# Would people really die for their right to bear arms?



## candyknitter (Apr 23, 2009)

I know to a lot of people here that their guns are a very important part of their preps, and on some America forums people make comments along the lines of if the goverment tried to take their weapons they'd have to prise them out of their cold dead hands!
But just supposing the crazy thought happened that they decided to ban guns in America and if people didn't hand them in then the local sheriff would be paying a visit to confiscate them. Do you think people really would feel strongly enough that they would put up a fight? Take for example a fictional homesteader who has been building up a productive farm with animals and vegetables, they might have a wife and kids - do you reckon they would hole themselves up and go down fighting for their rights? To my mind having read how much heart, soul and energy goes into some of these homesteads, and how much pleasure people get from their lifestyle, I can't imagine if it came to the crunch people would risk getting shot - possibly fatally. But then it's probably easier for me to say that because I'm not in a gun bearing society! What do you think would happen?


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

I believe every US American here on this forum, will reply that they will not willingly give up their guns.

And yes, the 2nd amendment to our constitution is a very strong fighting point.


----------



## Shrarvrs88 (May 8, 2010)

When I fill that specific hole in my own preps, I will fight for them. And as it is, with me NOT having them, I would still fight for the right. If our country decided to ban them, I would join the leagues of folks refusing to give that right up. 

And I doubt it would get to where they were hunting down each person who has them, even if they outlawed them...look at how many people have drugs! As long as they aren't dealing, gov really doesnt care that much. 

But if they tried to take that right, I would go down for it. That would scare me more than anything, if they took our right to protect ourselves away.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Looking at history and current events around the world today, absolutely we'd die for the right to bear arms. At least our deaths would have a purpose.

It beats the heck out of dying at the hands of a tyrant.


----------



## candyknitter (Apr 23, 2009)

How far does not willingly go? If they were at the door and asking it to be handed over would people actually start shooting knowing they would end up dead themselves? 
In this fiction say they were tracking every weapon (I think you need a licence for a gun over there - don't they keep a record of everyones address? Say they used this to track people) so you don't have to worry about being defenseless against some crazy neighbour cos they're going for his guns too.


----------



## KMA1 (Dec 9, 2006)

I think a lot of people here on the message board and a lot more other people would take it as a line in the sand not to be crossed. What you are talking about is not just the right to keep arms, but the ability to defend our person, our family, our property and all our other rights. If you no longer have the ability to defend what is yours, then it can be taken at any time. History teaches us that the first 2 steps to controling a population is 1) disarming the population, and 2) controling the information available to the population.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

I'm assuming that the original poster is a woman and assuming also that she's asking this as an honest question.

Let's say you're walking down the street and a man jumps out and pulls a knife on you. He demands your purse. What are you going to do? You're probably going to give him your purse. Nothing in that purse is worth dying for.

Let's say the man pulls a knife on you and demands you climb into the back of a van. You know that once he gets you in the back of that van he can drive off with you and do anything he wants, for as long as he wants. You'll most likely start screaming for help, even if it means he may stab you. You're going to bite, kick, scream, and fight no matter what because you know that _getting in that van is worse._

We've watched nation after nation fall into tyranny after governments took away the citizen's right to bear arms. We know what happens when citizens do that. YOU should know that too, since you're a part of a nation that but through strength of arms would have fallen to tyranny as well. Or do you not know your own nation's history?

We're not getting into the van.


----------



## KMA1 (Dec 9, 2006)

No, you do not need a license to own or possess a firearm in most places in the US. It is true that paperwork identifying the buyer and his address is filled out for purchases at retail dealers. There are always individuals and groups that are stronger that prey on the weaker. Just as you still have crimes in the UK even though you have much more stringent firearms laws. People who make their living preying off others are everywhere.


----------



## Riverrat (Oct 14, 2008)

I am Canadian, and I have my guns and will keep them.


----------



## olivehill (Aug 17, 2009)

Well, I am the wife and yes we have children and yes, you can bet your bottom dollar if they want to take my guns they will have to do so using deadly force. Not everything is a fighting point with me but a few things are. 

My right to bear arms -- and yours -- is at the top of that list.


----------



## tgmr05 (Aug 27, 2007)

In a way, yes. If it were to get to the point that a ban on guns somehow got passed through the government, then it would mean we are in serious trouble as a nation. If they showed up at your door, would you fight? That is a question that cannot be truly answered until it happens. Too many variables....

The ban itself would be a signal that freedom is gone in the US, and would show the beginning of something that most would regret in a few years, no matter what they thought of the ban.... Your homestead would be in jeopardy of being turned over to the state, for one thing... Private property, probably not anymore... 

Besides the irrational fear of guns, the only mentalities that are for bans, are those that promote a society most of us would abhor. Once freedom is lost, the first generation will take it hardest, as it will be similar to being imprisoned, even though they may not necessarily be....


----------



## olivehill (Aug 17, 2009)

Ernie said:


> I'm assuming that the original poster is a woman ...


Just for curiosities sake, may I ask why?


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

olivehill said:


> Just for curiosities sake, may I ask why?


Because I'm trying to imagine the man with the screen name of "Candyknitter".


----------



## candyknitter (Apr 23, 2009)

Ernie said:


> Let's say you're walking down the street and a man jumps out and pulls a knife on you. He demands your purse. What are you going to do? You're probably going to give him your purse. Nothing in that purse is worth dying for.
> 
> Let's say the man pulls a knife on you and demands you climb into the back of a van. You know that once he gets you in the back of that van he can drive off with you and do anything he wants, for as long as he wants. You'll most likely start screaming for help, even if it means he may stab you. You're going to bite, kick, scream, and fight no matter what because you know that _getting in that van is worse._


Yes I am female, but the sheriff scenario isn't like your van one at all because he is giving you a choice - like in your purse example. 

It's very interesting that so many feel that their life wouldn't carry on just as every other day without a gun. I was expecting some people would hate it but go along with trying to adjust.


----------



## olivehill (Aug 17, 2009)

Ernie said:


> Because I'm trying to imagine the man with the screen name of "Candyknitter".


:hysterical: :bow:


----------



## Tobster (Feb 24, 2009)

If push comes to shove, I believe you will see a lot of people roll over and give up their guns. I am confident there are thousands of registered guns sitting in closets which have not been fired in years by owners who would need to watch a YouTube lesson to understand how their gun works. You couple that situation with a promise from the government which says you will be allowed the opportunity to retain all the other comforts of life if you give up your firearms. They will gladly stand in line to give up their guns as long as there are no interruptions in their lives. If such an interruption was imminent, I bet they would gladly trade another right to keep the gravy train running. I have never actually seen the definition of 'sheeple', but this is the type of person to whom I would apply the term.


----------



## olivehill (Aug 17, 2009)

candyknitter said:


> Yes I am female, but the sheriff scenario isn't like your van one at all because he is giving you a choice - like in your purse example.


The man in the van is giving you a choice too. There are always choices. 

Choice A: Don't get in the van, fight back. You might get away or you might not. You may get stabbed in the struggle trying. 

Choice B: Get in the van willingly. You won't get stabbed right now, but almost assuredly will later. And probably worse. 

Choice B is worse than Choice A because while there are risks with Choice A, you have a chance. No matter how slim, you have a chance to get away. Choice B leaves you no hope, no chance. 

If the sheriff comes for your guns you have almost exactly the same choices. 

Choice A: Don't give him your guns, fight back. He might choose to use deadly force to take them, he may choose to use non-deadly but otherwise successful force. You might get hurt. Or he may go back and say "The people are revolting. Where do we go from here." It might buy you some time at the very least. 

Choice B: You give him your guns. You no longer have hope, no chance, no time. The arms are gone. You are now a helpless and unarmed citizen. It will absolutely end badly. You're in the van. 

It's an impeccable analogy, if you ask me.



> It's very interesting that so many feel that their life wouldn't carry on just as every other day without a gun. I was expecting some people would hate it but go along with trying to adjust.


I don't feel my life wouldn't carry on just as every other day without a gun. I know it wouldn't. I use my guns on a regular basis for protection of my stock and for feeding my family. Life would absolutely positively change. 

But that's not really the point, the point is that an unarmed citizenship is a helpless and easily oppressed one.


----------



## Cabin Fever (May 10, 2002)

In my mind, the confiscation of firearms in the United States would be equivalent to the annulment of the US Constitution. Yes, I would fight - to the death - to retain the rights and freedoms granted to me by the Constitution of the United States. 

If a tyranical govenment or leader ordered the military and law enforcement officers to disarm the US population, do not be surprised if that order was disobeyed.

www.OathKeepers.org

[YOUTUBE]Zf2K4-BQYAI[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## oth47 (Jan 11, 2008)

Our second amendment does Not give us the right to keep and bear arms..It Acknowledges a right that predates America's history.The right to self defense by any means necessary predates all queens and congresses,all presidents and parliaments.My right to self defense or the defense of my family is worth dying for,because without it I might as well be dead anyway.


----------



## chickenslayer (Apr 20, 2010)

From my cold dead fingers


----------



## KMA1 (Dec 9, 2006)

<<<Yes I am female, but the sheriff scenario isn't like your van one at all because he is giving you a choice - like in your purse example. >>>>

The problem is you are not looking clearly. The person putting you in the van is giving you a choice too. Not one which you like, but a choice. This is about where you draw the line. What would you do to have a chance to keep on living. How far are you willing to go down the road toward blackness. The truth is, if you get in ther van, your chances of living just drastically decreased. If the person in the house gives up their firearm, then their chance of defending themselves, hteir family and their property drastically decreases. Not only that, but we know if we give up our firearms, " it is the first step of loosing our freedom."


----------



## bourbonred (Feb 27, 2008)

The right to bear arms is an American-thing... we're not violent, we're just fiercely independent. There is only one way to protect our freedoms. We are mandated by our founding fathers to protect those freedoms. Otherwise they won't be available to our "posterity". Many people do, but most of us preppers in the U.S. don't take freedom for granted.


----------



## jlrbhjmnc (May 2, 2010)

candyknitter said:


> How far does not willingly go? If they were at the door and asking it to be handed over would people actually start shooting knowing they would end up dead themselves?
> In this fiction say they were tracking every weapon (I think you need a licence for a gun over there - don't they keep a record of everyones address? Say they used this to track people) so you don't have to worry about being defenseless against some crazy neighbour cos they're going for his guns too.


First of all, no, they do not keep track of firearms that way in most places in the US. 

Secondly, if it came to an attempt to go house to house to negate our Second Amendment rights it would mean our Republic had broken down completely. It may be that we are on that road right now, but what you describe is not likely. Many, many law enforcement officers would refuse to comply with such an initiative.

The rights enshrined in our Constitution are universal, from a higher power, not the government. The right to keep and bear arms is under assault but widely cherished for good reason: Gun control works! Adolph Hitler said in 1935: _"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient and the world will follow our lead into the future!"_ Other famous proponents of gun control: Fidel Castro, Moammar Qaddafi, Josef Stalin, Idi Amin, Mao Tse-tung, Pol Pot and Kim Jong-Il.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

Now look here, folks. If the question is, "When a SWAT team surrounds your house and demands you give up your guns ... what do you do?"

If that's the question, then my answer is: "I come out with my hands in the air, hand over all my guns, and claim I voted for Obama."

I'm not going out Waco style in a ridiculous standoff. However it's unlikely that I'm going to be the first house they stop at looking for weapons. 

By the time they've reached their third, fourth, or fifth house, they're going to find that a lot of patriots aren't home and that they seem to be taking a whole lot of fire from every treeline and hilltop as they travel about.

I think the best question would be to our law enforcement officers and any military who would join in the confiscation of weapons: "Are you willing to die to _take them?_"


----------



## Farmerwilly2 (Oct 14, 2006)

candyknitter said:


> It's very interesting that so many feel that their life wouldn't carry on just as every other day without a gun. I was expecting some people would hate it but go along with trying to adjust.


Hence the difference between Americans and the Brits. I don't expect you to understand it anymore than your forefathers understood it over 250 years ago. This is what drives so many folks in this country, and what perplexes us as well, that so many folks are willing to live 'by your leave'. The words are bitter on my tongue. Going along with it just to get along?--vah! That sounds like the words of your Mr. Chamberlain or our Jimmy Carter. I'll not forfiet my right to live free from those that would enslave me for a few crumbs--by their leave.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

Farmerwilly2 said:


> Hence the difference between Americans and the Brits. I don't expect you to understand it anymore than your forefathers understood it over 250 years ago. This is what drives so many folks in this country, and what perplexes us as well, that so many folks are willing to live 'by your leave'. The words are bitter on my tongue. Going along with it just to get along?--vah! That sounds like the words of your Mr. Chamberlain or our Jimmy Carter. I'll not forfiet my right to live free from those that would enslave me for a few crumbs--by their leave.


The words of Neville Chamberlain ARE appropriate right now, Sir Willy.

*This morning I had another talk with the German Chancellor, Herr Hitler, and here is the paper which bears his name upon it as well as mine. Some of you, perhaps, have already heard what it contains but I would just like to read it to you: ' ... We regard the agreement signed last night and the Anglo-German Naval Agreement as symbolic of the desire of our two peoples never to go to war with one another again.*
*
My good friends, this is the second time in our history that there has come back from Germany to Downing Street peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time. We thank you from the bottom of our hearts. And now I recommend you to go home and sleep quietly in your beds.*

Where would our good poster be without a Churchill to follow Chamberlain? Would she even be among the living? Would she be singing hail to the fuhrer in some sweatshop somewhere? 

How can anyone whose grandparents lived beneath the shadow of Hitler and his blitz on London dare question OUR right to defend ourselves?


----------



## candyknitter (Apr 23, 2009)

olivehill said:


> The man in the van is giving you a choice too. There are always choices.
> 
> Choice A: Don't get in the van, fight back. You might get away or you might not. You may get stabbed in the struggle trying.
> 
> ...



But it's not the same because either option has an immediate bad out come - stabbed fighting him off or stabbed in the van (amongst other horrible things) if you gave the gun to the sheriff he goes, you still milk the cows, pet your dog, kiss you baby etc. Your life carries on - there is no guarentee you will be attacked by thieves and murderers.



olivehill said:


> I don't feel my life wouldn't carry on just as every other day without a gun. I know it wouldn't. I use my guns on a regular basis for protection of my stock and for feeding my family. Life would absolutely positively change.


This is a flaw I have overlooked - apologies. I realise ofc some of you depend on hunting to feed your families. In this scenario if they permitted people in rural areas/farmers to have a rifle for hunting but no handguns or weapons that aren't for killing deer, rabbits (sorry I don't really know what guns are used for these kinds of things) how would you feel about that?


----------



## candyknitter (Apr 23, 2009)

Ernie said:


> I think the best question would be to our law enforcement officers and any military who would join in the confiscation of weapons: "Are you willing to die to _take them?_"


Now THAT is a very good comment!


----------



## candyknitter (Apr 23, 2009)

Ernie said:


> How can anyone whose grandparents lived beneath the shadow of Hitler and his blitz on London dare question OUR right to defend ourselves?


Don't get ahead of yourself - i'm not questioning your right. I just wonder if it came to the crunch if people would leave those they love behind to carry on without them.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

I'm beginning to suspect you've gone beyond just a simple curiousity about our belief system regarding the 2nd Amendment, and now ventured into different territory.

Let me be perfectly clear. The hour grows late and here in America we still have much to do, so I won't waste too much more time in bandying words with those who have already willingly sold themselves into slavery.

Your opinion on this topic counts for nothing. Your sweetness and civility in asking these questions does not hide the chains you conceal within your cloak. Chains meant for us. 

No, we will not give up without a fight. When they come for us, we will respond with such dreadful brutality that would-be tyrants for centuries to come will quake in their boots at the thought of what we did to their predecessors.

A lot of British left their bones far from home to learn this lesson. The time is coming soon where the world will relearn it.


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

Ernie said:


> I think the best question would be to our law enforcement officers and any military who would join in the confiscation of weapons: "Are you willing to die to _take them?_"


And that Ernie was my exact thoughts on the matter.


----------



## jlrbhjmnc (May 2, 2010)

Candyknitter - one can see from your post #27 that you just don't understand. You say, "if they permitted." The right to keep and bear arms and defend your liberty is a RIGHT that is universal among human beings. NOT "permitted" by any human being. I gently and respectfully submit that you do not understand universal, unalienable rights. You have been trained to see rights as being granted by your government.

You are looking at this scenario through your particular cultural lens. It makes our way of life look fuzzy to you.


----------



## olivehill (Aug 17, 2009)

candyknitter said:


> But it's not the same because either option has an immediate bad out come - stabbed fighting him off or stabbed in the van (amongst other horrible things) if you gave the gun to the sheriff he goes, you still milk the cows, pet your dog, kiss you baby etc. Your life carries on - there is no guarentee you will be attacked by thieves and murderers.


The outcome of getting in the van is not immediate, he will drive you somewhere first. 

No matter however, I don't live only for this very second. I enjoy the present and look forward to (and plan for) the future. 

Who said anything about thieves and murderers. You're missing the point. A government who forcibly takes its citizens arms is a government that shouldn't be trusted to control all of the arms. 



> This is a flaw I have overlooked - apologies. I realise ofc some of you depend on hunting to feed your families. In this scenario if they permitted people in rural areas/farmers to have a rifle for hunting but no handguns or weapons that aren't for killing deer, rabbits (sorry I don't really know what guns are used for these kinds of things) how would you feel about that?


Who said you don't use a handgun on a farm? Ever tried toting a shotgun around all day on your back while doing chores? It's probably doable but it's certainly not comfortable or reasonable. Handguns are not just for shooting people, you do realize that, right?


----------



## KMA1 (Dec 9, 2006)

It's very interesting that so many feel that their life wouldn't carry on just as every other day without a gun. I was expecting some people would hate it but go along with trying to adjust.[/QUOTE]

As has been pointed out in many posts above, it is not about life just carrying on. Of course it would. Jennifer just gave some interesting quotes and example from regimes last century. As I said earlier, history is full of examples, as far back as you care to look. Many of the founding Fathers of our nation wrote prolifically of the importance of protecting the natural and God give right to for each individual to bear arms necessary to protect himself from others, but also from the State. Many of us are keenly aware that our personal freedom hinges on our ability to protect it, not only from other individuals, but from the State. Thus the sentiment you find here. Your own country, during WWII asked for donations of private firearms from the citizens of the US, in order for private citizens to be able to protect themselves and Britian during the feared German invasion.

My question to you is, based on the history of the UK, how could your citizens in allow yourselves to be disarmed again and again?


----------



## kirkmcquest (Oct 21, 2010)

To put it simply, yes, I would die for the right to bear arms if I had to. If a government 'came' for my guns it would mean that a criminal government had supplanted my own.


----------



## candyknitter (Apr 23, 2009)

jlrbhjmnc said:


> Candyknitter - one can see from your post #27 that you just don't understand. You say, "if they permitted." The right to keep and bear arms and defend your liberty is a RIGHT that is universal among human beings. NOT "permitted" by any human being. I gently and respectfully submit that you do not understand universal, unalienable rights. You have been trained to see rights as being granted by your government.
> 
> You are looking at this scenario through your particular cultural lens. It makes our way of life look fuzzy to you.


This is very true about different cultures. My son was saying the other day how people here should have the right to this and the right to that (we were talking about the economy and cutbacks in education spending etc) and my DH were looking at him like he was mad. We are very much in doctrinated to believe that actually no one has the unquestionable "right" to anything. You are given the laws/guidelines and you follow them and if you don't your in the wrong. I expect most of you would be horrified to read this and think you would rather shoot yourselves(!) but it's the gel that binds us because that way you can see who is (or isn't) working for the benefit of the society.


----------



## kirkmcquest (Oct 21, 2010)

candyknitter said:


> Yes I am female, but the sheriff scenario isn't like your van one at all because he is giving you a choice - like in your purse example.
> 
> It's very interesting that so many feel that their life wouldn't carry on just as every other day without a gun. I was expecting some people would hate it but go along with trying to adjust.


Yes life would carry on until the next right they decide to take away (always for your own protection) and the next and the next.

The right to keep and bear arms is in our constitution, it is considered our God given right. It isn't just 'a gun', it represents our rights and freedoms.


----------



## kirkmcquest (Oct 21, 2010)

candyknitter said:


> This is very true about different cultures. My son was saying the other day how people here should have the right to this and the right to that (we were talking about the economy and cutbacks in education spending etc) and my DH were looking at him like he was mad. We are very much in doctrinated to believe that actually no one has the unquestionable "right" to anything. You are given the laws/guidelines and you follow them and if you don't your in the wrong. I expect most of you would be horrified to read this and think you would rather shoot yourselves(!) but it's the gel that binds us because that way you can see who is (or isn't) working for the benefit of the society.


We believe that maximizing individual liberty is what works for the 'benefit of the society'. Society benefits from individuals pursuing their separate individual interests, I do not consider society as having 'ownership' of me.


----------



## candyknitter (Apr 23, 2009)

KMA1 said:


> My question to you is, based on the history of the UK, how could your citizens in allow yourselves to be disarmed again and again?


I think my answer would be because we don't feel in the peace time situation it's necessary. With an invasion looming I'm sure some people would feel more comfortable being issued with a gun but I honestly don't think everyone would want one. I don't think we've actually been invaded for hundreds of years so it's hard to be sure but I think you need to feel confident in what your doing to use a gun.
Also (this will sound weird) but if I felt I wasn't safe in my own home without a gun then that in itself would make my home an unhappy place.


----------



## Timberline (Feb 7, 2006)

candyknitter said:


> It's very interesting that so many feel that their life wouldn't carry on just as every other day without a gun. I was expecting some people would hate it but go along with trying to adjust.


Many people would give them up, of course.

But to many others, guns are a part of life. To these people, guns are for self defense if it came to that. But even more importantly, they are for hunting, sport shooting, collecting. For example, some of my ancestors' antique guns are still in the family. For someone to come along and say, "New laws, hand 'em over!" would be devastating to us. Some of these guns have been in my family for well over a hundred years. They have a tremendous amount of sentimental value.

Hunting is big business here and brings in a lot of money to my state in hunting licenses, sales of sporting goods, things out of state hunters buy when they're here. The loss of that revenue would be very bad for the economy of small towns in hunting areas. 

It goes so much deeper that just handing over a material thing. It's taking away the ability to defend family and home and defend livestock from predators; it's taking away the opportunity to put meat on the table; it's taking away a lifestyle; it's taking away family heirlooms; it's taking away freedom and independence. 

Hunting and sport shooting is a way of life, yes, people will kill and die to defend that way of life.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Cabin Fever said:


> If a tyranical govenment or leader ordered the military and law enforcement officers to disarm the US population, do not be surprised if that order was disobeyed.


I have no doubt that many would disobey the order, but I think there would be plenty who wouldn't. They did it after Katrina on a small scale. Maybe on a larger scale it would be more obvious how wrong it is. Hopefully.

I think something like 70% of gun owners would turn in their guns if ordered to by the government. Many aren't die-hard gun rights people...they just have guns for various reasons and don't think of them as necessities to maintain freedom. Even many who would be outraged by confiscation just wouldn't be willing to make the sacrifice to defend their rights.


----------



## candyknitter (Apr 23, 2009)

olivehill said:


> The outcome of getting in the van is not immediate, he will drive you somewhere first.
> 
> No matter however, I don't live only for this very second. I enjoy the present and look forward to (and plan for) the future.
> 
> ...


Sorry Olivehill I did say i'm not familiar with what guns are for what. I mentioned rifles becuse I have seen people use high powered rifles with scopes for shooting deer and rabbits. I really don't know if handguns are used in hunting I just guessed a rifle was used because of it's range.


----------



## kirkmcquest (Oct 21, 2010)

ryanthomas said:


> I have no doubt that many would disobey the order, but I think there would be plenty who wouldn't. They did it after Katrina on a small scale. Maybe on a larger scale it would be more obvious how wrong it is. Hopefully.
> 
> I think something like 70% of gun owners would turn in their guns if ordered to by the government. Many aren't die-hard gun rights people...they just have guns for various reasons and don't think of them as necessities to maintain freedom. Even many who would be outraged by confiscation just wouldn't be willing to make the sacrifice to defend their rights.


Thats true but the revolution was fought and won by less than one third of the American population. If 30% of gun owners fought for their rights, that would be about 30 million people.


----------



## jlrbhjmnc (May 2, 2010)

candyknitter said:


> This is very true about different cultures. My son was saying the other day how people here should have the right to this and the right to that (we were talking about the economy and cutbacks in education spending etc) and my DH were looking at him like he was mad. We are very much in doctrinated to believe that actually no one has the unquestionable "right" to anything. You are given the laws/guidelines and you follow them and if you don't your in the wrong. I expect most of you would be horrified to read this and think you would rather shoot yourselves(!) but it's the gel that binds us because that way you can see who is (or isn't) working for the benefit of the society.


The difference is, the right to self defense isn't a thing. We have no right to any material thing. The right to keep and bear arms doesn't give you the right to have a firearm if you can't pay for it. The right to private property doesn't give you the right to have private property if you can't pay for it. So don't misunderstand.

There are laws and guidelines (guidelines = regulations or government/bureaucratic rules) in both our countries that allow the killing of the developing human being in the womb and the elderly or disabled human being without their consent. I submit that is not right. Even though the powers that be say you must follow that law to be in the right. We've already murdered the population of Canada several times over. And you wonder why the rest of us want to keep our firearms?? One day history will mark our age as the bloodiest since history began. No culture that enshrined human sacrifice comes close to us. We are the pinnacle of human sacrifice in history to date. We sacrifice to the god Convenience and in the process destroy ourselves and do the greatest harm to women the world has ever seen. The suffering of those left behind after the sacrifice is pitiful to behold.

I agree completely with Ernie in post #30. Those who think they will oppress us will pay a very dear price. Freedom is not free and sadly there are always more oppressors lying in wait to take what we have, instruct us in how to live and force us to bow down to their god.


----------



## KMA1 (Dec 9, 2006)

candyknitter said:


> We are very much in doctrinated to believe that actually no one has the unquestionable "right" to anything.
> 
> *You are indoctrinated. But the key to freedom is to think for yourself, like your son is doing. That is what this messageboard is all about. (And not thet everyone here does it either. We see it as a very dangerous problem. If you give up thinking for yourself and doing for yourself, that is basically what sheep do.*
> 
> ...


*Well, yes! Given the history of your nation, I can not fathom why you would have that attitude. See my above posts and question to you. I would submit you are working for the benefit of your government, not the benefit of your society. After all, how can a person who does not think for him/herself possibly benefit his/her society. But not questioning your government, or believing you have any natural or God given rights sure makes you easy for your government to control. * 

And I am really not trying to be harsh. Just trying to show you my point of view.


----------



## olivehill (Aug 17, 2009)

candyknitter said:


> Sorry Olivehill I did say i'm not familiar with what guns are for what. I mentioned rifles becuse I have seen people use high powered rifles with scopes for shooting deer and rabbits. I really don't know if handguns are used in hunting I just guessed a rifle was used because of it's range.


You needn't apologize. Different guns do have different purposes. But it does seem maybe you have a very limited understanding of their applications. Long guns are used for hunting big game because you're often shooting long distances and the length of the barrel helps to make a more accurate shot at that distance. Rifles do have longer range than shotguns, but shotguns are used for hunting in more populated areas. Handguns are used for personal protection, yes, but also are convenient to be carried for protection against animals as well as humans. When you're out on the farm all day working in the barn, on fences, in the garden, in the fields, etc. you may run into varmint that need dispatching but carrying a long gun -- rifle or shotgun -- wouldn't be an easy thing to do. If the varmint is within relatively close range a handgun is just fine for them. Other people carry them while horseback riding in case they run into coyote, cougar, bear, stray or feral dogs, etc for the same reasons. 

All of the above types of guns are also used in sport shooting. There are accuracy competitions for shooters, skeet shooting, hunting for sport rather than food, mounted shooting trials (shooting targets from horseback while riding), and so on and so forth. 

It seems like perhaps in your culture guns are thought of more as weapons for people on people whereas here, yes, guns can be used for protecting yourself from other people they have a myriad of other applications as well.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

kirkmcquest said:


> Thats true but the revolution was fought and won by less than one third of the American population. If 30% of gun owners fought for their rights, that would be about 30 million people.


The numbers give hope. I think only 10% or less would fight, the others would just hide their guns and stay quiet. But still, you're right. Even if it were only 5 million people fighting, we only have 2 million or so in the military, many of them would be on the side of the people. Thanks for giving me hope.


----------



## chickenista (Mar 24, 2007)

Surprisingly enough I am very pro-gun!

It is a bad day when the only armed folks are the authorities. I think we should all be able to back a tank into our driveways if we want! The whole 2nd Amendment is to allow the freedom from tyranny. 

It is surprising that I am pro-gun because I can list 8 people that I have known personally that have died from being shot to death. I know 8 and if I really thought about it, it may be more, but 8 is the top of my head. 8 people that have been shot to death.
And I am still all for it! It should be easy to get, easy to keep.
I don't know if I would die for the right to bear arms.. I mean if my death would decidely mean that others could keep their weapons, then maybe. But to just die for a cause willy nilly.. I don't know.
But I would do my level best to hide weapons and keep them from being found. I would take a few blows to the head for guns...


----------



## Dukepowerhand (Feb 2, 2011)

Candy,

If your right to speak freely was a 'thing' that could take physical form, and the government knocked on your door and demanded your right to speak freely....would you hand that over too?


----------



## KMA1 (Dec 9, 2006)

candyknitter said:


> I think my answer would be because we don't feel in the peace time situation it's necessary.
> 
> *Well, not sure why you are a member here. The only hting I can say is that those who don't learn from the past are bound to repeat it.*
> 
> Also (this will sound weird) but if I felt I wasn't safe in my own home without a gun then that in itself would make my home an unhappy place.


*No that doesn't sound wierd at all. I don't need a gun in my home to feel safe. That is why I am living where I am. And I refuse to live in fear. I think you would find most of us are not armed because we are afraid. We don't need firearms to feel safe in our homes. Or elsewhere for that matter. I, and I think most all of us here, own firearms because we want to be prepared, and we believe that if we value freedom, then we as good citizens, should be willing and ready to fight for it if we have too.*


----------



## sidepasser (May 10, 2002)

candyknitter said:


> I think my answer would be because we don't feel in the peace time situation it's necessary. With an invasion looming I'm sure some people would feel more comfortable being issued with a gun but I honestly don't think everyone would want one. I don't think we've actually been invaded for hundreds of years so it's hard to be sure but I think you need to feel confident in what your doing to use a gun.
> Also (this will sound weird) but if I felt I wasn't safe in my own home without a gun then that in itself would make my home an unhappy place.


I do believe that England was invaded during WWII and bombed pretty heavily.

I can see where those that are not used to having guns as a means of defense would be baffled by us that do. We take our right to defend ourselves pretty seriously here.

I don't think that all people would be giving up their guns regardless of whether the government said to or not..there are many who own guns that are not registered here as they are bought from a "friend". Lots of friends in the US too.

My family has several guns..none are registered anywhere as all were bought before "registration" was required. I am not sure that buying a gun second hand even requires registration (some one here will know) if purchased from an individual. I'm sure not trotting down to the local registrar's office and ponying up any details.

I am sure there are others like myself all across the US. 

I think it would behoove any government to think twice about trying to take guns by force here..what is that quote "guns behind every blade of grass"..it would likely be true in much of the US.


----------



## zant (Dec 1, 2005)

There are probably 500-700 hundred million firearms in this country...just last year after the Obama regime was voted in by the mentally incompetent,more than 1.1 BILLION rounds were sold in a 6 month period(gee,maybe that's why primers and powder were hard to find).How many LEO are there to enforce confiscation??and how many actually would do it??About 40% I would say,all from large urban areas.And only about 30% of the military would participate in a Hitler,Stalin,Mao-esqe move to disarm the free population.....Sounds like a lotta hogs are gonna get fed.....Personally I worry more about roving gangs of starving people after the Sockpuppet regime is done destroying the American economy.....in which case,yes,the hogs still get fed...


----------



## Jerngen (May 22, 2006)

Candyknitter - 

We (in our house) don't own guns because we fear robbers/rapists/thieves or things that go bump in the night. We live in an extremely safe area. 

First, we own them because we enjoy them. Shooting is a family sport.
Second, we own them because they are tools we use in our lives (hunting etc.)
Third (and most importantly), we have them to protect against tyranny. We will not be ruled over or made subjects. Period. 

Therefore in order for your OP scenario to come true, tyranny would be attempting to prevail over our Constitution. Thus.... as Ernie said, most patriots will not be home waiting idley by for the troops to come knocking on our door.
They'll be out fighting against tyranny as soon as the call goes up.

Until such a time comes, those who wish to have absolute rule are not able to do so......... because they know there are several million of us citizens who are armed. 
It is estimated that there are 52,000,000 American households that own a total of 260,000,000 guns. 

If even half of those Americans stood up for their rights......... who in the world is going to go up against an army of 26 million ticked off armed citizens?? 

Also why we'll likely never be invaded (assuming nukes/emp's aren't involved)..... the opposing forces would have to deal with over 50 million ticked off American citizens let alone our military. 
There is no army in the world large enough.


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

candyknitter. The need for guns is very simple.World war I and world war II,my grandfather was in wwI and my father was in wwII,both were fighting in England. What was the problem with your guns? Didn't everybody have at least 1?


----------



## willbuck1 (Apr 4, 2010)

In my part of the country you would have a hard time finding enough LEO's or NG that would obey that order to be able to disarm a cub scout troop.


----------



## sidepasser (May 10, 2002)

Question for those who know more than I about this

On the subject of citizens revolting in the middle east (take Libya for example), do you think that those citizens would still be protesting and dying in the streets if they had guns of their own? I believe the citizenry was disarmed years ago (excepting the military and police)..so would they have had an easier time of things had they had weapons of their own (rather than rocks and sticks?)..

just curious..perhaps we can take a page from their book of life..when dictators have all the weapons, the citizenry is pretty powerless to stop whatever the dictator wants to do. Of course now the revolts are spreading all across the middle east, and people are dying for their cause, I wonder how many citizens would have died if they were armed for self defense?


----------



## TnAndy (Sep 15, 2005)

candyknitter said:


> But just supposing the crazy thought happened that they decided to ban guns in America and if people didn't hand them in then the local sheriff would be paying a visit to confiscate them.
> 
> Do you think people really would feel strongly enough that they would put up a fight?


Two things you don't understand about the US.

1. Almost NO local sheriff would even try to carry out such an order. The local sheriffs answer to the local voters, and knows quite well he, and any deputy that works for him, would not survive the next election, assuming they lived to see it.

2. Yes, most gun owners would resist the taking of arms. In fact, I can't think of much else the government could do to bring about an "Egypt" situation in this country. Which is also why they won't go this route.....the plan all along has been "reasonable" restrictions.....slow, incremental, taking of our rights.


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

candyknitter said:


> I don't think we've actually been invaded for hundreds of years so it's hard to be sure but I think you need to feel confident in what your doing to use a gun.
> Also (this will sound weird) but if I felt I wasn't safe in my own home without a gun then that in itself would make my home an unhappy place.


Not to be coy, well maybe. I'm not as familiar with English history as you I'm sure. But isn't England still ruled at least in spirit by the Normans? Weren't they from a foreign land?
When will the true people of the Isle take control from their chosen masters? You are in fact and law still a subject. We threw off your master in 1776 and our freedom was confirmed in 1812 and our rights were restored as our creator intended. 


Our arms are to keep similar tyrants from getting ideas.


----------



## tgmr05 (Aug 27, 2007)

candyknitter said:


> I think my answer would be because we don't feel in the peace time situation it's necessary. With an invasion looming I'm sure some people would feel more comfortable being issued with a gun but I honestly don't think everyone would want one. I don't think we've actually been invaded for hundreds of years so it's hard to be sure but I think you need to feel confident in what your doing to use a gun.
> Also (this will sound weird) but if I felt I wasn't safe in my own home without a gun then that in itself would make my home an unhappy place.


While it is never good to have an irrational fear of anything, you do have to look at things with the proper perspective. Here is an article from your own news source.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1440764.stm

Basically, it proves that once you guys banned guns, crime skyrocketed. Does that make you feel safer??? Sure, you may not have experienced any crime, and hopefully you never do, but blindly burying one's head in the sand does not make the risk go away.... You were probably never really told the truth, either.... Feel better, yet?? You live in a city that has a lot of crime, when it used to be one of the lowest. All of your police or bobbies, used to go around without firearms. Now look at this

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33448132/ns/world_news-europe/

While some may 'wish' for a world with no guns and no violence, the reality is far from it. Disarming innocent folks only leads to more violence. The proof is throughout history.....

It still does not mean you cannot choose to live without guns and be happy, though.... Many folks do, and live full lives.


----------



## TnAndy (Sep 15, 2005)

The saying "from my cold dead hands" is not just an idle expression......it IS the way most gun owners in this country feel.


----------



## Shrarvrs88 (May 8, 2010)

You guys put into words my own feelings! While I couldn't think WHY I would die for the right to bear....even though I have no money for guns myself....

It is true. It is the spirit of our country. Being able to protect ourselves from ourown government.

I think many people forget the constitution was written to help protect the people from the government, in any case.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

I read somewhere recently that the most common "weapon" wielded in England is the pint mug upside someone's head.

Ban all pints!


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the outcome of the vote.
-Benjamin Franklin



âAmericans have the right and advantage of being armed- unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.â 
James Madison


"One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offense to keep arms." 
-- Constitutional scholar and Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, 1840 


"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." 
-Thomas Jefferson


"Assault is a type of behavior, not a type of hardware."

-Alan Korwin


"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

I seriously doubt if the local High Sheriff, his Deputies, or Constables would have anything to do with Progressive Putsch. I know they have quite a few personal firearms, and use them regularly.

I'd hope it'd never get to prying them from my cold dead fingers... I'd much rather see the JBT (Jack Booted Thugs) and whoever sent them, dying with their hands wrapped around their illegal/unconstitutional orders. JBT's have homes and families, and have to sleep at some point. One of the reason a JBT always wears a black faceless hood... so that normal citizens can't recognize the terrorist behind the mask, and take revenge.

If I'm going to die (and I have it on good authority that I am... no one makes it out of this world alive) I'd rather die on my feet, than on my knees. I wouldn't make a good slave. I'm sure my back would be nothing but scar tissue. I'd take out my masters at every chance.

If it comes down to it, a good portion (all of the country, outside of cities and metro areas) of the population would rebel... there'd be a Second Uncivil War, and anyone with any hint of Progressivism (aren't all progressives anti gun) would need to get themselves to the safety of the liberal partition line... or risk getting flogged at best...

The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting... it's about killing tyrants. Anyone not in favor of individuals possessing firearms... is a tyrant.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> But then it's probably easier for me to say that because I'm not in a gun bearing society! What do you think would happen?


Many people think the Revolutionary War started over taxes, but the first SHOTS weren't fired until the British decided to confiscate the *GUNPOWDER*


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

texican said:


> The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting... it's about killing tyrants. Anyone not in favor of individuals possessing firearms... is a tyrant.


And what do we do to tyrants, boys and girls?


----------



## Fat Charlie (Sep 9, 2010)

bourbonred summed it up. It's got nothing to do with guns and everything to do with personal independence. Guns are just the best tool for guaranteeing that. 


Farmerwilly2 said:


> Hence the difference between Americans and the Brits.


Once we noticed that difference, we had a little discussion and stopped being Brits.

candyknitter- Heinlein wrote that "There's no such thing as a dangerous weapon... There are no dangerous weapons; there are only dangerous men." Spend a day looking at the people you encounter. Pretend this one or that one has a gun. Does it make you afraid of that person? If so, why? A gun is just a tool that does nothing but increase your lethal range. What if that person "only" had a knife? A Taser? Are you less scared? Maybe "only" a ballpoint pen, are you comfortable now? They're all just as deadly as guns, they just don't have as much reach. Of course, since they don't scare you by their very presence, they don't need all that much reach.

Ernie- the police and military are us. They'd tie themselves up trying to confiscate their own members' personally owned firearms- you'd see outright mutinies. If that ever gets settled, what cop would want to confiscate a gun from someone law abiding enough to register it? Where in the military would you find people so disconnected with reality that they'd go along with it, the Air Force? How would they hope to do it? I'll admit that no unit I've ever been in would mutiny over this- we wouldn't last that long, being rendered ineffective by all the laughter and pulled from the op.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> You are given the laws/guidelines and *you follow them *and if you don't your in the wrong.


In that respect we are *exactly* the same.

Our "law" is the Constitution, and if the Govt doesn't follow it, *they* are wrong.


----------



## manygoatsnmore (Feb 12, 2005)

There are also plenty of Americans that would give up a gun that is on the books, and then, staying below the radar, go to work on retaking our rights...using our guns that don't have a paper trail.


----------



## bourbonred (Feb 27, 2008)

Ernie said:


> I read somewhere recently that the most common "weapon" wielded in England is the pint mug upside someone's head.
> 
> Ban all pints!


Ernie, I thought I read somewhere that the UK was discussing doing just that. They've already banned knives and now they're discussing banning pints. :buds:


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

stanb999 said:


> Not to be coy, well maybe. I'm not as familiar with English history as you I'm sure. But isn't England still ruled at least in spirit by the Normans? Weren't they from a foreign land?
> When will the true people of the Isle take control from their chosen masters? *You are in fact and law still a subject.* We threw off your master in 1776 and our freedom was confirmed in 1812 and our rights were restored as our creator intended.
> 
> 
> Our arms are to keep similar tyrants from getting ideas.


I just wanted to clarify something with your reference to "subjects" because it is a misconception. 

There is no longer any such thing as a British subject, there hasn't been for the past 30 years. British citizens ceased to be subjects and became citizens in 1981 with the 1981 Citizen Act. 

All other citizens of other countries that are members of the Commonwealth ceased to be subjects and became citizens of their respective countries between the period of 1949 to 1977 with their respective Citizen Acts.

The only circumstance where a person may be both a British subject and British citizen simultaneously is a case where a British subject connected with Ireland acquired British citizenship by naturalisation or registration. In this case only, British subject status was not lost upon acquiring British citizenship.

.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

thanks for that information naturelover. Never knew that about subjects/citizens for all UK countries.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

AngieM2 said:


> thanks for that information naturelover. Never knew that about subjects/citizens for all UK countries.


You're welcome. Just for further clarification, it doesn't only include UK countries (i.e. Scotland, Wales, Cornwall, England, Ireland) it includes all other member countries of the Commonwealth. South Africa, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Rhodesia, Singapore, Federation of Malaya, Republic of Ireland, India and Pakistan, Bahamas .... there's others I'm missing but I can't remember them all, there's a lot of Commonwealth countries. But anyway, the point is that there are no longer any nations or citizens of the Commonwealth nations that are "subjects" of the crown. 

.


----------



## PyroDon (Jul 30, 2006)

What fire arms , Me have fire arms , I sold those long ago


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

PyroDon said:


> What fire arms , Me have fire arms , I sold those long ago


You told me they got too close to that last big 4th of July fireworks display - someone forgot to move them away from the charges...


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

PyroDon said:


> What fire arms , Me have fire arms , I sold those long ago


Heh. That reminds me of a funny thing happened in Canada in the 80's - there must have been close to 40 million assorted firearms got lost in lakes in boating accidents. :hysterical:

.


----------



## PyroDon (Jul 30, 2006)

AngieM2 said:


> You told me they got too close to that last big 4th of July fireworks display - someone forgot to move them away from the charges...


wonder if they would want my rocket tooling or timed ignitors


----------



## oregon woodsmok (Dec 19, 2010)

Oh well now, a swat team.

Yeah, if they have a legal search warrant, they are welcome to come in and search. It'll give them something to do for the afternoon. I'll make them a pot of coffee.

If they search long enough, I'll bake them a batch of cookies.

Americans have a very long history of being willing to fight for their constitutional rights. It's who we are.

There are tons of guns in Britain. Hunting is a major sport. There are many large estates that support themselves by charging for hunting. Plenty of shotguns, rifles, and well trained gun dogs.

Candyknitter in London is willing to give up the guns she doesn't have. Ask a Scottish Highlander about his deer rifle and shotgun, you might get a different answer.


----------



## Spinner (Jul 19, 2003)

I think many people of the world think guns are dangerous because of the Hollywood movies portraying shootouts in the streets. In reality, there were very few Hollywood style shootouts in the streets in the "wild west" or anywhere else in America. 

Cowboys carried side arms for several reasons, among them, snakes, coyotes, rabid animals on the range or sometimes coming into camp, killing supper on the range, and one very important life saving feature... if a horse spooks and bolts and your foot is caught in the stirrup & you lose your seat, then you can shoot the horse to keep from getting drug to death. All of these are still valid reasons today. It's common to see riders wearing side arms in my part of the country.


----------



## Cabin Fever (May 10, 2002)

texican said:


> If it comes down to it, a good portion (all of the country, outside of cities and metro areas) of the population would rebel... there'd be a Second Uncivil War....


Yes, and the resultant upheaval would make the protests in Egypt, Libya, and Bahrain look like Sunday picnics.


----------



## Cabin Fever (May 10, 2002)

The one good thing for me to come out of this thread is a little more incentive to bury some firearms and ammo on the back 40.


----------



## oth47 (Jan 11, 2008)

Cabin Fever said:


> The one good thing for me to come out of this thread is a little more incentive to bury some firearms and ammo on the back 40.


On that thought,CF,what's the best way to bury that kind of commodity? Not that I'd ever want to do that,of course..


----------



## Cabin Fever (May 10, 2002)

oth47 said:


> On that thought,CF,what's the best way to bury that kind of commodity? Not that I'd ever want to do that,of course..


Bury a gun and ammo for 15 years.


----------



## GREENCOUNTYPETE (Jul 25, 2006)

candyknitter said:


> How far does not willingly go? If they were at the door and asking it to be handed over would people actually start shooting knowing they would end up dead themselves?
> In this fiction say they were tracking every weapon (I think you need a licence for a gun over there - don't they keep a record of everyones address? Say they used this to track people) so you don't have to worry about being defenseless against some crazy neighbour cos they're going for his guns too.


yes there are a great number of people who would fire on blue helmits at their door asking for thier arms 

you need to understand firearms in the US required no serial numbers till 1969 let alone any way of tracking them 

depenmding on the state there are 1-4 firearms per person that they know about and that includes women and children 

some real numbers there are 5 million or so people in Wisconsin 640,000 buy a deer hunting license and show up for deer season that lasts 1 week , thats just people who activly hunt so 1 in every 7.8 people activly hunts deer , now i know plenty of bird hunters who don't hunt deer, also figure 9 out or 10 farms have a gun even if they don't hunt 

now recall that we used to walk into a store and buy .303 british enfield rifles for 12.50 they would have barrels of them in the store just grab one check the bore cycle the action and plunk your money on the counter walk out this was 40 or so years ago but since the rifles don't hardly wear out they are still being passed from family to family , kept in the back of closets every were along with millions and millions of pump shotguns 

we also in many states can do face to face transfers of firearms with no paper work license or any goverment knowledge.

not think about all this , and recall that giving up your right to bear arms isn't giving up 1 right but all of them and accepting tyrany.
we have legislation that clearly states no goverment office or agency may take our arms durrig peace time or state of emergency. it has passed in most states since people were denied thier defence after hurican Katrina in new orleans.

i admit i hadn't read the whole thread before comenting i don't think it changes my coment this is what we belive


----------



## TnAndy (Sep 15, 2005)

Cabin Fever said:


> The one good thing for me to come out of this thread is a little more incentive to bury some firearms and ammo on the back 40.


I don't subscribe to that theory. If it's time to bury firearms in hope of using them "someday" to regain something already lost, then I might as well just throw them away to start with.

The time to "nip it in the bud" is when it's STILL a bud, and not a full grown cancer.

So, my policy is, and always has been:

The first guy to show up trying to collect mine better bring plenty of help.....and whoever sent him/them better have some replacement help already hired.....because I will try my best to make the collection process as expensive as possible before the "cold, dead, hands" thing comes into play.

As Texican said: "*If I'm going to die (and I have it on good authority that I am... no one makes it out of this world alive) I'd rather die on my feet, than on my knees."*

I think enough gun owners feel the same way, which is any mass attempt at confiscation would be a fools errand.

That one, collective, gut feeling is what separates the US from most of the rest of the world.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

If I know CF, he's not burying ALL of them. He's burying the ones he can't use on the run. He's burying the ones he'll come back for once the rest of America wakes up and is fighting on his side. He's keeping out the easily concealable handguns, probably the break-down sniper rifle, the ones that don't need much maintenance and are easier to carry in rough terrain, and the ones that will help him acquire other weapons, like perhaps those carried by soldiers wearing blue helmets.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Did not read any replys. My opnion is, if they attempt to take away our Firearms-it's all over. This would be the time to fight for all Freedom is worth.


----------



## Cabin Fever (May 10, 2002)

Ernie said:


> If I know CF, he's not burying ALL of them. He's burying the ones he can't use on the run. He's burying the ones he'll come back for once the rest of America wakes up and is fighting on his side. He's keeping out the easily concealable handguns, probably the break-down sniper rifle, the ones that don't need much maintenance and are easier to carry in rough terrain, and the ones that will help him acquire other weapons, like perhaps those carried by soldiers wearing blue helmets.


I hate it when people start to know me too well!


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

Cabin Fever said:


> I hate it when people start to know me too well!


Heh. You haven't been exactly hiding your light under a bushel.

I think your secret motto is, "If I'm going to be on a government list, then I might as well be at the TOP of the list."


----------



## GREENCOUNTYPETE (Jul 25, 2006)

Ernie said:


> And what do we do to tyrants, boys and girls?


we hang them in the liberty tree in the town square


----------



## Cabin Fever (May 10, 2002)

Let the henchmen - or as Texican calls them, JBTs - think that I've complied with the illegal disarming. That's when me and my family and friends go underground. From that day on - whoever it is enforcing the illegal confiscation, military or LEO, better watch their backs. They better watch their backs because they will be considered mercenaries of an illegal unconstitutional government.


----------



## Cabin Fever (May 10, 2002)

As others have said, disarming a country is just the first step of allowing rampant tyranny. History has taught us that it doesn't stop there. What is next? The taking of property, savings and precious metals? Taking our children to special youth camps? A round-up of a certain portion of the population and shipping them off in boxcars to who-knows-where? (which would probably be Christian conservative males of European decent). Such tyranny would never end with simply the cofiscation of firearms. It would just be the beginning.


----------



## tab (Aug 20, 2002)

Jumped in on this late, two observations, the op just was not getting it. Great analogy Ernnie, great way of teaching if someone wants to truly avail themselves of knowledge. Second, is no longer particiating. Just saying....getting so I look long and hard about being baited.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

I'm just curious, what is the line in the sand for people? Is it when the government shows up at your door? Or before that? This is something I have struggled with because in my way of thinking it's already gone too far. I'm talking about all the registration and concealed carry laws, where you have to have a permit to carry and there are so many restrictions on where you can carry. Those things seem "reasonable" to most people, and I just wonder what's next.


----------



## bourbonred (Feb 27, 2008)

This thread reminds me that we have let our NRA (National Rifle Association) membership lapse; need to remedy that.


----------



## PyroDon (Jul 30, 2006)

money would be better spent on a diferent organization than the NRA which has become nothing more than a RNC yes org.


----------



## TnAndy (Sep 15, 2005)

I'd agree. Send your dues to GOA.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

tab said:


> Jumped in on this late, two observations, the op just was not getting it. Great analogy Ernnie, great way of teaching if someone wants to truly avail themselves of knowledge. Second, is no longer particiating. Just saying....getting so I look long and hard about being baited.


Two observations. 

(1) The OP is in Britain, different time zone and is asleep in bed when others in America are awake and posting. 

(2) The OP has had several ignorant and degrading insults thrown at her, at her nationality and at her country. I wouldn't blame her for no longer participating after that.

Some people have forgotten that this is S&EP, not GC.


----------



## tab (Aug 20, 2002)

Like I said, just observations.


----------



## GREENCOUNTYPETE (Jul 25, 2006)

i believe that the right to keep and bear arms is our right to ensure all other rights, has been well emphisized

a few things i have thought of , to help form an understanding of our cuture, beond how many guns there might be in the US.

great point that police and army here are our freinds , family and neighbors and share our beliefs , as evident that many of the posters here on this very forum are former or current service personel , or police

the only means to taking our guns is to slowly over many generations reduce use , avalability , and culture of our gun use ,they arn't doing very well with this 

49 out of 50 states have some legal form of carry , 3 states now have contitution carry this is all law abiding citizens have the right to carry a concealed or open carry firearm and new states are proposing it every week 

literaly tens of millions of americans walk around every day with a gun legaly holstered on thier person as they go about their daily buissiness , yet there are very few shootings basicaly never by a person carring legaly millions more keep a gun in thier truck or car many states allow with no permit a gun to be transported out of sight in a car or truck loaded or with magazine loaded but no round in the chamber.

tens of thousands more otherwise mostly law abiding persons carry a gun loaded in on thier person or in their car illegaly because their state doesn't have concealed carry or because they were denied a permit (a few states are not so good about issuing permits) but , STILL NO MASS SHOOT OUTS.

i can tell you each of my children has shot starting as young as age 4 starting with a bb gun , the have all shot 22 rifle , and the older ones 7 and 9 have both shot 30 cal service rifle and do well with it from a bench it is still to large for them to shoot unsupported.

gun culture , we have youth groups that teach safe firearms handling , shooting and true american marksmanship to kids our group run by volenteers starts with kids at age 8 with air rifles to learn the basics every day we make it more accessable for todays youth to get good marksmanship training at little or no cost, they need no equiptment just a partent/gaurdians signature and a ride to the range. at age 12 they can start on 22 rifles and handguns , also 50 cal muzzle loaders and shotguns.

most clubs and ranges have trainers for adults , rental guns ,concealed carry classes learning to shoot is possably more accessable than ever before previosly family taught family father ,uncle or grandfather taught sons and daughters yes i suppose there were some aunts and mothers but probably not as common some of that cuture was lost over the years we are working hard to replace it with training available to most any who wish to partake. also handguns have advanced in technologicaly and are available at some very reasonable prices with many quality self defence peices avalable around 300 dollars.

every year for the last several years it seems more manufactures are making proper kid sized rifles i recently looked at one at my local shop that was a good fit for kids 5-10 years old it was a single shot 22 the prices on these are very reasonable starting at about 99 dollars.

every day millions of Americans prove that being armed is no threat to public saftey, crimes are stopped daily, people safely carry all across the nation, and there is no blood in the streets as is the cry heard from the anti gun movment when ever concealed carry or constitutional carry is enacted.

our supreem court recently re-affirmed that it is the right of all citizens to keep a firearm in thier home for personal defence even in places like Washingtion DC and Chicago.

some states do regulate firearms ownership thru testing and id cards to purchase, licensing and permits to transport , but that is the minority 

most states you walk into the gun store select a gun , they call in your info the state police who verify you are not on the list of known criminals whom may not purchase firearms , you pay then they either hand you your gun or you wait a few days and come back and pick it up after 2-7 days depending on the local rules.

so you can see our culture of guns runs as deep as our belief in the god given right to own and keep arms secured by the blood of our ancestors


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Honestly simply getting wood for the winter mandates that a gun is needed as is a basic trama first aid kit. 

We, get our wood in our woods and we have bears. Since the bears are not like the ones in the fairytales one is risking a health decline if they are not prepared to face reality of danger.

The use of a gun allows us to hunt but to put down quickly a farm animal that needs to be put out of it misery or needed for the table.

I see the gun as a tool to our lifestyle and the tools that we have reajusted to, have given us an ablity to be able to provide for ourselves far better than with out them.

The gun was not purchased to kill people. Yes, any gun can. I know it is legal to have a gun. I understand why it is legal. I know the rashional as to why it is in the founding doc. I know that I have taken an oath a time or to to defend that document. So, God willing and with the strenth of the number of people who feel the same I prey that at no time it ever comes down to a knock at the door and I am home. I would rather not face that choice. I would try to live up to my values. It gets hard because I have read the Bible and God did promoted killing of people and yet there is that list of 10. 

Having done a HS study on the founding fathers and then by a total fluke to learn that DH's ggg.....F was one of the signers well. I did feel that He did sign at great risk I said at the study time that he signed for himself and for the future of his family. Finding out that DH is family did inspire me even more to lay it on the line if need be in graditute for those who have risked it all for us to have the freedom to disagree and not be shot. I do not beleive that gun carrying persons are jumping at the chance to attack another person. The only persons I know who have paid for a gun to kill someone committed suicide. I know that there are bad people but those persons will find away even with out a gun. The only reason to take our guns away from the vast majority is not to protect us. It is only logical to see that taking our guns is a precurser to control and enslave us in some formate.


----------



## the mama (Mar 1, 2006)

Our whole county would rebel. I may give up a token and not incite violence....but...... what they don't know..... Like my DD quotes "walk silent and carry a big stick"


----------



## JuliaAnn (Dec 7, 2004)

Thank you Angie.


----------



## ||Downhome|| (Jan 12, 2009)

candyknitter said:


> there is no guarentee you will be attacked by thieves and murderers.


there is no good in removing weapons from law abiding citizens.
when I say good, it is in reference to good and evil.

though if you ask me as long as someone is not imprisoned its not lawful to prevent them from owning weapons. I do not really see anything in the guarantee to allow such.

the thieves and murders we fear are not the common ones but those in charge.

they already perpetuate crimes against the people, the fact that we are armed makes them walk softly at the least.

the van analogy is a very good one. you need to try and understand it a little better. 

with out a proper way to defend yourself it would not be long before the powers that be would start to make unreasonable demands and dictates.

how long would the life ,you were given the choice to go back to for the exchange of you weapons, last?

in many of our minds it would not, you might breath and live but not as you once did.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

Simple answer to the OP..
I didn't read all the responses so this may have been said already..
If I'm at home and the jack booted thugs kick my door in, I'm not going to get in their way..

But the minute they leave I will break out the reserves.... 

When you have over 30 rifle and shotguns and over a dozen pistol, they won't get them all..

I can reload for most calibers and can build a firearm from many parts.. Knowledge is one thing they can't take...

Be prepared for them.. Once they get the ones they know of (from records) you break out the ones they don't know of..

Sort of like the song Wild Flower (IIRC the name)

We just smiled and wave sittin there on that sack of seeds. :nana:

Then it will be time to disappear from society and wreak havoc on them...


----------



## whiskeylivewire (May 27, 2009)

I asked my DH this question and his reply was "if someone comes to take my guns someone is going to die". The amount of guns and ammo in our country is one of the biggest reasons we have not been invaded. This is my opinion of course, I'm sure someone somewhere will disagree! lol


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

Ernie said:


> Heh. You haven't been exactly hiding your light under a bushel.
> 
> I think your secret motto is, "If I'm going to be on a government list, then I might as well be at the TOP of the list."


Like you mentioned earlier, doubtful we'd be #1 on the list, surely there are larger fish on the Lists... Personally, I'd rather be at least a couple hundred down on the listings... to be #1 would mean death or surrender, and I don't think I'd like either of those options... but I know option one is on my list... I'm going to die sooner or later anyhow.



GREENCOUNTYPETE said:


> we hang them in the liberty tree in the town square


Do most folks even know where the town square 'is' anymore? I prefer the overpass going into town. :thumb:



kasilofhome said:


> I see the gun as a tool to our lifestyle and the tools that we have reajusted to, have given us an ablity to be able to provide for ourselves far better than with out them.


 Rarely does a day go by that my hands aren't handling a firearm. I touch many tools in a day, and sometimes that tool is a gun. Twice, in the middle of the night last night, my hands were on a revolver, firing out the window. The main psycho killah guard dog was crated up (he likes to help with kidding, and a doe was looking like she might kid) and the coyotes were circling the homestead, trying to lure out an unsuspecting 'little dog' for a scooby snack fest. A couple of rounds fired off towards the wilderness (and away from the cattle grazing nearby) takes care of the problem. It's second nature... hardly even woke up to 'get er done'.


----------



## Kiamichi Kid (Apr 9, 2009)

GREENCOUNTYPETE said:


> we hang them in the liberty tree in the town square


Yep..short rope..tall tree...


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

A thread from almost 2 years ago.

Very interesting considering the news and guns and legistation being proposed here and there and many places in the US.


----------



## zant (Dec 1, 2005)

"Gun control" lead to the deaths of roughly 1-120million people in the 20th century-if you've studied history you should know that-if you want to argue the reality-maybe someone else will do it with you...life is too short for the truly stupid.

God gave me the right to defend myself and family by ANY means possible...When God tells me not to,I won't...


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Ernie said:


> Where would our good poster be without a Churchill to follow Chamberlain? Would she even be among the living? Would she be singing hail to the fuhrer in some sweatshop somewhere?
> 
> How can anyone whose grandparents lived beneath the shadow of Hitler and his blitz on London dare question OUR right to defend ourselves?


And where would she be without all those Americans that already know how to shoot and volunteered to take those skills they learned in the hills and halls, cities and rural areas, and go 'over there' to help defend them.

I really want to know how 'gun control' laws would have stopped the recent school shooting? Criminals don't obey laws
The NRA President was correct "The only thing that will stop a bad man with a gun is a good man with a gun" else why not call the boy scouts instead of the police?


----------



## uhcrandy (Sep 16, 2010)

I suspect there are parts of the country where the Goberment may try to take arms from citizens. I am sure in the west, no authorities would dare. I believe most Legal authorities are Gun people, secondly they would know there would be an increadable loss of life to remove guns from the people. There are areas of of utah where LEOs never go without back-up. I am a suporter of law enforcement, my daughter is a LEO. I dont know of an officer who would support a confiscation of weapons, perhaps the UN?


----------



## wottahuzzee (Jul 7, 2006)

I have some chronic health issues, and as a result if I need any lifesaving treatment, I think Obamacare will deny it. These are not health issues that will get better with treatment, diet, exercise, etc. These are autoimmune issues. I know everybody's Aunt Sally's friend with the exact same disease was cured by standing on her head three times a day, but please, believe me if there was a cure I would know about it by now, all of us who deal with these diseases would know about it by now. 

Anyway back on topic -- so I realize they will "kill" me by Obamacare or when they come for guns. I'll just choose the when and where.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

candyknitter said:


> This is very true about different cultures. My son was saying the other day how people here should have the right to this and the right to that (we were talking about the economy and cutbacks in education spending etc) and my DH were looking at him like he was mad. We are very much in doctrinated to believe that actually no one has the unquestionable "right" to anything. You are given the laws/guidelines and you follow them and if you don't your in the wrong. I expect most of you would be horrified to read this and think you would rather shoot yourselves(!) but it's the gel that binds us *because that way you can see who is (or isn't) working for the benefit of the society.*


Wow <<Shakes head>> unbelievable! especially the underlined, to me that is the comments of a slave.


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

I wouldn't spend too much time bashing the English.

Who knows to what degree they have been propagandized from the very cradle.

They have other merits, if not their sense of rugged individualism.


----------



## Ohio dreamer (Apr 6, 2006)

The 2nd Amendment is not about the right to own guns to go hunting on Saturday morning. It's not about the right to take a gun to a range and have fun on a night after work. It's not even about protecting yourself for the drug crazed kid that lives down teh street. It's a God given right to be armed against a Tyranical governemnt. SO...if a Tyranical governemnt comes to your door and says you no longer have the rights God gave you....we superseed Him....what do you think is going to happen?? I think those guns that we have the God given right to use against a Tyranical government....are going to be used.


----------



## whodunit (Mar 29, 2004)

Like I've said many times before- it's easy to talk, but nobody wants to be the first one to pull the trigger. Do you have what it takes to go where that course of action will take you? What will your family do without you? Can you rely on them getting help from friends and family who might think differently than you on this subject when those people decide you were just a nut-job with a gun?


----------



## Studhauler (Jul 30, 2011)

Ohio dreamer said:


> It's a God given right to be armed against a Tyranical governemnt. SO...if a Tyranical governemnt comes to your door and says you no longer have the rights God gave you....we superseed Him....what do you think is going to happen?


Well said!


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

whodunit said:


> Like I've said many times before- it's easy to talk, but nobody wants to be the first one to pull the trigger. Do you have what it takes to go where that course of action will take you? What will your family do without you? Can you rely on them getting help from friends and family who might think differently than you on this subject when those people decide you were just a nut-job with a gun?


Obviously you don't want to be the first, but when you think about the famous saying "The Shot Heard Around The World", remember, it's not "The Shots"


----------



## whodunit (Mar 29, 2004)

Ozarks Tom said:


> Obviously you don't want to be the first, but when you think about the famous saying "The Shot Heard Around The World", remember, it's not "The Shots"


Yes, I was thinking of that when I wrote the above. I'm not necessarily saying I won't be the first one, but those who say it like it will be an easy decision have likely never been in life and death situations.

I believe that we tried diplomatic methods with Britain before going to war with them. Are we at the point of armed revolution? How many of us have taken the time to "steel" our state and local representatives on the coming federal incursion by enacting laws and resolutions? Geez, Berkeley and other ultra-liberal cities are is famous for these? Things like being "sanctuary cities", etc. Some states have legalized marijuana despite federal law. Why not laws/resolutions serving notice to the federal government that they have no intention in participating in any confiscation of firearms or prosecuting any legally qualifying citizen from possessing one? The federal government cannot do it alone.

I think the final decision whether or not to be the first one to fire would be easier knowing where your state and local government stands.


----------



## springvalley (Jun 23, 2009)

As many have said before, I keep "GUNS" for my right to protect myself from a government that has over stepped their boundries. Let them come for them, they will leave without them, and may leave by means of other transportation. Bad guys will always have and get guns, taking them away from good guys will not protect us, it will only make us to live in fear. Living in fear is not worth living, better to die a free man, than live a slave in fear. > God Bless America. > Thanks Marc


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

candyknitter said:


> I know to a lot of people here that their guns are a very important part of their preps, and on some America forums people make comments along the lines of if the goverment tried to take their weapons they'd have to prise them out of their cold dead hands!
> But just supposing the crazy thought happened that they decided to ban guns in America and if people didn't hand them in then the local sheriff would be paying a visit to confiscate them. Do you think people really would feel strongly enough that they would put up a fight? Take for example a fictional homesteader who has been building up a productive farm with animals and vegetables, they might have a wife and kids - do you reckon they would hole themselves up and go down fighting for their rights? To my mind having read how much heart, soul and energy goes into some of these homesteads, and how much pleasure people get from their lifestyle, I can't imagine if it came to the crunch people would risk getting shot - possibly fatally. But then it's probably easier for me to say that because I'm not in a gun bearing society! What do you think would happen?


I don't know about dieing, but I am willing to kill for it. The question is are the cops willing to die to enforce it?
The first time the local deputies try to enforce a FEDERAL BAN, I will take the fight to them. And they will lose.


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

The PTB would like that, Pops. They'd like that very much.

Whatever the recent insanity in Illinois, it would have played right into their plan had the Illinois State Police been given the task of collecting the banned weapons, and then taken an insane whipping from the constituency in the field.

Then the Federal agencies would be brought in, then the foreign troops.
I suspect they may have reconsidered their bill for the simple fact that starting the extermination so far inland might not be logistically sound.....yet.

Fighting local law enforcement is the last thing we want to do, because it's the first thing "they" want us to do.

Hopefully, there are enough local LEO who understand that, as well.


----------



## ||Downhome|| (Jan 12, 2009)

candyknitter said:


> Yes I am female, but the sheriff scenario isn't like your van one at all because he is giving you a choice - like in your purse example.
> 
> It's very interesting that so many feel that their life wouldn't carry on just as every other day without a gun. I was expecting some people would hate it but go along with trying to adjust.


Our Sheriffs are a bit different in nature then there I believe.
I think out of all Law Enforcement the Sheriff would be the last to come knocking for any ones guns.

Now The local PD would not be out of the question.

Though I would Question if the state police would under take such a task.

I have a bit more faith in them.

I think they would interject between the citizen and thouse local goons as would the Sheriffs.

One other thing that goes on, something may be illegal but if no one enforces it well its of no concern. 

Lots of stuff just like that. on the books but not enforced.

So if the Government wanted them their next option is the military, I think they may have their hands full there.

But the segment they do unleash, officially dooms them. 
They will have committed a crime and high treason against the people.
They will no longer be vested with the power granted them.
Not to say they will not have power but not lawfully.

So couple that Sheriffs,State Police, possibly local as well as dissenters in the military and we will have a new Government if they ever try a forceful gun grab.

They know it, we Know it and thats one reason its never happened and very very unlikely to happen.

I won't say I will not give up my guns but I'm also sorry for who ever tries to take them Illegally.


----------



## KMA1 (Dec 9, 2006)

The posts from Candyknitter really do honestly portray the thoughts of the majority of the Brits. I have many friends who are also martial arts masters in Great Britian. And most of them also hold the same beliefs as Candyknitter. They are so indoctinated in trusting the government that most even support the large knife ban also enacted in Britain a few years ago. To me that is both sad, and also disturbing that people are willing to surrender everything that most of us here hold dear to fit in and follow the rules and trust the government. And yet I see more and more of that same attitude in our own country. Let the government take care of me. Being prepared is selfish. Why does anyone need that kind of gun. Politicians who try to enforce their own ideas on us even though they are clearly against the Constitution and our enumerated God given rights. We are living in a very sad time my friends.


----------



## Cabin Fever (May 10, 2002)

I dont see it as a question of "Would you die to keep your guns?" I believe the question should be, "Would you die to remove a government that ignores the US Constitution?"


----------



## bluetogreens (May 31, 2010)

Somethign that has not been mentioned, and would be interestign to see it play out- Many states in recent days have chosen as a people to ignore Federal law and the feds have done nothing to stop the behavior. As examples I give
Amnesty/immigration status
Medicinal marijuana
Recreational marijuana
Gay marriage/civil union
Health care exchanges
Abortion laws making it more difficult to get an abortion in some states
( I am not saying I support these all or not but for point of order I actually support the rec. marijuana and gay civil union AND limited abortion)

So whats to say that oh Oklahoma and Texas the two most red states in the nation choose to ignore federal law. Good for its residents? Sure, but bad for the nation I think- If say the S/SE/SW/Plains states all ignore the federal law- those people in those states continue life and do not care what happens to say the New Mexico's or Florida's that are majority red but blue enough to enforce the law? Who will have their citizen's back? Should we have their back? Should it actually come down to the states right to enforce stronger gun laws? I wonder if I will be able to find a state that is Anti illegal immigration, Pro gun, Pro-choice with limitations, and pro Marijuana? I think that state would have the true power of diversity, the best and brightest of all "groups" of American's from Artists to engineers would flock to it. 

I wonder if There is a state on the verge of this that I could run for Governor of and make it happen? I think I could win an election with enough money and grass roots support-if my goats dont eat the grass roots.


----------



## puddlejumper007 (Jan 12, 2008)

a whole lot of guns are not registered, and have been n famlies for years...
i read somewhere that the only reason china has not attacked us is there is a gun behind every door


----------



## ||Downhome|| (Jan 12, 2009)

Ya that only goes so far, Arizona's getting flack on their Immigration law, last I knew the feds where indeed busting people for pot in Legalized states. I had heard some murmurs of a few here.
Not just feds but locals.
Even In a State there are many divisions, and everyone wants control over their piece of pie.
Often times though its a turn coat in charge, you know the ones looking to get into higher levels so they stay good minions to help get them there.


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

puddlejumper007 said:


> a whole lot of guns are not registered, and have been n famlies for years...
> i read somewhere that the only reason china has not attacked us is there is a gun behind every door


.....and just as soon as they feel that enough of those guns have been relinquished, attack is exactly what they and several others intend to do.

Politicians know this, and the fact that they play around so casually with the Second is an extremely dangerous indication.


----------



## pmondo (Oct 6, 2007)

candyknitter said:


> Yes I am female, but the sheriff scenario isn't like your van one at all because he is giving you a choice - like in your purse example.
> 
> It's very interesting that so many feel that their life wouldn't carry on just as every other day without a gun. I was expecting some people would hate it but go along with trying to adjust.


life wouldn't carry on just as every other day without a gun tell that to the 250 million people killed by their government after they banned guns


----------



## edjewcollins (Jun 20, 2003)

I have already told my wife that if they come for them she needs to take herself and the kids to her mothers house in Canada. I will be staying here to defend the 2nd amendment by force if necessary. An armed citizenry is the only way to defend against the evil all governments become.


----------



## Steve L. (Feb 23, 2004)

edjewcollins said:


> I have already told my wife that if they come for them she needs to take herself and the kids to her mothers house in Canada. I will be staying here to defend the 2nd amendment by force if necessary. An armed citizenry is the only way to defend against the evil all governments become.


The sad thing is that, when one of us _does _stand up for our rights, he'll be portrayed in the media as 'a madman with an arsenal', and used as an excuse for MORE governmental excesses.


----------



## longshot38 (Dec 19, 2006)

I'm thinking a lot of people have already died for the right to bear arms in America.:cowboy:

dean


----------



## Marshloft (Mar 24, 2008)

longshot38 said:


> I'm thinking a lot of people have already died for the right to bear arms in America.:cowboy:
> 
> dean


 Can you name any particular event where someone died for the "right to bear arms"?
Not saying there hasn't been, just askin.
GH


----------



## ||Downhome|| (Jan 12, 2009)

Marshloft said:


> Can you name any particular event where someone died for the "right to bear arms"?
> Not saying there hasn't been, just askin.
> GH



A Little party called the Revolution of coarse that encompassed a lot of other things, I think we term it FREEDOM though...

Seem many sat side lines even when given a formal Invite to that party, seem even more Left and went to Canada Only to return and reap the sacrifice of those Few. 

Him how things have changed. 

Ya thats bit of sarcasm.


----------



## Common Tator (Feb 19, 2008)

KMA1 said:


> No, you do not need a license to own or possess a firearm in most places in the US. It is true that paperwork identifying the buyer and his address is filled out for purchases at retail dealers. There are always individuals and groups that are stronger that prey on the weaker. Just as you still have crimes in the UK even though you have much more stringent firearms laws. People who make their living preying off others are everywhere.


Actually, the crime rate in the UK are higher than here. 

http://therealrevo.com/blog/?p=90584


----------



## DaleK (Sep 23, 2004)

edjewcollins said:


> I have already told my wife that if they come for them she needs to take herself and the kids to her mothers house in Canada.


Tell them to stop by if they need a sandwich or something along the way.


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

Marshloft said:


> Can you name any particular event where someone died for the "right to bear arms"?
> Not saying there hasn't been, just askin.
> GH


Lexingon & Concord


----------



## Marshloft (Mar 24, 2008)

Pops2 said:


> Lexingon & Concord


 Good enough, tell me what they were fighting for. I'm interested to find somewher in history where we fought specifically for the "right to bear arms".
I've searched, and have been found wanting.
GH
Don't forget, I'm wearin the white hat, ok?


----------



## ||Downhome|| (Jan 12, 2009)

Marshloft said:


> Good enough, tell me what they were fighting for. I'm interested to find somewher in history where we fought specifically for the "right to bear arms".
> I've searched, and have been found wanting.
> GH
> Don't forget, I'm wearin the white hat, ok?



You say Good enough but then inquire further? 

here you go, chapter 2 page 9 you could read the entire brief though...
http://www.nssf.org/share/PDF/NSSF_McDonaldvChicago_Brief.pdf

As stated previously it was not just arms but many issues, but I believe the act of disarmament gave the Revolutionaries the support and thus momentum needed to win that Fight.


----------



## Marshloft (Mar 24, 2008)

||Downhome|| said:


> You say Good enough but then inquire further?
> 
> here you go, chapter 2 page 9 you could read the entire brief though...
> http://www.nssf.org/share/PDF/NSSF_McDonaldvChicago_Brief.pdf
> ...


 Thank you,,, that was what I was looking for.
My next question,,, why hasn't this document been presented before congress and other political places that think they have the right to do away with said document?
AND,,, why was it so difficult for me to find in the first place.
I have no problem claiming ignorance to how and the why we have the constitution, bill of rights etc etc.
Thats to my shame.
But,,, when searching,, I'm pretty good,, or so I thought.
Anyway,,, I'm saving this and printing it out tomorrow so I can read it better. I don't have a problem with reading web pages in general,,, but,, the important stuff is better to be read more than once and having a hard copy to fall back on is always a help when having the opportunity to teach my young ones.
GH


----------



## ||Downhome|| (Jan 12, 2009)

The only Document that matters is the Constitution,Trust me they already know about it!
In fact many are required to swear to up hold and defend it.
They try to skirt it by twisting what is written though.
Honestly on one hand they want to claim the Forefathers did not have the Foresight to see down the road then turn and say it was written as a Living Document, as in the terms and definitions change with the times... Only way its living is by Ratification.Thats where room was left for growth.
I think Our Fore Fathers Where Intelligent but simple men and did not try to create some sort of "Mood Ring" with the Constitution. 
What was Written was wrote after much debate and input, and only after being Agreed upon by all party to the Instrument..
It was written in a simple terms but Its no simple matter to sweep it away.
Those terms are still very much easily understood today.
the Second being very clear , why do we have to Interpret anything?
I could understand if it where in French?

That links a Brief presented to the US Supreme Court and Cites numerous instances of Gun Grabbing.

So not necessarily a historical document but it is a historical fact that the British tried to Disarm the colonists.

When I have a second unless someone else points you in a good direction, I'll dig something a bit more concrete. But for something to be included in a brief it normally very soundly based in fact.
that is unless you like building sand castles.


----------



## ||Downhome|| (Jan 12, 2009)

this well long is a bit more on the subject. citations at the end.
http://saf.org/LawReviews/Stearns1.htm

Candyknitter should really read this one.

But as I so often point out, included in the bill of rights is "The enumeration in the Constitution, of *certain rights*, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people". known as the 9th amendment.
That means your born with the right, they choose to enumerate it because it was that important, a safe guard if you will.
Listing it was no grant nor privilege nor did it give any Government nor man the Rights of another.
Very Far from that its the Bill of rights not privileges.

I know and see people all the Time that would kill you for far less then the right to protect and provide.
that is Some trivial possession that's easily replaced... 
Problem there is well you fall right into survival of the fittest.
Darwin cited that Rule and well I generally agree with it theirs another saying, "God created _man_, but _Winchester made_ them _equal"
_well thats somewhat true, only partially. You know its still has a lot to do with survival of the fittest. but odds lay with the best armed Individual.
And if that guy stealing you lawn mower happens to have a high capacity large caliber weapon and your stuck with a muzzle loader well hope your a real good shot.
I want the Best I can Afford to do the Jobs I need them for.
Some jobs I hope to never need them for but better to be prepared then wishing you where.
.
That is how I see My Guns, that's how I see others Guns. their guns are protecting me also.I also see them as things of beauty and ingenuity. Tools and Toys(not to be taken wrong). Necessary in every way and I'm Endowed by my Creator to Handle,make,use and protect them and their ilk(things of that nature). 

But I tend to agree with Pops on I don't plan on Dieing for them... 

I do Understand why many in other Country's do not Get it, But people hear just baffles me.


----------



## Marshloft (Mar 24, 2008)

Thanks "downhome"
I just noticed your farm name, we have much more in common than we may ever know.
GH


----------



## ||Downhome|| (Jan 12, 2009)

I wanted to name it Rebel Ridge but thats sort of popular not here but else where.
Got a bit of a ridge in the back half but a ridge is also a rise.
A bit Symbolic but also paying a bit of Homage.


----------



## Cabin Fever (May 10, 2002)

Marshloft said:


> Good enough, tell me what they were fighting for. I'm interested to find somewher in history where we fought specifically for the "right to bear arms".
> I've searched, and have been found wanting.
> GH
> Don't forget, I'm wearin the white hat, ok?


Either World War, had we lost, would have resulted in this country being taken over by agressors that would have tossed our Constitution in the waste basket.


----------



## zant (Dec 1, 2005)

Possibly a better question would be-How many Feds,politicians,media scum would be willing to die to take away a fundamental God given right to defend yourself and your family.....Puts it in a different perspective.


----------



## GREENCOUNTYPETE (Jul 25, 2006)

What the framers of the constitution knew was that good men desire to be left to their work , their family and their pleasures , and so long as none of them harm anyone else , they should be left to do so. they also knew that some men find it their calling to twist and contort words to gain power over other men , the good whom just want to be left free.

politicians and lawyers are certainly nothing new they plagued ancient Greece and ancient Rome thousand of years ago and the founding fathers knew they would one day plague us also , they layed down a document doing their best to insure the freedom of good men as long as possible , and in doing so the first items outlined in the constitution are the rights to speak , communicate and assemble , the right to keep and bear arms to insure other rights remained , the right to privacy in papers and possessions from search ans seizure , and the right to a fair trial by jury of ones peers. these were the protections to freedom they found most sacred , then they laid out a system of government that distributed the power around very evenly as to not let any one branch or house be able to pass law without the agreement of the rest.

by working to ensure us these rights for as long as possible they worked to ensure us the tools of freedom , to free men until such a time as these rights were denied , then it is time to start over.


----------



## blaundee (Nov 3, 2012)

AngieM2 said:


> I believe every US American here on this forum, will reply that they will not willingly give up their guns.
> 
> And yes, the 2nd amendment to our constitution is a very strong fighting point.


 
EXACTLY.

See, WHAT is life if you are NOT free? My forefathers did the exact thing the hypothetical homesteader did in the OP, and that is how America became a free country. Yes, we have laws and I feel we have too many laws to be considered truly free, but if our guns were taken away from us, we would TRULY NOT BE FREE. Yes, blood may be spilled, MY BLOOD may be spilled, and while I do not want to die, I would rather die free, and sacrifice, as all of our soldiers have been willing to do, so that others may be free- "GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH". 

Something, though, to think about is not everyone WANTS to be free, and you cannot force a society to be free if they do not want it. ALL of the Americans I personally know WANT to be free, as do most of the immigrants that I personally know.


----------



## blaundee (Nov 3, 2012)

||Downhome|| said:


> A Little party called the Revolution of coarse that encompassed a lot of other things, I think we term it FREEDOM though...
> 
> Seem many sat side lines even when given a formal Invite to that party, seem even more Left and went to Canada Only to return and reap the sacrifice of those Few.
> 
> ...


 
My ancestors literally fought in and paid for that war, AND signed the Constitution. My Grandpa was ON Omaha Beach on D-Day. I will NOT idly sit by and let what THEY did be in vain on my watch. I may fail, but I will fight. To the death.


----------



## blaundee (Nov 3, 2012)

Pops2 said:


> I don't know about dieing, but I am willing to kill for it. The question is are the cops willing to die to enforce it?
> The first time the local deputies try to enforce a FEDERAL BAN, I will take the fight to them. And they will lose.


 
I think that most cops (locals, not feds) would refuse to enforce that law, because they are fully aware of what crime is and how ineffective law enforcement can be, AND they themselves love freedom- which is what most likely drove them to want to be in law enforcement in the first place. Feds may be more willing to be government pawns and belong to the powerful government.

BTW, here's a thought- POWER IS GIVEN. Nobody can have power over you unless you give it to them.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

The strengths provided to us against the government's actions stand tall in as far as a law that is legislated into being that is abhorrent to that original document are void upon their face and cannot and should not be enforced. We remain as we originally were in that we have the right to bear arms, the government is expressly limited in the confiscation of those weapons.. The moment that someone, anyone comes with a demand or request that we give up that stated right is essentially committing an act of treason. In other issues, one might submit and go to court to establish that fact but that is essentially asking them to see that they are in the wrong, but to comply with this request/demand would seem to take any chance of regaining that right away if the people freely give it up. Sure, if they do come for the weapons some will die but once the act of taking our weapons becomes established as rock solid treason then those that have died will be given the proper status with regards to the protection of these established rights or better stated, restrictions upon the government's actions.


----------



## longshot38 (Dec 19, 2006)

Marshloft said:


> Can you name any particular event where someone died for the "right to bear arms"?
> Not saying there hasn't been, just askin.
> GH


im a bit late, but never the less, fighting and dieing for the "right to bear arms" is bigger than those 27 words in the bill of rights. it is the concept, the idea of freedom. this question is not one of fire arms, or other "weapons" it is that a government which sees its self above the people will (1) develop arrogance and (2) work to insure that the lesser population is unable to resist that arrogance. hence the taxation without representation that was present at the time of the Boston Tea Party and the attempt to confiscate the gun powder and other stores at the armory in Lexington, ( i think that was the town that held the powder) leading to the Lexington and Concord battles. the 2nd amendment is about more than hand guns, deer guns, or even military style rifles, it is about freedom and the idea that the people not the government are the source of that freedom. hence the quote that the government of the people, by the people and for the people should not disappear from the earth. despite the fact that the light has been dimmed somewhat America is still the shining light on the hill that others either use to light the darkness or curse the glare. that is when the people fought and died for the right to bear arms, the answer is in every battle that made, or maintained freedom for all of us, US citizen or not.

dean


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

Interesting read,I am always surprised by how English(and Australians) are when it comes to guns,an almost knee jerk reaction in the negative.

But once you start to talk to them,they seem to realise they have no logical basis for their opinions.

All that said,IF it came down to it,I would not want to die for my guns.
I would however fight to keep them.

And I have no problem admitting I don't want to be the first person the gov. comes to,I hope to be WAY down the list so there is time to prepare.:happy2:


----------



## Spinner (Jul 19, 2003)

It's been said by our past enemies that they did not invade America because they knew there was a gun behind every blade of grass. I believe that if our own govt goes rogue they will discover that statement is true.


----------



## CocalicoSprings (Mar 12, 2008)

I would die for the right to keep my slingshot.
I would die for the right to keep my bow and arrow.
I would die for my right to keep my BB gun.
I would die for my right to keep my .22 cal rifle.
I would die for the right to keep my 12 gauge shotgun.
I would die for the right to keep my .3006 deer rifle.
I would die for the right to keep my semi-automatic .223
I would probably not die for the right to keep a cannon.
I would probably not die for the right to keep a grenade.
I would probably not die for the right to keep a Stinger.
I would probably not die for my right to keep a biological weapon.
I would probably not die for my right to keep a chemical weapon.
I would probably not die for my right to keep a nuclear weapon.


----------



## tarbe (Apr 7, 2007)

I was prepared to die defending freedom as a U.S. Marine grunt in the 70's....nothing has changed.

My wife and I have "the discussion" periodically....more often here of late. She understands that if what you postulate in your OP happens, she may well become a widow.

I know *many* former military (and more than a few life-long civilians) who feel the same way.

Oh, and I hope the NSA chokes on this post!


----------



## Cabin Fever (May 10, 2002)

First they came for the high capacity magazines, and I did not speak out --
Because I didn't own any "assault weapons", and who really needs to have 30 round magazines?

Next they demanded registration of all privately owned firearms, and I did not speak out --
Because I was an American. Confiscation would NEVER happen here, and they said this was necessary to stop all the gun violence and after all we still have our 2nd Amendment right to have firearms....

Then they came for the military-styled semi-automatic rifles and shotguns with pistol grips, and I did not speak out --
Because I'm a hunter and they let me keep my deer rifle, turkey shotgun, and 8-round concealed carry pistol. They would never take those.

Then they came for all high powered rifles and all semiautomatic firearms, and I did not speak out --
Because I didn't need those to defend my home and family if I still had my shotgun.

Then they came for all privately owned firearms, and I did not speak out --
Because they promised me the police and the government would protect me, and said that civilian gun ownership had to end because gun violence was out of control.

When they came for me because I had owned guns in the past, and I could not speak out nor defend myself---
And there was nobody left to speak out for me.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

The thing that I think most people don't understand is that government is an evil entity. Not just this government, not someone else's government, but ALL governments. The individuals in that government may be good, bad, or as we increasingly see, simply neutral bureaucrats.

If the government could get away with it, they'd kick in your door, throw you down on the table, harvest your internal organs and then carry them fresh out into the street to sell them to the highest bidder.

Government has to be restrained. It has to be shackled. A tolerable government will restrain itself with laws, but when it becomes intolerable then it must be restrained by violent force. It must be met in the streets by citizens ready and prepared to do violence and tell the hand of the government "no, you shall not have us today."

Guns are what enables us to do that. We know it, and government knows it. That's why they want to take ours, and that's why we don't want to give them up.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

&#8220;If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without bloodshed,
If you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly,
You may come to the moment when you will have to fight
with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival.&#8221;*&#8230;Winston Churchill*


----------



## lamina1982 (Jan 14, 2013)

I think unless people wake up and start standing up for their rights, we will see bloodshed. Too many gun owners are complacent. I firmly vow to stand up and do whatever it takes, if that means dieing ..then so be it. The problem with todays society is that it is all about "me" They are only thinking about their lives. We would be dieing FOR our children, so that they would not have to grow up under an oppressive regime.


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

The cold truth is, a man should be willing to die before letting any of his rights be infringed upon, period.

That would be the ultimate provision for his progeny.

Imagine if our ancestry had held that line.....

It has been said, "A coward dies a thousand deaths; a brave man, only one."

Personally, I grow weary of life lived in remarkable semblance to cowardice.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

LisaInN.Idaho said:


> deleted post was quoted here.


That was my line, not his, so it's not fair to attack him for it.

There are a lot of people who pity us for the way we live, and a lot that envy us. There are plenty in between who find it fascinating entertainment but would never want to live that way themselves.

You appear to have built an entire philosophy around the way we live based upon one or two forum posts. I assure you that there's no paranoia, nothing worth pitying, and what a lot of people call hardship ... we call living and enjoy every waking moment of it. You can't really appreciate a cool evening breeze until you've had to suffer through a brutal baking at the hands of the afternoon sun. 

If you're ever in West Texas then I cordially invite you to contact me so that I can show you the truth of this life over an afternoon and some farm-raised supper. Might even be music come sunset, if the right people happen to be visiting us at the time. 

Guns play very little part of my daily life, but having one hanging above the door (and having the willingness to use it against all thieves and oppressors) guarantees that we will have that daily life and that there will always be music come sunset.


----------



## partndn (Jun 18, 2009)

nevermind....


----------



## KeepingItAtHome (Jun 17, 2013)

if the Sheriff came knocking on my door (which would really surprise me since he's a gun activist himself) I'd had over my *registered* guns. My children need their parents. That doesn't mean I wouldn't fight tooth and nail the whole way, but I'm not willing to leave my kids orphans, or worse put their lives at risk for our rights. That doesn't mean I would follow the entirety of the law... But part of why I love living in OK is it's very unlikely the local law man is going to come asking for any of my guns.


----------



## terri9630 (Mar 12, 2012)

LisaInN.Idaho said:


> deleted post was quoted here


No paroinia here. Our way of life fits us perfectly, I don't live to meet others standards. My neighbor offered to let me use her dryer since I "obviously can't afford one. If I'd just get rid of the animals maybe I could?" she can't understand that I use a clothes line to keep from heating the house while paying to cool it and that the animals are keeping my daughter out of the hospital. 

I pity all those who are dealing with digestive issues,diagnosed or not, because of the chemical laden food they eat. I will gladly sweat and "suffer" to provide my daughter with food that isn't making her sick instead of giving her MORE chemicals to treat what shouldn't be an issue.


----------



## tarbe (Apr 7, 2007)

Just gotta say it.....welcome back Ernie!


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

tarbe said:


> Just gotta say it.....welcome back Ernie!


Thanks.  Angie talked me into it.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

Hi All -
No personal attacks. They get deleted as soon as I am back on line and see them.

(today I was driving all day, and doing a little investigative work about my missing daughter and family.)


----------



## Ohio Rusty (Jan 18, 2008)

I have read and read this thread ...and I should chime in. You can bet the NSA -- National Surveillance Agency is also monitoring what is said and by whom.
95% or more people WILL NOT die to keep their firearms, and it fact, they will willingly turn them over to the Gov't Weapon Confiscation Squads when they appear at their front door. It has been asked "what will you do when they show up at your door, armed to the teeth with automatic weapons and armored vehicles"?
Many current police departments are being trained in insurgent tactics -- like how to go door to door as a paramilitary force. Why are they doing this ?? Are we -- the armed citizen -- being considered the same as insurgents and dangerous terrorists because we own firearms and stand on the 2nd admendment ??

Sometime in this last year Chicago police took a whole weekend and practiced martial law tactics on neighborhoods, door to door searches, etc. I believe that the police and Gov't agencies are gearing up for some sort of scenario that we as citizens will not like.

Even Homeland Security has purchased at least 2500 armored vehicles along with millions of rounds of ammo. Why do they need Armored vehicles ?? They aren't going overseas to war ..... maybe they know their soon to be war will be in your neighborhood .... and your city against your neighbors, family and friends. 

Ammo has been hard to acquire, and none of us have the ammo supplies and stockpiles of a trained Gov't agency or local police department. The Gov't knows this. Secondly ...None of us are an organized militia ...let alone organized at all, and the Gov't knows this also.

If they came to your neighbors across the street to take their guns ....are you going to stop the Gov't Weapon Confiscation Squad by starting a firefight, or are you going to peek thru your drapes and watch the Squad remove all weapons and ammo from your neighbors house. Then they will go to the next house ...then the next ...until they get to yours. Resist, and it will look like a current fight in Iraq .... all of them against you. You most likely don't have a hardened shooting point to hide behind, so all their bullets rip right thru your house from one end to the other non-stop.
You're dead .... and to the Victor goes the spoils ...all of your cache of weapons and ammo and all your prep supplies and food will be turned over to the Local Gov't to do as they please with them

Being none of the gun owners are organized to fight against the above scenario, The Gov't knows their confiscation job will be easy except for the occasional holdout. If a gun owner put up a really big battle ...a simple drone strike with a hellfire missle thru their picture window ends the conflict with no loss to the lives of any police or Gov't officials. (There was a recent decision by the Gov't that drone strikes against American citizens has been OK'd.)

There are many who think if confiscation were to take place, that every front yard will look like Waco, with the blood of police and patriots alike spilling into the street. I don't think so at all ..... It will be more like an armed shepard against a flock of sheep.
Ohio Rusty ><>


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

You're correct rusty. Especially when the good citizens in my neck of the woods realize they can't shop at Walmart if their dead.


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

Ohio Rusty said:


> I have read and read this thread ...and I should chime in. You can bet the NSA -- National Surveillance Agency is also monitoring what is said and by whom.
> 95% or more people WILL NOT die to keep their firearms, and it fact, they will willingly turn them over to the Gov't Weapon Confiscation Squads when they appear at their front door. It has been asked "what will you do when they show up at your door, armed to the teeth with automatic weapons and armored vehicles"?
> Many current police departments are being trained in insurgent tactics -- like how to go door to door as a paramilitary force. Why are they doing this ?? Are we -- the armed citizen -- being considered the same as insurgents and dangerous terrorists because we own firearms and stand on the 2nd admendment ??
> 
> ...


So......it will be a good day to die, no ?


----------



## unregistered41671 (Dec 29, 2009)

Hoka Hey


----------



## Cabin Fever (May 10, 2002)

Ohio Rusty said:


> ....There are many who think if confiscation were to take place, that every front yard will look like Waco, with the blood of police and patriots alike spilling into the street......Ohio Rusty


We've started to call our front yard "Omaha Beach."


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

My take is, to have an effective confiscation, they would need to exercise this program nationwide, all at the same time... which I'm thinking is technically impossible. If they do start, the word will get out, via the internet (unless they shut it down), via the phones (unless they shut it down), or by word of mouth (unless they stop everyone from traveling). Shutting down the first two just happen to be some of my "hunker down" signals.

If they allow citizens to utilize the net, the word will get out... and then it's game on. We have a very small law enforcement force in my county, and they're all anti-gun control, and have said they'd NOT assist any Federal or UN forces. Hey, it's a small force, and everyone knows where they live... and they enjoy living here. IF foreign forces (federal or UN) arrived, they'd be under siege from the get go... Good luck getting food, fuel, resupply into those safe haven bases they'd have to set up... everyone here, ********, Doctors, Lawyers, Roughnecks, and heck, even the Liberals, are armed better than most third world armies.... and would make like intolerably miserable for anyone trying to round up guns or citizens.

Personally I think, for logistical purposes, the forces would have to be UN.


----------



## tarbe (Apr 7, 2007)

Ohio Rusty said:


> I have read and read this thread ...and I should chime in. You can bet the NSA -- National Surveillance Agency is also monitoring what is said and by whom.
> 95% or more people WILL NOT die to keep their firearms, and it fact, they will willingly turn them over to the Gov't Weapon Confiscation Squads when they appear at their front door.
> Ohio Rusty ><>


I hope you are correct in your assessment.

5% of gun owners would be quite a force for liberty.


----------



## siberian (Aug 23, 2011)

Cabin Fever, that was good. guess history does repeat itself. loved that quote from Hitlers time, seems to make sense today as well.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

texican said:


> Personally I think, for logistical purposes, the forces would have to be UN.


Well then, judging by their effectiveness in other parts of the world, we have nothing to worry about. Paper tiger.


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

UN at the head....."overseeing".

Extremely capable Soviet, Chinese, Turkish, etc. military commanders and some very hateful troops/mercenaries under them.....this all alongside if not immediately following "homeland security".

I think the threat is at least noteworthy.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Forerunner said:


> UN at the head....."overseeing".
> 
> *Extremely capable Soviet, Chinese, Turkish, etc. military commanders and some very hateful troops/mercenaries under them*.....this all alongside if not immediately following "homeland security".
> 
> I think the threat is at least noteworthy.


At which point, the decision will have to be made to live in bondage or die free because _those_ troops on US soil will clearly signal 'game over'.


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

Hypothetically speaking,if the above scenario does happen,going toe to toe with the anti-freedom forces is foolishness and won't accomplish anything much at all.

But watching and waiting,seeing who in your area is supporting the anti-freedom forces and dealing with them in whatever way is deemed necessary will work.

If your local PD supports the anti-freedom forces,then your local PD is a valid target,anywhere you find them.

Resistance/guerrilla forces don't fight toe to toe,they ambush,they attack when such attacks aren't expected.


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

Txsteader said:


> At which point, the decision will have to be made to live in bondage or die free because _those_ troops on US soil will clearly signal 'game over'.


The way I see it going down.....there will be a "domestic disturbance" that will be grave enough in its unfolding that the "people" will demand greater protection, and foreign troops will be the magic bullet......so "we'll" be told.

They may even appear as friendly and helpful while they entrench themselves tactically.

So.....even then, average Joe might not have "game over" cross his mind.


----------



## Cabin Fever (May 10, 2002)

tarbe said:


> I hope you are correct in your assessment.
> 
> 5% of gun owners would be quite a force for liberty.


 ^Exactly

In the Revolutionary War only 3% of the population actually fought against Great Britian and 30% fought with the British!


----------



## Ohio Rusty (Jan 18, 2008)

The way I envision this happening is the President, flanked by OBiden, and their cronies along with a forceful police presence would present a major TV and Radio announcement that by executive order, all assault weapons and their ammo is immediately banned and must be turned over to their local law enforcement. If people don't comply, then they will be threatened with imprisonment of themselves and families, and their personal property and homes would be seized.

That would scare many into turning over their weapons. People are getting used to being told what to do by The Gov't and other federal agencies. It almost if many have been conditioned to act on an order from TPTB. It happens all the time when there is an upcoming storm and the Federal agencies make announcements for people to do things for their safety. In this case, the Gov't orders weapons to be turned over for their own good and the good of the country.

Those that resist will not be seen as patriots by all the anti-gun people, law enforcement and the general sheeple public at large. Even though the patriots are you and me and all the gun-owning, freedom-loving people like us, they will be publicly labelled rogue cop killers like Christopher Dorner in the California police standoff, and that will turn many against the patriots and their cause of liberty and freedom. Public news media and socail media are powerful tools and the Gov't will use it to their greatest advantage. The people that hate guns and the anti gun groups will in no way change their minds for the patriot cause, anymore than an anti gun person will convince you that all your guns are a terrible thing and they must be destroyed.

That is when America will get ripped apart and set on fire. Again I say .... to the Victor goes the spoils .... Who will that be in the end ????

Ohio Rusty ><>

I've taken a few of the thoughts of others on this thread and combined them into the really great tag line below I can use at the bottom of posts. Thanks all for their thoughts ....

_If I'm going to die I'd rather die on my feet, than on my knees. The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting ....... __it's about our freedom and killing tyrants. Anyone not in favor of individuals possessing firearms... is a tyrant._​


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

I'm not so sure it will be that easy. Yes, there will be some who, out of ignorance or naivete. still trust the govt and would follow orders. But even most liberal Democrat gun-owners love their guns too much to simply hand them over. 

The dirty, sneaky part is when govt redefines weapons classifications; i.e. assault weapons, for example. I doubt even Mark Kelly would relinquish his Glock (or whatever it was) should TPTB decide to class it as an assault weapon. 

Whatever they do, it will be done it nibble-sized increments because there are simply too many people who still understand and cherish the power of the 2nd Amendment for them to push the issue too hard, too suddenly. The nation would explode and there would be bloodshed. 

In the meantime, it's the responsibility of those who do cherish the Constitution to educate others........particularly young people, because that's where the anti-gun advocates have had their sights set for the past 30+ years. Nibble, nibble.


----------



## longshot38 (Dec 19, 2006)

oz in SC V2.0 said:


> Hypothetically speaking,if the above scenario does happen,going toe to toe with the anti-freedom forces is foolishness and won't accomplish anything much at all.
> 
> But watching and waiting,seeing who in your area is supporting the anti-freedom forces and dealing with them in whatever way is deemed necessary will work.
> 
> ...


This, asymmetrical warfare can be highly effective if done correctly. 

dean


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

texican said:


> My take is, to have an effective confiscation, they would need to exercise this program nationwide, all at the same time... which I'm thinking is technically impossible. If they do start, the word will get out, via the internet (unless they shut it down), via the phones (unless they shut it down), or by word of mouth (unless they stop everyone from traveling). Shutting down the first two just happen to be some of my "hunker down" signals.
> 
> If they allow citizens to utilize the net, the word will get out... and then it's game on. We have a very small law enforcement force in my county, and they're all anti-gun control, and have said they'd NOT assist any Federal or UN forces. Hey, it's a small force, and everyone knows where they live... and they enjoy living here. IF foreign forces (federal or UN) arrived, they'd be under siege from the get go... Good luck getting food, fuel, resupply into those safe haven bases they'd have to set up... everyone here, ********, Doctors, Lawyers, Roughnecks, and heck, even the Liberals, are armed better than most third world armies.... and would make like intolerably miserable for anyone trying to round up guns or citizens.
> 
> Personally I think, for logistical purposes, the forces would have to be UN.


Not logistically possible. Having participated in similar search activities in Iraq, I can assure you the entirety of US LE agencies is insufficient for the purpose. It takes a 400-600 man battalion all day to clean sweep a 200 house village of mostly 1-4 room mud brick huts. It would be game on as soon as the first neighborhood was started.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

Pops2 said:


> Not logistically possible. Having participated in similar search activities in Iraq, I can assure you the entirety of US LE agencies is insufficient for the purpose. It takes a 400-600 man battalion all day to clean sweep a 200 house village of mostly 1-4 room mud brick huts. It would be game on as soon as the first neighborhood was started.


If they come to your house first, my suggestion is to smile and give up your guns. Comply with them and nod a lot at whatever they say.

And as soon as they drive away, get on the phone, internet, HAM radio, whatever and let people know what's coming down the road.

Other patriots will have you rearmed before the day is over and there will be real work to be done on day 2.

Look at the mobilization they executed in Watertown looking for those two Chechen kids. I've never seen so many fat, out-of-shape cops huffing along in tactical gear. It was a giant show of force, as ineffective as it was infuriating. How many of us with military experience saw those idiots bebopping along the streets and thought about what would happen if it was a real war instead of a dying kid hiding in a boat?


----------



## Rick (May 10, 2002)

candyknitter said:


> Don't get ahead of yourself - i'm not questioning your right. I just wonder if it came to the crunch if people would leave those they love behind to carry on without them.


You speak as a troll, even an information gathering robo-troll.

Are you not listening? We want our loved ones and their children to be in liberation, carrying on. Period. What happens to us? Better than what would happen to them if we cower.


----------



## oregon woodsmok (Dec 19, 2010)

I keep thinking about this.

If it is a foreign invasion, it isn't even a question. This is ranching and hunting country and a foreign army would have a very uncomfortable time marching through this area. We are patriotic here. The streets are all lined with flags on holidays.

We are also very proud and supportive of our children who go off to fight in the war. Could I shoot those young men? The son of my next door neighbor? The husband of the girl who rings up my groceries? The police officer who lives down the block, volunteers at the food bank, and stops by to ask me how to care for his new fruit trees?

Y'all better be praying that it never happens. 

The local sheriff has already announced that there will be no violation of constitutional rights from his department. The policemen, firemen, and National guardsmen are almost all hunters and gun owners. If troops from outside the area were brought in, they would still be Americans, still be someone's son or daughter.


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

You may change your tune OW if they shoot one of your own, a friend or neighbor. They will become the enemy big time, for me anyways.


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

Ernie said:


> If they come to your house first, my suggestion is to smile and give up your guns. Comply with them and nod a lot at whatever they say.
> 
> And as soon as they drive away, get on the phone, internet, HAM radio, whatever and let people know what's coming down the road.
> 
> ...


Not likely to come here first, i don't own any scary black guns and haven't since the first Bush caused the first scare & I sold it for 4X what I paid for it.


----------



## montysky (Aug 21, 2006)

First I would hope I wouldn't be caught flat footed with my pants down! Like Texican said we sould pick up some early warnings and act to it (bug out not react. Montana state troopers and the Local Country LE have already said that they would not help in anyway with the feds in taking weapons away.Got to look with an open eye, how likely would your local police help and whom? and plan for it, As an example to you live in Los Angeles County or the wilds of far northern California your choices would not be the same.I have weapons that can't be traced and some that can, I know which ones are safe and in our Bug Out local and which are in my gun safe on the ranch. One group I give up with a smile one group well you know...


----------



## littlejoe (Jan 17, 2007)

*Would people really die for their right to bear arms? *
I would die for my right to defend myself and mine! And that is what it would be! I would die to defend the rights of my kids and grandkids, so that they may not have to! I would die so that others might have protection. be it a young/older woman, or man. I pray that it will never come to that!

You don't think you need protection, think again! It has happened to me, and I'm not what you would consider a target type. they were just thugs looking to intimidate or give a beat down and they lost their nerve. 



Forerunner said:


> The cold truth is, a man should be willing to die before letting any of his rights be infringed upon, period.
> 
> That would be the ultimate provision for his progeny.
> 
> ...


'Tis pretty easy to give quotes. Would be something entirely different if it came to the fact that we were watching our children die, our spouses, or our friends. I never want to see it! I hope we can straighten our country out with the means our forefathers gave us before it comes to that. Yes, I'm scared sh....ess that it will take a revolution. Let's hope it's a peacable one?



Ohio Rusty said:


> I have read and read this thread ...and I should chime in. You can bet the NSA -- National Surveillance Agency is also monitoring what is said and by whom.
> 95% or more people WILL NOT die to keep their firearms, and it fact, they will willingly turn them over to the Gov't Weapon Confiscation Squads when they appear at their front door. It has been asked "what will you do when they show up at your door, armed to the teeth with automatic weapons and armored vehicles"?
> Many current police departments are being trained in insurgent tactics -- like how to go door to door as a paramilitary force. Why are they doing this ?? Are we -- the armed citizen -- being considered the same as insurgents and dangerous terrorists because we own firearms and stand on the 2nd admendment ??
> 
> ...


I really do not believe the armed forces and LEO (no matter the training or technology) could go against a nation-wide uprising. For one thing there is not enough of them. For another, there would be many many of the above, that are already against the unconstitutionality of where we are headed.

There are many groups that have already formed that are comprised of LEO's, x-military as well as military, and concerned citizens, that have sworn to uphold the constitutional laws. 

You don't think there is some organization and preparedness? That is probably info that that NSA seeks?

Lets not let the social elite control our country, and us!!!


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

Yeah, it is pretty easy to give quotes.

Maybe someday I'll get off my *** and do something productive. :grin:


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

The real question is are the local police/ powers that be willing to die to take them? Most are payed a small salary and not overly motivated. They do like the fancy black uniforms, but at the end of the day they wish to return home. Will their family and home be there if they are running roughshod over their neighbors? Things would get personal... Quick. 

The pictures of Boston above....

What if there were 100 shooters, 1000, 10,000? They needed a huge force to try and capture one dumb kid... Not a battle hardened fighter or even an articulate and intelligent adult. They failed miserably. What if the kid had refuge with other local freedom fighters or even indifference from the local man that actually found him? What if the man who found him instead washed off his boat and never looked inside? He did this because the government threatened him just days before. He didn't have to be complicit just not forth coming for a very different result.


P.S. Government regardless of what people like to believe is supported by the bulk of people. Yes, even oppressive terrible ones.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

Forerunner said:


> Yeah, it is pretty easy to give quotes.
> 
> Maybe someday I'll get off my *** and do something productive. :grin:


Bah. You do something productive for freedom every day.

I despise "patriots" who claim that someday they'll pick up a gun to defend their freedom, but meanwhile can't be bother to pick up a hoe and work for it now.


----------



## edjewcollins (Jun 20, 2003)

This may sound weird, but I have been hoping lately they would just ban them already. At least that way I would finally find out how many patriots were left. I figure either there would be enough to resist or I would at least go down fighting. If the government won, they slow process to revolution could finally begin. If the government lost, we could replace them.
I have honestly told my wife that if it ever happens she needs to go to her Moms cottage in Canada with the kids because if I'm going down, I'm going down swinging!


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

littlejoe said:


> I really do not believe the armed forces and LEO (no matter the training or technology) could go against a nation-wide uprising. For one thing there is not enough of them. For another, there would be many many of the above, that are already against the unconstitutionality of where we are headed.!


Keep in mind it took the bulk of our entire military (plus sizable contingentsfrom other countries and the locals) to SORT OF CONTROL two countries whose total land area was about equal to TX, MT & MA and combined populations of one fifth that of the USA. In short it is both logistically & militarily impossible to establish a tyrannical police state without our consent.


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

Don't count on the American people to be on the side of those trying to keep alive the 2nd Amendment.

Most gun owners would sell out other gun owners as long as they got to keep THEIR hunting shotguns and rifles.

And the general public would see anyone resisting as the problem,not the out of control government.


----------



## Peggy (Feb 14, 2010)

you forgot to add Obama to that list!


----------



## oz in SC V2.0 (Dec 19, 2008)

Doesn't have to be Obama,both parties are quite similar in their desire for control just vary by degrees


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

oz in SC V2.0 said:


> Don't count on the American people to be on the side of those trying to keep alive the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> Most gun owners would sell out other gun owners as long as they got to keep THEIR hunting shotguns and rifles.
> 
> And the general public would see anyone resisting as the problem,not the out of control government.


Most Afghans & Iraqis didn't participate one way or the other. Most Americans won't either. Like both countries the groups that form will sometimes fight each other. But in the end they will support whoever can provide for their needs even if that means supporting the people interrupting their lives in the first place.


----------



## uhcrandy (Sep 16, 2010)

"nothing I own is worth dying for" is a statement to anyone who plans to do harm to me or my family/way of life.


----------

