There are things worth dying for. A thirty-round mag is not one of them.

      • avatarLarry says:

        Correct. You simply keep using it like nothing has happened, and if arrested devote your life, your fortune and your sacred honor to taking your case to the SC, never surrender, always jury trials as long and expensive as you can make them. Times 10 million, you will BANKRUPT the antis, and they will be thrown out of office for repeatedly raising taxes to pay for the criminal trials, civil lawsuits against the state and the individuals involved, and so forth until they are SICK of it. Mentioning from time to time, “and this is about a MAGAZINE?” And you don’t register anything.

    • avatarTSgt B says:

      Ben, the “moment” will be the first second of the next attempted Waco. And yes, it will be worth it. If we don’t react, swiftly, with overwhelming force of purpose, that inaction will be read to “prove” we are all papaer tigers, and this will serve to further encourage totalitarian actions.

      Nobody is in combat until the first time.

    • avatarLarry says:

      Hey, Ben, yes, I have been in combat, just as a matter of fact, and before I got there my brother and next door neighbor had both died there, and after I got there I lost several close friends. I went on to two more wars over 22 years and let me tell you something!

      If anyone had ever told me to use my training in violence against my fellow Americans, I would have let him issue me a weapon and then killed him with it. We do not stop being thinking humans because we enter the military, especially thinking about the required oath to protect the Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. While you’re in school, look up what “domestic” means in regard, for example, to the president of the US, or the head of the Senate.

  18. avatarWilliam says:

    That ABQ raid stinks to high heaven. The guy was an ANTIQUE ARMS DEALER. This isn’t about fighting crime; it’s about GRABBING HEADLINES and SCARING GUN DEALERS AND OWNERS. We’ll huff and we’ll puff and we’ll…..

  19. avatarRandy Drescher says:

    Or worse & then what? Hopefully sadam hussein on trial, Randy

  20. avatarRuss Bixby says:

    What worries me is that whole 2/3 majority thing.

    What percentage of the populace own or carry firearms? On the other hand, what percentage of voting Americans are somewhat, er, malleable in their convictions?

    What are we the gun-owning-people to do should the Second Ammendment go the way of the eighteenth?

    After all, we all support the Constitution, as amended and ratified et cetera, right? Yeah…

    That (as I see it) is the Unholy Grail sought by untrammeled do-gooders, and I’ll admit to being a tidge nervous.

    Russ, curmudgeon of the plains

    • avatarmuh says:

      well, the 2A is there to give you the tools to resist tyranny, no matter if it’s a tyranny from a small group over a majority, or from a majority over a minority. so to me, you americans all have the right to defend you freedom, even if 90% of the people wanted to take it away from you. it’s not possible to democratically justify tyranny. so, if anyone is going to take the 2A from you (or any other part of the bill of rights), resist him with force. resisting oppression is what the guns of the people are for. unfortunately, many oppressed people through the world have given up their fight for their rights before it even started, you should be wiser.

      • avatarRuss Bixby says:

        While you are correct, it still tastes foul.

        I mean, only the most backward, racist SOB misses apportionment or dislikes that whole negro emancipation thing, and only NAMBLA members begrudge women voting. Noone at all misses poll taxes and damned few wish voting was limited to landowners.

        The Constitution does change from time to time.

        The Bill of Rights ARE the first ten Ammendments, and Ammendments can be repealed or Ammended. That’s in there, too.

        Further, during the 1800′s there were individuals who owned mortars and cannon; certainly no one made a stink then about military arms in civilian hands.

        But noone made a stink about dumping raw sewage or chemical waste into rivers, either.

        Things change.

        Ol’ T.J. did state that twenty years was too long to go without a revolution.

        How about an Ammendment relegating the militia’s armaments to arsenal storage when not in use? That could actually happen, Gods help us.

        Would that be revolutionary, or revolution-inspiring?

        Ewww.

        Russ

        • avatarTSgt B says:

          Seems to me, Russ, the last time a “government” force went to “raid the militia’s armjory”, we threw their Brit asses off of the continent. And, just supposing that the powers that be issued such a proclamation required “armory storage”, how many fools and idiots will obey such treason?

        • avatarmuh says:

          Well, I would’t care if the changes to the constitution are formally legal, everyone should have some rights, no matter what the rest of the society he lives in thinks about. would you accept your 1A-rights taken away formally legal? your 3A? 4A? I think there are some rights every human being is entitled to, no matter what the formal law is. Btw the 2A is, in my eyes, the final protection of the rest of the bill of rights. As far as I know, no part of the bill of rights has been changed until know. Yeah, sometimes changes must be made, cause nobody thought of things which later became a problem. Every other change, especially regarding the bill of rights, should be prevented, even if possible by law.

          One other argument for that: If you keep your 2A-rights, you have the possibility to defend your rights, if you let it go away, you don’t have that possibility and no one will ever have it again. Thats one final decision nobody could turn back (like you could do with the 18A), thus it goes against any ideal of self-responsibility and pursuit of happines (these belong together for me) your nation is foundet on. you don’t only give up your rights, but also these of your children, grandchildren and so on, no gouvernment will let them “roll it back”. those decisions, which cannot be corrected later, shouldn’t be made as long as they’re not absolutely inevitable, and thats not the case.

    • avatarLarry says:

      Russ, you old curmudgeon, riddle me this; if the 2A were repealed, would you believe that it had actually happened? Because I would not. I would consider it evidence that the vote had been rigged, and the entire government needed to be purged. As in, Constitutional Convention by force of arms. People here seem rightly worried about starting a war. But we should have absolute confidence in our ability to END a war. If only one in 10 turns out, that is a hidden army of ten million. The military will quickly stand aside when millions march with chambered rifles into D.C., because they will not slaughter their neighbors.

      • avatarJohnny Geetar says:

        I totally concur on that last statement. It is an issue that many people have been sweating, and rightly so. The military folks, the rank and file anyway, have been very cautious about speaking their sentiments for fear of sanction. But no, they’re NOT going to turn their guns on their OWN populace, even their mother in laws that they hate…. lol Not over a paycheck.
        Almost unanimously, they dispise Obama. And why not? He has given our fighting men and women EVERY REASON to dispise him. He treats them like garbage, or in the words of the “Upper Crusts,” Cannon Fodder……
        Now, just so we’re clear, this is the condition NOW…. As of March, 2014. With the social experiments going on with the military as guinea pigs, that may NOT be the case 10 or 20 years from now, if these social experiments stick, and become permanent. He wants, gays, transgenders, llegal immigrants, ghetto rats, every kind of fruit imaginable enfolded into the ranks. Once THOSE become the higher percentage of those serving, THEN, we may have a problem….

  21. avatarJeh says:

    Sad to say this is all a strong possibility.

  22. avatarSilver says:

    There will always be conflict between people of morality and tyrants. So it has been throughout history, so it will always be. What’s the difference today? People have been weakened and made complacent by modern comforts such that they’re afraid to take that final, no-turning-back step. People have been brainwashed into thinking of other people’s willingness to enact laws that harm them as “opinions” and politicians who would commit treason as “doing the people’s will.” However much we like to fancy ourselves defenders of liberty, the founding fathers would be disgusted and ashamed by our lack of direct action and our selfish concerns over what we might personally lose or have to deal with.

    Also, the mass media’s unprecedented ability to reach and indoctrinate so many people. Also, never has the citizenry of a nation been so disproportionally outgunned by their government (drones, carriers, etc). To be fair though, that bit is sort of pointless considering the surest way to bring political cowards down is through true guerrilla and precision tactics, but still.

    • avatarTSgt B says:

      As a military retiree, I would have a hard time believing that anywhere near a majority of the command structure would carry out any orders to wage war against the American people. And even if they did, how can they be ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that their subordinates can be ABSOLUTELY TRUSTED to follow such orders? After all, generals and admirals don’t fight in the trenches, and to great majority of armed/combat military members are in the lower(est) ranks, led by senior NCOs.

    • avatarJohnny Geetar says:

      Disproportionally outgunned? I beg to differ with you there. The government may have all kinds of neat new toys, but they do NOT HAVE THE BODIES TO FIRE THEM! That’s a fact! 1.6 billion rounds? Please…
      Government employees, including every clerk, cafeteria worker, mailroom jockey and secretary, number approximately 1.8 million. Of those, 665,000 of them are trained to operate firearms or other toys.
      On the other hand, there’s us….. all carrying and utilizing small arms. Their problem? There are 125 MILLION of us at last count, with over 325 million firearms at our disposal, with tens of BILLIONS of rounds of ammo on hand! Now, per forwarded scenarios above, what if only HALF of the 125 million of us decided to defend ourselves? Or maybe one quarter that number? That’s STILL 31 MILLION very hostile folks! Ask any Korean war vet what sheer numbers of moderately armed folks can do. The Chinese handed our asses to us the latter half of that conflict, with SHEER numbers and manpower.
      Remember, only 3%, THREE PERCENT of Americans back in colonial times took part in the American revolution. That was still more than enough to dislodge the Brits, and send em home.
      Conclusion; to initiate a conflict on American soil with american gun owners in order to subjugate them would equal a very bad affair for the US government. There is no mathematical equation in existance that has them prevailing over the lower 48 against our sheer numbers. Yamamoto knew it; so did Kruschev. The only way we lose is by forfeit, and that AIN’T gonna happen…..

  23. I love being a Texan. Our local law enforcement state they will not be taking any weapons from no law biding citizen.

  24. avatarStu Chisholm says:

    People indeed DO die because of gun bans. Ask anyone in Australia what happened to Rodney William Ansell. A national hero in Australia, he was the rugged 44-year-old, blond haired survivalist whose real life exploits inspired the “Crocodile Dundee” movies. (Paul Hogan, the actor who played him in the movie and its sequel, bore an uncanny resemblance Ansell.) In August of 1999, Ansell died in a shootout with Australian police. A police sergeant was also killed.

    He was no saint, having had some previous minor run-ins with police. He had nonetheless been named the 1988 Australian “Northern Territory Man of the Year” for inspiring the movie and “putting the Australian Outback on the map.” So the public was shocked on hearing the news of his death.

    The motivation for the shooting, it turned out, was that Ansell thought police were coming to confiscate his unregistered firearms. He knew that Australian law allowed police to enter his house and search for guns, copy the hard drive of any computers and seize records, all without a search warrant. The law specifically empowered police to go door-to-door searching for weapons that had not been surrendered in their much-publicized gun “buy back” program. Police used registration information from previous gun control efforts to check for lapses and confiscate non-surrendered firearms. The ineffectual ban directly cost Ansell and the police officer their lives. So… let’s bring that HERE! …NOT!

    • avatarJarhead1982 says:

      How many did he get before he went down, only 1 total?

      • avatarRuss Bixby says:

        Aren’t we forgetting that Australia hasn’t the 2A, and that Australian police following Australian law are not law-flauting bastards?

        Not the whole world has our freedoms. Nor has the whole world our lack of same. Yes, there ARE freer places, although I like it here.

        Reminds me of the U.S. getting all huffy about the impending caning of an American miscreant overseas.

        By all means, let the nations of the world govern themselves, so long as every American isimmune to their laws.

        Ya’ can’t have it both ways.

        Russ, curmudgeon

        • avatarTodd S says:

          I’ve been to Singapore. I liked it there (as a tourist, only) and I think the young ne’er-do-well needed a bit more caning.

  25. avatarPaul says:

    The even more surprising fact about the Milwaukee County Sheriff is that he’s a Democrat. He is serving his 3rd term. He has eliminated budget deficits at the Sheriff’s department through strict cost-cutting measures, and has been criticized the entire time. It’s nice to see a Democrat that I actually like. http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/106584053.html

  26. avatarLance says:

    Give those Cops and Sheriff who say no to Obama’s fascism a hand shake and cigar.

    My message is from a movie title.

    “Live free or Di Hard”!!!!

  27. avatarNazgul says:

    Use the courts and sue! In addition, demand that so-called conservative politicians put forth legislation to uphold and restore gun rights. Civil disobedience and resistance with the legal system will have better odds against the largest bureaucracy (Federal Government) on the planet. This model worked well for the civil rights movement. Whereas force of arms will not necessarily win over the undecided voters/citizens.

  28. avatarCZJay says:

    If some people actually stand up for the supreme law of the land, not just one or two, then I can see it snowballing. In other words, if numerous people fight back, there will be more that get the courage to join their lead. That is why they have to divide people to defeat them.

    Otherwise, if there is a few people that end up fighting back, others will not risk their life or “freedom” for the cowards.

  29. avatarNazgul says:

    The Bolshevik revolution, Iranian revolution, and Egyptian revolution were led by those who perceived their governments as oppressive. None of these resulted in more freedoms for the people. They went from bad to worse. Anyway, talk of armed uprising or resistance only validates the points of gun control advocates by making gun owners look like extremists that need to be disarmed for the safety of all. The way to overcome is through legislation (encouraging NRA membership and voting), education (take your friends to the range), and litigation (the preferred approach of the SAF).

    • avatarSilent says:

      True, but I think that all three of the countries you picked have no history of individual liberty. The communists replaced the czarist rule; The Iranian revolution replaced the shah; and the Egyptians replaced military rule (covered by a thin veil of civil rule) with the Muslim Brotherhood. The last two countries were ruled ( or at least dominated) for quite a time, at first by the Ottoman Empire, later by the British.

      Of course, you make a very good point that we need to do all we can within the system. I would argue, however, that when we are willing to cast individual liberty and all that implies solely at the mercy of 50% + 1 we’ve lost

      • avatarNazgul says:

        Normally I’m a pessimist by nature. However, the radical ideology of the current political and media establishment has created an environment where the Gun Prohibitionists believe their own headlines. I have a slight optimism where there may be voter backlash from a combination of payroll taxes, healthcare taxes, and blatant loss of civil liberties. In addition, I can’t see the courts supporting direct confiscation of weapons without substantial reimbursement. I use the term Gun Prohibitionist rather than liberal or conservative due to the fact that there are gun owning liberals and anti-gun conservatives. Anyway, there are plenty of lawyers, police, military members, and politicians that are gun owners that do not support civilian disarmament.

        • avatarSilent says:

          Good thoughts, especially the conservative vs liberal. I’ve met some conservatives who seemed about as supporting of freedom as Chairman Mao, and liberals who could smack the 10 ring.

          I’m just not willing to trade my gun rights, including the responsible use of them for cash ( though I don’t think that was your point); perhaps your point was that the cost factor would negate efforts at confiscation. +1 on their being many lawyers, police and military who would oppose confiscation (a thing that at present seems unlikely, though…).

          Sometimes I wonder though, if it is only an ever shrinking minority that cares about civil liberties; in any of its varied expressions.

      • avatar16V says:

        Iran was to a large extent a nightmare of our own creation, or at most generous, a great example of the term “blow-back”.

        The Shah was our boy. As in, the CIA orchestrated a coup against the elected government and installed him. To be fair, he initially modernized and civilized the country, but some very bad things happened the longer he stayed in power.

        Any student of history knew durn good and well why they hated us.

        • avatarSilent says:

          True, true. The 25,000 dollar coup! Our cost has gone up a bit as of late; tragically so I might add.

  30. avatarWiebelhaus says:

    I can’t watch that, I can’t hear that god forsaken story again, it just INFURIATES me so much.

  31. avatarRob Drummond says:

    As for my opinion on confiscation at least as it applies to me, they can come to get them but they’ll have to take them from my dead hands……..I am keeping my guns!

    I live in the Live Free or Die state and those are words I can stand up for!
    Rob Drummond
    Hillsboro, NH

  32. avatarSlowburn says:

    What it’s really all about is Rights of the People vs. Powers of Government. Sure a person could say that rights are about property rights. That a person’s body is their property, the outcome of their labor is their property, what they own from their labor is their property and their house and the land it’s on is their property, but goin’ back to that idea of actuality vs. reality, the actuality is that’s not true, and the reality that people still have rights is more perception than anything else. Read all about the idea that people have rights, they grant only certain powers to people in government and only by consent.
    What’s called confiscatory taxation and unlimited regulation has surely ended that idea for good and for all time.
    Anyone working for a living doesn’t have the right to the money they earn, only what the federal government allows them to keep, and that’s in the places they don’t have state taxes people have to pay too.
    Law abiding Citizens? There’s more laws than anyone can even give you a number for let alone know what they are and more being passed every day.
    Right to own property? Not hardly. With local taxes you can’t ever own your property you’re really just renting it.
    Right to privacy? That ended with the electronic age.
    BTW, back in about ‘96 or so at the University of Chicago, Mr. O made the statement to John Lott that I don’t believe anyone should be able to own guns.
    Sure some would put that one in the category of as un-American a statement that’s ever been made.
    Two last things. Intentional violations of a person’s rights is an actual crime and the general rule for use of force is only that amount of force necessary to cause the perpetrator of a rights-violating crime to cease and desist. So the person who’s committing the criminal act is the one who made the decision and the person defending their rights is only doing what they’re supposed to do.

  33. avatarSlowburn says:

    If any of these ban laws passed get to the SCOTUS before more anti-Americans are put in and the people in the Supreme Court stay the course with the rulings in the District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago, bans on magazines and modern sporting rifles will be ruled unconstitutional. Big if’s no doubt but nobody can make the case that semi-automatic firearms and standard capacity magazines aren’t in common use.
    I’ll toss this one out there too.
    Anyone else wondered if America would be in the sorry state it’s in if Americans had heeded the warning of the Founders about a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state? Just asking.

    • avatarRuss Bixby says:

      Don’t count on it.

      We have the best Court money can buy. The “Citizens United” ruling akes that pretty clear.

      And not everyone who disagrees with you is anti-American, sir. What IS American, anyway? Ask fifty Americans and you’ll get sixty answers.

      I suspect that we’d disagree on any points, but I love, respect and support this country – even though I do not always agree with it.

      I also love, respect and support my mother, but do not always agree with her.

      Russ, Kansan

  34. avatarJerryboy says:

    actually i’ve read that the reason Waco ended with a fire was because there were militia headed their way to help them out, so the feds had to advance their deadline and end it before the siege was broken. imagine dozens, perhaps thousands of wacos all across the country, with backup for the armed citizens merely a 911 call away.

  35. avatarRuss Bixby says:

    Hmmm…

    Methinks another Waco would end differently had the defenders the occasional bucket of water into which to dunk a gas round, masks and tongs – instead of pre-dousing the pace with petrol.

    Also, there was a tidge more to the whole “get the Davidians” shindig than a few weapons violations.

    Just sayin’.

    Russ, Kansan

  36. avatarsindaan68 says:

    Yeah I dont forsee a civil war circa 1860 but rather sectarian style violence and even perhaps guerrilla style warfare like we’ve seen in Iraq. Who knows. The courts are the first step then we’ll see.

  37. avatarTom Collins says:

    Each person has their own threshold and will know when they have reached it. Discussion among like minded individuals is an essential part of discovering this threshold and making the decision that “enough is enough”. When that time comes, be prepared to do what must be done with no hesitation or second thoughts. We owe that to our children and fellow patriots.

  38. avatarSC Patriot says:

    I’m lucky to live in a state that is gun friendly. I’ve often wondered how this liberal stupidity from these geriatric hippie socialist was going to play out. Now that they have their messiah they feel empowered to shove this down our throats like their communist version of healthcare. I wondered how the lines would be drawn and who would designate the socialist states from the free ones. Who will be first to secede and where will the first shots be fired . We know the goal is to disarm us before it gets to that point. Looks like they’re setting the rules as they go. We’re watching one state behind the other fall and the ones who wish to remain free making their will known. 1860′s all over agai mixed in with the American Revolution. Basic God given freedom and States Rights. These liberal Tards will never learn. Here we go again.

  39. avatarMOG says:

    Provoke an armed conflict, then martial law, then set the Constitution aside for an indefinite period of time. Postpone any elections till the crisis is over. Hypothetical scenario, with very real possibilities.

  40. The photovoltaic plant had been connected to some grid
    on twenty November 2010. Excess energy will be released
    onto your grid for others to use.

  41. Water is released as carbohydrate stores are used up, the body will store this excess in fat
    cells which grow and increase your weight dieting for your blood type and remaining healthy.
    Low carb dieting for your blood type plans really work. The second step is
    to recognize the underlying fears that drive you to dieting
    for your blood type helps. 8 Also, intake of the drug.

    It is difficult in the world as a great product for weight loss and I have been getting in shape for summer.

    The dangers of empty calories is junk food.

  42. avatarJarhead51 says:

    Is it considered extreme to protect my land and family from tyranny? Im not taking to the streets in open combat unless theres no other option. I have spent a considerable sum of money getting custom cut glass to line the inside of my walls and roof with. The govt now has no way of knowing how many people and what were armed with without forced entry.

  43. avatarJarhead51 says:

    MOG… u watch… your scenerio will happen within 2 years.

Leave a Reply

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