When they come for your guns - what will you do?

Status
Not open for further replies.
NIGHTWATCH: What meds are you on dischord. Tell us, maybe we can help.
Your insults do not change the fact that you said you would murder thousands of people in a suicidal blaze of (non)glory. You said it -- it's there in black on grey in page 2 of this thread -- and you cannot deny it. :rolleyes:
 
And WildAlaska, you are blessed to be in a part of the nation that believes in freedom. Stop talking about tyranny. Because you dont know what it is like to live here and try to have a RKBA and remain hopeful.

Dude I spent 20 years in NYC and NYS. I joined the NRA. I worked on political campaigns. I got involved. I wrote letters to the editor. I tried at all times to be calm, rational and non threatening. I fought bigotry with reasonableness. I didnt just chest thump on the net.


In that regard, what some criticize as "chest thumping", may very well serve as a sobering pause to prosepective confiscators (before the fact), and in itself may PREVENT the action from taking place.

Oh yeah thats just so...so...convincing to the vast majority of undecided people in this nation who could give a flying f**k about AR15s and the nuances of firearms...I can just see the screaming screaming headlines...

"Intenet Gun Looneys Threaten To Assasinate Political Figures If...(insert imagined horrible event here)"

I mean for petes sake ya got high school kids on this Board who cant in a even vote or own a gun following this murderous trend by screeching "cojme and get them" when they shopuld be doing constructive like putting up politcal signs...

Yep just we need on the High Road.....

And the rest of you in "Occupied TRerritories"...when did ya last do something? How bout you Nightwatch, living there in NY, callin other cowards, get started. Ya a memeber of the NY Republican or Conserbvative Parties.?You give em cash?. You work to get out the vote? You help draft position papers? You organizing grass roots? You getting involved as a reasonable gun owner?

Should I suppose that Wildalaska actually believes there are some "gun control" laws that are unconstitutional?

Absolutely..Ive said that before yes?


WildrantoffAlaska
 
Will you two chill the frell out before this thread gets closed! If ya wanna bicker and argue via personal attacks, take it to PM please.
I have not made any personal attacks -- I simply have criticized someone who advocated murder and terrorism.

If this thread gets shut down, I have zero blame.

And sorry, when someone advocates murder and terrorism in public, I'm going to criticize it in public, not PM.
 
Good advice for the kids Sindawe
Yeah, it was wrong of me to ruthlessly criticize someone for advocating murder and terrorism. How very immature of me. If I were more of an adult, I would have tolerated fantasies about blowing oneself to bits and taking out thousands of other people. When, oh, when, will I grow up and learn to smile politely at people who advocate murder and terrorism. :rolleyes:
 
wa posted...
...(insert imagined horrible event here)"

Interesting...to restate the plausible premise for this thread:
It is July 2005. Komrad Kerry is President. They have just passed AWB II. All military style semi autos (ARs, AK, Garands, FALs, ect...) have been banned. You refused to turn yours in at the deadline. They are now going through DOJ records and siezing illegal weapons nationwide.
While I'll concede that the premise is horrible, how can one call it imagined? Sounds exactly what Kerry is likely to do if he was elected, and had a majority congress. Please fill us in with Kerry's position statements (& Feinstein, Schumer, Kennedy...likely cabinet members and/or supreme court nominees, if Kerry were elected) that would convince a "fence sitter" that a Kerry/Edwards administration wouldn't start wholesale confiscation? As I recall, Kerry/Edwards, who have been absent congress for 1-2 years, saw fit to jet back to DC solely to vote on AWB amendment, is a pretty good indication where they're coming from, wrt RKBA!!


Maybe you're implying that Kerry winning the election is out of the question (and thus an imagined event)? I'd say its a toss-up at this point! I'm really searching here, as to what would prompt such an obviously unsupportable statement.
 
hammer4nc: Sounds exactly what Kerry is likely to do if he was elected, and had a majority congress.
I have no doubt that he would if he could. That's why I want us RKBA-advocates to stop the chest thumping and start doing more to stop it from occuring.

The sad fact is that when it comes to the point where we'd be justified to react violently, we will be beyond losing. Any suicidal blaze of glory will fix nothing, the salved-ego of the "patriot" notwithstanding. :(

Anyone thinks their final act would be anything more than "suicide-by-JBT" had better think again.
 
Here's the suggested (more acceptable) screaming headline:

Disarmed former gun owners threaten to march, and post political signs whining about lost gun rights...

(Kinda describes things in the UK present day, eh? See how much respect they're getting?):neener:
 
Disarmed former gun owners threaten to march, and post political signs whining about lost gun rights...
Most gun owners (including many of the current chest thumpers) will not march before or after, so don't count on them for support in whatever violence might occur -- like I said: meaningless suicide-by-JBT.

And BTW, I suspect that 999 out of 1,000 chest thumpers would roll over when push comes to shove.
 
I just provided a link to Patrick Henry and made a personal statement as to how I would personally deal with being placed in a Gas Chamber. Then people infer that maybe I just chest thump do nothing for RKBA. Well lets see how I stack up. I have given thousands over the years to the NRA the CRAPA (yes that’s California). I wrote my congressmen representatives anyone who would listen. I have letters on this desk from MD congressmen. Became an NRA instructor and will take the time to train anyone who wants to know about firearms. In California we failed so I am making a stand here. If this state becomes like California, NJ then I will move from here. One other thing. I have on my wall a group of medals with the VSM awarded 5 times. I didn't receive that because I was afraid to die. Sometimes living is harder than dying. I spent over two and a half years there and I believe in the same Constitution today and oath of allegiance that I gave at my induction when I was 17 years old. The president takes a similar oath when he assumes office. I don't need to defend or justify to anyone what these words mean to me, and personally I don't care what the words mean to anyone else. I think this thread got out of control because people fail to respect other points of view. We live in a land that is relatively free and rapidly moving into a police state. Osama Bin Laden said at numerous times that he would destroy freedom in America that is part of his full spectrum warfare with the west. Maybe he will be successful maybe not. A Hypothetical question was posed about confiscation of civilian firearms. I can only assume that would also entail the suspension of the rest of the Bill of rights. If no one has noticed a lot of them have been eroded lately. Check message boards elsewhere.

By the way I don't give thousands anymore. I'm married and don't think you know me.

Presidential Oath of office.
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.
 
molonlabe: made a personal statement as to how I would personally deal with being placed in a Gas Chamber.
I see. So your statements had nothing to do with what you would do in the face of draconian gun laws. What was the point of making it then?
molonlabe: Then people infer that maybe I just chest thump do nothing for RKBA.
No, I observed that your claims about violent action sounds rather hollow when you currently peacefully endure some of the most draconian gun laws in the nation -- but apparently you were not saying you would react violently to confiscation, but were limiting your bravado to the off-topic point of gas chambers.

I'm happy that you have done your share in the peaceful part of gun rights -- but I never suggested or claimed that you hadn't done that. I simply questioned your violent bravado (that apparently had nothing to do with the topic of gun confiscation).

And, hey I guess we're in agreement. I'd react violently to someone who tried to put me in the gas chamber too. But what's that have to do with what either of us would do against attempts to confiscate guns?
molonlabe: A Hypothetical question was posed about confiscation of civilian firearms.
Right. Thus I interpreted your statement about violence and biting noses to have something to do with that question. But now you suggest you were not speaking of confiscation, but the off topic point of gas chambers.
 
Just tell them that they need to double check the records or you could try "these arent the guns your looking for..those guns went off in that direction" ;)
 
Should Mr. Kerry or Mr. Bush (or some other Republican president if Mr. Bush is prevented from running) sign a federal law making illegal a large class of currently legal firearms, there would be widespread unintended consequences. I hope that I would cause some of them, but if I did chicken out, I'd certainly applaud every time I heard about one.
 
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Should I suppose that Wildalaska actually believes there are some "gun control" laws that are unconstitutional?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Absolutely..Ive said that before yes?

Actually, I remember you stating:
My point is the law is constituional till a court says it aint. Thats what a system of justice and rule of law is about.
According to you, no current "gun control" law can be unconstitutional.
 
Back to the original question. Good debate by the way.

I would definitely hermetically seal and bury the specific now-illegal firearms in the ground, not that I currently own any that would be considered an assault weapon by modern standards.

"quietly disobey"

There is only so much you can do to sway the general ideal the stereotypical "soccer mom". I have debates with hyper-liberal snotnose engineers daily. Fortunately, in NM I have a lot of help in that regard as there are quite a few of us conservative, gun loving, hard working types to keep the kids in line... :D We even have a few resident FFL's who "run guns" on the side.

Anyway, as others have said or orated, the fiery descending handbasket continues to drop...:banghead:
 
Michigan

According to you, no current "gun control" law can be unconstitutional.

Until a court rules that it is unconstituional, it is the law of the land..

That does not mean my beleif may not differ..

WildseethedifferenceAlaska
 
Until a court rules that it is unconstituional, it is the law of the land..

That does not mean my beleif may not differ..
So the whole principle of an unconstitutional law being null and void upon it's creation is a fallacy to you?

Also, this means that a corrupt SCOTUS could "legally" render the Constitution irrelivant and that's that. What would be legal and/or lawful recourse in such a situation? After all, what Court could we appeal to? We most certainly could not appeal to the public, we the people, for we are not worthy to determine what our Constitution means.

Do I understand your view correctly?
 
Until a court rules that it is unconstituional, it is the law of the land..

Actually, if a law is unconstitutional, it is void:

http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/9.htm (Marbury v. Madison)

Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.
 
So the whole principle of an unconstitutional law being null and void upon it's creation is a fallacy to you?

Nope thats a well recognized legal principle that a court decides...

Also, this means that a corrupt SCOTUS could "legally" render the Constitution irrelivant and that's that.

Golly we back to that thread again :)


As for Molonlabe

I just provided a link to Patrick Henry and made a personal statement as to how I would personally deal with being placed in a Gas Chamber.

No, you insulted the memories of millions of MURDERED people incvluding my relatives who you say DESERVED to die and you dont have the guts to retract your statement and apologize. Your petty chest thumping while laughing on the gravers of the dead is really and truly pissing me off ...Im out of here before I tell ya exactly what I think of you.

WildlaterboysAlaska
 
Wildalaska, I will try again...

Also, this means that a corrupt SCOTUS could "legally" render the Constitution irrelivant and that's that. What would be legal and/or lawful recourse in such a situation? After all, what Court could we appeal to? We most certainly could not appeal to the public, we the people, for we are not worthy to determine what our Constitution means.

Do I understand your view correctly?
 
Is the Supreme Court the final authority for all federal court cases and interpretation of all federal laws? Yes.

Is the Supreme Court the final arbiter on political disputes about the constitutionality of a law. ABSOLUTELY NOT! NO! NEVER! Nothing in the Constitution forbids political dissent or political activism against a Supreme Court opinion declaring a law constitutional or not. Nothing forbids Congress from going to political war with the Supremes if the black robes go too far into the poitical arena (indeed we see just this happening in nominations through the Senate). Indeed there is nothing preventing Congress from adding fifty new justices to the court, as FDR tried to do. It would be perfectly legal and constitutional. Congress could also cut the funds for everyone except the Chief Justice--the only judicial officer mandated by Article III. And of course Congress and the states can pass new Amendments to quash court decisions.

The Supreme Court is still just a court of appeals. It simply hears select appeals on certain cases. That's all it does. So if they come out with a stupid ruling that gets the law wrong, none of us have to agree with them. We may be stuck with their ruling in certain judicial cases, but that's the extent of their authority. Indeed we can cooperate to reverse them. It's not easy, but it is a valid check on the third branch's power.

As far as gun control, I would expect the Supremes to intervene against draconian national gun control laws, especially if there turned out to be manifold enforcement difficulties and civil protests (which is where we come in). But if they don't, we are left with civil demonstrations and political action. Including, IMHO, active non-compliance with the law. Maybe it won't be possible to get Congress to change its mind, but I'll bet cash money our pals in Juneau will pass a law forbidding any local or state LEO's from cooperating with any enforcement activities under the new law. They did it with the Patriot Act, after all. Then the situation gets very interesting indeed.
 
Silly scenario.

Such action, if possible, would galvanize even fence-sitters into action. Incrementalism is what actually has, and will, happen.

Not with bang, but a whimper...

John
 
Reality check for gunstore commandos:

When you look down, do you see your toes?

Do you require medication on a regular basis?

Do you have the skills to stay alive in the woods? You are not talking about deer hunting once a year 100 yards from your truck. You are talking survival. That .50 super-tactical semi-assault rifle isn't going to feed you many rabbits and squirrels.

There are 4 states that have no right to carry whatsoever, why haven't you joined the freedom-fighters in resisting there? Or is some incrementalism OK?

For that matter, are you involved in your community now? If you aren't the type to volunteer a few hours here and there for what matters to you, what makes you think you will suddenly become a martyr for your toys?

Have you thought about what your rules of engagement? Are you going to murder every hiker, logger, or rancher who wanders into your woods, or only the jack-booted ones?

While you are out there waiting to be rescued and taken to the greystone buffet, some of us will be doing things regular people do. We'll be using the courts and all the mechanisms of representtaive government to try to get the laws changed. Of course, we'll have a challenge living down the sensational "gun-nut murders two policemen and heads for the hills" headlines. Maybe it will help if we suggest that all of your forfeited property (yes, it's all gone) be auctioned off to go to the families. Maybe it's a lost cause, but it's realistic.

Go ahead flame away Rambo. See you later at the all-you-can-eat buffet.
 
dischord, you seem to be facinated by the word terrorism. :rolleyes:

Let me explain some things to you and anyone else here on this 2nd Amendment forum, who would slam those of us who are of the opinion that violence may be actually necessary at some point in time (that is a reality with no buffet included).

#1 Our country was born of violence. Violence against oppression.

#2 History will repeat itself. Violence will come one way or another.

#3 I dont have to be in the military in order to have an opinion on this issue or to love my country to the point of giving my life for it. And the 2nd Amendment was written for us and not the military. Keep that in mind.

Now, as far as blowing myself to bits, Im not a terrorist. Terrorists are cowards. Terrorists seek to kill innocent people and civilians. Not military or government targets but women and children. :fire:

Its about WAR. And having the will of a KAMIKAZE in defending what you believe. To be willing to give your life in the fight. That is what a patriot is.

If congress acted to disarm America, it will have then turned criminal. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Understand that? Its simple. We fight. We fight against any government body or agency at that time that would seek to enforce that crime against us. Otherwise, we die in the death camps. Period. :fire:

Maybe that disturbs some people here. It disturbs me too. BUT THIS IS REALITY. DEAL WITH IT. :mad:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top