Everyone has their own way of thinking, but sometimes I wonder- where do we all stand? Basically what I'm asking is, at what point are you willing to take up arms and stand your ground on gun control?

For me, I'm not really sure. Probably when someone comes knocking on my door asking me to turn over my weapons...

Everyone has their own way of thinking, but sometimes I wonder- where do we all stand? Basically what I'm asking is, at what point are you willing to take up arms and stand your ground on gun control?

For me, I'm not really sure. Probably when someone comes knocking on my door asking me to turn over my weapons...

You better be armed and ready when they come knocking.....

Yeah, when the confiscation starts would be the point at which I'd become a hostile native.  I think most gun owners feel the same, or at least they've convinced the gun grabbers that confiscation is the line they don't dare cross, which I think is the only reason that every time they get a firearm banned, it doesn't apply to guns purchased before the ban.  Confiscation would be quite costly, both in dollars and BATFE agents.

Ballot Box -- Jury Box -- Ammo box

If you are the only guy standing outside with your gun, and your neighbors are not with you, it is not time yet... go back inside and vote or sue.

Be careful the "no knock" search warrants.

Funtimes - somebody has to start it.  Like the slow clap.

Ballot Box -- Jury Box -- Ammo box

If you are the only guy standing outside with your gun, and your neighbors are not with you, it is not time yet... go back inside and vote or sue.

Unless, of course, you're willing to die to be the spark that lights the tinder.  I've got kids, somebody else can volunteer for that job, since you necessarily have to die to accomplish it, and there's always the chance that everyone else just says, "Meh."  Hey, as long as someone promises that it makes us safer, how can I argue? 

In all seriousness, if the government decides to ban firearms, it'll happen.  Some standoffs will go down with people the media will portray as doomsday nutjobs, some citizens will be murdered in their homes, a few federal ninjas will die (as heroes, upholding law and order against those crazy domestic terrorists, of course), and the guns will be confiscated.  I see nothing that makes me think that Americans, in general, would differ at all from 1930's Germans:

First they came for the communists [gun owners],
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist [gun owner].

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

when they try to take gun out our homes by any form of disarmament. I am willing to die for my guns and have proven that on my own already. Whe they start trying to take away guns from me just be cause they have a no knock warrant wont mean i don't knock back with something of my own. those trying to take my guns will pay dearly and a nation will stand in awe at my defiance. As a great man once said, "from my cold, dead hands." If you aren't ready to die for your rights then you may as well not even have them.

Wow. It just occurred to me that we already let the government take our guns- It just happens so slowly that we don't see it!

Case in point- Try to exercise your right to bear arms. Grab a holster and walk down the street without putting anyone in danger harming anyone. Guaranteed the police will seize your firearm and throw you in jail. How did we let that happen?

How on earth could we possibly collectively defend ourselves here in Hawaii? It seems that our lovely state has outlawed the militia. Hmm.

Not to mention the aftermath of Katrina, when National Guardsmen (read: the US Army) were used to forcibly disarm law-abiding citizens with legally owned firearms.  That incident is my immediate response to anyone who says any of the following: "Confiscation would never happen here;  There would be riots in the streets if they tried to take peoples' guns; or my personal favorite: "The military would never do such a thing, there'd be massive desertions and a military coup if they tried to pull a stunt like that."  Uuh, they already did, and it wasn't a century and a half ago during the Civil War, it was five years ago in New Orleans.  The most spirited resistance, IIRC, was an old lady who refused to give up her old revolver.  Some National Guardsmen took her down; broke her shoulder in the process. 

-"I'm from the government and I'm here to help!"

Where, indeed...  I do know for a fact that a lone holdout will be ignored, ineffectual and marginalized by the media in any case. 

One chance to survive a SHTF/Katrina-type situation with your weapons and other possessions intact is do what the Koreans did in Los Angeles:  Combine resources and present a substantial armed front - preferably from high ground and effective cover.  The authorities never attempted to confront them because they had bigger problems with the rioters and no reason to approach a group that could resist even more effectively.  The mistake in New Orleans was everybody holed up in their own homes.  Neighborhoods should have established local command posts and established a perimeter defended by "local elements" where the authorities would be neither required nor desired.  Appoint a liaison (preferably their own duly-elected local city council rep) with some legal experience who can explain that the group is willing to coordinate with authorities for maintaining curfews and supply lines, as well as rendering aid and relief, but will not surrender any Constitutional Rights from within the secured area.

This is one reason why gun registration is so insidious.  It gives rogue government officials acting in violation of their oath a leg up on confiscation.  Now, it seems to me that if the numbers are correct and registrations in Hawaii have spiked up 20% since 2008 as reported, then there should be that many more votes in favor of repealing these laws.  The best way to make sure you never have to act in response to the "last straw" is to go back and alleviate the first straw.

Where, indeed...  I do know for a fact that a lone holdout will be ignored, ineffectual and marginalized by the media in any case. 

One chance to survive a SHTF/Katrina-type situation with your weapons and other possessions intact is do what the Koreans did in Los Angeles:  Combine resources and present a substantial armed front - preferably from high ground and effective cover.  The authorities never attempted to confront them because they had bigger problems with the rioters and no reason to approach a group that could resist even more effectively.  The mistake in New Orleans was everybody holed up in their own homes.  Neighborhoods should have established local command posts and established a perimeter defended by "local elements" where the authorities would be neither required nor desired.  Appoint a liaison (preferably their own duly-elected local city council rep) with some legal experience who can explain that the group is willing to coordinate with authorities for maintaining curfews and supply lines, as well as rendering aid and relief, but will not surrender any Constitutional Rights from within the secured area.

This is one reason why gun registration is so insidious.  It gives rogue government officials acting in violation of their oath a leg up on confiscation.  Now, it seems to me that if the numbers are correct and registrations in Hawaii have spiked up 20% since 2008 as reported, then there should be that many more votes in favor of repealing these laws.  The best way to make sure you never have to act in response to the "last straw" is to go back and alleviate the first straw.

I agree with your second paragraph. Your first one, not so much. Only on the basis that anyone here in LEO or the GOV would agree or even remotely allow this to happen under any circumstances.

There is a book called "Thank God I had a Gun" that details the "other" stories of Katrina, some of which fall in line with what you are saying.  Anyone who wants to borrow it, it is some interesting reading from the gun owners defending themselves perspectives.

 Interesting second post. Stick around and welcome.

fox news don't got your back




Kinda freaky to think how few people would resist gun confiscation. Judging by all the recent examples it sounds like the majority would hand 'em over and go cry in a corner somewhere. On a positive note it gets less and less likely every day that some sort of national confiscation would happen simply because it would be too expensive. Then again if things start to really fall apart the federal govt might resort to some draconian measures to hold on to it's authority, but of course by that point one could look for opportunity in the chaos and there are always more options besides handing over vs. standoff. You could simply not be home, report some of them as stolen, or maybe we'll get lucky and a couple cops who realize the social contract has been broken can somehow destroy the records. With the current environment of the constitution losing it's powers on a regular basis I'd be inclined to consider the possibility of illegal confiscations by overzealous law enforcement when making disaster plans.

fox news don't got your back




Kinda freaky to think how few people would resist gun confiscation. Judging by all the recent examples it sounds like the majority would hand 'em over and go cry in a corner somewhere. On a positive note it gets less and less likely every day that some sort of national confiscation would happen simply because it would be too expensive. Then again if things start to really fall apart the federal govt might resort to some draconian measures to hold on to it's authority, but of course by that point one could look for opportunity in the chaos and there are always more options besides handing over vs. standoff. You could simply not be home, report some of them as stolen, or maybe we'll get lucky and a couple cops who realize the social contract has been broken can somehow destroy the records. With the current environment of the constitution losing it's powers on a regular basis I'd be inclined to consider the possibility of illegal confiscations by overzealous law enforcement when making disaster plans.

Yawn.....

Yawn.....

They can defeat pockets of armed insurrection rather quickly. They just killed the first American with a Predator Drone last week and Obama officially kicked the door wide open to start assassinating citizens without any due process. They want you to start shooting. They know how to respond to violence. Civil disobedience throws them for a loop. Imagine if the police and the courts had to deal with a few million extra investigations. With budgets getting slashed left and right there's no way they could deal with something like that.

hvrybarrels - there is probably so much more to that man than you could ever know.  But, only the people who "need to know" will ever know... I would recommend accepting the fact that he was a bad person and deserved to die. There are reasons some things are always TS/SCI; the drone strike was done with hundreds of people looking at the situation.  It's easy to play arm-chair quarterback. The problem is many people don't even know what game we are playing.  I'm betting the guy got more due process than he deserved.

They can defeat pockets of armed insurrection rather quickly. They just killed the first American with a Predator Drone last week and Obama officially kicked the door wide open to start assassinating citizens without any due process.

I agree.  Is it right?  Not in my veiw. 

Due process is wonderful, but do any of you people who are upset this guy's lack of due process honestly think he would not have been found guilty in a court of law?  He was guilty as hell, he deserved what he got, f*** him.  The only thing that bugs me is the secret legal justification.  Why is that secret?  I sure don't know; it's not operational, it's the opinion of a group of lawyers who said, "Based on what we found in the Constitution and US law, we think this is allowable for the following reasons."

Due process is wonderful, but do any of you people who are upset this guy's lack of due process honestly think he would not have been found guilty in a court of law?  He was guilty as hell, he deserved what he got, f*** him.  The only thing that bugs me is the secret legal justification.  Why is that secret?  I sure don't know; it's not operational, it's the opinion of a group of lawyers who said, "Based on what we found in the Constitution and US law, we think this is allowable for the following reasons."

I agree the guy was a priece of sh** and deserved what he got. However, that is beyond the point.
The issue at hand is the guy was an American citizen entitled to a trial. Possibly a military trial, since his treasonous acts and support moved him into the category of enemy combatant.

This very much differs from bin laden, and the like, who are not citizens and are ineffect casualties of war.

 

If anyone's rights are at risk...everyone's rights are at risk. 

Some of you folks might want to read the US Constitution and find out what it means to be an American...especially y'all who took an oath to protect said Constitution.....

If anyone's rights are at risk...everyone's rights are at risk. 

Some of you folks might want to read the US Constitution and find out what it means to be an American...especially y'all who took an oath to protect said Constitution.....

Well said. On a side note with Time Warner now legally required to keep records for the activity of all it's users for a year plus the fact that Secret Service is in charge of security at APEC I would be a lot more careful about having discussions of when it's okay to start killing law enforcement. I hope you guys are using some serious encryption. Also in the battle of public perception over 2a this is not an effective way to make a good impression.