image003

By Bud Harton

I’m pretty much just like everyone else who supports the Second Amendment when it comes to listening to the anti-gunners. While most of the bilge they pump runs right off my back, every once in a while they get under my skin. I mostly tune them out because so much of what they spew is laughable. But on a long solo drive home recently, I started wondering, “What if?” . . .

Playing “what if” games can be beneficial. As a cop it was “What if someone is hiding in the trunk of the car I just stopped for speeding? Or as a soldier, “What if one of those safety wires restraining the drain plug on the tail rotor gearbox oil reservoir breaks?” Or working around the house, “Do I really need to ground this electrical circuit?”

In this case it was, “What if the anti-gunners were able to pass highly restrictive or even confiscatory gun laws? Have they really considered what that would look like?”

The thought occurred as I was on the hunt for one of the bucket list guns. This particular pistol had eluded me for years and I was finally on my way to make one mine. But the news on the radio was reporting the usual liberal spin on a recent shooting. One of the commentators was describing his perfect world, one in which guns didn’t exist anywhere in the country.

That of course caused me to wonder, “What if they finally got their way and I had to surrender my firearms to a government agency?”

That’s when I realized that the gun grabbers haven’t really thought this out. More importantly, they have ignored or probably are not even aware of the historic American reaction to laws we don’t like, a history that goes back to the Whiskey Rebellion of 1791.

The mere possibility of newly-elected President Abraham Lincoln ending legal slavery in the United States started the War of Secession in 1861 and 640,000+ Americans died deciding that issue. And then there was alcohol prohibition. And the war on drugs. How well did those work out?

So here’s a question for the civilian disarmers: How far are you really willing to push this? Are you really ready for the consequences?

Speaking for myself, I would refuse to hand my weapons over. That’s because I actually believe that I have not only a God-given right to defend myself, but also a deep inner knowledge that one of the threats I may have to resist by force is my own government as represented by nanny state progressives.

But would I do it? More importantly, if I did, would I be the only one or would there be others like me who would be willing to stand up and say, “I will not comply”?  What would happen if violence erupted?

The Brits and Aussies and to a lesser extent the Canucks relinquished their weapons in sheep-like submission, but the folks in all three of those countries have long accepted the fact that they are subjects, not citizens. They have a long history of submission to their governments.

Here in America? No so much.

So, there’s the question you need to answer, gun controllers. How far do you want to push this? And don’t come back with any of your “we just want common sense” nonsense. Man up and state what’s really in your heart of hearts and just how far you’d go to get there.

I’m ready for your answer. And every day that goes by, I’m just a little more ready for whatever it may be. How about you? If push actually came to at gunpoint, would you stand up and refuse?

Recommended For You

196 Responses to Asking Gun Controllers the Tough Questions: How Far Are You Willing to Go?

    • Yeaaah, but he doesn’t really cover the preferred tactic of civil disarmers: slow erosion of our rights over several generations by nitpicking particular subcategories, changing or perverting nomenclature to divide gun owners and trotting out the old and holy “legitimate sporting purpose” and “law enforcement safety” banners.

      This post makes it seem like we’re all waiting for the jackboots like a bunch of kids playing GI Joe when the real war is being fought on paper by suits and pro/con special interests. We’re making gains to be sure but the ebb and flow is dangerous.

      The old “I Want My Cake Back” cartoon would be appropriate here. That’s their real game… long and slow. We have a lot to learn from it, both defensively and offensively.

      • Long and slow indeed and it’s already been very successful. Just look at NFA ’34. Originally scoffed at and ignored by gun owners, because it only affected you if you crossed state lines with an NFA item. It survived in one form or another and over generations became the norm. Now gun owners accept this egregious infringement of 2A as just the way things are. Most gun owners don’t even know what NFA is. People talk about winning the 2A struggle. Here’s the bad news, we’ve already lost. We don;t have the upper hand.

        It’s just been so long no one realizes it anymore.

      • ” . . . he doesn’t really cover the preferred tactic of civil disarmers . . . ” He didn’t intend to in this post. Your question deserves a separate post. And, our answers.
        I propose a series of posts, beginning with “What are you going to do if UBC is (or already has been) adopted in your State?”
        And, then, we have to come up with applicable answers. And, then, critique those answers.
        E.g., ‘My friend and I will each buy a gun; and, then, after a year or two, exchange these guns.’ Then, a critique: ‘What will you guys do if, at some time after the exchange, one of you is found with the gun sold to the other guy? You won’t have the paperwork to show you acquired the gun after doing the BC and 4473 form.’

        UBC looks like an anaconda strategy whereby the only way to do a transfer without leaving a paper trail will be to take-up residence in some State that still remains free of UBC. While in that free State, transfer guns papered to you and acquire other guns without paperwork.

        We need more defiant ideas. E.g., publicly trading guns shortly after adoption of a UBC law while there remains plausible denial that the transfer might have taken place before the UBC law took effect. (E.g., as took place in Washington State.)

        How about, in each State, seeing to it that at least one county has elected a sheriff and prosecutor pledged not to enforce UBC. Residents of that State travel to such a county to execute the transfer.

        Looks like the “I will not comply!” pledge needs to be executed in some openly defiant way with an attendant risk of arrest and prosecution. If enough of us do not stand up to this risk the anaconda strategy will prove successful; at least until the knock on the door.

  1. I have weapons and ammo stashed in case I get blind sided and my safe gets emptied.

    I’m an old fart. I love my kids, wife and grandkids. Enough to show them how to live and react to a fool or bully.

    All I can say to any one wishing to confiscate my guns. I’ve been shot at before and I’ve shot back. Do you want to go that route?

  2. “I started wondering, ‘what if’…”

    Don’t “wonder too hard”. Conspiring to commit what is now a felony is….also a felony.

    • right, don’t come right out and say it. circle around it a little while. use non-inflammatory words like “common sense” and “safety” “progressive”. Do it for the kids, for the schools, for the world, for moms, for everytown, Do it to be more like Australia, England, Europe, Denmark.. .

  3. I wouldn’t wait for it to come to my door. That’s waiting too long. Once the word goes out, I’d be actively hunting and killing those doing the door knocking.

    • With the media as complicit as they are today, you may never hear about it until it is your own door being kicked in. Otherwise, I’ll see you there.

    • Yeah, it’s kinda like zombies. 😉 You don’t wait for the herd to come to your door; you go out everyday, hunting ’em down!

    • Maybe not those who are kicking the doors in. Maybe 800-yard shots into the bureaucrat portion of the cop shop. Maybe shooting out the tires of the wives of the Alphabet Soup Agency’s minivans. Maybe punching holes in the gas tanks of the cop cars.
      Do they really want to do a mini-holocaust?
      There are still a lot of Scots-Irish in the Appalachians. They came down for Cowpens, Kings Mountain and more. https://youtu.be/u1vWK2yf9Y0

        • Think of how many OIF vets are rightfully mad and want to act?

          Think about many in the service want to act….

      • ” Maybe shooting out the tires of the wives of the Alphabet Soup Agency’s minivans.”

        That’s exactly my thought. The first “message” simply lets these guys know what’s in the pot on the table and gives them a chance to fold. While I personally am willing to die for what I believe in I would never act at the expense of my loved ones.

  4. There’s strength in numbers and comfort in company, we need to be networking and opening lines of communication with other like minded individuals and families. Coffee time at the range? Not the militia groups, or as the grabbers like to say, “extremists”, “constitutionalists” (what’s wrong with that?) “survivalists” or my favorite “insurrectionists” as if standing your ground when the government does something illegal and unconstitutional is somehow less than honorable. Would I stand alone against the full weight and power of a tyrannical disarmament? I don’t know for sure. If TSHTF, it will be prudent to form small pockets of group resistance. I suppose the NSA will visit me now because I sound like a prepper yeah? God Bless the sheriffs.

    Oh, by the way, I think our brothers and sisters in Connecticut and a few other states are proving that registration and confiscation will not happen voluntarily, yeah?

    • Mejor : “Vengan y cojan’los, putos”. “Pendejo” really is pretty much on a par with “dumbarse”. “Puto” is significantly more insulting.

        • on the same note, I have been told by someone who grew up near the US/Mexico border, when she traveled way down south, where they speak more spanish, she had trouble being understood. Lots of slang/english mishmash-ed in there. Languages are fascinating.

  5. “Man up and state what’s really in your heart of hearts and just how far you’d go to get there”
    They will not say it, but, they want to by force confiscate all firearms.

    • it is what waco was all about. feds claimed there were children in the camp, facing dire threat because guns. there were no charges of any crime committed or in progress. it was dry run, a learning exercise to improve, fine-tune assault tactics.

      • A group of men, women, and children armed with M1 carbines held off the US government for 3 months. And America watched it live. And did nothing as the government burned them alive. I’d like to think Bundy Ranch proved American’s have taken to heart “never again.”

        • I don’t know how people around you reacted to Waco, but around me the government was horseshit. People were deep down disturbed. And Clinton knew he had gone too far. I think he pushed it all off on Reno.

      • And just for those that are not keeping up very well…it was precisely those feds that killed those children in that camp they claimed was their motivation to “do something.”

      • I have said all along that the ATF attack/FBI siege of the Waco/Mount Carmel Branch Davidian Church was a “test” to see what the overall public’s opinion of such an attack on a ‘less-than-mainstream’ church would be.

        And we FAILED the test…..BIG TIME!

        There was absolutely no need for that attack: David Koresh had already demonstrated a willingness to come in to Waco when called by then-Sheriff Jack Harwell, so there’s no reason to believe that he wouldn’t have again…if Jack called him in again.

        However; that wouldn’t have given the ATF the ‘big headlines” they were seeking for their upcoming budget hearings in the Congress. I believe that was the reason the ATF left Jack out of their so-called ‘investigation’ and attack plans.

        Never did hear how those budget hearings finally turned out, though….seeing as how the raid turned out. 😐

        Oh; BTW: as bad as it was, it seems as though overall the Feds learned their lesson, seeing as how the Ruby Ridge standoff was handled after TSHTF there [‘FeeBee’ sniper Lon Horiuchi’s action notwithstanding 🙁 ].

        • ruby ridge was a different environment. need to develop more than one set of tactics.

          ruby ridge was an even worse atrocity than waco….shooting through a closed door. the entire public should have been outraged that the fbi murdered a non-threatening woman without any caution.

        • both started as ATF operations. but have you noticed just about every big crime that’s actually a violation of state not federal law a contingent of ATF is almost immediately on scene? I know they did some investigations when gun or bombs were involved but in the past it was a followup and not right in the center of investigations, marshals and FBI are way too often quickly involved also much more that 10 yrs ago

        • federal pre-emption. it is all about making gun control exclusively a federal matter. every time feds show up, the event and result goes into a database used to prove points and bolster budgets. want to get rid of all this states rights crap about open carry, concealed carry, reprocity? make every detail of gun commerce a federal matter, not matter the local jurisdiction. it is how “separate but equal” public accommodations were wiped-out in the south – a toothpick was the proximate cause that allowed the feds to enter a city matter. toothpicks were transported via interstate commerce. feds had jurisdiction to make illegal any restriction of an accommodation that involved interstate commerce for transport of supplies and services. commerce clause of the constitution. wonder is the feds have not tried to use that clause to essentially prevent movement over any interstate cartage, and over any intrastate movement on any street supported through federal funds.

        • I agree that this is a serious problem. Moreover, Bill O’Riley advocates Fertilizing gun crimes.

          What’s going on here? A suspect is arrested for armed robbery and felon-in-posession. He pleas-down to strong-armed-robbery because the local DA doesn’t want to fight felon-in-posession. Now, there are two choices:
          1. – make felon-in-posession de-facto NOT-a-crime in this local jurisdiction;
          2. – rely on the US Assistant Attorney to take up the case of felon-in-posession

          Neither of these make any sense. Arguably, if the citizens in this local jurisdiction don’t want to enforce felon-in-posession why should the Nation FORCE them to enforce? To do so runs contrary to our system of federalization.

          Why should the US Assistant Attorney be taking felon-in-posession crimes out of the local jurisdiction and prosecuting them federally? Merely because citizens in all the other States of the Union want to impose their will on the criminals in this local jurisdiction?

          The bottom line is that the local jurisdiction can enforce it’s laws against carry by law-abiding citizens while shifting the burden of actual violent crime to the Federal level.

          The solution to our problems of gun-control-at-point-of-sale and in carry vs. gun-control as felon-in-posession or in commission-of-a-crime needs to be exposed by publishing the statistics on arrests vs. charges-prosecuted. It’s apt to reveal just how many felon-in-posession and armed-crime arrests are down-graded by the prosecutors.

        • “Arguably, if the citizens in this local jurisdiction don’t want to enforce felon-in-posession why should the Nation FORCE them to enforce? To do so runs contrary to our system of federalization.”

          Haven’t we seen this movie before? Did the federal government not settle the matter of federal preemption, and even federalism itself, in 1865? Wasn’t imposing the will of some states over the will of others the entire issue?

        • The Civil War was over succession. It was not over States’ Rights aside from succession.

          We might argue whether the outcome of the Civil War was a Constitutional resolution of the issue over the right-of-succession. Personally, I don’t think it was; but, until a State makes another attempt the issue isn’t really worth discussion; at least not here.

          What are the metes and bounds of States’ Rights? This question will continue to vex any federalist scheme of government. The 14A was supposed to resolve much of the issue; but for SCOTUS largely trashing it post-Reconstruction. Now, with incremental selective-incorporation, States’ Rights have been limited by a nearly complete incorporation of the BoR against the States.

          At this point, it’s perfectly clear that the “fundamental” rights of 1A are incorporated; they are outside the discretion of States to constrain. This notion is deeply embedded in the social psyche and it will be nearly impossible to remove it.

          The line of reasoning by all the SCOTUS cases is that the “right” protected by the 2A is also “fundamental” and McDonald formally incorporated it against the States. The way I think of it is as follows: States have the “Rights” (retain the Power) to pass all the laws they like concerning guns – just so long as they do NOT “infringe” upon “the right” “of the People” “to keep and bear” “arms”.

          What does this mean? I suppose that one way of looking at it is that if SCOTUS determines that DC can/can’t legislate something then that determination is controlling over the several States. Is that good-enough to protect our rights under the 2A? Doubtful.

          Ultimately, PotG need to do our best to advance acceptance by the voters of the idea of civilian keeping and bearing of arms. Without the general support of the voters legislatures will infringe and SCOTUS will leave them to do as they wish. Tragically, so long as the nation’s voters didn’t object to lynching of Black people, SCOTUS and Congress cheerfully let the practice continue.

        • And the details of what led to secession are the most important element….the right of states to regulate life within their own borders, especially as relates to a practice not explicitly made illegal via the US constitution (which did not apply entirely within the (at the time) sovereign states. The result of peaceful attempts to withdraw from a compact where the force of one set of states could be imposed on others, was a war. That war sealed any notion of sovereign states, as it proved that when one set of states has the numbers, and is exasperated by another set of states, military force is justified in bringing the resisting states into submission. The 14A was an attempt to ensure the result of ending state sovereignty without the need to resort to military force again. The argument made in the original posting declared that the states should not be required to enforce federal regulations at the local level. The great national spasm of 1861-1865 put rest to that silly notion.

        • A further example of the government, yes, the US government, willingness to stoop to totalitarian solutions….secession was not prohibited by the constitution or any other law. The politically powerful( read northern elites and investors) saw secession as terribly damaging to their financial empires. Loss of the cotton trade to a foreign nation (Confederacy) would and did create quite a disruption. In the end, the government used illegal means to enforce a social and economic outcome that favored northern commerce. So, for two different and hallowed reasons (destroy slavery, subjugate southern states), military force was employed. We should never be inured to the propensity of the powerful to suppress the resistant.

  6. George Washington put down the whiskey rebellion violently. Most estimates are that 600,000 died freeing the slaves. Prohibition started a massive crime wave.

    Confiscating guns will be deadly dangerous too. Don’t kid yourself. And there’s a very good chance a federal government enforcement effort would succeed and be extremely violent.

    If you intend to resist, you need to realize that you and your family are very likely to die horrible, violent deaths.

    The only real hope is if the government forces are divided, but a civil war is not good either.

    Let’s hope it never comes to it. That’s why we need to fight in the courts and in the legislatures as hard as we can. Because if it comes to violence, you and I are likely to die. But we will need to be sure that the cost of our deaths is very high for the tyrants.

    • Sadly I agree, and this could be the breaking point for a lot of people. The government would have to declare emergency powers and use force to confiscate civilian stock. And a lot of gun owners would blanch at that.

      Would the government use it’s legal monopoly on coercive force to disarm us? That’s a very good question.

      • I don’t doubt the would for a second. What gives them pause is the thought they might start something they couldn’t finish, and end up losing not only the campaign, but their heads.

        • Afraid you do not know the government mindset, especially the ruler class. They are in the right (correct) at all times, therefore destined for victory in any contest with the peasants (which is you and me).

      • This is specifically the reason why the Second Amendment was put in place, is it not? So called emergency powers is the bellwether of losing our rights. Emergency powers is wide spread and deliberately undefined suspension of your rights without due process. The powers that be can and will get away with anything in the name of public safety during a declared, if not actual, emergency.

        Boston’s marathon shelter in place order with warrantless door to door searches. Not to mention the armored vehicles and pointing of 50 cal vehicle mounted machine guns during the same searches. Let’s not forget what happened after hurricane Katrina.

        People, it’s already happening.

    • The American Gun owner would fall into the following three categories:

      1, Those who meekly surrender their firearms.
      2, Those who hide their firearms and spend the rest of their lives looking over their shoulders.
      3, Those who fight i.e shoot the tyrants in the face.

      • A lot of people, especially if they are responsible for spouses and kids, would have to go with option 2.

        In other words, disarmament would never be fully realized.

        I haven’t researched Australian confiscation much, but from what I gather, there’s plenty of evidence to suggest a lot of people hid their items over there, too.

        • If fear of government confiscation results in hiding your firearms in the ground, is that not confiscation enough? Removes the threat.

        • having a family doesn’t mean a default to option 2 pod. What it means is option three is the way to go. Assuming government and police forces all don’t go along you’ve got a reason to stand and fight.

          Grabbers keep pushing, currently I’m polite and civilized. Try to forcibly take what’s me and mines best defensive option? Be prepared for all.civility to be gone and me to act like the antis think all gun Owners are.

          It will be Sherman March through Georgia for me and if my wife has to take the kids to a gun friendly location she will do so armed and ready to be just as uncivil as I would be.

        • I feel like a lot of our founders had a lot to lose by resisting, but they did anyway. I believe it would be the same today.

        • Crocodile Dundee went 3. The Australian government murdered him out in the outback. Wasn’t that the plot for one of the movies?

        • NEVER FORGET the root of the problem. We are talking about nothing more than your a-hole neighbors needing jobs (your gov’t). We aren’t yet lead by robots or aliens. Anyone who attempts to elevate themselves above the level of a citizen is the problem, and that problem has to live on the space station if they want to avoid you.

        • B

          You are correct the character that was played by Paul Hogan in the movie crocodile Dundee was based on the individual shot dead by the police for refusing to surrender his firearm.

    • I really, honestly feel like I could choose a violent death if it came to it, but really I doubt the government would have much teeth if people started shooting back. My theory; with as perpetually fragile as our markets are and our national dependence on them, ANY sort of organized violent resistance would lead to a crash. Our markets nose dive with the smallest amount of bad news, and this would mean instant trillion dollar deficits again, and probably a debt default which spells all kinds of bad news for the government. I think the fragile US economy (and government by extension) is a house of cards that couldn’t take any kind of disturbance.

      • The prime directive for any organism is SURVIVE. The rule applies throughout the ecoshpere, from governments to amoeba. In a life and death struggle, an organism will use any means necessary (within the limits of the organism’s capabilities). Only when an organism is so compromised that it cannot muster the will to live, does it simply curl-up and die.

  7. I don’t see you getting an answer to your what if question because, at least in my experience, the people who want the guns gone have no plan after getting them outlawed. They seem to think that everyone will happily turn the guns over saying “well the law is the law”. Nothing could be more foolish, look at the number of people who speed every day, who run stop signs every day, who download music illegally every day. If there is one thing Americans don’t do it’s follow laws just because they are the laws.

  8. Unless a purported disarmament scheme was planned in secret and the public only got say a week’s notice, you would see the signs of such a thing many weeks or months away. More than enough time to go boating or invest your money in shovel futures.

    And it would be extraordinarily difficult to keep a disarmament scheme secret, since it would require the notification of millions of law enforcement officers, a great percentage of whom would not agree with such a thing and would get the word out to the citizens.

    Disarmament on a grand scale would basically trigger a war.

    That’s why the game of the antis is a gradual one. A little bit here, a little bit there. The end game isn’t total disarmament by 2018, it’s total disarmament by 2118. This goes hand in hand with the overall push for a “controlled” society as well.

    Anyone remember how society was depicted in that godawful Stallone flick, Demolition Man? That’s the goal…

    • “More than enough time to go boating or invest your money in shovel futures.”

      Hiding your guns is surrender, you will never retrieve them.

      • That was before the era of cell phones, USB drives, that sort of thing. A confiscation plot would involve millions, not 600,000 – most of which will have cell phones and electronic communication devices. Even if they don’t bring it “to the office”, enough will memorize the basic plan and get the word out. We’d hear about confiscation plans months in advance.

        The current plan, if there is any real plan, is long-term disarmament. Bit by bit.

        • Not to mention it was targeted at another nation. It would be a lot different if the targets were the same citizens you were around every day. Police brass and the bad eggs are one thing, but police surveys always show that the majority of the “boots on the ground” are pro-2A.

        • Are we forgetting that the majority of the nation once took up arms against fellow citizens who wanted only to be left to enjoy the rights enumerated in the constitution? Once some macho nut launched an artillery attack on a minor fort, there was very little hesitation to simply annihilate the people of the Confederacy?

        • @ SamIAm,
          I don’t think anyone is forgetting that, but there are two big differences between then and now:
          From a moral standpoint, our society tends to recognize that black people are people and owning (and mistreating) people is generally considered unacceptable. Whereas taking something from someone is clearly also a removal of freedom, whether some people think it’s worth it or not.
          Perhaps more importantly, from a logistical standpoint, the dividing lines are not a clear; then, it was a bunch of states in the same geographic region who chose to secede. Now, it’s house by house, block by block, not wholesale halves of the country.
          A civil war in the US today over firearm ownership would be fundamentally different than the civil war of our past. So different it’d be impossible to win, and since most smart folks know that, the path the disarmament is a slow and steady one. Even if it begins with getting rid of the 2nd amendement, and the states’ individual constitutional protections, it would only be enforced they way the war on drugs is – if you happen to get caught with a gun, you’re arrested, but no one’s going to bust down the door unless they think you’ve got a bunch of them.

      • Manhattan Project a “secret”? Hell, Ethel & Julius Rosenberg had spies in Los Alamos from Day 1 and that was AFTER he was fired from Fort Monmouth U.S. Army communications lab in N.J. Subsequent to being terminated as a “security risk” Julius Rosenberg still had spies (traitors) at Monmouth smuggling highly classified info out which he delivered to his Commie contacts in NYC. Additionally Stalin had other sources regularly delivering info on our Atom Bomb projects some of whom that now over more than a half a century later we will NEVER, EVER know about.

        The lesson is: Someone ALWAYS talks.That’s what we MUST depend on BEFORE the Left’s “final solution” is ready to be activated. Hopefully they’ll be at least one patriot that “blows the trumpet” (think Jericho in the Bible).

        • It wouldn’t be too much to assume that Stalin probable knew more about the Atom Bomb then Truman did when he started the first day of his presidency…

      • Lon Horiuchi: Home schooled his kids. Expressed reservations about having to guard abortion clinics. Shot Vicki Weaver dead without blinking an eye.

        • Your examples are instances where no one was shooting back. A whistling sound past your ears and bloody bodies where your friends used to be, tends to make you think about the legality and advisability of your actions.

        • no. we are talking about the willingness of government agents to kill fellow citizens for the flimsiest of excuses. trained force is less likely to flinch from the gun than a bunch of raggedy cadets running all about. consider W A C O 2. the cops were organized, prepared, positioned. very few shot required to quell over 100 people? the untrained were unable to coordinate a defense. that is the state of the union. we on this blog represent an organized mob. television can instantly present live evidence of mass killings that will dissuade the multitudes. when families see other families slaughtered on live tv (in W A C O 1, the actual effects of the shooting were masked), most will decide that a similar fate for themselves is less attractive.

        • @LarryinTX, at both Waco and Ruby Ridge, there were exchanges of gunfire. At RR, Agent Bill Degan was cut down by Kevin Harris after Degan or one of the other “hero” assassins killed Randy Weaver’s son, Sam, and the boy’s dog.

          Harris was acquitted. Lon Horiuchi, the government’s sniper who killed an unarmed woman, was indicted but the indictment was quashed because government murderers have immunity.

        • The lesson of Waco and Ruby Ridge is one that every Army soldier knows: always be attacking. Even if withdrawing, you should be maneuvering for an attack.

          Cowering in a flammable structure is not a plan. It’s what you do when you don’t have a plan.

          Considering the numbers involved at Waco, a counterattack immediately by the Branch Davidians would have overwhelmed the ATF.

        • Why should people, peacefully assembled, violating no law or ordinance need a plan to defend their meeting place, and a plan to counter-attack government agents who should not have been there in the first place?

        • because history has already hashed this one out for them, and their a-hole neighbors needing jobs (their gov’t) made their spidey-sense feel like it was a good idea.

        • Dude, enough already with the a-hole neighbors needing jobs bit. Go buy a new slogan, or better yet just go away. You think life would be better with no government? You’re wrong. This one is out of hand, yes, but time and time again great portions of the people show they are incapable of behaving of their own accord, while most others refuse to do anything about it. Got a better idea, get cracking, but otherwise quit bitching.

        • When he does I will dance on and then piss on his grave.

          All of the ideas here do not take into account the use of same drones or R/C cars with “somethings” on them.

          Maybe a few former Spec Ops put a few “toys” on a some RC Hexicopters to “surprise” some Jack Booted Thugs. at less then 1 meter wide hovering 200 feet in the air firing 40 mm HE rounds or unloading belts of 7.62 API…needless to say they will be very very ‘surprised”

          Maybe a few Estes rockets on racks of the copters loaded with some home made goodies. Maybe blast “ride of the Valkyries” just for Psy ops.

          Maybe after losing a few jack booted thugs to boost moral after they lose a few of their comrades lots of agents, attack maybe with pizza, chips and a big keg of beer, maybe a few kegs….Maybe one or two filled with more then just beer.

          Bright flash of light, and good bye world hello rod iron gates, lake of fire, and being jabbed in the ass with a pitchfork they will have earned it …You kick in doors, machine gun men, women, and kids, then burn down buildings, ruining lives and destroy businesses, all the while take hard working liberty loving Americans to prison where they lose their unalienable rights for the rest of their lives decrees made by tyrants..

        • Woody, that’s classic, you complain about having to read my repetitive post without having ‘read’ it. My post isn’t about the ‘need’ for / or usefulness of ‘government’.

          Too many posts in this string, and on TTAG in general complain about ‘government’ as though it’s some nameless faceless “they” or “thing”. My point is just an attempt to drum that out, Gov’t = people who need jobs. Sure there is ‘work’ to be done, but the job does not seek the man, the man seeks the job, and those people aren’t any different than anyone posting here. Anyone who wants to elevate themselves above ‘us’ should not be allowed to hold or do those needed jobs because those types tend to give us too much bs to argue about here.

      • WACO was FBI and BATF, not local cops and Sheriff. Big difference.

        Also, National guard would in all likelihood mutiny rather than go against their friends and neighbors with force to confiscate guns. As far as I know the military still teaches every recruit that it is their duty to refuse an illegal order and I can’t see any order much more illegal than violating the Second Amendment, and repeal of that amendment is highly unlikely.

        Same goes for regular army – no government authority could reliably expect that the entire military organization would accept without question or resistance the kind of draconian actions that would be required to go door to door confiscating weapons from civilians. Didn’t I hear somewhere that the Japanese in WW II were loather to invade the U.S. mainland because “There is a gun behind every blade of grass.”?

        • W A C O

          local LEOs got their chance at the biker rally. only reason they weren’t at branch dividian was the feds locked them out.

          point of the note was that it is unwise to speculate that any government agent will rebel at the call to disarm/neutralize citizens.

        • But in Louisiana in 2005, NG from all around the country were plenty willing to go door to door to threaten other people’s friends and neighbors with M4s.

          I would have shot my CO, neighbor and friend for giving me such an order rather than obey it, but apparently nobody who is actually in the NG really feels that way.

  9. Probably about as far as drug warriors go violating civil society. So pretty damn far.

    Observe how drug warriors cheer on the drug war despite the insane violence they inflict on people all over the world. Anti-civilian firearm zealots do the same. All statist zealots revel in violence, regardless of their pet cause.

      • Yeah, I wouldn’t call it “beautiful”. It’s a rather confusing post.

        I sum it up with this, everyone has self interests, perceived, valid or otherwise. Everyone, I mean everyone, will find an excuse to use force for any particular cause, I don’t care how much of a pacifist the individual claims to be.

        • Heh. A pro-government apologist defends government violence by claiming that it’s human nature. This is despite the fact that organized violence in the modern world is almost the exclusive domain of the state. Ergo, government violence is human nature?

          Well it certainly takes a massive amount of delusion to defend the government and the military.

  10. I’ll be the contrarian. NY and CT prove the antis aren’t serious about doing what it would take to get where they claim they want to go. Maybe Bloomberg personally wants to send the jackboots out to canvass the countryside, but for the rest, especially the pols, it’s all about saying the right things and getting the approval of their fellow circle-jerkers, while having a rousing Two Minutes’ Hate against their mental image of gun owners. It’s not that they don’t know what to do when nobody volunteers to register, it’s that they don’t care. Passing the law was the end for them, not the beginning.

    • It’s the long game they may not be able to confiscate now but all they really need are the laws on the books so if the country ever gets mostly blue or purple they can send the troops in.

      To fight this the laws have to be removed or its just ammunition for when they think the time to strike is at hand

    • Yep.
      Something no one seems to consider in these discussions is the IMMENSE cost of a full-scale confiscation-by-force of all firearms in a country as large and as populated as The United States.
      When politicians can put on their serious face and call for “strong measures” to stop “gun violence” (whatever that is) and talk about all the things that have to be done so that no one dies (despite the 100% mortality rate among human persons) and garner the support and admiration of like-minded idiots, not to mention all those political contributions, why would they actually spend the billions of dollars it would take to grab all the guns?

  11. 2018 huh? The day after the return of JESUS. Sounds about right. Me? I recommend training for headshots. I’m also an OFWG getting various ailments so it can’t come soon enough for me. Good luck on turning in 300million guns…I’m going to work on my aim for that day. BTW when some so-called lunatic fringe militia types showed up at the Bundy ranch guess who backed down and p###ied out? Imagine if thousands of heavily-armed folks turned out for “confiscation day”…

  12. Once they announce a confiscation they will seek out some hot heads that can be relied on to resist violently and they will make a big show of how bad he is. They will shoot him dead like a dog in the street. They won’t do it on some obscure Ruby Ridge. They’ll do it it Peoria and Jacksonville. They will do it again and again with great fanfare. They will make sure that the deaths of women and children are violent and painful. And 99% of the people will be afraid and they will turn in their weapons.

    • Demonization. They’ll do some fact-finding and ferret out the “opinionated” guy with the big safe full of guns. The raid will be very public and they’ll find any excuse to provoke a conflict. If there’s a wife and kids on premises, even better. “The gun nut opened fire on the heroic Feds and got his wife and children killed in the crossfire! All gun owners are evil!”

      MSNBC & CNN will put the snitch line/snitch website address up and trumpet the virtues of informing. Unfortunately we all have that “one guy” in our social circle who will gladly rat us out for a Klondike Bar.

        • Just a simple reminder that this forum is public, participants can be traced, people can find their own words putting them in peril of government response.

  13. Why, yes, yes I would.

    I would not go quietly into that good night, and I know for a fact that there are a great many others that are just like me that wouldn’t go so quietly, either.

    That being said, I seriously doubt that they would actually go that far anyway. I mean, look at what happened in The People’s Republiks of Zoo York and Dis-connected-cut. 90%+ of the citizens refused and, so far, all we hear are crickets from those state governments. Additionally, Sheriffs and Sheriff’s Associations across the country have already made it abundantly clear that they would at least not enforce such laws, and some have even gone so far as to say that they would (try) to prevent enforcement of it. There are a few state governments that have gone so far as to make enforcement of such laws actually illegal: felony offenses punishable by both fines and jail time.

    So, I don’t really worry about it to much. That is, until I have to.

    Keep your powder dry, ladies and gents.

  14. Most people never think about how far they’re willing to go for anything. Chalk it up to human laziness or increasing entitlement of each subsequent generation, but if you ask someone, “What are you willing to do to get what you want,” the answers are brimming with weasel words. That is, if you even get an answer. Most often, I’ve found, you get a quizzical look, as if they believe everything they want will fall into their laps without much effort at all.

    In this case, if they’re given any thought at all, it stops when they reach the inevitable conclusion that “the military will take them. You can’t fight tanks and jets with guns.” They conveniently ignore the lessons of Vietnam, Somalia, Afghanistan, and Iraq; even the mighty US war machine can be stymied by bands of rifle-toting commoners. The local insurgents may have taken severe casualties, but none of those conflicts ended well for the Stars and Stripes. To confound things even further, those troops who fought in a foreign land would now need to be sold on the idea that in order to protect America, they would need to kill Americans.

    But this does not occur to the civilian disarmament advocate. They just assume that The Government will show up in Black Helicopters and fast-rope down to confiscate Bubba’s AR-15 collection. Not a thought is spared on who those intrepid fast-ropers will be or what they think of this interesting new interpretation of the Second Amendment. Are there enough of them to get every civilian weapon before organized resistance begins? Are there any LEOs out there who might defy any such disarmament orders? Are there any newly-disillusioned federal agents who may turn their reluctance into sabotage? All it takes is a handful of sand in the oil pan, after all.

    This site has often remarked on the worldview of the statist, i.e. that nobody can take on the State. Defying the law is incomprehensible because the law is the State and the State is above everyone. The concept of mass resistance to any such confiscation order is simply unthinkable to the statist because it would originate from the people rather than the government. If they were honest with themselves, they’d take a look at the compliance numbers of any recent Assault Weapon Registry. New York state, that bastion of liberal elitism, managed a whopping 5% compliance. As a flyover-stater, I’m not exactly quaking in my boots.

    So how far is a gun controller willing to go? They don’t know. If they did, they wouldn’t be a gun controller. The idea of confiscation is utterly, laughably, astronomically implausible. For every gun that could be taken by force, ten thousand others would be mobilized to fight back minutes after the first Tweet went out. I doubt any coastie liberal will be volunteering for point man on their local search team. After all, what’s the point of being a liberal if you can’t get someone else to do everything for you?

    • Something that many folks fail to realize (when acting snooty about not being able to fight tanks and planes with rifles) is that in Afghanistan, Vietnam and so on, the military lived behind the wire surrounded by lots of weapons while their families were safely on the other side of the world. If this were to break out here, it will become very ugly very quickly as they live here (many, off base), their spouses have jobs here, their children go to school with ours. How focused would you be if your wife and children were constantly in danger of your neighbors who you being the mailed fist of the government? Moving everyone behind the wire would become uncomfortable in the long run as bases are not set up for long term housing of so many additional people. I dread the horror of such a civil war.

      Something else to consider is how many State Governors would tell the Fed to pound sand and call up the state guard (yes, I know that state guard can be federalized)? It would not just be the unorganized civilians. It would include States and their infrastructure.

    • “the military will take them. You can’t fight tanks and jets with guns.”

      Well you’d have to repeal Posse Comitatus first, otherwise you’d be limited to using the National Guard (Who are probably even less likely than the regular troops to willfully violate the constitution and fire on their friends and neighbors) which just isn’t going to happen in any government considered legitimate by the general public to begin with, for example if Directive No. 3025.18 is invoked. The administration may even go so far as to request UN military forces to help enforce a confiscation. Blue-helmets flown in from Italy, Brazil and India will have little problem firing on US citizens. Never mind that such unrest would open us up to terrorist attacks more devastating than any we have experienced to date, and would do untold damage to the global economy.

      They can’t take our guns with tanks and jets. They can only murder us with those, and that would just prove we were right this whole time.

      Where would all these jets and tanks operate from? Local insurgents know the terrain and can make normal maintenance operations on the ground all but impossible.

      • A UN force brought in to confiscate guns would be considered an invasion by most right thinking folks. Blue helmets make great targets!

      • Posse Comitatus has so many holes in it nowadays, and there are so many commanders that relish those holes that it is a virtually meaningless piece of paper anymore. At the end of the Cold War, the military was anxious that it would get huge budget cuts, so wereas in the 1980’s the military brass were adamant about adhering to the Posse Comitatus Act because police actions detracted from their defense against the Soviets, after the Cold War they jumped with both feet into supporting the Drug War and just about anything else that they could use to keep dollars flowing.

  15. “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 Solzhenitsyn

    • Ric2

      and there you have it. I read that passage decades ago and for some reason it has always stayed with me.

      It could have been written in Nazi Germany or Cambodia or maybe even here in the US by an American by birth but Japanese by heritage in 1942.

  16. Reasonable article which speaks to many.

    If I would surrender anything would depend on the level of threat by the Gov’t. If told to bring them in they’d get nothing. If an armed military showed up at my door I may hand over a treat to appease them. But would I give it all away? Highly unlikely unless threatened, and I doubt it would come to this. In the event a forced confiscation were to occur I’d expect I’d be bugging out and seeking fellow members to prepare for the coming revolution.

    I doubt the progressive’s could pass the old test; put up or shut up.

    • I think that if you acutally wait until it happens to have an in-place plan of action. It’s already too late.

      If they actually came to your door, it will be because they have a comprehensive list of what you have procured. They would largely know what you will have, and even if the truth is that your sold it all via legal face-to-face sale thus no NICS check, the burden isnt on them to believe, it’s on you to prove by giving up who, what, where and how.. else they will take your person and “disappear” you.

      Bugging out wont help. Immediate emigration might (but you wont be able to carry your guns). Going to the woods or boondocking doesnt take you off the grid long enough.

      Planning a revolution is already too late. “they” are already listening. . . Yes, in here too. . .

  17. They will make gun possession a felony.

    Thy will announce an ‘amnesty’ program and-or buyback.

    Then they will announce a reward program for snitching out gun owners.

    The courts will issue a warrant.

    They won’t kick your door down. They will arrest you when you go out.

    Bit by bit, they will collect up the guns.

    All nice and legal like.

    They won’t care if it takes 100 years.

    They’ll play the long game…

    • Yep. Certain types of guns this year, other types a few years later. Concurrent with snitch lines and reward programs. Along with large-scale data mining of gun blogs, forums, dealer mailing lists, Facebook, Instagram, etc.

      Couple this with a culture war and you have your long-term confiscation effort. Look at how effective the government was in demonizing smoking…

      The anti-2A forces have something the anti-smokers don’t though, and that’s celebrities. Enough talking heads in mass media demonize guns and encourage snitching, and our job becomes very very difficult. Look what SNL pulled over the weekend, it was bare-naked propaganda for the Democratic Party.

    • Whens the last time you heard of cops rolling up on a guy on his way to work to serve a warrant? They aren’t gonna turn down the opportunity to play Fallujah with all their hand me down swat toys by doing the smart thing and choosing the battlefield. They are gonna kick down doors like the big men they are, tear gas exploding and bullets blazing. Because they can.

    • They’ll play the long game only as long as the long game is the only game in town. Statists gotta state. They’ll continue their chipping and chiselling for as long as that works, but if true dictatorship seems within sight, they’ll over reach and go for it all in one fell swoop. After all, who wants to do all the work only to have the next generation enjoy all the benefits?

      At that point all hell breaks loose.

  18. This is why the left wants to proceed incrementally, one drip of poison at a time. Because if they tried it all at once, there wouldn’t be enough jackboots to walk over all of us. Solzhenitsyn’s nightmare vision would come true, the Cheka would run short of men, and the Feds would have to pay far too many widow’s pensions.

  19. I think the larger danger you face isn’t immediate confiscation, but rather what they did up here in Canada. They prohibited a number of firearms, and then “grandfathered” them. If you owned, say, a Sterling SMG, you could keep it and sell it to other people who owned prohibited firearms of the same class, but no one else could buy them new. There are a few other complexities, but that’s the basic gist of it. They originally wanted to confiscate but decided this was easier and cheaper.

  20. I can explain it all to you in four words: The Battle of Athens.

    For those not in the know: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5ut6yPrObw
    Neat little video about it. Also a real example of what WILL happen eventually when the state finally stops with their pretense of honoring peoples rights. Uses a number of shots from a TV movie someone put out about it.

    • The Battle of Athens is like hidden American history. We’ve all actually heard the story without knowing it’s source. Duke of Hazard, Walking Tall, the corrupt local government taken on by a returning vet was a fairly frequent trope back in the day.

  21. I’d be willing to switch sides and become a gun-grabber.

    And, for them to get what they want, I’d be willing to destroy . . .

    Chicago.

    Not like ACORN – occupy wall street, who’s going to clean up the mattresses in the park? destroy Chicago.

    Like holy-sh_t-batman did they have a sink-hole? destroy Chicago. Chinese people visiting Chicago thru their basement destroy Chicago.

    So, they better be ready for eager volunteers cause I know where the gun-problems are: Chicago, NY, Miami, L.A., D.C., Boston, St. Louis MO, Baltimore, CT. . .

    Yeah, gotta fix that sh_t. Make them safe, really safe. No half measures for people who don’t understand the real problem. Like hide in-doors in the daytime safe, board your windows, live in your attic and write in your diary safe. Drink bottled water and get out your drop cloths and duct-tape. Like you could drive around texting with your cell phone up next to your head without a condom you’d be so f-ing safe. Come pick your up, take you to the train for some hygienic instruction. Leave your stuff where it lay, but swallow your jewelry safe. Yeah. No more guns, you’ll be all better. And safe.

    /sarc

    • Wow, if it was not for the sarc tag I really thought you were bat shit crazy. Although you are right about where most of the “gun” problem is…large urban areas where large groups of people have zero value for their common man.

  22. If push actually came to at gunpoint, would you stand up and refuse?

    You can play the boating accident story all you want, as long as you are prepared for the search. If you wait till they show up at your house, it’s too late. You don’t let them take the fight to your door – you take the fight to their door. Guaranteed anyone who fights will be labeled a terrorist and be stripped of all rights Guantanamo bay style.

  23. Still got the musket my ancestor used in the first rebellion (1776) and, no, I am not kidding…It only took under 10% and a war of attrition to break the Redcoats thirst for control… how about 3 million recent veterans of foreign wars and over 100 million gun owners?

    • the revolutionists were organized, trained and drilled. combat of one form or another was ever-present. most militia had seen service in the french and indian war. those people in those times did not understand a society where comfort and safety were considered the “norm”, and to be sought in every endeavor. they understood hardship, short lives, privation and hardship.

      they were organized, trained and drilled.

    • That’s something that is overlooked, the number of retired soldiers who have seen real combat. Most are very Pro 2A, motivated by patriotism, and would break the back of The State.

      • Not to mention that any new troops that are ordered to act on confiscation orders will have to go against the very men and women who were their team leaders and officers while deployed…

    • Great idea! From now on the price of wrong address no knock raids is the loss of every participants left nuts, including the damn judge.

    • If this asshole gives his left nut to grab my guns, he’ll also be giving up the right nut the instant he bangs down my door.

    • And yet neither he nor any of his cohorts ever actually did it. Going on two years since CT passed registration, still in the throws of widespread civil disobedience and still no order from on high to enforce the ‘law.’

  24. I get the feeling they don’t think about the how.
    They assume “law abiding gun owner” means they write a rule and you must follow it, else wise you are a criminal and they think any penalty is justified.
    The irnoy that they’ve turned good people into criminals and are calling for their blood (reasonably and in a common sense way of course) is entirely lost.

    • No, the irony is not lost; they do not consider anyone who disagrees as deserving anything but the harshest treatment. Opponents are “other”. Basic tribal instinct, “they are other; kill”.

  25. The question is not how far….the question is is we have the strength of will to take it as far as it needs to go.

  26. One last comment from me then I will be gone.

    I have to disagree with the author of this article.

    I doubt many American gun owners would do anything but roll over and do whatever the government tells them to do like the good little drones they are. All of this “defend your freedom” is naught but empty bravado that will disappear when the first jackboots start kicking in the doors of people’s homes.

    Don’t believe me? Then I’d say look at all the commenters and gun owners out there, and even writers who have submitted articles to this blog who not only don’t mind a commie like sanders but actively support him. And the increasing number of pro sanders articles on TTAG makes me think that the admins here have chosen him as their candidate and this blog will soon become nothing more than a pro-sanders propaganda rag.

    I used to think that people here were intelligent enough to see through someone just saying what is needed to get elected before he completely destroys the constitution but I was wrong.

    Americans are too blind and stupid, and they deserve whatever their new president (either Hillary or Bernie) will bring upon this country.

    I weep for the future, and I weep for the sacrifice of all who have fought to keep this country free. Because it was all in vain.

    Congratulations America enjoy the chains of socialism.

    I still hope I’m wrong, but I’m afraid I’ve seen too often the complacency and stupidity of my countrymen.

    Goodbye and good luck everyone.

      • I don’t see it that way. I see it as America is finished. Either sanders or Clinton. America as we know it is finished.

        It’s a shame you can’t.

        • Oh, I see it. I know we are screwed, but I think we are slightly less screwed under sanders than under Hillary. It’s not like I will vote for either one of them but there is no doubt in my mind one of them will be the next president.

    • Many people are waking up. Are the majority of people awake? No. But the majority of people didn’t support the Revolution either. America has survived three wars wars on our soil and an economic collapse. The immediate future may appear bleak, but as long as patriotic Americans exist, hope for the future of our nation exists. Do NOT give up. I don’t plan on it.

      Also, as far as guns go, if they didn’t get anything to pass the Senate after Sandy Hook, nothing will pass any time soon on the federal level. The handful of state laws that passed are almost completely unenforced. Several states passed pro gun laws also. For the first time in decades, the majority of people favor gun ownership. Gun owners are in much better shape than they have been in a long time.

      • It’s hard not to. Especially when personal freedom like the second amendment is directly tied in with economic freedom.

        And a socialist like sanders is vehemently opposed to the economic freedom Americans enjoy.

        Just because he’s not calling for confiscation doesn’t mean he’s a friend of the second amendment or the constitution, and it frightens me that so many gun owners cannot see that.

        You know what I mean?

        • I see very few on here supporting Sanders.There’s a few regular trolls.I also never use the word socialism when Communist works better.At least the old collectivist knows who he is. But I do agree we are doomed. I’m only up because I ate too much Chipotle(arg)…

    • How to you propose to know what is truly in the heart of a man by things they post on the internet. You don’t. Goodbye.

  27. There is a reason my ejection port covers have the Latin writings for “come take them” and “if you want peace, prepare for war” on them. I won’t be turning in anything if that day comes.

  28. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.
    It is our duty.

  29. I would like see “them” try in south Chicago, or south-central L.A., without calling in artillery or air-strikes.

    Send in the tanks? Any war-gamer knows you don’t send tanks into urban areas without infantry support. Even ISIS figured this one out, the hard way. So the operation plan is to separate the infantry from the armor, while keeping so close the OPFOR that they can’t call in air or arty support.

    Or fire the odd-angry-shot at a distance. Even if it doesn’t hit there is still the threat the next one might. Mess with their heads. Psychological warfare can gradually wear the enemy down and goad them into over-reacting which creates a PR nightmare.

    • True, it did. And you saw how regretful those NG soldiers were each step of the way. “I can’t believe we’re doing this!” blah blah blah. But they did it. The reason why? They (correctly) assumed that the danger they would face as jack-boot enforcers of unconstitutional government tyranny was less dangerous to them personal than refusing to follow orders.

      Do you blame them? I don’t really, the proof that they were getting illegal orders would have been on their head from the get go. So they have to fight this bullshit all the way from military prison? It will probably take years. It will be much easier just to obey orders and “infringe.”

      The only just thing to do is to make it absolute suicide to follow an order like that. Unquestionable suicide.

      Every soldier appearing in that footage should have been dead within a year. Sure, it would suck to pull the trigger to the back of someone’s head 1:30 AM in front of a bar 2 months later, especially if it’s a 26 y.o. veteran was only in the national guard to make extra money to support his family. BUT HE DID IT.

      And it’s an unfair position to be put in, and you with prior service understand the pressure to conform for the benefit of your buddies and not make your lives more difficult than necessary. This is why it’s not negotiable for this to be a death sentence, it’s the only way to make the decision not difficult.

      As for Ray Nagin and Eddie Compass, they get executed with a veggie peeler. Tape it, and put it on youtube. The next guy in the situation to personally order gun confiscation will think twice. I Promise.

      • I suggest that we begin to prep the “mental battlefield” before the first knock on the door. We ought to be prompting a discussion within police locker rooms and NG barracks . Recall the confiscations in Katrina. Would you do that? What response would you expect from the law-abiding citizens whose guns you confiscated? What response from the first few; the next many; the population as a whole?

        Would that response be targeted at just those officers/soldiers who are on-the-spot during a confiscation? Or, would it occur later to those who participated? Would it be confined to those who participated? Or, would it spill-over to those who did not participate?

        Could confiscations of guns from law-abiding citizens have an impact on the relationship between the citizens vs. the police/National-Guard? Might it make the emergency situation worse rather than better?

        If police officers and Guardsmen haven’t given such questions much reflection ahead of time their instantaneous reaction is much more apt to be to follow orders when the orders are given. Whether they do so enthusiastically, without reflection, or reluctantly they would still be following orders. Conversely, if they have been prompted to think about these questions in advance many will have reached a conclusion as to how they will respond. They will have thought more about the consequences to themselves, their comrades and their communities. They will have some plan in place to push-back on their superior officers.

        The more police/Guardsmen in a precinct who have formulated a plan to push-back the less likely those orders will be carried out in that precinct. The consensus that forms in one precinct is apt to influence the coalescence of a consensus in neighboring precincts.

  30. There’s no treason is defending your country from your government, unless, of course, you lose. The implied question, therefore, is “What are you prepared to do to win?”

    • You guys were waiting for this, right ??

      “Treason doth never prosper, what’s the reason? Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason.”
      – Sir John Harington, 1539 – 1613

    • Good read, thank you. Upshot is, the government breaks its promises to the people, lies about it and attacks them physically, then uses the willing press to discredit them.

      Same as it ever was.

  31. I like Mike Vanderbough’s universal opinion on gun control: “If you try to take our firearms we will kill you”

  32. How far are they willing to go?

    Well, they’re willing to route military occupation equipment to the “civilian” “police force” for suppressing the violence largely in aid of a “drug war” instigated and enabled by their own policies.

    They’re willing to ignore weeks of violent protests motivated by that same occupation, indeed ignoring the expressed objections and changes sought to use the fact of the uprisings as fuel for more of the same. Maybe listen to what the people in the streets are saying.

    They’re willing to use funding and joint allocation of proceeds from seizures and civil asset forfeitures to encourage – but not “coerce” says the Supreme Court – local cooperation with and enforcement of federal initiatives. Including, perhaps especially, federal initiatives explicitly rejected at the local level, which have been ruled – again, Supreme Court – within local vs. federal authority. If they can’t get to what they want to do one way, they’ll find another. Being told “Not your business.” is just a “road block” to get around.

    They’re willing to pass loosely worded laws, then later look to expand the “interpretation” without tagging back up on the legislative language, or incurring the inconvenience of involving the legislature. (See Schumer’s proposed amendment “fixing” the last round of proposed Federal gun law. Made it better by creating more truck-sized holes in the language. Down the road they will use them, whatever they say about “intent” at the time.)

    They’re willing to conduct “false flag” operations, and while the current gun-related example, with varying opinions of it’s legitimacy, is the ATF gun running to Mexico, let us recall that agents provocateur have a long, effective history, with written record extending back at least to those upstart Hebrews under pre-Christian Rome. More recently, let us recall the extensive FBI false-flag, infiltration and provocation efforts applied to right-thinking – excuse me, I mean “left-thinking” – radicals during the 1960s. Open record laws, and the FOIA was a response to *right wing* abuse of administrative power, as the current somewhat-left-of-that folks in power might be reminded. No, it ain’t the evil anti-gummint right-wingers making things hard for the right – excuse, me, “left” – -thinking good guys, because they suck. It’s whoever has the reins – or is it “reigns?” – of power (mis)using whatever they’ve got to hand. Having been on the receiving end of it, you’d think they’d remember.

    So, they’re willing to forget any experience that gets in the way of rationalizing their current scheme, on top of deny or ignore any reality that’s at odds with their goal.

    I was discussing academics, vs. politics earlier today. One difference: in politics, somebody outside the club gets a vote, in this case literally. More extremely, folks who do stuff in the real world know that in the end, reality gets a vote, indeed the only vote that matters.

    They’re willing to cling to their convenient un-truths, regardless of any consequence this confusion imposes on you through pesky reality. So if you get shot because you don’t have Bloomie’s armed mooks, what’s that to them? Indeed one less screeching objector to their schemes. It’s a win.

    Unless, and until it impacts on them, directly and personally, they are willing to do anything at all to feel better about themselves. When and as it impacts them directly they shuffle off to less nettlesome pastures. One suspects this is one reason they object so strongly to nettle-like images of pesky proles sticking up for their own interests – cuts too close to home.

    *** The solution is to impose political and economic consequences on them. Vote the out. Don’t deal with them because it’s just too much risk & overhead to deal with the reality-challenged. Go about your business & be happy, productive, successful and secure, and let the consequences of their confusion and denial accrue to them.

    *** Note to the Flying Monkeys: This is a call to neither arms nor insurrection, nor, indeed, ritual shunning for demographic reasons. This is a pragmatic argument, from consequences – if dealing with these people is bad for you, you think, then don’t. I can not deal with you because you are a yutz without resort to guns or indeed any force. “No, thank you.” and that’s the end of it. (Indeed, I do not own a gun.)

    This is a suggestion that “folks” might use the political process to disempower people who’s practices and policy harm them. And that within the sphere of one’s discretion, maybe don’t bother dealing with people who are just plain wrong(tm) because they’re kinda no help doing anything useful. Don’t waste your time.

    We’ll see who has things more correct, as reality gets its vote.

  33. I just cannot wait to board the brightly painted cattle cars and head for the big bold re-education camp where I will be thinking right boss.I know I want to think right. I just need help to think right. I know Big Brother will help me think right in Room 101.
    I at first accidentally typed Big Bother. Maybe I was more right than I ever knew.

  34. I’d hand some over and stash others. I have a few to spare. That counts for registration as well, because registration would have to be a precursor to confiscation. Once universal registration is enacted, some of my guns get lost in a fire or a boating accident for sure. Then they won’t even be on the radar if/when confiscation hits.

  35. John Ross’ 1996 novel, Unintended Consequences, is a pretty plausible and taut (after a somewhat slow prologue) thriller that contemplates how resistance might begin, once push comes to shove. I assume many here are familiar with it, so expected it might be referenced before now. It’s not a handbook by any means, but many op scenarios seem quite instructive. Anyway, for anyone having trouble trying to imagine the unimaginable, it’s a good provocative read.

  36. Well written and accurate in discussion of consequences. However, you missed one important point. Anti’s will never have to go to the trouble or risk of real confiscation. The won’t have to. Why?

    They control education.

    All they have to do is wait for us to die off and let liberty die with us. The next generation – being indoctrinated now – will willingly turn in the evil guns of their parents.

    • They are up against the video-game industry and testosterone poisoning. It’s going to be very hard for them to overcome these two. AirSoft and paint-ball allow the male youth to experience guns kinetically.
      I think that all we PotG need to do is to make sure that there are opportunities for youth to shoot real guns. Supporting Boy Scouts shooting programs and the like.

      • Mark, regular toy gun are being made to look less and less real. There is already efforts to make BB guns and air soft Bad Things. Kids are even getting in trouble if a Nerf dart turns up in an indoctrination center.

        You are spot on about the solution. At least one part of it. I am a BSA shooting instructor myself. It’s an absolute joy to watch a bunch of 1st or 2nd graders eyes light up when they realize guns aren’t bad like their teachers have been telling them.

        The other thing we have to do is push back – hard – on the abuses by the schools. It’s not enough to simply let the principal make the problem “go away.” We have to hold them to admitting they were wrong.

        • “We have to hold them to admitting they were wrong.”

          I think we have to put our efforts toward those efforts where we can have the greatest effect.

          Suppose we spend some effort toward trying to get the educational establishment to admit that they were wrong. How much effort will this take? How much success can we expect to have?

          Suppose we spent that same effort toward organizing a shooting outing (shoot-out?) for a gaggle of Boy Scouts. How much would that accomplish? A whole gaggle would now be facing the cognitive dissonance between:
          – what their teachers told them; vs.
          – what they experienced for themselves at the shooting range.

          The struggle to reconcile these two would gnaw at them for years. Eventually, most of them will be able to work-out for themselves which of their elders were lying to them.

          I hold that the kids will learn more from a direct experience that we afford them then they could possibly learn from any apology their teachers might give them half-heartedly.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *