ARMED TAKE OVER

[Martini_Up]

Agreed. There is no 'take over', armed or otherwise.

 

[Stomper]

If you are legally protesting in the street, then being legally armed does not constitute an 'armed takeover'. If you break into some place, like a federal facility, occupy it, rifle through files, commandeer equipment, restrict public access, threaten to fight eviction, all the while being heavily armed, then HELL YES it's an armed takeover, as well as a huge escalation of the crimes committed by the fact of being armed.

Agreed. No American should be interested in OVERTHROWING their government, but rather RESTORING it.


The USA gets (and is getting) the government it deserves.

 

[DuneHopper]

If you are legally protesting in the street, then being legally armed does not constitute an 'armed takeover'. If you break into some place, like a federal facility, occupy it, rifle through files, commandeer equipment, restrict public access, threaten to fight eviction, all the while being heavily armed, then HELL YES it's an armed takeover, as well as a huge escalation of the crimes committed by the fact of being armed.

Walk in to a liquor store tell the clerk give me your money or i'll punch you in the face.
You will get 18 months.
Walk in with a Knife you will get 2-5 years.
Walk in with a Gun you are looking at 10yrs min in many states.,

The fact they were armed always changes language to aggregated,coercion, intimidation,
felony, trespass. Everything goes up by how people are armed. Rallies are not the same because there is no unlawful acts just yahoos who think war will break out that day AKA Mall Ninja. The minute in Burns they took government property and held it by force and refused to leave the words felony began to stack up.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Just wondering what the point of an armed take over would be?
Any government response would end in the government winning and the armed group losing.
Unless we are talking about a armed response / take over like the events of April 1775 ( and for the same reasons ) I do not understand the reason to do it. Why start a fight you can't win?
While there are many things wrong with how our government is running or the fact that many elected officials are out of touch with the folks who voted for them or the Constitution, I don't think an armed take over is necessary at this point in time.
Andy

 

[Martini_Up]

I think they did decide that the 2A is negotiable all the way back to 1934 or so thereabouts... What with the NFA act and then again with the GCA of 1968 and yet again with that one toxic amendment to the FOPA of 1986.... and once again with the AWB of 1994 which thankfully sunsetted.... but then come all these states with their own versions, some much more restrictive....

If one considers that the only Constitutional military that's allowed is that of the Navy, and not the Army or the Air Force, and that the original intent is that all able bodied men are to be able to beat off other nations armies with their own arms; and that when needed, the citizens are to be as well armed as the standing armies, regardless of the era, in order to prevent governmental abuses/tyranny....... then one could argue that concept died, and thus, the 2A as it stands, is neutered by all the various regulations.... and the same for the taxation without representation by the simple fact we have all these small taxes put into place.

And yet the 2A is still a freedom that our government does not grant us but only recognizes. It was not recognized for the things you state above. It was recognized because free people have the natural right to defend themselves against anything - including enemies (F&D).

A standing army was what the founders had just went to war against so did not want one created in their own country which they (or future Americans) may have to fight again (not to mention each individual state had to sign onto this Union and were just as leery in doing so as we People are today in signing treaties which gives up any sovereignty to the UN). Once we found ourselves with a standing army, we created posse comitatus as a band-aid to a clear overreach of law.

Point is a standing army does not neuter our 2A rights. Those are natural rights granted by our Creator. The argument that we don't need a 2A because it's out of date is trumped by the fact that our government didn't give us that right so can't take it away. It may only unrecognized it.

And it could be argued that it is needed more due to the standing army now being a reality.

But I do agree with you. Tyranny started in 1934. And by tyranny I mean a government which turned the other way when recognizing the rights of it's people and then giving imprisonment and fines for those that did not comply with their lack of recognition.

 

[DuneHopper]

Just wondering what the point of an armed take over would be?
Any government response would end in the government winning and the armed group losing.
Unless we are talking about a armed response / take over like the events of April 1775 ( and for the same reasons ) I do not understand the reason to do it. Why start a fight you can't win?
While there are many things wrong with how our government is running or the fact that many elected officials are out of touch with the folks who voted for them or the Constitution, I don't think an armed take over is necessary at this point in time.
Andy

Good points, its very true things are pretty bad, but not lets take over government property armed bad. If a specific female gets in the white house my fear it will spark a very bad change in America. I think the Bundy issue why extreme also shows that some that might be a tad on the right more then others are ready now for opposing in armed responses. Its with that one has to think how much farther away are moderates, pro-liberals, and conservatives. My guess is not as far away as we think. Burn was just too early and not justified. If Door To Door begins then Burns would be a tea party compared to what responses would be by the public. But for now it was ill advised and I always wondered at the core who was the dude or dudette that said go on this, as they did not look at the other-side of this at all something any tactician would do, here it looks like only a reaction was planned not what a response would be.

 

[PaulB47]

Do you have examples where we have gained liberty over the course of decades?

Homeschooling. Information (I was listening to Russia Today last night) and instantaneous communication around the world. Ability to buy gold. Gays no longer have to be in the closet. Brown people don't have to sit in the back of the bus. Military weapons are ubiquitous, reloading is easy. Lots of people carrying guns. I can go to a store in town and buy pot.

You mention CHL as if you have liberty. You miss my point altogether. CHL is not liberty, my friend. CHL is asking permission then paying for the PRIVILEGE to carry concealed.

I don't disagree. However "constitutional carry" is spreading, and just the general notion of people being armed is becoming acceptable even if it's not implemented with complete liberty. In 20 years CHLs probably will be defunct and everybody will just carry without a bureaucrat's permission.

Is it not true that our own BOR is in fact a anti-government document?

Sure, but the point I was making is that I expect people who support BOR to be called anti-government by the Ministry of Propaganda. There are no surprises there. It would be a surprise if they didn't.

Some things have gotten better, some have gotten worse (e.g. surveillance).

 

[etrain16]

Spot on !
Part of being able to successfully get our point across, is not playing into the negative stereotypes they have about our community.
It escapes me how many seem able to grasp the concept of wearing the correct camo type/colors for the season or environment they will be hunting in, yet remain oblivious to the correct type of camo to wear when hunting for public support...and for crying out loud, leave the "Mall Ninja", "psycho mass killer", "swat wannabe", costumes at home...this is serious grownup business, not some Comicon Cosplay event! These events are for raising awareness, increasing support and acceptance, educating against stereotyping, and changing minds. They're not about appearing as a threat, re-enforcing negative views of gun rights and owners, or embarrassing our political allies.

Also, we need to discourage the ones that just can't seem to get the idea that it's also not the time or place for trying to "piggyback" their other "causes". Please, leave the "psalms # signs", "political slogans" etc...at home for the appropriate event.....Keep our message clear.

As for the question of whether AR's and AK's (or any other long gun for that matter) are "appropriate"... We're all familiar with that old saying,"don't bring a knife to a gunfight"... well how's about, "don't bring a rifle to a conversation".
If you really want to educate...set up some manned display tables so the uninformed can be shown the differences and similarities between various types of long and short arms.

Like it or not, today's PR reality is "perception is everything".

I agree with all your comments. But I get hung up on the double standard that we, as gun owners, have to be held to. Just take a look at the very vocal protesters that are part of groups like Black Lives Matter, Occupy Portland (and LA, and Wall Street, etc), even the pro-marijuana groups. Between being dressed poorly much of the time and acting like idiots while using profanity, screaming and forcing their views on others, it seems their tactics earn them the support they want, and the politicians give it to them

So I'm just curious, why can they dress and behave like morons, and get their way, along with a lot of public support, but one guy with an AR walking into the capital building costs us any possible support we may get??

All I can think of is hypocrisy and double standards. And, if that truly is the case, then yes, we have little choice but to concede to those very unfair demands, if we are to gain a seat at the table.

 

[etrain16]

However "constitutional carry" is spreading, and just the general notion of people being armed is becoming acceptable even if it's not implemented with complete liberty. In 20 years CHLs probably will be defunct and everybody will just carry without a bureaucrat's permission.

I hope you're right.

 

[PaulB47]

Why start a fight you can't win?
While there are many things wrong with how our government is running or the fact that many elected officials are out of touch with the folks who voted for them or the Constitution, I don't think an armed take over is necessary at this point in time.

I also agree with this, at least for the interim. The main focus should be on attacking the legitimacy of the ruling thugs, of getting people to disobey them or to stop paying attention to them. One great example is the gun owners in New York refusing to comply with the "SAFE" act. Is that a PR disaster? Does the average Joe in New York want the gun owners strung up due to their noncompliance? I doubt it. There may be a few prohibitionists foaming at the mouth, but they can be ignored.

Where firearms should come into the picture, is in deterrence and defense. We want the rulers and their minions to understand any attempt to roll over us will come at great cost to themselves. I think they understand this - the gun sales are a clue - which is why they stick with baloney-slicing, nibbling around the edges.

Of course if war comes, then it's a different ball of wax...

 

[DuneHopper]

I agree with all your comments. But I get hung up on the double standard that we, as gun owners, have to be held to. Just take a look at the very vocal protesters that are part of groups like Black Lives Matter, Occupy Portland (and LA, and Wall Street, etc), even the pro-marijuana groups. Between being dressed poorly much of the time and acting like idiots while using profanity, screaming and forcing their views on others, it seems their tactics earn them the support they want, and the politicians give it to them

So I'm just curious, why can they dress and behave like morons, and get their way, along with a lot of public support, but one guy with an AR walking into the capital building costs us any possible support we may get??

All I can think of is hypocrisy and double standards. And, if that truly is the case, then yes, we have little choice but to concede to those very unfair demands, if we are to gain a seat at the table.

I agree Entrain, I also realize that there is a huge double standard, the only thing I can see is
we as gun owners often have allot of pride and do not find " the victim card " palatable.
The groups you mention all sell pity, and victim. Gun owners do not sell feel sorry for me
and barely sell its not fair mentality.
Its also because Oregon Lobby's ( my opinion ) sit on their arse every year and are not pro-active selling new laws to protect us. If we "NEED" protection we are then by default victimized something I have tried a million times to tell Oregon Lobbys and they ignore the freaking obvious, and keep playing there worn out shove it down their throats and they will listen mentality that ohh has worked so well the last decade ( NOT !!@!)
YES...........your chance of passing new pro-gun laws are a snow balls chance in hell right now.
But that is exactly how gay rights, and cannabis passed enough people kept telling these groups no no no, and then they were unjustifiably treated and walla instant victim and we all have to fix the victims and there ya go. Its for this reason upon others I am very hard and opinionated about Oregon lobbies, its not good enough to run around kicking and screaming, the public wants to see pain and helplessness and then they will follow you. Sadly I have said this before in many places and letters to lobbies and in a day or tow this will get buried here. But reality is victimization like sex sells.

Fact you are not helpless or a victim if you are armed, and armed in a publi building no media
or anyone will see a pro-gun group victimized with this view therefore we must be victimized in a legislation session something our Lobbies are ignorant at playing.

( P.S. Senator Thatcher even has the opportunity to play victim for gun owners and floundered like a dead fish and lost a huge opportunity in 2015 when she was shut down in session in fact she didn't even complain in her newsletters ) Its this stinkin think we need to get over we are just all in the wrong mind set to win, when the world loves victims )


DH

 

[otterpilot]

Open carry into your local GS and see the reaction of both the owners , workers and other customers.

Some don't mind but many will not allow it. Too much liability.

To the general public open carry is seen as a passive / aggressive act.
As much as I believe rank and file LE (might) be on our side in private, it makes their job more difficult to be surrounded by OC at a rally.
By all means CC as it is your right, but IMHO I think a mass number of signs stating that "I CHOOSE" to CC or OC would also get the point across without undue stress.

I also might suggest that instead of buying one more gun this year, take even half that amount and give it to your elected Rep. if he/she supports your position on the Second Amendment.
Let them know that the donation IS because of their pro Second Amendment position.
They need to know that keeping your right to "choose " is not only good for the community, its also good for their next election cycle.
Just my opinion but I agree with Joe13
Thanks guys

 

[Brutus57]

If you are legally protesting in the street, then being legally armed does not constitute an 'armed takeover'. If you break into some place, like a federal facility, occupy it, rifle through files, commandeer equipment, restrict public access, threaten to fight eviction, all the while being heavily armed, then HELL YES it's an armed takeover, as well as a huge escalation of the crimes committed by the fact of being armed.

Define heavily armed for the occupiers vs the Feds?
i didn't see anything that constituted "heavily armed" among the protesters.

Brutus Out