JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
And you don't think it would immediately be more expensive than it is worth if people started rising up against government infringement?

That's the main reason it would be so expensive. Even a tiny tiny percentage of gun owners firing back out their front windows would cause a huge wrench to be thrown in the entire system. Combine that with all of us that would put up massive non-violent resistance, and the entire notion is unthinkably costly, as you stated.
 
It would, however, have to start.

And since it's already happened, since the government has already seized weapons from a private citizen who purchased them legally, I don't believe any of you when you talk about armed resistance.

Because, well, you didn't do anything except post.

Don't get me wrong-- Bob D is absolutely right, this has to be won in other ways. Armed resistance will merely get us killed. But from now on, babbling about "molan labe", armed resistance, or attacking the government will merely rate rolled eyes from me, because I'll know that it's mere posing and chest beating. It's tin-foil hat talk.

It won't work, and no one here will do it. The government has demonstrated that it can take arms from citizens under color of law without resistance. My point is not whether or not that is wrong, my point is Bob D's point-- that armed resistance will get you killed, and political action will (and is) accomplish(ing) our goals.

Do carry on. There will now be a wailing and gnashing of teeth from the posers.
 
levity.jpg

thought I'd insert a bit of levity into the discussion...

levity.jpg
 
While I tend to agree with Bob that it will hopefully go down as a fight on paper, and I understand what Jammer Six is saying, there are other factors at play here that were mentioned by the likes of Salted Weapon and Blitz.

Jammer's comment "They took people's guns and you did nothing"
Blitzkrieg's reply "Timing is 90% of the fight"

are both correct.

First, it happened in California, where we are already accustomed to hearing about oppression and gun (owner) hate.

If we were going to rise up against the machine every time human liberty, freedom and sanity is thrown out the window we'd already be in like... the 17th American Revolution.

I don't have the stamina to get pi$$ed every time California poops on it's citizens.

Right now, the police politely knocked on some doors in Cali, asked to be let in, walked away if they were refused entry without a warrant.

This is not the "They're comin' fer the gunz!" showdown people are bracing for. This was Californians not knowing enough to say no to the police.

Even WITH that polite a ream job... the fellas doing the knocking on doors are VERY nervous, and VERY stressed about the danger they are putting themselves in.

I wouldn't forsee a lot of showdowns there. I wouldn't even foresee a lot here, until they escalate things. Until they start bashing in doors, ignoring people's right to say no.

If they continued, and expanded on their efforts, you will see a powder keg lit off by an event somewhere, then the atmosphere would change.

I really pray this wave of sanity that appears to be currently flowing through Congress continues, and that we see this issue backed off...
 
That's a pretty good evaluation of the situation as it stands, Jack.

I think when that powder keg goes off though, it's going to be anticlimactic for a lot of people here. I predict that one good firefight over gun confiscation will kick everyone's asses into gear to avoid the hell out of any more.

Even Diane Feinstein doesn't want shootouts in residential neighborhoods.

There's a lot of culture that they'd have to change to even get it passed without riots.

As I said before, If it gets to the point where armed resistance is necessary, everyone loses.

This paragraph:
If we were going to rise up against the machine every time human liberty, freedom and sanity is thrown out the window we'd already be in like... the 17th American Revolution.
is my favorite thing I've read today. :)
 
From Bob D's earlier post:

95% of those who say they'll fight are completely full of bubblecrap. 99% of the rest would realize the absolute futility of fighting when there are armed agents on their porch and armored vehicles in their driveway.-----Assumption.

The few who are left would be taken, alive or dead, within seconds of the first shot being fired.----Assumption.

Armed resistance to individual confiscation is a ridiculous notion. -----Opinion.

We need to win this fight in the voting booth, on the floor of congress, and in the courts, or it's lost.--------Opinion.

There is no way to even challenge the established government without getting at least one branch of the military to help.------Just plain ignorant.

The human cost of such a war wouldn't be even close to worth it. -----Opinion.

The paper war has much higher chances of success, and it's one I'll fight to the bitter end.----Opinion.


Bob D, in the unlikely event you hit bottom with the assumptions and opinions maybe you can tell the crowd what the purpose of the 2A is exactly, that is if the original intention is now moot. Guess we don't really need it anymore. If you reply, maybe shake things up and throw in a fact or or two, just an idea. But hey no reason to start now, right?
 
My opinion is that 99% of the things written on this forum, or any other forum for that matter, are opinion.

Which is, I guess the interesting thing, cause opinions are like, , everybody has one. But as long as we are talking about this stuff, people are thinking about it, and that's a good thing.

If you believe that nothing is going to happen in this country you are very foolish and need to take off your blinders.

Will it come to violence? Who knows, I hope not. But even Rome fell, and that was a republic that became corrupted by greedy rulers as well.

I'm not a Democrat or a Republican. I am an American, and a Veteran at that. We need to talk about this stuff, and absorb what people are saying. No reason to bash people, It's getting pretty old to see this over and over. I get it, we don't agree on everything, cool, drink water, suck it up, and move on.

bubbleguming at each other wont solve any damn thing.
 
Jose Guerena shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Should this have been a "Crispus Attucks" moment; wasn't it?

The actions/in-actions leading up to and following this event may or may not be subjective to this ambiguous audience....

The wisdom (Jurisprudence) behind this former Marine being left to bleed-out isn't much different than a hellfire being launched on an American; suspected of waging war on the US; it amounts to murder IMO!

Meanwhile, the State of Washington was in the embryo-stage of legalizing marijuana.

In a country where water-boarding is "bad" and leaving an American "suspect" to bleed-out is OK; who can begin to predict who will or will not stand and fight?

Our Founding Fathers evidently swore on their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to support and defend the constitution; without the benefit (that many of us enjoy) of screen-names or other ambiguities.

Fighting does not necessarily mean kinetic energy; there are other forms of resistance that do not violate the standing constitution, and those battles are being fought bravely in many cases.

For anyone to think that all sides of the Liberty-equation have not learned a great deal from the preceding centuries of American life; would at best be myopic in their views.
 
Last Edited:
Should this have been a "Crispus Attucks" moment; wasn't it?
I don't know what that means. I've tried to parse it a couple times.

There is no chance that you will convince some of the people posting to this thread, that means that there is no point in reasoning with them.

Most of them can be identified by black-and-white thinking, screams of "molan labe" and boasts of what they would have done if they had been there.

Since there is no chance that they will understand some of the more subtle points in these matters, let alone agree with them, and since A) there is no chance I'll do anything but laugh at them, and B) they are a tiny minority in the voting public, the appropriate approach to this discussion is as entertainment, with a good supply of popcorn.

This is, overall, a good thing, because if anyone ever took the chest-beaters seriously, we would all be disarmed overnight.

By definition, a human right is a right that cannot be removed.

That means that there are almost no human rights.

But I digress.
 
From Bob D's earlier post:

95% of those who say they'll fight are completely full of bubblecrap. 99% of the rest would realize the absolute futility of fighting when there are armed agents on their porch and armored vehicles in their driveway.-----Assumption.

The few who are left would be taken, alive or dead, within seconds of the first shot being fired.----Assumption.

Armed resistance to individual confiscation is a ridiculous notion. -----Opinion.

We need to win this fight in the voting booth, on the floor of congress, and in the courts, or it's lost.--------Opinion.

There is no way to even challenge the established government without getting at least one branch of the military to help.------Just plain ignorant.

The human cost of such a war wouldn't be even close to worth it. -----Opinion.

The paper war has much higher chances of success, and it's one I'll fight to the bitter end.----Opinion.
I'll agree with all of that except the ignorant part... :) That one's just an opinion as well. That doesn't bother me, what I'm doing is expressing my opinion. It's an opinion based on my speculation based on what I know of people and the facts.


Bob D, in the unlikely event you hit bottom with the assumptions and opinions maybe you can tell the crowd what the purpose of the 2A is exactly, that is if the original intention is now moot. Guess we don't really need it anymore. If you reply, maybe shake things up and throw in a fact or or two, just an idea. But hey no reason to start now, right?
I've included quite a few facts. Mostly concerning the very different challenges that existed for the American Colonies in the 1770s and the ones we have today. Do I need to cite my sources? I feel like I backed up my "There is no way to even challenge the established government without getting at least one branch of the military to help" point better than any of the rest, and it's the one you called ignorant.

I believe it 100%. You don't have IFR, you don't have pinpoint-accurate GPS guided tactical missiles. Hell, you don't even have GPS at ALL if the governing forces decide they don't want you to. "Heading for the hills" will do you no good. Now some opinion: A violent rebellion would be a bloodbath, and all the politicians know that would be terrible for them. That's about the only leverage on the side of the citizens. With or without guns, we can't win.
 
"Heading for the hills" will do you no good. Now some opinion: A violent rebellion would be a bloodbath, and all the politicians know that would be terrible for them. That's about the only leverage on the side of the citizens. With or without guns, we can't win.

The thought that as a group, the US citizens are (and/or will be) unable to wrest control from a tyrannical government is a terrible one. I have thought that this might be true since I was in my mid 20's. I like to re-acquaint myself with the founder's writings occasionally, and quite honestly, they inspire me... the words make me realize that some of those fellows really gave the deepest thought to how and why government works, and additionally understood human nature better than I do.

I agree that our BEST (and most likely to succeed) path is to as a group show the middle-of-the-road people who have been raised to be fearful of guns that there is something much, much worse than the occasional madman. A single madman can have an explosion of violence and destroy a group of lives, while a tyrannical and all-powerful government would completely change the face and character of our lives.

I will illustrate. For now, we still have the ability to say "No, not without a warrant" when the police knock on a citizen's door. It was pointed out that the police still ARE concerned for their safety when they do those door knocks, but in truth, if they come to the door under "color of law" they have almost nothing to fear except a review of their actions months or years down the road. When they come with a warrant (worthy or not) they generally come in such great numbers and in such overwhelming force that BobD and others are correct in their presumption that there is no chance for the US citizen to adequately defend himself, family and property. It simply cannot be done.

The times during which they have tried, the government has demonstrated that IT has no morals. The government is not a person. It is a GROUP, and suffers from group-think. The pressures to complete the job, apprehend the bad guy(s), keep other citizens safe, look good in the job for both senior and junior workmates, amuse their friends, secure their own position in life and many other factors compel the individual man to do and say things that are contrary to other peoples' liberty at times.
Look to Ruby Ridge, and the stiff-backed fellow who dared to resist a stupid and arbitrary law which declared him to be dangerous to his fellow citizens because SOMEONE, some TIME, shortened a handy tool by 1/4" too much.

Our government MURDERED Samuel Weaver, and likely committed manslaughter with the death of Vicky Weaver, and then the very worst of their crimes occurred.

They (IT) did not confess to its crimes. The government, instead of reviewing its own laws and its own actions, continued to vilify a man for an action that he likely didn't even commit. And most importantly, for an action that shouldn't be a crime. (More on this in another thread. If the law and juries were applied properly, Randy Weaver would have had nothing to fear, because unjust laws should be judged at the same time that a citizen is being tried by a jury.)

Officers of the US Government, our employees, hired by us to protect our rights, killed two COMPLETELY innocent people, and then broadcast through loudspeakers insanely offensive and hurtful things while the family of Vicky Weaver grieved next to her dead body.

When I have written about standing up for rights, I did so because I believe in the principles as described in the pithy quotes and lengthy papers that have survived from those who had a part in the writing of our Constitution and Bill of Rights. I am not a Samson of strength and courage. I do not want to get in a fistfight or a gunfight with a superior force. I do not want to lose my life or my liberty.

Neither do I want to pass on, leaving my children and grandchildren on a path to totalitarianism.

The government is made up of men and women who grew up like we did. At some point a job opportunity or career path opened up that looked like it would lead to a comfortable life or that would satisfy their ambitions for self-worth. Some are bullies, some are saints. (Kind of like in "real life", yes?)

I hope that with time and our combined voices, the sleeping citizens will awake to the danger of an all-powerful government and a weakened and unarmed citizenry. I could say, a weak and unarmed population, for what is citizenship worth if our voices are silenced?
 
I don't know what that means. I've tried to parse it a couple times.
There is no chance that you will convince some of the people posting to this thread, that means that there is no point in reasoning with them.
Most of them can be identified by black-and-white thinking, screams of "molan labe" and boasts of what they would have done if they had been there.
Since there is no chance that they will understand some of the more subtle points in these matters, let alone agree with them, and since A) there is no chance I'll do anything but laugh at them, and B) they are a tiny minority in the voting public, the appropriate approach to this discussion is as entertainment, with a good supply of popcorn.
This is, overall, a good thing, because if anyone ever took the chest-beaters seriously, we would all be disarmed overnight.
By definition, a human right is a right that cannot be removed.
That means that there are almost no human rights.
But I digress.

I put Jammer Six on Ignore pretty soon after joining this site... He is the first and so far only person who I put on that list.
I had regrets about it, becuase he's not stupid- and some of his points are quite valid.

But I finally put him on ignore for awhile because I didn't feel that he was being a constructive and helpful contributor to the conversation, and some of his comments made me mad. Not raging mad, but I don't like being insulted, and I don't like mean-spirited insults against other people either.

It's funny, because I think I'd actually like him in real life. Sardonic humor, cutting straight to the point even if it hurts, completely unconcerned about people attacking him... I like.

I don't talk the same way that I write in real life.
When I sit here at the computer, I do have time to think things through, and in this thread I am talking about things that I feel are fantastically important, i.e., the right to keep and bear arms.

In real life I don't pontificate about rights and wrongs and Molon Labe and founding fathers... Well, sometimes I get into some good discussions like that with friends, but it's always with some laughs, some friendly insults, some wrong statements.

(Actually, I do go out of my way to remind officers of the law and government employees of the importance of doing what is RIGHT rather than following orders whenever I am in a position to do so. I do so politely, but with conviction and gravity. )

The reason that I initially put Jammer Six on ignore was because he intentionally says hurtful and insulting things to people who, as far as I can tell, are expressing their opinions and hopes and experiences.
A few days ago I took him off ignore and re-read this thread, hoping to catch up all at once, knowing that there would be some very good points in his posts. I was not disappointed in that regard.
However, the insulting manner is a disappointment, even when it contains very good points.

Here is an example of a great point: "By definition, a human right is a right that cannot be removed. That means there are almost no human rights."

Actually, that depends on the definition of a right...

If a right is something that a person SHOULD be allowed in a moral and just world, then there are several human rights.
If we go with Jammer Six's definition, then there are almost no rights. There would only be very limited "thought rights", and they would be fleeting and indefensible.

For sake of discussion and to maintain a fruitful life, and to try to build a better life for the future generations, I vote for the more encompassing definition. But I agree with Jammer Six that almost all "rights" can be taken away.

Any time there is a difference of opinion, it can lead to a lively discussion. As long as I have the conviction of my beliefs, I will try to reason with people even if they disagree with me. Well, I might not actually ever expect or even hope to change their minds, but I don't see the harm in having the discussion. There may be SOME anti-2A (or fence-sitters) who may get something from the discussion.

Maybe I had Jammer Six on ignore because some of his points hit close to home...

I don't like to think that I may not defend myself, my family and my country against tyranny when I am staring it in the face.

I will try.
 

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top