Guns. The protector of liberty. But how?

[gearbox]

The anti's have come a long way. First with the NFA to illegalize full-autos. Then with the '86 ban. Then the '94 ban. 20,000 gun control laws later the anti's want to extend the AWB and are hoping to also take away our handguns. Then it'll be onto our hunting rifles and shotguns.

So let's say in a few years or decades they succeed to cast legislation that prevents us from buying ANY more guns, in any form. They send in troops to confiscate existing guns. They track down registered owners and perform house searches of those who were "flagged" by the patriot act.

What do we do? The erosion of our freedoms has been so gradual that is it well accepted even within our group of Constitutionalists. How are we to combat Government? What would the Framers have us do?

 

[Standing Wolf]

What would the Framers have us do?

Probably the same thing they did.

 

[hillbilly]

Do the math.

Right now there are, by even the most conservative estimates, 80 million gun owners and 200 million guns in the USA.

In reality, the numbers are probably even higher.

How many total police, federal agents, ATF types are there in the US?

If even only 1% of the 80 million gun owners actually resisted with force, that'd be what, 800,000 armed resisters?

Just for comparison, realize this.

In the entire United States Marine Corps, there are less that 180,000 total troops.

Gun owners outnumber the USMC about 4 to 1.

Are there 800,000 police, federal agents, and ATF types in the US?

And what if even a few of the police and agents actually decided to side with the resisters? That would undoubtedly happen.

Even if they were armed only with bolt action rifles, only 1% of all US Gun Owners would be a formidable force, indeed.

There is no way that the government, even if it devoted every single employee it has, could quickly and efficiently confiscate all effective firearms overnight.

They might get some of them, but there would be plenty of alarm for the vast majority of gun owners who would actually resist to begin resisting.

hillbilly

 

[J Miller]

hillbilly,

What you said is true. IF the gun owners would stand up and fight. But I suspect that most gun owners, being sheeple will just roll over and surrender.
And I suspect that when it comes to this, and it will, the feds will not make a move untill they have emplimented full registration and licencing. Then they will simply make it so hard to comply with these laws that most of the non dedicated gun owners will just surrender their guns rather than pay excessive registration and licencing fees.

What few are left will die a bloody death and be demonized by the govt controlled puppet media.

That's pretty much as I see it. I hope I'm wrong. But I don't think so.

Look at Illinois. There is no State gun registration, but there is Statewide gun owner licencing. To even possess 1 round of ammo here you have to have a FOID card. Firearms Owner Identification Card. The State knows where all the legal gun owners are, and all the guns are. So if tomorrow Blagoyavich signed a law saying the all semi auto guns are banned, guess what, they already know where to come looking. It's that easy! And that IS one of his priorities, banning semi auto anythings.

Joe

 

[artherd]

What would the Framers have us do?

Probably the same thing they did.

Yep, I'd say that's accurate.

Hell, I'll probally cave in, and give 'em the ammo first.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.




_ But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

 

[DMK]

Gun owners outnumber the USMC about 4 to 1.

Those aren't good odds friend. The Marines are a LOT better trained, equiped, coordinated and in a much better shape on average. Even if they were in riot gear, shooting tear gas and nonlethal rounds, there would be no contest.

I'm not going even get into how disasterous modern civil war would be. Do you really want to turn the U.S into Somalia, N. Ireland or Yugoslavia? Those things don't just come to an end neatly no matter who is victorious. The hate and violence lasts for decades, maybe centuries. There's a big difference between fighting folks across an ocean or border vs. fighting folks who may live in the same state, county or town as you.

Like those brave souls who manned the posts of the cold war: Fight the soft war effectively, you do not want to ever see the "balloon go up" for the hard war or both sides will have lost for sure.

 

[Chuck Jennings]

Parts of our country are still recovering from the last civil war.

 

[BHPshooter]

Let's keep in mind that a full-out civil war isn't necessarily requisite. Going all-out at this point won't get you anywhere. It's got to go step by step.

How about starting by gettin up off of our butts and picketing on Capitol Hill? How about a (peaceful!) armed march down mainstreet of your State's capitol city? How about civil disobedience -- refusing to give up any banned item that you own?

There are very few reasons that I think a battle, or an all-out civil war, would be prudent. I consider some of these gun confiscation, and abolishing the Bill of Rights or the Constitution. (Of course, it could be pretty successfully argued that they essentially have abolished the BOR, but I digress.)

The Marines are a LOT better trained, equiped, coordinated and in a much better shape on average.

If that dark day ever comes, I don't expect to win or live. But my life will be a testament to what I believed in.

Wes

 

[Hedger]

Take my word for it.... nothing concerns a politician or beaurocrat more than a reasonable sounding person with a well reasoned argument. "Radical" comment and actions are easily dismissed and will not garner you support of the majority, no matter what the cause. A reasonable (yet determined) person must be dealt with.

That is not to say that "passionate" argument for any point, including pro-gun should be excluded. Passionate argument involves reasoning "with feeling." We need to get soccer moms to "feel" the need for a cool .44 spl SW...