taking your guns from you

[eric]

Does anyone think they will actually come to your house and take your guns. They might say turn them in but really who would do that. Also if they did come to do a search, who would allow that and who would have the guts to try it.It would be a disaster. Surely they have enough sense to know that, but I could be wrong. They sometimes do the strangest things.

[Mike1951]

Think about this.

If it ever does come to that, and it could, who would it be coming to get them?

Our brothers and sisters, sons and daughters, and friends who are LEO's.

'When they pry it from my cold, dead fingers' becomes an empty slogan when you consider whether you would actually fire on these people.

[eric]

You are right, probably should have never posted that, It can't happen now, but anyway I sure do like the idea the senate is working about being able to carry legally in a national park for self defense with license and hope it filters down to corps of engineers property. Looks pretty good so far with an announcement within 33days of maybe a decision. I'm not a politican but it looks ok, thanks to NRA.

[The Annoyed Man]

I don't think it will come down to that for a number of reasons, not necessarily in this order:

1. The enforcement of such a thing would boil down to the military, cooperating with LEOs.
2. More people in the military come from backgrounds sympathetic to the 2nd Amendment than those who don't.
3. There would likely be large scale mutinies within the military services if they were called upon to do this, particularly if called upon to fire on their own citizenry.
4. Ditto for most LEOs.
5. At the end of the day, it's a numbers game:
   • All military personnel, in all the nation's military services, including active duty, reserves, and units ready for mobilization, number about 1,426,026 at this time.
   • Per the NRA-ILA, the current population of the US numbers about 294 million.
   • If you use 4 people per household as an average (two adults and two children), then that is about 73.5 million households.
   • Also per the NRA-ILA, about half of the nation's households, 36.75 million of them, have guns.
   • The National Academy of Sciences speculates that there were approximately 258 million privately owned guns in the US.
   • If you do the math, that's 258 million guns in the hands of 36.75 million households, or an average of about 7 guns per household.
6. When you add up the numbers, it's a bloodbath, and the military loses if it comes down to it.

Now realistically, most of us law-abiding gun owners would be extremely loath to fire on our own sons, daughters, brothers, and sisters in the military and law enforcement if it came to that - probably to the same degree that most of them would be loath to fire on us. Without that willingness on their part to do it, there exists no way to force the surrender of our guns, as long as we stand united in refusing to surrender them. It becomes a Mexican standoff.

Add to that the fact that, in their blind foolishness, gun grabbers have disarmed themselves, so they have no means of forcing the compliance themselves, even if they can get the courts and the Congress and the president all on their side.

The bigger danger to our rights is their incremental erosion until, piece by piece, we lose them entirely. Vigilance, education, and actively voting are our best defense. That, and a darn good lawyer.

[KC5AV]

The National Academy of Sciences speculates that there were approximately 258 million privately owned guns in the US.[*]If you do the math, that's 258 million guns in the hands of 36.75 million households, or an average of about 7 guns per household.

Darn... I'm on the low side of the average. I better get busy.

[boomerang]

Does anyone think they will actually come to your house and take your guns. They might say turn them in but really who would do that.

Just look at DC for your answer.

[Calabash-kid]

New Orleans and Katrina. There will be an emergency that will be the excuse just like New Orleans. How many of those people fought the police when they came?

Jerry

[Liberty]

New Orleans and Katrina. There will be an emergency that will be the excuse just like New Orleans. How many of those people fought the police when they came?

Jerry

I know of one family that didn't turn in their guns when the storm troopers came in New Orleans. They told the Gestapo wannabees that they had no guns. The same guy also told me that most of his neighbors told the wannabbees the same thing.

The press might want us to believe they got all the guns, but this simply isn't true. Some gave up a broken gun while they hung onto the good stuff.

[longtooth]

You are right my friend. Sad as it is to say the "cold dead hands" is an excellent battle cry & I highly respect Charlton Heston & believe he was the most instrmental man in the 20 Century to unify the the hunters, the personal defense shooters, & the 2A Constitutionalists. My opinion I agree.
The reality for a law abiding citizen all his life hearing the confiscation knock at the door is:
He will think about his family. If I shoot it out I will die (who will take care of my wife & children or in my case my Wife & Mom)or I will win by killing all 8 or 24 that have come to my house. Then this "law abiding citizen all his life" can never go home, to his parents house (they will be watching there) to work any more. He will not know how to function as a criminal.
I think the partial surrender is the only possible alternative. Even there they will soon figure it out & return again or have search warrent. Then arrest which puts "law abiding citizen all his life" back to, who will care for my family.

Folks our only victory has got to be at the polls.
If folks wont fight the small battles they sure wont fight the big ones.
They will become victims or subjects.

Thats my thinkin anyhow. We in a heap-O-trouble for the next 4yrs, best case cenerio.

[anygunanywhere]

Folks our only victory has got to be at the polls.

LT,

You are correct to a point. We need to start winning some battles before they reach the polls. Head them off at the pass, so to speak.

Anygunanywhere

[AEA]

Buy all you can afford RIGHT NOW.
Buy all the ammo you can afford RIGHT NOW.
Stash a good supply of them in places that a search warrant will not find them. (PVC Pipe comes to mind.......).

Refuse to give up even one of your guns, for whatever reason, but do not use force. After the first confiscation, get your stash out and be prepared to FIGHT on the next wave.

[The Annoyed Man]

New Orleans and Katrina. There will be an emergency that will be the excuse just like New Orleans. How many of those people fought the police when they came?

Jerry

What happened in New Orleans was an extremely localized phenomenon. Many of those people in New Orleans historically viewed the gummint as their savior and the sole answer to all of their problems - including their income problems (or rather, the problems they didn't have as long as the gummint kept sending them welfare checks). They did not view government as a pesky but necessary evil, so they are all too glad to comply. They were not - at least until after Katrina - conservatives. Look at the people they kept electing to public office down there. Those elected leaders represent the spiritual and moral soul of pre-Katrina New Orleans - former Governor Kathleen "I will NOT ask a Republican president for help" Blanco, Mayor C. Ray "School buses? We don't need no stinkin' school buses" Nagin, Representative William "I keep the bribes in my freezer" Jefferson.

Post Katrina, a social conservative, Bobby Jindal, has been elected as Governor. He's far from perfect, but he is also far from the Blanco mold. For you Ron Paul fans, Jindal has an A rating from Gun Owners of America, Paul's favored gun rights organization. With a governor in office who shares Ron Paul's views on gun ownership, I seriously doubt you will see another gun grabbing attempt in Louisiana as long as he's in office.

Katrina was a large scale emergency, crossing state boundaries, but different locales responded differently to the crisis, and the gun grabbing wasn't state wide in Louisiana, it was just in the vicinity of New Orleans. It is important to note that, in neighboring Mississippi, where Katrina related damage was nearly as severe, there were no gun grabbings, and there was no whiny insistence on government entitlements, and Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour well understood the relationship of local to federal government, posse comitatus, and his responsibilities to his citizens during the crisis. I am also fairly confident that, had Mississippi been saddled with a blistering canker of a governor like Blanco, any order given to LEOs to go forth and confiscate guns along Mississippi's gulf coast would have been responded to by LEOs with a "Heck no! YOU go do it. I don't wanna get shot!"

As I posted previously, the NO gun grabbing effort was an eye opener for the public at large, and I seriously doubt that it can be repeated. It was only successful because it was a localized effort, and even the courts later ruled against them. A national effort to pull off a NO style gun grab would be doomed to failure, and result in a lot of killing on both sides - for which the government would be eventually held accountable. The political fallout from such an effort would likely result in a complete, top-to-bottom housecleaning, if not an outright overthrow, of federal government. A similar localized effort might be successful in San Francisco, but it wouldn't work in Los Angeles, where small business and shop owners confronted "Rodney King" rioters outside their front doors with AR15s, and in some cases engaged looters in full scale firefights. It might be successful in DC, but not in Dallas.

You've all seen the "red state, blue state" map. The map shown below shows a red/blue breakdown by county, rather than by state, in the 2004 presidential election, and it represents a more accurate national distribution of conservatives and liberals than the red state/blue state map. The blue counties are those were a gun grabbing effort might be successful. The red counties (about 90% or more of the U.S. land mass) are those areas where a gun grabbing effort would most likely fail. (By the way, Alaska, which is not colored on this map, came in completely red in actual fact.)

Please note that, in Texas, one of the blue areas is Austin. Please note that Austin is surrounded by a vast sea of red. I don't think Austin is going to try and take away Texas's guns.

[jimlongley]

I don't think it will come down to that for a number of reasons, not necessarily in this order:

I think it could come down to it, for similar reasons, even despite your expansion on the NO disgrace.

1. The enforcement of such a thing would boil down to the military, cooperating with LEOs.
2. More people in the military come from backgrounds sympathetic to the 2nd Amendment than those who don't.
3. There would likely be large scale mutinies within the military services if they were called upon to do this, particularly if called upon to fire on their own citizenry.
4. Ditto for most LEOs.
5. At the end of the day, it's a numbers game:
   • All military personnel, in all the nation's military services, including active duty, reserves, and units ready for mobilization, number about 1,426,026 at this time.
   • Per the NRA-ILA, the current population of the US numbers about 294 million.
   • If you use 4 people per household as an average (two adults and two children), then that is about 73.5 million households.
   • Also per the NRA-ILA, about half of the nation's households, 36.75 million of them, have guns.
   • The National Academy of Sciences speculates that there were approximately 258 million privately owned guns in the US.
   • If you do the math, that's 258 million guns in the hands of 36.75 million households, or an average of about 7 guns per household.
6. When you add up the numbers, it's a bloodbath, and the military loses if it comes down to it.

Even considering NO as a localized phenomenon, there were no mutinies, either by the military or the police, nor were there even any examples of passive resistance, such as the gun grabbers merely leaving if the residents said they had no guns - if they had any sort of evidence that guns were present, they went on in and looked for them.

Now realistically, most of us law-abiding gun owners would be extremely loath to fire on our own sons, daughters, brothers, and sisters in the military and law enforcement if it came to that - probably to the same degree that most of them would be loath to fire on us. Without that willingness on their part to do it, there exists no way to force the surrender of our guns, as long as we stand united in refusing to surrender them. It becomes a Mexican standoff.

But it needs to be standing united, at a geographical divide, such as the bridge in Concord, because house to house with midnight raids, does not lend to shoulder to shoulder support against a foe very well - in NO when people resisted, they were beaten down, restrained, and their guns were grabbed anyway - it was one against many, not many against many. Even the resisters at Concord had numerical superiority.

And in NO, most of the grabbing was being done, not by relatives, but by strangers from another state, and I can easily envision the IL National Guard kicking down doors in Dallas while the Nebraska Guard does it in VA, etc, and everybody ignores VT.

Add to that the fact that, in their blind foolishness, gun grabbers have disarmed themselves, so they have no means of forcing the compliance themselves, even if they can get the courts and the Congress and the president all on their side.

Actually, there is little evidence that the gun grabbers have disarmed themselves, don't forget that many of them are eliteist and feel that they have a right to be armed even if we hoy-polloy haven't. DiFi has a carry permit in CA, Chucky Shumer has guns, and even Teddy (shudder) Kennedy supposedly has a duck gun or two. And then add in the fact that, if it came down to it, they would have the might of the military to wield.

The bigger danger to our rights is their incremental erosion until, piece by piece, we lose them entirely. Vigilance, education, and actively voting are our best defense. That, and a darn good lawyer.

While I agree that incremntal removal of our rights is an ever present danger, I also see no reason to think that Hilly or BamBam would not declare a state of emergency based on reasoning as flimsy as that used in other government raids, declare martial law, and suspend the Constitution ala Lincoln.

Remember that the scenario of either Hilly or BamBam elected to the presidency, with majorities seated in both legislative houses, gives them adequate reason, in their little scheming minds, to declare the election results a mandate for their point of view and imprimatur to impose that point of view on the rest of us. The administration(s) are already planning out their campaigns for reelection in four years, the judicial appoinments for eight years, and lots of other things, don't doubt that, and it's not much of a stretch to envision a massive gun confiscation move about mid-term in the second round, just for the safety of the populace after their other programs have proved inadequate at reducing the crime problems that will be an inevitable result of their other social agendas.

[DParker]

I don't think it will come down to that for a number of reasons, not necessarily in this order:

1. The enforcement of such a thing would boil down to the military, cooperating with LEOs.
2. More people in the military come from backgrounds sympathetic to the 2nd Amendment than those who don't.
3. There would likely be large scale mutinies within the military services if they were called upon to do this, particularly if called upon to fire on their own citizenry.
4. Ditto for most LEOs.
5. At the end of the day, it's a numbers game:
   • All military personnel, in all the nation's military services, including active duty, reserves, and units ready for mobilization, number about 1,426,026 at this time.
   • Per the NRA-ILA, the current population of the US numbers about 294 million.
   • If you use 4 people per household as an average (two adults and two children), then that is about 73.5 million households.
   • Also per the NRA-ILA, about half of the nation's households, 36.75 million of them, have guns.
   • The National Academy of Sciences speculates that there were approximately 258 million privately owned guns in the US.
   • If you do the math, that's 258 million guns in the hands of 36.75 million households, or an average of about 7 guns per household.
6. When you add up the numbers, it's a bloodbath, and the military loses if it comes down to it.

While I agree with you that such a thing is far from likely to ever happen, I don't think your calculations above - even though they're essentially accurate - are all that meaningful given the extreme disparity in the *type* of weaponry employed by the military vs. private citizenry, not to mention the lack of combat training possessed by the latter. A single armored combat vehicle and a few well-trained troops with even light arms can compensate for whole lot of good ol' boys armed with deer rifles and Glocks. Of course, if you're talking about an armed resistence employing tactics like those used by the insurgents in Iraq then that changes things just a bit. But I don't see too many people in this country going Jihadist and rushing head-long into martyrdom.

[tboesche]

Don't believe that it can't happen here!

http://www.libertylobby.org/articles/19 ... _grab.html
Gun Grab Underway in Australia
Australians are having their guns collected. Can it happen here?
By The SPOTLIGHT Staff
The banning and collecting of privately-owned long guns is proceeding in Australia. All rebellion seems to have fizzled out. Gun owners -- and pro-gun groups -- who demonstrated vigorously last year have apparently rolled over and are cooperating with the federal government gun grab. If they don't they could be arrested and jailed.

But here's an interesting twist: Australia is after long guns; owners of pistols (handguns) who have licenses are allowed to keep them, according to Geoff Muirden of the Australian Civil Liberties Union.

Long guns are being collected and destroyed. Early figures indicate approximately 160,000 have been surrendered in Victoria, 60,000 in New South Wales and 60,000 in Queensland with the other states having lower figures. The pro-grab media is overjoyed.

Rebecca Peters, president of an anti-gun group called the National coalition for Gun control (NCGC) said: "The Victoria government (i.e., the government of the state of Victoria had agreed to let shooters with existing licenses keep their weapons -- without showing they had a reason to won them -- until their licenses expired."

According to published reports, "A spokesman for Victoria Australia Police Minister Bill McGrath said most license holders only had a few years left on their licenses." What happens when they attempt to renew is not clear.

"The problem is for new gun owners to get licenses,' Muirden told The SPOTLIGHT in a telephone interview from Victoria. "New laws make it very difficult."

A government booklet titled Victoria's New Firearms Laws states that applicants must have a genuine reason' for applying for a license to own and use a handgun, and these "genuine reasons" are for:

Sport or target shooting;
The occupation of security guard or prison guard; and
An official or commercial purpose or for a purpose authorized by an act or regulation.
"This last category could be a euphemism allowing government officials who want to quell disturbances or control citizens to won a handgun, "Muirden said.

NO BILL OF RIGHTS
He pointed out that "there is no provision for an 'inalienable right' to won guns and there is no category allowing ownership or use of a handgun for self- protection.

First to be visited in the government's house-to-house gun collection were those people who had registered their weapons. Gun owners who registered their weapons. Gun owners who registered their weapons but did not comply with the new regulation are now faced with the fact that their name is flagged on government computers. They are liable to four years' imprisonment and a fine in the thousands of dollars, if they don't comply with the confiscation.

Those with firearms licenses and those who did not hand in their known weapons are liable for search of their person and/or premises without warrant. Even organizing against the confiscation could be considered illegal under a provision against "subverting another to commit a criminal act."

Long guns being confiscated include:

.22 rimfire self-loading rifles;
Military style self-loading rifles, non-military;
Pump action shotguns; and
Self-loading shotguns.

A number of Australian publication have printed eyewitness accounts putting large numbers of foreign troops -- including U.S. forces in Australia. The U.S. troops are rumored to be "assisting" in the gun confiscation as part of "urban warfare training.


The last paragraph was intresting to me. US troops helping the aussies???