To avoid DT's from NWFA withdrawls, I've been spending time on some national gun forums that I've largely neglected in recent months. There is one forum which has some locals on it, including some friends of mine. One thread pointed out how we'd be looked at as kooks and crazies by 90% of the population to go against certain suggestions like universal background checks. UBC's is something I could even grudgingly get behind, so long as there was an exemption for one-gun person to person in-state transfers, or at least, FTF transfers are still allowed, you just have to call the state police for a background or something like how gunshows operate. But the bigger issue nagging me is thus - where is my line in the sand? At what point would I personally say enough is enough, and actually take up arms and start or join a resistance? Certainly it would not be over backgrounds or any of the stupid fluff nonsesne. For me, I believe it would be when they start kicking in doors in the middle of the night to confiscate guns or evil 11+ round magazines and carting the owners of said items off to prison camps. I won't be a frog in the pot that allows myself to be boiled to death. But I have a wife and a son - and I'm not batshat insane - so I wouldn't be making an armed stand against background checks, or even the renewal of the 94 ban. I have semi automatics, and I have a small supply of "high capacity" magazines to feed them with. I don't think we would see a national New York style ban with no grandfathering clause. That'd be enough to boot the dems right back out of power - and honestly, I don't think Harry Reid would allow legislation to go through right now that would threaten his Democrat power base in another year. Reid remembers 1996 all to well. I don't think, even, that national registration would be enough to stand up and shoulder my rifle over. I'm not saying I would necessarily comply with such a law or not - that's a decision all gun owners would have to make on their own - but it's not worth starting a shooting war over that would likely end badly. We can all beat our chests and say "not one more inch" - but they will take that inch, and then a foot, and then ten feet if they want. But to start shooting people and starting a civil war or armed rebellion over the crap that The (not) Chosen One outlined on Wednesday is a bad idea and would serve to only make gun owners look like murderous monkeys that shouldn't be trusted with guns. We need to fight all the battles we can in the courts before we start fighting them in the streets. If the Supreme Court handed down an edict that says banning certain military style weapons was OK with them - that might be enough. Corruption is not something even the high justices are exempt from. A 5-4 decision toward banning certain guns is a likely possibility if Obama is allowed to put anymore justices on the court. The only other thing I can think of - is that our own revolution and civil wars were something of oddities - what came from them were far better than what they started from overall. I don't think that the US would survive and be reborn in the image of her former glorious self. We would be a fractured set of nations much like the former USSR. Some would be far freer than others, and it would be decades before the blood of the warriors and saboteurs cooled. It would be a very bad thing, in other words. I don't cherish the thought of dying and leaving my boy and wife to fend for themselves, or to have another step into my place as father and husband. I also don't cherish the thought of our nation taking the final plunge into a tyrannical state like Venezuela, Argentina, Nazi Germay, Cuba, etc. I wonder what others thoughts on this are - where is your line in the sand? Do you go all James Yeager and say "not one damn more thing" - or do you wait until things are really bad? Or will you try to keep your head down and live in whatever country we wind up becoming, revolution or not?