Civil Disobedience by Gun Owners in the 21st Century?

Will We See Civil Disobedience by Gun Owners in the 21st Century?

With the coming anticipated federal bump stock ban and various state level infringements that are on the drawing board or currently in effect, I ask this simple question: Will American gun owners protest through civil disobedience? We’ve already seen it in New York and Connecticut. When those states mandated that gun owners register their firearms, many (most?) chose not to, effectively telling their representatives to pound sand.

Americans have a long history of civil disobedience, going as far back as to the founding of our nation. The patriots that took on the red coats during the battles of Lexington and Concord started as civil disobedience. The Sons of Liberty openly flouted the Crown’s excise taxes. They openly spoke out against taxation without representation, they dumped tea into the harbor, and they kept their arms that the British wanted to confiscate.

They were defiant and fought both morally and physically against the Crown to help found this very country.

Later in our nation’s history, oppressed black Americans sat at lunch counters, in the fronts of busses, and drank from fountains they were forbidden from using. They very publicly marched down streets and told their oppressors that they will not go quietly into the night. They faced beatings, dog attacks, water hoses, arrests, and even death.

They did this so their children and grandchildren would be free. So they could pursue their lives as they see fit.

More recently, the gay community in our country also publicly protested and engaged in civil disobedience, demanding equal treatment under the law. They openly lived their lives in defiance of what was dictated by society and by the law. They marched in the streets, flouted local laws, and pushed the public boundaries of what was considered appropriate so they could live their lives as equally as their neighbors.

They faced public criticism, violence, and loss of employment so they could enjoy the same rights that other Americans have taken for granted.

Will gun owners take the same road? Will they start to openly defy and violate gun control laws? We have stories across the country so far from places like Colorado where gun shops only sell 30-round AR magazines, like the failure of firearm registration in New York and Connecticut mentioned earlier. Will gun owners take part in civil disobedience by not turning in their bump fire stocks? Will they openly use them at ranges when the date making them verboten passes?

In regards to carry rights, will more gun owners simply bypass government permission in states like California Florida and march while open carrying? In Washington State, will gun owners go to their Capitol and publicly trade firearms without a background completed?

I ask these questions because change doesn’t come by asking permission. History has shown that change comes by demanding it and fighting for it. Fighting for civil liberties isn’t just in the form of open violence. The Founding Fathers knew that the Freedom of Speech (Civil Disobedience) is tied directly to the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (Threat of Violence).

The expansion of civil rights occur since those that demand its expansion threaten those that restrict them with violence, but promise to hold back if an agreement is met and rights are expanded. That is what our rights is all about. The ability to back up our barks with bites. Gun Owners as a whole thump their chest online and in person at gun shops and shooting ranges. But publicly, they don’t. Many fear getting in trouble and losing what they’ve built. Which, is understandable but in the end. That fear is what causes us to lose.

Our Founding Fathers pledged their wealth, their property, their honor, and their lives. A number gave all for the cause. The question now, will gun owners eventually make the same pledge?

We have a few in the gun owning community that have stood up and exercised their rights through civil disobedience. For example, Mike Taylor publicly exercised his rights and was taken into custody yet he still continues to fight for his carry rights.

Miami Beach Police Open Carry Arrest


But sadly,  7,000 Florida gun owners visited the Tampa Gun Show to buy more stuff to horde than take to the streets like what Mr. Taylor has done. At the last pro 2nd Amendment rally in Tallahassee. Only about 500 gun owners showed up. Yet Florida alone has over 1 million CCW permits.

So will gun owners stop being sunshine patriots? Will they stand up and fight for our rights and those of their fellow man and woman. Will they back up their boisterous statements like “from my cold dead hands” by actually taking action? Will they stop relying on others and do what’s needed before they get to the ballot box (never mind any other boxes). Will they search out their elected officials and openly flaunt their despotic rule making through civil disobedience? Will they meet with them and make their voice heard.

Will Gun Owners start to exercise their rights as the Founders intended? That is the question.


  1. avatar GS650G says:

    I don’t know. If you go out and protest publicly will you be added to a list and given a ERPO followed by no knock raid at 5 AM?

    1. avatar DJ says:

      Without a doubt. It won’t be civil disobedience when it breaks; it will be civil war.

      1. avatar Robert C Hanlin says:

        Agreed…. Especially now that the liberals took control of the house!

      2. avatar Kenneth says:

        The record gun sales over the past several years WAS(is?) the civil disobedience. And laying up arms is always present in war preparations.

      3. avatar Anonymous says:

        Luis Valdes is going to organize a rebellion and multi state secession.

    2. avatar BLAMMO says:

      Yup. Show up at a pro-2A rally with a non-compliant “assault weapon” slung over your shoulder with a [empty] “high-capacity” magazine and you’re a felon. Lose all your 2A rights forever. For exercising your 1A and 2A rights.

      1. avatar CZ Rider says:

        Maybe we need to come at it from an angle of absurd compliance then. Something like getting a bunch of CCW holders together for a rally with open carried water/nerf guns to point out the absurdity of being able to carry a real hidden firearm but forbidden from carrying it visibly. Maybe if we take every opportunity we can to demonstrate what a farce most of these laws are it’ll start to sink in for the public at large and they at least won’t be as quick to turn out against us.

        1. avatar Sgt Bill says:

          great idea

    3. avatar New Continental Army says:

      I see a lot of this:

      “Yeah, well, gun owners are just gonna roll over and take it.”

      And that’s what the left wants you to think. That’s what the media, wants you to think. They want you to think there’s only a couple hundred of you old fat white tea party trump supporters and that’s it. Your all alone against an unstoppable deluge of Liberal power. Everyone and everything is liberal and everyone is turning liberal. It’s cool and edgy and one day they’ll force you to be liberal too….

      And that’s all a big lie. A big lie designed to disenfranchise you and make you forget how powerful you are. Liberals are nowhere near as powerful or as numerous as they claim to be. Conservatives, presently, actually outnumber liberals by a fair margin.

      There’s two common themes I see on this site and they appear to be intertwined.

      One, is conservatives are too tied up with responsibilities to mount the kind of protest movement liberals can. And that’s true. It’s also irrelevant. Liberals own protesting. It’s what they do. They round up a ton of young people who don’t have real responsibilities, pay them, feed them, and organize them. Protesting also doesn’t have really any effect if the legislature stands firm. Example: The Iraq War. There was an absolutely huge and well organized anti war movement that sought to recreate the atmosphere of the 60s. And it failed. The GOP flat out didn’t care and even won re-election during the war, and the war dragged on to the point where the protests eventually just stopped.

      What we can do is vote, and that’s something we do better then the liberals. Look at what we did to the Democratic Party during Obama’s term. It was straight up neutered. The DNC lost over 1,000 legislative seats between 2008-2016. The Conservatives Achilles heel in that however, is how divided we become and that gets exploited. In short, We need to keep winning elections. We need to keep electing pro gun politicians. Keep SCOTUS on our side. We’ve actually had a fair amount of success at that over the past 10 years. But to keep this up, we all need to swallow our pride and all realize our personal pure candidate isn’t out there. Quit this woe is us shit and give the left some more election night meltdowns.

      The other theme I commonly see is this hypothetical argument about a future civil war and how that will play out. It doesn’t need to get that far, but it might. If it ever does, I do not share in many peoples assertion that we’ll all simply roll over and take it then, either. I could go on, but this post is long enough. Just remember no one in 1859 ever though the first civil war would ever happen either, go back and read the opinions on it. Similar claims were made about fighting the might of the greatest empire on earth in the 1700s. History has an interesting way of throwing curveballs.

      1. avatar Bob999 says:

        Here is another piece of history. The stamp act was forced on the colonies in 1765. It took 10 years of back-and-forth before the American Revolution began. We The People will not go to war until all other avenues are tried first.

      2. avatar Phil Wilson says:

        “Liberals are nowhere near as powerful or as numerous as they claim to be.”

        Alinsky rule #1: Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.

    4. avatar frank speak says:

      their goal is to make us all convicted felons…it’s the easiest way to disarm us…

  2. avatar Gordon in MO says:

    First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.

    Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.

    Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.

    Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

    Martin Niemöller (1892-1984)

  3. avatar Stateisevil says:

    Food, check
    Football, check
    Roof, check
    Job, check
    Porn, check

    Gun owners ain’t doin shite. The civil disobedience you speak of in NY and CT is absolutely harmless to the regime btw.

    1. avatar Jon in CO says:

      Not to downplay your point, but there is no football in NY…

      Point taken though. Nobody is being touched like the aforementioned groups above. It’s going to take a massive breach to get all of us involved.

      1. avatar Geoff "Mess with the bull, get the horns" PR says:

        “Not to downplay your point, but there is no football in NY…”

        New York, New Jersey, what’s the difference, rights-wise?

        1. avatar Rick the Bear says:

          “New York, New Jersey, what’s the difference, rights-wise?”

          In NY state gun owners have more rights than anywhere in NJ.

    2. avatar Kenneth says:

      That’s what I love about you State. Ever the optimist. 🙂

    3. avatar CZJay says:

      No will, no way. Just La-Z-Boy all day.

  4. avatar Garrison Hall says:

    “Will Gun Owners start to exercise their rights as the Founders intended? That is the question.”

    Bundy Ranch was a pretty significant event.

    1. avatar Jeremy B. says:

      No, it wasn’t. Bundy violated a contract that he signed with the BLM. 20 years later, after 3 court decisions against him (he never showed up nor hired an attorney) and he played a bunch of people into believing he was the victim.

      Bundy is a false flag. Let’s find a real cause and support it.

      1. avatar Ansel Hazen says:

        It doesn’t matter the how and why of Bundy Ranch. It’s significant in that faced with armed resistance the gov has now been seen to not want to just roll in like Waco and Ruby Ridge. III% is viable solution to forestalling the demise of democracy in the free world.

        1. avatar Jeremy B. says:

          They we’re park rangers. These guys issue tickets when you over stay a campsite or take a dog into a no dog area. They aren’t the “jack booted thugs” that’d be attending the next Waco/Ruby Ridge.

      2. avatar New Continental Army says:

        Bundy won. Twice. And then won twice again in the courts. There’s no way any shadow government would use that as a false flag. I think people like you scream false flag because you’re in fact the false flag.

        1. avatar Marc says:

          Did Finicum win?

        2. avatar Jeremy B. says:

          The BLM sued Bundy court 3 times before they tried to remove the cattle from BLM land.

          He never showed up to court. Also, the BLM never set foot on or near his personal property.

        3. avatar New Continental Army says:

          I’m actually not some huge Bundy fan. But it is a great example of how the invincible government can be beaten. The feds wanted badly to kill more Americans like they did at Waco and ruby ridge. They failed. And I had to despell the silly notion that it was some kind of false flag.

        4. avatar CZJay says:

          Did Finicum win?

    2. avatar frank speak says:

      there’s strength in numbers…individually you’re a pretty easy mark…

  5. avatar former water walker says:

    MEH.See the earlier post about sharing your gun’s serial #’s with a third party. All this sturm und drang over bumpstock’s…what happened in 1986 when real live machine guns were effed with? Or in the 1930’s?!? Just go buy a big rubber band😄

    1. avatar California Richard says:

      The problem isn’t the bump stock. It’s the recent trend of law student civil servants (ATF, CA DOJ, Maura Healy, etc) who unilaterally decide something is illegal due to political wind rather than legislative action. Technically and machanically a bump stock doesnt make a gun a machinegun no matter how much Eric Swalwell, Donald Trump, and Marian Hammer insist it does. They are quite literally ignoring reality and black-and-while law and imagining new legal standards in to existance. I could care less about bump stocks, but horrified at the gross legal gymnastics used to screw people. At least the mg stamp act and NFA 86 were voted on by a legislative body.

    2. avatar frank speak says:

      stick to semi’s…the govt. seems to tolerate this more readily….and court challenges have more “legs”….

  6. avatar johnny go lightly says:

    “Will Gun Owners start to exercise their rights as the Founders intended? That is the question.” Vs. PROTESTING are radically different concepts sir. I for one do not want to see the former exercised yet.

  7. avatar Horrendo Revolver says:

    “they dumped teat into the harbor”

    Never done that, never thought about it but I’m game to give it try.

    1. avatar Tom Worthington says:

      You caught that too? My first thought was “What a waste of perfectly good teat”.

    2. avatar Jack says:

      Take pictures!!

    3. avatar Kenneth says:

      I was going to post “Whose teat was it?” but I didn’t want to be mistaken for a grammar nazi. 🙂

      1. avatar billy-bob says:

        I’d buy tickets to a new Boston Teat Party.

        1. avatar Scoutino says:

          Don’t get excited, it was just one old hag with so floppy teats she could nurse Aquaman from the bridge.

  8. avatar Sam I Am says:

    Is there any political or moral value in retaining the claim that gun owners, especially CCW holders, are the most law-abiding people in the country?

    If so, are gun owners, in large numbers, willing to be known to the public as being arrogant law-breakers?

    If so, does fostering the notion of being law-breakers completely undercut every other claim of “good” as relates to gun ownership?

    Is the country ready to embrace thousands and thousands of DGUs committed by self-avowed scofflaws? Are even the majority of gun owners ready to embrace the bad press that will follow?

    Remember, virtually every “gun crime” (such as defying confiscation orders) is a felony, and if convicted, lifetime forfeiture of legal possession of firearms.

    1. avatar Eli2016 says:

      Sounds like you’re giving in Sam I Am. Or are you stating the complexity of the matter?

      “It is better to live on your feet than die on your knees.” I hope I got the quote right. Sadly, I think I did.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Or are you stating the complexity of the matter?”

        Did you infer a “stance”, or recommended “stance”? I know what I wrote made no mention of making a choice, only asking questions.

        When not ridiculing leftists/gun-grabbers, being sarcastic, or concocting outrageous anti-gun rants so as to challenge people to read beyond the surface of commentary, I generally comment in a more straight-forward manner in a way to hopefully get people to evaluate their certainties, and more rigorously test their sloganeering. So, yes. I was posing the complications that might arise from noticeable, public “civil disobedience”.

        It is easy to keyboard bold statements, but are all the costs counted before beginning? Are those costs bearable? Are those costs prudent? Are we sure we can beat “the system” at this game? Are we sure we can endure if we lose the game?

        1. avatar Eli2016 says:

          If I’ve learned anything in these forums it is that we must at least try – even if we lose. If we lose but live then all bets are off.

          “We cannot run from who we are. Our destiny chooses us.”

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “If I’ve learned anything in these forums it is that we must at least try – ”

          Agree, but “try” is quite a subjective term.

        3. avatar Aaron Walker says:

          Hmmm…You could tell this to my WW2 Polish relatives that have those special German Tattoos…

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          ” Hmmm…You could tell this to my WW2 Polish relatives that have those special German Tattoos…”

          I would like to meet them, but not sure what your relatives have to do with my comments.

      2. avatar Kenneth says:

        The quote is from Emiliano Zapata. you got it exactly perfect except for the second “to”.

        1. avatar frank speak says:

          great movie sequence…that started with “Give me your watch”……..

    2. avatar Darkman says:

      As a fair percentage of gun owners will be participating in the juries needed to convict said law breakers. Jury nullification could be a useful tool in the fight. Since judges cannot overturn a juries vote of not guilty and continued miss trials will result in a further backlogged court system. Gun owners will have to truly band together in order to use the one non violent tool at their disposal to defeat unjust laws. The alternative may result in actions not seen in this nation in almost 160 years. Keeping in mind the first war of Independence began (April 19,1775) over gun rights resulting in much carnage and bloodshed. Is our nation ready for another fight which could easily result in carnage and death in numbers that few can comprehend. Blood and carnage is nothing new to our nation or the world. People have fought and died for freedom at many stages of our nations growth. Keeping in mind the victor controls the future of the nation. The question will be was it worth it. The answer is in the story yet to be written. Keep Your Powder Dry…

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “As a fair percentage of gun owners will be participating in the juries needed to convict said law breakers.”

        With an alleged 100 million+ people owning guns, your assertion may be true, however….there are gun owners, and there are gun Owners. The 100 million have not declared themselves at the ballot box (or maybe they have, and we just don’t like the outcome). If there are FUDDS, or gun owners who think they will be the last ones with freedom and liberty, then it is risky business to think such people will vote “guns” in the jury box. There is much about “trial by peers” that is completely misunderstood.

        1. avatar CZ Rider says:

          That’s also saying nothing to the ones who buy one “just in case” and then proceed to stick it in a nightstand drawer for years on end without so much as firing it. In my experience they’ll be friendly to the subject at least, but you’ll start hearing things like “yeah I don’t know if I’ve ever even fired it” before long. I don’t think I’d trust them to share my mindset when it comes to things like the right to self-defense and use of force, and I really don’t think I’d automatically feel better just because a few jurors happened to own a handgun or two if I was on the stand.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Not to mention that in a case involving guns, lawyers will make ownership a disqualifier because such jurors are automatically not impartial.

          BTW, jury of peers, and an impartial jury are not the same, were not considered the same, way back. The “peers” thing was to stack the deck in favor of the defendant, as a powerful counter to the capability of the state to wage prosecution. The state has all the legal power, and the defendant would have people the state would have to work hard to sway against a person “just like them”, or even people who actually knew the defendant. An “impartial” jury benefits not the defendant, but the prosecution.

        3. avatar Big Bill says:

          Sam I Am says: “Not to mention that in a case involving guns, lawyers will make ownership a disqualifier because such jurors are automatically not impartial.”

          That directly contradicts what CZ Rider says.
          It also begs the question of just how impartial is a traffic court judge who owns a car?
          The idea that a gun owner won’t be impartial also covers those (as seen here often) who are even more critical of those who misuse guns than the non-gun owner is.

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Cars are a protected privilege; people “need” cars.

          I would have no illusions that the anti-gun mob would not prohibit gun owners as jurors simply because they are gun owners. Whether in reality a gun owner in a gun law case could remain impartial is irrelevant when selecting jurors. Trial lawyers are not ever looking for impartial jurors. Such jurors are unpredictable. Why do you think that jurors in major cases are forced to fill out a lengthy questionnaire even before being selected to sit as jurors? Voir Dire is another filter to try to find sympathetic jurors. Heck, all I did was admit to reading legal novels, and BOOM….out the door.

      2. avatar frank speak says:

        Putin’s got to be smiling at comments like this….

    3. avatar GunnyGene says:

      Perhaps this will help clarify the issue.

      Come not to me on a bed
      Of pale-faced sickness and of pining;
      Oh, clasp me close on the battle-field red,
      Midst warrior’s shouts, and armour shining!
      Let me not have priest nor bell,
      Sable pomp, nor voice of wailing;
      The roar of the cannon shall be my knell,
      And tears with thee are unavailing.
      Then clasp me close in the hottest strife,
      Where the cut, and the stab, and the shot are rife!

      May I fall on some great day,
      With Freedom’s banner streaming o’er me!
      Live but to shout for the victory,
      And see the rout roll on before me,
      And tyrants, from their greatness torn,
      Beneath the scourge of justice smarting,
      And gaze on Freedom’s glorious morn,
      My soul to cheer before departing!
      Oh, then my life might melt away;
      In visions bright of liberty!

      Samuel Bamford

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        Nice poem.

        Dying in vain for a glorious cause is still dying in vain. While I am enamored with the “Glorious Quest”, I realize when “The Impossible Dream” turns into madness. Being principled is a high calling, but the costs should not be ignored, or discounted. As noted before, the purpose of the comment was not to endorse any action other than sober, reasoned, self-examination regarding the potential loss of the moral high ground.

        1. avatar Rusty Chains says:

          As far as civil disobedience is concerned, it is all well and good, but the main issue is avoiding the leftist backlash. You get identified at one of those rallys and you will likely be outed, doxed, fired from your job, and have a red flag dropped on you. If you are gonna participate on one of those things, I recommend dark glasses and a fake beard.

          Make no mistake, we are in a war with the neo-communists on several fronts, not just guns. It isn’t a shooting war yet, but if they start the shooting, it will be far bloodier than the dust up that started at Fort Sumter.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          I would think a rally celebrating disobeying gun laws would attract the sort of attention you mention. Not sure we have any examples of general pro-gun rallies that result in “outing”, etc. Can’t think of a time when someone with 2A stickers all over their pickup resulted in being hounded from a job, or neighborhood.

          The idea of staying in stealth mode regarding the Second Amendment is intriguing. Be invisible until the only alternative is armed rebellion, hoping there are enough gun Ninjas to join me when the battle lines are joined.

        3. avatar Rusty Chains says:

          Sam, I think if it ever turns into a shooting war, the money shot will be 500 plus yards, a veto from the rooftops of a sort. The left needs to understand that the Bill of Rights simply affirms preexisting rights that we were endowed by our creators with. If they don’t learn this lesson there will eventually be a heavy price to pay

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          The Leftists thoroughly understand the constitution; it gets in the way of doing the right thing.

    4. avatar Ansel Hazen says:

      I’ve said before, Rosa Parks didn’t upgrade her seat assignment on that bus by following the rules.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        The questions about the cost of rebellion were/are secondary to the original question of whether there is any value to the claim that gun owners are the most law abiding people in the country. If there is value, what is the result of voluntarily relinquishing that title? Is it a win, or a net loss in the public struggle over guns? If there is no value in retaining the title, why plot to refuse to obey the laws regarding guns, while also claiming to be law abiding?

        There is no cosmic judge and court to which you can appeal government run amok, so being “right” about unconstitutional law, violating the law makes one a law-breaker.

        Just be truthful to yourself about being law abiding or law breaking.

        1. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:


        2. avatar burley says:

          In a minor feat of legalese legerdemain, I would put it simply that if the law is unconstitutional, to disobey it is, in fact, lawful.
          Sadly, the left is as unconcerned with legalities as they are with your well being. They want what they want (power) and damn the law. The left WILL condemn to death millions of their countrymen and have in practically every example where they were let out of balance.
          To resist any further infringement on the Constitution is the Lawfully Just, and more importantly, Morally Just path to take.

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “To resist any further infringement on the Constitution is the Lawfully Just, and more importantly, Morally Just path to take.”

          Telling that to someone who accepts that any law passed and signed by an elected legislature is legal, just and constitutional. is pointless. The term “law abiding” has a generally accepted meaning as “obeying all the laws”. There is no room in the term for a claim of higher law. SJWs only recognize civil disobedience in furtherance of leftist programs as legitimately appealing to a higher law. Gun owners claiming that ignoring unconstitutional (says who?) laws is being law-abiding are just talking gibberish, and illegitimate gibberish at that.

          Gun owners are subject to popular/public perception. Claiming we are law-abiding when we believe the laws are constitutional, but not otherwise, is not received as holding the moral high ground. If we adopt the attitude that we refuse to participate in the politics of gun law, then we have no audience for our self-righteousness. Talking to ourselves about how “pure” we are regarding the constitution is time better spent drinking, and watching old John Wayne movies. It would have the same impact on the public perception of gun owners.

        4. avatar arc says:

          COTUS is supreme law of the land, they are following the law by exercising their right and duty to disobey unjust and illegal non-laws.

        5. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “COTUS is supreme law of the land, they are following the law by exercising their right and duty to disobey unjust and illegal non-laws.”

          While a comforting childhood belief, try using that line for defense in court. If your imagining were legally valid, we wouldn’t even have this blog, this conversation, this political environment.

          Fact of law – once SCOTUS arrogated to itself (with congressional deference) the power to interpret the constitution, the reality of the constitution, and the Republic, is that the supreme law of the land is what courts say it is. We live in reality, not an academic vacuum.

          BTW, adhering to the phrase you wrote, we are left it utter chaos as a nation, because under your theory, every person interprets “the supreme law of the land” as benefits themselves only.

      2. avatar frank speak says:

        Rosa was told to do that…it was all a planned “event”….

    5. avatar Phil Wilson says:

      Good points worth considering. Even if government clearly oversteps it’s legal authority, ultimately whether one is viewed as a hero or a criminal, a patriot or a terrorist, depends in large part on who wins the ensuing conflict.

    6. avatar CZJay says:

      How about civil disobedience from women, blacks, Asians, homosexuals, poor and transgenders? You going to attack, arrest, charge and convict them for wanting their 2nd Amendment to protect themselves from the evil white supremacist patriarchy?

      First thing gun owners can do is stop being scared to legally open carry their guns and stand up to jackbooted thugs harassing them for doing so. The least you can do is gain the courage to openly exercise your rights regardless of the added risk in doing so. If you want to start conversations you can paint your holster with the American flag, the Gadsden flag, the 2nd Amendment, hello kitty or whatever you think is best. When people kick you out of their stores you can go all SJW with your cellphone and the internet. Expose the horrible treatment a black man with a gun gets or the disapproval a female receives for protecting her vagina from rapists by carrying a piece of metal that isn’t a chastity belt.

      I find it funny how the leftist got into steampunk and generally left out the guns. We got to bring them back in style.

  9. avatar Michael says:

    Shall Not be Infrindged. No compromise, no retreat, no surrender. Foxtrot-Kilo-Alpha! What part of that do you not understand? -30-

  10. avatar Californian says:

    Civil disobedience only works in the secrecy of our homes; privately, silently, tongue-in-cheek disobedience that can also have a profound creed at its core. I am in CA and I already am disobedient on certain matters. When it goes public and numerous, it’s called civil unrest and civil war – hopefully we won’t have to get to that because we’ll hurt each other and it’s going to get and be ugly.

  11. avatar Silentbrick says:

    The other problem is when do we have time to be doing this? Currently I’m working 3 weeks on and 1 off. My wife is pregnant and needs me at home when I do have time off to help out. The vast majority of gun owners are the people who keep this country and economy running. It makes having the money or time to do such things quite difficult.

    1. avatar Thunder says:

      You actually bring up a good point. Conservatives are the ones who keep this country running. We don’t need to start a civil war. We just have to stop showing up for work and the system will crumble.

      1. avatar burley says:

        Good point. The bulk of “The Left” lives in major urban areas. All we need to do is stop sending them food, fuel, goods, etc. Just stop the flow of water or something else. In just a couple of weeks, they’ll go from “no guns” to “gimme a gun now”!

      2. avatar frank speak says:

        worked for Ghandi….

  12. avatar strych9 says:

    “At the last pro 2nd Amendment rally in Tallahassee. Only about 500 gun owners showed up. Yet Florida alone has over 1 million CCW permits.”

    Yeah, over a million people who actually go to work. They’re not being bussed in and paid to demonstrate at a rally. These folks have to take time off and travel on their own dime.

    It’s part of one of the huge advantages that the professionally organized Left has over us. I’ve discussed it at length in the past. Not that I’d expect Mr. Valdes (or anyone else) to read anything I’ve written.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “Yeah, over a million people who actually go to work.”

      On a Saturday? How ’bout all the gun owners who are not CCW holders. How about how Trump can get crowds of thousands on weekday evenings?

      No, the fault is not in our stars, it is in us.
      (Big finger pointed at me)

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        A rally isn’t all the time. A Saturday is immaterial.

        To seriously fight you have to be willing/able to show up at your State Capitol basically at the drop of a hat and do so on a regular basis. That’s not something a lot of people can do.

        Consider Florida. The Capitol is Tallahassee. There’s going to be a humdinger of a rally this upcoming Saturday (since you used that day as an example, of course some people work weekends too) because someone just announced a gun control bill will be introduced next week.

        Say you live in Ft. Myers. That’s a 5-6 hour drive. Or, if you want to fly (I just priced this) $300-$900/person this weekend. So, you gotta scrap your weekend and drive 10-12 hours or pay hundreds per person just to get there and back. We haven’t covered staying somewhere, food, transport upon arrival (if you decided to fly) or any other associated costs. Nor have we covered non-monetary costs, like pissing off your wife when you constantly disappear to these kind of events with little to no warning. She had a spa day planned with her friend, you just fucked that up. Prepare to pay, and pay handsomely, for that my friend.

        Meanwhile, SEIU, is busing in it’s members, outfitting them with slogans/signs/shirts/etc, making sure they have lodging, food etc and paying them to do it while protecting them from any retribution if they’re taking off work on short notice.

        Now, rinse and repeat on a regular basis, often during the week like Tuesdays and shit and this rapidly becomes a situation where professional organization beats grassroots due to the myriad of costs incurred by the grassroots folks.

        I’ve even seen this shit advertised locally (Denver) on Craigslist under the “jobs” section where they will offer $10-$18/hr plus free food and even help organize local transport to get rando people to show up and carry a sign/wear a shirt/chant for a day or two. Need a few hundred bucks? Spend two days “working” for these people on a “significant social issue” by being a paid protester begging for gun control/whatever the Left wants. It’s pretty much free money if you have the time for it.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Of course, if gun owners cannot mount a massive demonstration on a Saturday, what hope is there for noticeable protests any other time? Will the media just give us regular air time to point out that gun owners are busy with lives, jobs and families, but except for those burdens, we would fill the streets?

          If we are tethered to inaction because of jobs, families and whatever, how can we claim being the moral offspring of the founders, who gave up everything to support the first civil war? They had families, fortunes and prestigious lives.

        2. avatar strych9 says:


          I know your style here. My point is that we need to professionally organize as well. This is a case where you fight fire with fire.

          Unfortunately the only professional organizing group with actual clout that we have at this point is the NRA and they have a mixed record in terms of supporting gun owners/gun rights.

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Unfortunately the only professional organizing group with actual clout that we have at this point is the NRA”

          If all the notable pro-gun support/lobby groups formed a single entity, wouldn’t we still be trying to influence legislation via remote control, expecting paid surrogates to do all the work? Are we not responsible for putting our bodies in the streets, and at rallies?

          Here is my accusation against us: if there was a single pro-2A rally offered, with all expenses paid to attend, we couldn’t get the same number of attendees as Trump manages, and offers no reimbursement of expenses. How can we not find it sad commentary on ourselves that we scream about people putting political considerations ahead of the constitution, while we complain that it would be really hard to carve out time to make our voices loud and public? Have we just grown to comfortable in our circumstances?

        4. avatar New Continental Army says:

          The men who fought the revolution didn’t spend the years from 1770-1775 protesting for media attention. They spent the time working. Then when the war came, they went to war. Just because our side can’t mobilize professional protests doesn’t mean we’re going to roll over. The left also owns the media, so don’t think we’d get much airtime anyway.

        5. avatar strych9 says:

          “…wouldn’t we still be trying to influence legislation via remote control, expecting paid surrogates to do all the work?”

          Isn’t that exactly what the people who craft the legislation (Congress Critters/Senators) are? Paid surrogates?

          “How can we not find it sad commentary on ourselves that we scream about people putting political considerations ahead of the constitution, while we complain that it would be really hard to carve out time to make our voices loud and public? Have we just grown to comfortable in our circumstances?”

          While you have a very valid point about Trump’s rallies, the numbers they draw and the lack of reimbursement he offers I would point out a couple of things before I address your last question.

          First, Trump, in many ways, represents more than one issue. That is to say that he draws people who have a variety of “number one” issues. People will show up to support/listen to him based on a wide array of things rather than just one. Therefore he will tend to draw more people than any of those issues on their own. If, say, 30% of people at a Trump rally in a certain area are there for 2A reasons while 25% are there because of their views on abortion then I would expect that a 2A rally would, at best, draw 30% of the crowd Trump did while an anti-abortion rally would draw 25% of Trump’s crowd at the most. Not a hard rule regarding the numbers mind you but rather a general rule.

          Secondly, many people may view their attendance of a Trump rally as their work on the 2A or whatever other policy matters to them. Since Trump is an elected representative of the people they may well view their support of Trump as putting the Constitution first as well.

          As to how comfortable we may or may not be with our current circumstances I would say that it depends on the person but generally speaking the self-selected group of serious 2A folks are not comfortable with the current situation. However, IMHO, they’re frustrated to the “point of inaction” in many cases. Voting pro-2A in anti-gun states like California is usually an exercise in futility.

          The real question in terms of “how comfortable” people are with the current situation isn’t really how comfortable they are but how far they’re willing to go and/or deem reasonable to go at this time. Like Pandora’s Box, hope remains for many of them. While they may be frustrated to the “point of inaction” at this time they still hold on to the idea that relief may come at some point from a source over which they have little current control, such as the SCOTUS. Realistically the idea of “going to war for the 2A” is a completely out of touch notion at this point because not all options short of war have been expended. While people may draw comparisons to our own Revolutionary War, such comparisons are still apples to oranges specifically because the colonists back in the day had actually expended all options short of war and they still had trouble convincing a lot of people to join the fight.

        6. avatar Sam I Am says:

          The point, I think, remains: we are too comfortable with others defending our rights. While I respect the mental gymnastics you use to justify gun owners not carving time out of our lives to make public demonstration of our defense of your rights, I’m afraid your descriptions remain mental gymnastics, designed to deflect our responsibility to stand up for ourselves in large, public numbers.

          Do you see that without large demonstrations, individual defenders of the constitution look around and find themselves all alone, wondering if there is any hope when only one person sticks their neck out? Checks written to lobby groups do not inspire.

      2. avatar Jeff from somewhere says:

        I work every other weekends, some folks have kids and other obligations.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “I work every other weekends, some folks have kids and other obligations.”

          I recognize you obligations. But since gun owners (100 million+) have not once in history (outside of war) mounted a 20,000 – 30,000 rally, anywhere, in support of the Second Amendment.

          Truth is the vast majority of gun owners (and POTG) put other things ahead of protecting the constitution, supporting the Second Amendment. We just look foolish blathering about ” are rahts”, while not bothering to publicly demonstrate at an event someone else took the time and effort to organize. And we wonder why we aren’t the vast majority of voters.

        2. avatar strych9 says:

          “We just look foolish blathering about ” are rahts”, while not bothering to publicly demonstrate at an event someone else took the time and effort to organize. And we wonder why we aren’t the vast majority of voters.”

          This is true to a certain extent. I’m not claiming that work/family is the only reason people don’t show up to such events. The way “we” act can certainly be described as “shortsighted” and/or “self-defeating”. However I think a lot of that has to do with the type of people involved. We are, in a lot of ways, a self-selecting group with a series of characteristics other than gun ownership that seem to be pretty common.

          To put it in medical terminology, as loathe as I am to do that, gun ownership is a symptom rather than a cause. The underlying cause(s) that lead to gun ownership also tend to create people who don’t tend to organize and show up to rallies/protests very well.

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “The underlying cause(s) that lead to gun ownership also tend to create people who don’t tend to organize and show up to rallies/protests very well.”

          Now, that is an interesting observation. But is it also our undoing? Failing, but knowing the reason why?

        4. avatar Coffee Addict says:

          ” The underlying cause(s) that lead to gun ownership also tend to create people who don’t tend to organize and show up to rallies/protests very well.”

          You mean like : avoiding riots and crowds of people who are loud and angry, avoiding stupid places and stupid people doing stupid things, avoiding confrontations, preferring to be left alone, staying below the radar? If protesting at the capital (a 7 hour one way drive for me) is anything like an antifa protest, you bet your ass I’m not showing up. Agents provocateur, opposition protestors, tear gas, water cannons, getting hit with bottles and rocks.. as a gun owner these are EXACTLY the kind of situations I go out of my way to avoid. we are typically self selected for doing everything we can to preserve and protect ourselves, not seek out new ways to get into an altercation where we’d be forced to draw our gun, and the option of going unarmed is unthinkable.

          when the shooting starts, we’ll show up.

        5. avatar Geoff "Mess with the bull, get the horns" PR says:

          ‘Our Side’ has *billionaires* in our ranks.

          Perhaps we need to hit them up for the fiscal resources to stage such rallies?

  13. avatar UpInArms says:

    My understanding of the ban is that, after a grace period, possession of a bump stock will be illegal. OK, but are current owners required to surrender them to the local PD, or can they destroy them themselves?

    The reason I ask is I’m interested to know the extent of compliance. If there is a requirement to surrender them, we can roughly estimate how many people are ignoring the law. If current owners can dispose of them any way they want to, then there is no way to track it.

    Anybody got any info on this?

    1. avatar Geoff "Mess with the bull, get the horns" PR says:

      *As I understand it* (and I may well be *wrong*), individual owners may do the destruction themselves.

      And that’s the ‘wedge’ we can exploit in our lawsuits against that law that takes from us without compensation.

      The legal framework exists to make them lawful. We must demand the registry be re-opened. It’s been done before, so historical precedent is on our side…

      1. avatar pod says:

        The lawful method would be not promulgating this order at all and just leaving well enough alone.

      2. avatar frank speak says:

        the simple answer is don’r get caught with one….

  14. avatar John Adams says:

    I have very little doubt that when push comes to shove, 99.9% of gun-owning Americans, even those of the “they’ll have to pry my guns from my cold, dead hands” persuasion, would hand over their firearms if the government told them they had to. Most of us would not risk, say, a minimum sentence of 25 years in federal prison, just to keep our toys, no matter how we prize the ideal of liberty. I sure wouldn’t.

    On the other hand, if a few state governments publicly defied the federal ban, those states would probably see a moderate influx of “refugees,” and if circumstances were right, they might secede from the union.

    The brave colonials with forbidden firearms who defied the British didn’t do so because they individually felt so strongly about it, they did so because they had rabble-rousing leaders who weren’t afraid to commit treason against King George and start a civil war (er, armed rebellion, later called “The Revolution”) against what they deemed tyranny.

    Do we have leaders with the courage to say “the USA we loved is irrevocably broken, nothing is going to fix this except bullets and bloodshed?”

    These are questions we should all be asking. Nothing will happen, on a nationwide level or on a state or local level, without leaders, and leaders that have a coherent vision. In my opinion, confiscation of firearms on the part of the authorities is proof enough of bad faith and intention, to justify revolution. But is it enough in the minds of most people? Probably not. And nobody will risk defying the government unless they’re sure that thousands of others will stand with them. Otherwise that 25 years starts to look likely, and that is easily enough to quell any real resistance.

    1. avatar Geoff "Mess with the bull, get the horns" PR says:

      “…even those of the “they’ll have to pry my guns from my cold, dead hands” persuasion, would hand over their firearms if the government told them they had to.”

      It didn’t happen in Europe, even countries like Germany in the 1970s when registration was made mandatory. The vast majority ignored the requirement.

      It didn’t happen in New York state when ‘assault weapons’ were banned, an estimated *90* percent ignored the order to destroy them or ship them out of state…

      1. avatar frank speak says:

        they’e not after confiscation so much as intimidation….

    2. avatar Ash says:

      “I have very little doubt that when push comes to shove, 99.9% of gun-owning Americans, even those of the “they’ll have to pry my guns from my cold, dead hands” persuasion, would hand over their firearms if the government told them they had to. Most of us would not risk, say, a minimum sentence of 25 years in federal prison, just to keep our toys, no matter how we prize the ideal of liberty. I sure wouldn’t.”

      … and you use the handle “John Adams”, huh? Something I keep seeing online and find utterly pathetic, are Americans’ ability to rationalize this exact type of thing.

    3. avatar Roman of Texas says:

      He makes an interesting point however here folks-if they outlaw the firearms, they don’t actually have to go out and confiscate them. THat’s ok folks, like in Germany in the 1970s, you just outlaw them first. Wait a generation. Culture will begin to *really* demonize them-because they aren’t just uncommon then, they’re rare. If they chip away at your rights long enough, all these hard core III%s will die outor their numbers could be reduced to a number that is no longer combat effective.

      I for one agree we need to fight it. But I also have a wife and family-I’m not going to go out and do anything till the keg is ignited. Family comes first. Man’s gotta work.

    4. avatar Salty Bear says:

      This is what the NRA should be doing. They should be the rabble-rousing leaders who organize armed marches in every state capitol (yes, I mean capitol, not capital), not begging for our money and then stabbing us in the back. When the NRA starts advocating for civil disobedience, and for us to organize into militias and train to protect our rights against the cops who would take them from us, then I’ll join. Until then, they get nothing from me. And they should get nothing from any of us either. We can do better.

  15. avatar Red in CO says:

    Civil disobedience in the fashion of the Civil Rights Movemsnt wouldn’t work with guns, unfortunately. A major part of the CRM involved the protesters allowing themselves to be arrested, while very clearly having done nothing wrong, to expose the injustices of the system.

    An analogy for gun rights would be, for example, hundreds or thousands of marchers with ARs (real ARs, not that AWB compliant crap) on their backs in New York. See the problem? Even the most hardcore racists of the 60s would have a hard time claiming that peacefully marching blacks were a threat to the lives of everyone around.

    On the other hand, literally millions of people, including many armed agents of the state (I’m sorry, cops) would see open civil disobedience related to firearms as a threat to their lives. In other words, it’s not a fair comparison because widespread and open disobedience of gun laws would result in either a massacre or a battle. It would NOT be peaceful because far too many already want to condemn us to death

    1. avatar pod says:

      I’ve always said guns are a “special case” when it comes to civil rights, at least on a practical day-to-day level. A gun gives a citizen a fighting chance to say “no” to anything the government tries to demand. Hence, there’s always a “special case” for guns. The government doesn’t like it when people say “no” to them.

      Thousands of people marched to end segregation. For the most part they were unarmed, and even then the government used violence against them simply because they decided to exercise their First Amendment rights.

      If thousands of people were to march with banned guns slung over their shoulders, I can almost guarantee the government would use lethal force. However, that shouldn’t be a deterrent if one truly loves liberty.

      Already when people test the limits of gun control, the government goes crazy. Look at the recent fiasco on Miami Beach with open carry. People openly carried within the narrow exemption defined by law, and the local government still lost their mind. However, it was this incident that made the second go-around that much more peaceful. Which does prove something. If we want to keep and gain our rights peacefully, we need to get the word out while it’s still legal.

  16. avatar HP says:

    I live in New York. I’ve never met a person who registered a rifle. Not a single person.

    1. avatar frank speak says:

      that’s encouraging…and may be the way to go…a law that is disrespected doesn’t have much credibility…

  17. avatar PP says:

    The globalists can find us anytime, anywhere, because we all use smartphones, credit/debit cards, and the internet.
    People want to be rebels, yet they display their life on facebook, tweeter, etc. Not very smart.
    We have guns, and? They have drones, tanks, planes, artillery, SWAT teams, biological and chemical weapons, you name it.
    Trump is not/will not make America great again, we just dodged a bullet when Hillary lost and that’s about it. Trump most likely doesn’t give a **** about the average American, including the “deplorables”. The left is winning slowly but surely, like it or not, they have full control over the public schools, the majority of the mainstream media…Anti 2A legislation has been approved in red states, such as FL recently.
    I don’t see any uprising, because this isn’t the 18th century anymore, people are not as brave, and are slaves to a materialistic society.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      Trump is not El Cid, not the holy White Knight come to rescue the oppressed, not the great emancipator. Question: What happens after his presidency? Is this the last, great hope, with only penury and serfdom after?

      After 2020, or 2024, who is the Republicrat candidate who will lead, rather than equivocate?

      I don’t think we have a “long game” to play.

      1. avatar PP says:

        What happens after is presidency? People will keep bending over, 2A or not, the people are not in control of anything. Who is honestly ready to risk his/her freedom if not life for the 1A or 2A? Not nearly enough people to make a slight difference. The globalists are in full control. It’s not about being El Cid, Trump fooled many Americans with his wall, Hillary for prison, etc, this is all b.s and it worked. Good news is we avoided 4 years of Hillary. Trump is surrounded by the swamp, dang he even picks some of them in his administration! We are screwed period.

        1. avatar HP says:

          People aren’t going to risk life and limb for the 2A until the government goes full totalitarian and tries outlawing all firearms and uses violence to enforce this. We’re not there yet. At some point, we’ll have a Democrat President – maybe Gavin Newsom or some other insane ideologue, and this President with have the Senate and the House in Democrat hands. It’s inevitable at some point, things always ebb and flow. Is it a stretch to think they will go full totalitarian? I don’t think it is. They’re mad about Trump, they hate guns, they hate most of us, and they’re going to want revenge.

  18. avatar Jay in Florida says:

    Since I already am a disobedient civilian. My government can ask whatever it wants to. Will I comply?? I don’t know. I would have to weigh my options at that time. More then likely I wont give up anything. Ever. Open carry here in Florida in my opinion isn’t worth going to jail for. Pay your govt penalty fees and get a CCW.

    1. avatar frank speak says:

      in florida….it would appear…even ccw is under attack….

  19. avatar possum says:

    Civil disobedience requires a law to be broken. Now wich part of “Shall Not Be Infringed “do I disobey. BTW I’ve been arrested once for concealed carry with out a license, it’s “Them” that’s breaking the law.

  20. avatar JT says:

    I love to read the comment section for the b.s, it is second to none. Keep it up!

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “I love to read the comment section for the b.s, it is second to none.”

      Doesn’t that mean “Next to Last”, or “Next to Nothing”?

      1. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

        true if exclusive.

  21. avatar Cruzo1981 says:

    Taxation, but no representation…

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “Taxation, but no representation…”

      ‘Fraid not. Having representatives who prefer to better represent a different constituency is not the same as no representation. Of course, a parliamentary system would permit fractional representation.

  22. avatar John says:

    Elections and court cases are the appropriate realm, at this point. Peaceful demonstration also works, but with so much of the media against firearms ownership or too ill-informed to report accurately, that is risky.

    Secret “civil disobedience” of hiding guns really only comes into play when things get to uncivil levels…which really should be avoided. People talk on the internet about civil war, but they rarely understand the destruction and suffering that would mean…or realize that the outcome is usually different than what either side wanted. Look at pictures of Mosul from 2017 and ask yourself if you want your town to look like that, because that is what civil war actually means…

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “Look at pictures of Mosul from 2017 and ask yourself if you want your town to look like that, because that is what civil war actually means…”

      If the people are divided completely into irreconcilable camps, what alternative is there to armed conflict? Surrendering to the tyrant? Mosul didn’t happen because the opposing forces agreed with one another, or had ground upon which to agree.

      1. avatar DJ says:

        Civil war is inevitable, the left will make it so. They are Marxist. They pull down existing orders. They can not oppress us as long as we have firearms.

        I think rallies will only be used against us in a negative way. Red flags will be the weapons of choice.

        The Marxist don’t have the military. In fact they are hostile to them. I’m not convinced they have law enforcement. Even if they do there aren’t enough. What makes anyone think we will sit at home and wait our turn? What makes elected officials think they will be safe? If they start large scale confiscation all bets are off.

        Sam as I, I don’t know what you are prepared to do. I fought the communists and I reenlist to stand watch on the Iron Curtain. I’m not yielding. Death always wins.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          I have never read, or heard, about a Marxist who didn’t like the military. They might not like the military in existence when the Marxists come to power, but they love having a military to eliminate opposition.

          If you understand the politicization of the US military over the last four decades, your confidence that Marxists here don’t have the military might be quite shaken.

          When I entered the Air Force as a subaltern, I was faced with a unanimous declaration by the Joint Chiefs of Staff that even if they believed the Vietnam war to be immoral, a military abomination, the unconscionable waste of lives, none would resign their position in protest. That the military was completely subject to the orders of the president, and would carry them out, regardless of their own moral principles. That same sense of duty to take orders was also used to justify earlier atrocities in a different country because an oath of honor had been taken, no matter the facts.

        2. avatar HP says:

          “I’m not convinced they have law enforcement”

          They might have half or so. In any given department, you’re going to have wild eyed drones who will gleefully kick in doors, carry out any order, and salivate at the idea of making an arrest. The profession attracts these types. This is maybe 25%. The next 50% or so are regular people who aren’t on board with totalitarianism, but are still concerned with a pension. You could expect a serious mediocre effort from this group. Indifference is the order of the day for the most part. Maybe an arrest gets made, but only if it doesn’t take a lot of work. These are the ones who will do the bare minimum to keep their jobs. The final 25% are the ones that disappear into the woods when the order to confiscate guns en masse is given. One day they are at work, the next day their supervisor leaves a baffled message on their voice mail. They aren’t playing this game. They are figuring out how to avoid their former co-workers.

          The percentages I’ve listed of course aren’t approximate. An urban police department will likely have a much higher percentage of totalitarians, the same goes for State Troopers. Suburban and especially rural departments would lean more towards liberty.

  23. avatar FedUp says:

    What do Mike Taylor, Open Carry While Fishing, and Civil Disobedience have in common?

    Openly obeying the law is not Civil Disobedience. But in Miami (or was it Miami Beach), obeying the law can get you assaulted with a deadly weapon and kidnapped just as easily as disobeying the law can get you arrested.

  24. avatar Felixd says:

    I think we stand now at simple non-compliance and we’ll be happy with that unless force is used by the government in an attempt to control our property and our thoughts. And by force I mean more than we have seen in the past which has been very small and isolated. I think we will become openly disobedient of law, or government authority, only when more of us feel pain. Should that time come there will be a period of decision in the midst of the chaos that each of us will face. On which side do we fall, what will we do? What will we risk, how much can we loose? The decision is yours, if the time comes.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      Bump stocks, as a legal issue, are going to fade into the mist like Pet Rocks. The real fun begins when all semi-auto weapons are declared “assault weapons”, and the new AWB is enacted over veto.

      1. avatar UpInArms says:

        I agree– bump stocks are no big ripple. Most of the people – gun owners – I know couldn’t give a rat’s ass about them being banned.

        The ban on bump stocks could, however, give some indication how widespread non-compliance would be when the inevitable “australian confiscation” goes down. Which is why I’m curious as to whether there is a mandate to turn in the bump stocks. There was only one principal manufacturer, so it shouldn’t be hard to figure out how many are out there, more or less. If only a fraction of a percent are turned in, then we know the depth of commitment, more or less, of non-compliance on “assault weapons.” (Granted, it would be a VERY rough indicator, but an indicator nonetheless.)

        If it’s been left up to the owners to dispose of them, then there is no way to know how many are in compliance and how many are not.

        Inquiring minds want to know.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          If I was organizing a plan to punish people who possess bump stocks, but cannot be identified by sales information, I would position police at every place guns are sold to the public, and detain everyone entering/exiting, for questioning. The probable cause would be that there are YYYY thousand bump stocks in the wild, thus it is reasonable that people purchasing guns are likely to own contraband bump stocks. I would then have a record of gun owners, and personal identifying information. From multiple contacts with the gun-buying public, I have a database, not a gun registry, but a gun owner registry – which is really good.

          With my non-firearm registry of gun owners, I could conduct all sorts of mischief.

        2. avatar GunnyGene says:

          As concerns bump stocks there is no defined enforcement mechanism, other than at the manufacturer/retail level, and even that is pretty weak.

          From the existing Proposed Rule(below). This may or may not change in the Final rule, which is yet to be published.


          A Description of the Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements of the Proposed Rule, Including an Estimate of the Classes of Small Entities Which Will Be Subject to the Requirement and the Type of Professional Skills Necessary for Preparation of the Report or Record

          There are no reporting or record keeping requirements for this proposed rule. The only relevant compliance requirement consists of disposing of all existing inventory of bump-stock-type devices for small entities that carry them. There would not be any professional skills necessary to record or report in this proposed rulemaking.[/quote]

        3. avatar Felixd says:

          A ban on anything, without the drive to actively enforce it, gives us our room for non-compliance. We do it everyday on our highways with respect to the limits governments place on speed. We only begin to obey rules, that we generally accept, when those rules are actively enforced. In those areas of the nation where our civil rights have been chipped away owners of stocks, magazines, and other mechanisms have quietly gone about their life ignoring their governments. Only with government overreaching it’s authority will non-compliance change into disobedience and, most likely, violence. Government will perceive any disobedience as a challenge to its authority, always forgetting that it’s authority is derived from the very same people it wishes to suppress. This will most likely spiral down into chaos. If one civil right is usurped they can all be. Here lays the importance of defending the second amendment and our Constitution.

  25. avatar kyle says:

    lost cause.

    hoard and get ready.

    only option truely left to us at this point.

    Constitution is just bird cage liner

  26. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    Leftards haven’t a clue what they are asking for and they wont like the outcome,as it will be anything but warm and fuzzy.

  27. avatar True Tory Loyalist says:

    We couldn’t dare stand up to might of the British Army. The King rules a global empire upon which the sun never sets. Never has there been such a great and powerful empire. If we go to war with Britain, the King will set the full force of the empire against us and what will we do then? They’ll surely hang the lot of us, and that’ll be it for out little squeal of independence.

    1. avatar frank speak says:

      ruby ridge and Waco had a negative effect on the public…which caused revision of views…but it was Oklahoma city that really caught the attention of the govt….and caused them to revise their stance…hope we’re not headed for that again….

  28. avatar possum says:

    I’ve thought all this over and have decided that I’m not worried about any gunz confiscation in the U.S.A. because President Putin won’t let it happen

  29. avatar Sora says:

    I’ll fly back to FL for an Open Carry Rally if there’s one next year. Too far away right now at a shit hole.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “I’ll fly back to FL for an Open Carry Rally if there’s one next year. ”

      Good on ya’.

      Haven’t read anything about pro-gun rallies turning into trash heaps, or breaking out into fist fights. Thinking that for gun owners, cleaning up after is just second nature. Sometimes see news reports that indicate the reporters are surprised that gun owners are not the same inconsiderate slobs they encounter at leftist rallies.

      1. avatar CZ Rider says:

        Come to think of it, maybe that’s the problem. Maybe they make the connection that anger equals righteousness, so leaving a huge mess and smashing things equates to a great moral imperative and being respectful to your surroundings shows apathy to the cause. Not that I’m advocating messing up the neighborhood, just idle speculation.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          The violence from the left is considered righteous, proper, justified because those vandals are frustrated that they are not getting what they want, and the only action left to them is violence. Lack of desired results leads to frustration, for which violence is justified and held up as an example for other frustrated leftists to follow.

  30. avatar 22winmag says:

    Please… less revisionist-history SJW crap and more GUNS!

  31. avatar jakee308 says:

    I believe in this situation, gun owners will follow a passive aggressive mode of protest.

    It’s happened in Vermont; very few bumpstocks were turned in after the ban but no one knows how many were ever purchased. The national ban will reveal much more the mood of gun owners.

    Probably one reason for the ‘Red flag’ laws and their being able to be done anonymously (as to public ability to find out who) will create problems for those who protest silently as they may find their neighbors or ‘friends’ turning them in for banned items.

    As with so many laws and social changes first they test the waters, then they lower the boom if the test passed.

    There’s also a conspiracy of silence on the part of the media as they have not done stories on how many gun laws have been ignored and the estimated number of gun owners who have ignored them. This is done so as to keep gun owners feeling isolated and afraid to speak out or take any action.

    You wouldn’t know it but New York’s Gun Safety law is a failure. Far fewer registrations and magazines have been turned in than most even conservative estimates have been assumed.

    California’s registration scheme is an outright failure mostly on the part of the bureaucracy to conduct a viable scheme of the actual registration and has most gun owners refusing to do so because of fear that they will be arrested even if they try to follow the law as has happened.

    Connecticut’s registration and ban also has been a failure for similar reasons.

    Yet they continue to pass more laws and invent tax schemes while refusing to recognize publicly that they have failed to intimidate gun owners into compliance.

    I would guess they’re waiting and hoping for more ‘snitches’ to come forward and put some dents in the numbers of scoff laws.

    Banning ranges might become a part of their assault or other limiting usage laws making it more difficult for a gun owner to publicly display or use their firearms.

    It’s going to become very interesting about the time of next years hunting season.

    I expect the liberals will continue their assaults on gun owners as they did with smokers but there are crucial differences between smokers and gun owners. And yet with all the laws banning and limiting smoking, we still have millions of smokers in the country which bodes ill for the success of these attacks.

    And it actually may do more harm than good and rouse liberals into voting for some really intrusion laws if gun owners become open and strident about their concerns by public displays.

    I know I’m not going to rush out and openly carry any of my firearms at some ill organized protest. I’m also not going to obey any laws that I believe violate my rights.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      ” The national ban will reveal much more the mood of gun owners.”

      Why should we think gun owners will react more forcefully over the ban of a “range toy”, than they did over the original AWB? I was around for that little ditty, and there were no riots in the streets. Or much of a nation-wide protest, other than what we see today.

      1. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

        grandfathered. surrogate or facsimile availability.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “grandfathered. surrogate availability.”

          Which equates to “Ok for me; not so much for you after today”. Is that what being a 2A defender comes down to? Is an infringement of 2A acceptable if you have alternatives remaining? Like, no semi-auto rifles because bolt action rifles are available? No semi-auto pistols because revolvers are available?

          The Second Amendment has no exception for government interference if reasonable alternatives to weapons are available. The founders would consider someone daft it they interpreted the Second Amendment to mean that the central government could constrain the States (we the people) to weaponry inferior to the arms of the government the Second Amendment was intended to discipline.

        2. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

          already there- my ak is no less badass without a bayonet holder, threaded barrel or shoulder thingy that swings under. but it does not rock and roll. would i rather it had select fire?
          i guess you could say belt loop. but maybe they’ll force us all to wear suspenders (wait those might work…).

        3. avatar frank speak says:

          right…no confiscation…a few prosecutions but not much else…you did tend to see less of them on the street…but most just regarded the law as something of a hinderence that could easily be circumvented…and the political cost for those that supported it was high…something the old timers have not forgotten…

  32. avatar Mad Max says:

    A little off-subject but last week, in a civil asset forfeiture case being heard by the Supreme Court, Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked: “Isn’t it just too late in the day to argue that any of the Bill of Rights is not incorporated?”

    This could be helpful if the final ruling is worded in a way that firms-up Incorporation for the entire Bill of Rights.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      We need to be careful about conclusions regarding court cases. In the case at hand, the issue was not whether civilian asset forfeiture was constitutional/legal, but whether taking property value more than the fine for whatever infraction caused the police to seize the property, violates the 8th amendment prohibiting “excessive fees”. Even if the SC rules that police may no inflict a forfeiture greater than a fine, such ruling leaves civil asset forfeiture a constitutionally valid law.

      1. avatar Mad Max says:

        I certainly agree that civil asset forfeiture in it’s current form should be banned.

        I was more interested in Justice Kavanaugh’s opinion that the entire Bill of Rights is Incorporated by the 14th Amendment. Previously, that has not been clearly stated by the SCOTUS. Hopefully, the ruling in this case will solidify Incorporation.

        Full Incorporation would have a impact on 2nd Amendment jurisprudence.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Full Incorporation would have a impact on 2nd Amendment jurisprudence.”

          The “individual right” question was settled as being incorporated. The lower courts continue to ignore the SC ruling. States and cities continue to control firearms as they see fit. Since the courts already ruled that the federal government has a “right” to control firearms for individuals, “incorporating” the entire US constitution to the States would bring along all the same infringements enjoyed by the central government…permitting all sorts of regulation of firearms.

          Any “constitutional right” that is not declared absolute is subject to “reasonable regulation” at government convenience. Compelling a suspect to testify against themselves if granted immunity comes quickly to mind.

        2. avatar luigi says:

          Hopefully it won’t. The Framers never intended for the Bill of Rights to apply to the states. If they believed it eventually would, the Constitution would never have been ratified.

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “The Framers never intended for the Bill if Rights to apply to the states. If they believed it eventually would, the Constitution would never have been ratified.”

          Bingo !

          Your statements are difficult for people who entered the US education systems after 1960. When history is viewed exclusively from the culture of the present (whichever that “present” is), projecting current politics and culture backward is the most comfortable vantage point. It takes the ability (not normally encouraged) to imagine oneself in the time of the historical events, which requires going outside current commentary on history, and researching the contemporary accounts of the times.

          In 2018 (for historical reference), to “understand” history, the times, the people requires that one either defend or attack the past. This is not “understanding”, but self-glorifying one’s politics. For instance, if one watches movies, or reads novels about “The Mutiny On The Bounty”, the common experience is to condemn the ruthlessness of ship captains of the time. Indeed, one comes away believing Capt Bligh (who was really a naval lieutenant/leftenant) was an old man, and Fletcher Christian a young, “modern”, enlightened hero of civil rights – none of which is true. Reading history of the times, you find Bligh was well respected by ships’ crews, and was requested by crews to settle a larger mutiny sometime after Bligh returned from Pitcairn.

          All of the above makes it near impossible to understand where we came from, and how and why we are where we are.

  33. avatar pg2 says:

    Many have probably seen this:

    They are playing the long game. Successfully socially isolating and stigmatizing gun owners. They will win long term. No question.

    1. avatar Mad Max says:

      Depending on what her lease says, it could be an opportunity for a profitable lawsuit. If enough gun owners in similar situations file lawsuits, people like her landlord will have second thoughts and that will help neutralize the left’s long game.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Depending on what her lease says,”

        Once owned apartments. The lease permitted eviction for not keeping the apartment in a safe condition. I was the sole determiner of what “safe condition” meant.

        1. avatar Mad Max says:

          Unless the lease specifically excludes firearms, a case could be made against the landlord that a normal person would assume that exercising a Constitutional right would not violate the lease.

          I think that would likely prevail in a Pennsylvania court but I don’t know about other areas.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          A landlord has an obligation to provide a safe, inhabitable dwelling (in many locations), which is why I suspect “safety” from negligent discharge, or “stray bullet” from a DGU would be considered compromising safety. Crank in a jury of “reasonable people”, and things become problematic. “Reasonable jurors” are people who would never think of having a gun in the house, much less one in a multi-occupant set of rooms where the residents are called “roommates”.

        3. avatar Mad Max says:

          They can try the safety thing but in some parts of Pennsylvania, the jury would certianly side with the gun owner.

          Some parts (actually quite a few) of Pennsylvania voted for Trump by huge margins (82% was the highest I saw).

  34. avatar Ralph says:

    We don’t need civil disobedience to tear down this rotten structure. The Left — BLM, Antifa and all the Soros-financed jagoffs — will do that for us.

    1. avatar frank speak says:

      expect more outrageous infringements in the blue states…and some of the purple ones…until the courts rule otherwise…this may take quite awhile…

  35. avatar luigi says:

    Legislatures in “red states” need to grow some balls and nullify the NFA and GCA of ’68. Ban ATF agents from enforcing it within state borders. Nothing is gonna happen at the federal level at this rate, at best we might get a court ruling once in a while (that while good for gun rights, will probably violate state sovereignty anyway).

  36. avatar John in Ohio says:

    Short of fighting a hot war, massive civil disobedience is the only thing that will save the exercise of unalienable individual rights. Voting ain’t gonna cut it. True liberty will continue to circle the drain. I’ve been saying that for more than 30 years.

    But, what do I know?

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email