Whatch gonna do when they come for you?

[dario541]

Those who think that American troops and Law Enforcement officers won't fire on Americans need to remember: During the 1930's General McArthur leading troops against the WW1 veterans who marched into Washington, DC demanding their promised bonuses. Also look at Waco and Ruby Ridge. I think you will probably see more and more of this type of activity as the nation rots away.

 

[Gunner3456]

The Jews surrendered their guns to Hitler.

 

[Sasquatchvnv]

And having property confiscated is not one of them. If anyone thinks it is I would say that person has never actually faced death.

And that's why our children will be slaves.

 

[MikeE]

Alan Furst writes some great thrillers about WW2 resistance, especially in the period leading up to the war and the early years when the nazis were winning. His themes are about ordinary people making decisions to resist. Highly recommended. His book Red Gold is especially excellent - about occupied France and how the various factions of the resistance try to get armed up.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

And that's why our children will be slaves.

No, our children will be fools if they think the only way to insure freedom is through violence.

If you are singled out by the government for removal of your firearms there is likely a reason...and fighting back violently will only make the public believe that reason is valid. In such a case you would need to fight back in a way that evokes sympathy from the public...not in a way that frightens them or you play into the hands of the people taking your guns.

In the case of an outright ban on firearms by popular vote of the people then you would have the option of leaving the country. You do not have the moral authority to decide you know better and try to violently overthrow the will of the masses.

In the case of a rogue government that works against the people and public opinion is against the government is the only time people can rally and fight with any chance of victory. Even in this case fighting back as a lone defender of your home against a government incursion is foolishness and poor battle planning. You would just be sacrificing yourself and removing a fighter from the arena. A martyr would serve no purpose in an environment where the battle lines are already drawn. You would be much wiser to cooperate and turn over whatever weapons they are able to find. This isn't the movies where acting tough in the face of overwhelming odds gets you anything but killed...and probably your family killed too. You survive, regroup, coordinate, and act at another time.

 

[Gunner3456]

You do not have the moral authority to decide you know better and try to violently overthrow the will of the masses.

Yes I do and it's called the Constitution. It's there specifically to protect me from the will of the masses. Period.

PP, all down through history people have decided that some things are worth dying for. ("I know not what course others may take, but for me, give me liberty or give me death." - Patrick Henry, a distant relative of mine. My mother's maiden name was Henry.) Then there's the "shot heard 'round the world."

The framers of our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution knew full well they might be executed for it. "We must hang together, gentlemen...else, we shall most assuredly hang separately." - Benjamin Franklin.

As I said, the Jews gave up their guns to Hitler, and found themselves defenseless when he turned on them. If I die and take two or three with me, we are winning by attrition.

 

[Sasquatchvnv]

"And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward."
— Aleksandr Solzhenits

None of us are wishing for violence - a few of us are aware of history, and the end result of a disarmed populace, It cannot be allowed. As soon as you come up with a way to convince me that mass slaughter does not follow dis-armament, I'll be right there with you. I have no desire to die - but I will not be going quietly into the long dark night...

 

[titsonritz]

If the government ever made a concentrated effort to come and collect my firearms for some reason I know what I would do...I would surrender them. You are NOT going to win such a standoff. Your choices are surrender or die trying (no matter how grand your Rambo-esque delusions). Since I have a family to think of I will be surrendering.

So would you do the same in a home invasion? What's the difference?
Why not just give them to me instead, I'll put them to good use.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

Yes I do and it's called the Constitution. It's there specifically to protect me from the will of the masses. Period.

PP, all down through history people have decided that some things are worth dying for. ("I know not what course others may take, but for me, give me liberty or give me death." - Patrick Henry, a distant relative of mine. My mother's maiden name was Henry.) Then there's the "shot heard 'round the world."

The framers of our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution knew full well they might be executed for it. "We must hang together, gentlemen...else, we shall most assuredly hang separately." - Benjamin Franklin.

As I said, the Jews gave up their guns to Hitler, and found themselves defenseless when he turned on them. If I die and take two or three with me, we are winning by attrition.

And if you understood history you would know the founders did not stand up in face of the enemy and declare hostilities. They worked behind closed doors, they released false information, the had agents give the appearance of cooperation when questioned, and so on. Many founders where taken for questioning before signing the declaration and they did not fight back at that time. They were wise enough to know they had more important parts to play than worthless martyr. They did not stand in the center of the town square surrounded by British troops and cry for freedom or attack with swords. That is the only reason they succeeded. I know some people fancy themselves modern day freedom fighters but in most cases they are just delusional. The fact that some people even sit around hoping something like this does happen so they can prove their mettle is proof of their instability.

As for the constitution, it is an amendable document. In fact the 2A is itself proof af that. Anything that can be added can be removed...so placing all your hopes in a living document is not going to win you much. If the masses decide to amend it then you are indeed the criminal if you oppose it violently.

 

[titsonritz]

Those who think that American troops and Law Enforcement officers won't fire on Americans need to remember: During the 1930's General McArthur leading troops against the WW1 veterans who marched into Washington, DC demanding their promised bonuses. Also look at Waco and Ruby Ridge. I think you will probably see more and more of this type of activity as the nation rots away.

Don't have to go that far back, look at the Katrina aftermath. At least that sort of a happy ending:
Five convicted in New Orleans police shootings case - latimes.com

 

[Redcap]

If the government ever made a concentrated effort to come and collect my firearms for some reason I know what I would do...I would surrender them. You are NOT going to win such a standoff. Your choices are surrender or die trying (no matter how grand your Rambo-esque delusions). Since I have a family to think of I will be surrendering.

I would rather die fighting for what I believe in than live as a coward. Obviously, you don't feel the same way.

 

[Gunner3456]

And if you understood history you would know the founders did not stand up in face of the enemy and declare hostilities.

They didn't give up their guns or their right to fight and kill the powers that be, either. Many of them involved themselves in the Revolutionary war.

As for the constitution, it is an amendable document. In fact the 2A is itself proof af that. Anything that can be added can be removed...so placing all your hopes in a living document is not going to win you much. If the masses decide to amend it then you are indeed the criminal if you oppose it violently.

If the Supreme Court decides 2A isn't what it has been proven to be in court cases (which are law) for more than 200 years, and what the founders said it was in their private writings, then I'll consider the SC's decision treason. Remember, it hasn't been that long that the SC ruled against DC's ban on gun ownership, citing 2A.

As for amending the Constitution to remove 2A, it would take a vote of 70 of our 100 senators to start it, followed by ratification by 3/4 of our states. Ain't gonna happen any time soon.

No, the only move to take our guns would be a treasonous power grab by a rogue government.

 

[titsonritz]

As for amending the Constitution to remove 2A, it would take a vote of 70 of our 100 senators to start it, followed by ratification by 3/4 of our states. Ain't gonna happen any time soon.

In theory but not necessarily in practice. Read up on the passage of the Sixteenth Amendment. Snakes.

 

[Trlsmn]

No, our children will be fools if they think the only way to insure freedom is through violence.

If you are singled out by the government for removal of your firearms there is likely a reason...and fighting back violently will only make the public believe that reason is valid. In such a case you would need to fight back in a way that evokes sympathy from the public...not in a way that frightens them or you play into the hands of the people taking your guns.

In the case of an outright ban on firearms by popular vote of the people then you would have the option of leaving the country. You do not have the moral authority to decide you know better and try to violently overthrow the will of the masses.

In the case of a rogue government that works against the people and public opinion is against the government is the only time people can rally and fight with any chance of victory. Even in this case fighting back as a lone defender of your home against a government incursion is foolishness and poor battle planning. You would just be sacrificing yourself and removing a fighter from the arena. A martyr would serve no purpose in an environment where the battle lines are already drawn. You would be much wiser to cooperate and turn over whatever weapons they are able to find. This isn't the movies where acting tough in the face of overwhelming odds gets you anything but killed...and probably your family killed too. You survive, regroup, coordinate, and act at another time.

Sorry but I will go down fighting and if I die so be it. It's better to live one day as a man than to live your natural life as a pathetic slave. You mention your kids, I would kill or die today for my kids. That isn't talking tough, that is doing what is right in the face of what is wrong.

You can feel free to crawl around on your knees, it won't help your children one bit, in fact it will hurt them in the long run.

 

[Gunner3456]

In theory but not necessarily in practice. Read up on the Sixteenth Amendment. Snakes.

I don't get your point. That amendment gave the feds the right to levy income taxes. For the life of me, I can't see why the states agreed to it.

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

 

[titsonritz]

I don't get your point. That amendment gave the feds the right to levy income taxes. For the life of me, I can't see why the states agreed to it.

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

That IS my point, I should have said "Read up on the passage of the Sixteenth Amendment." Fixed.

 

[Gunner3456]

That IS my point, I should have said "Read up on the passage of the Sixteenth Amendment." Fixed.

Are you saying that it didn't follow the law, be passed by the required senators and then ratified by 3/4 of the states? Do you have a credible link to that, or whatever you're alluding to but not saying?

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

Sorry but I will go down fighting and if I die so be it. It's better to live one day as a man than to live your natural life as a pathetic slave. You mention your kids, I would kill or die today for my kids. That isn't talking tough, that is doing what is right in the face of what is wrong.

You can feel free to crawl around on your knees, it won't help your children one bit, in fact it will hurt them in the long run.

Thankfully our freedom and safety will not depend on the machismo tainted thought processes of persons who would make such a tactically poor decision.

In reality though, the vast majority of people who say this have no idea what they would do when really facing death. The whole notion of the hero standing firm against torture and other such grand notions are the things of fiction.

 

[dmancornell]

Thankfully our freedom and safety will not depend on the machismo tainted thought processes of persons who would make such a tactically poor decision.

In reality though, the vast majority of people who say this have no idea what they would do when really facing death. The whole notion of the hero standing firm against torture and other such grand notions are the things of fiction.

What safety and freedom? The fascist police state is the current reality.

The current regime has demonstrated a complete disdain for the Constitution and your natural rights. When the ATF no-knock raids your home, it's not about your guns, it's a demonstration of the supremacy of state power, and your proper place as a peon.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

What safety and freedom? The fascist police state is the current reality.

The current regime has demonstrated a complete disdain for the Constitution and your natural rights. When the ATF no-knock raids your home, it's not about your guns, it's a demonstration of the supremacy of state power, and your proper place as a peon.

I am afraid we don't share the same extremist views.