Breaking Point
It’s like pornography, I can’t define it but I’ll know it when I see it.
In which I remind casual readers that, yes, I really am a gun nut. Even though I don’t like scaring white people.
Breaking point seems to be the topic of debate on the gun blogs lately. Essentially, at what point is it time to shoot the bastards. As for me, I dunno. Joe lists examples that he thought would qualify, such as Ruby Ridge and Waco. I was a 20 year-old kid when those happened and only recall what I saw on TeeVee. And the revelations of the feds lying and being corrupt didn’t really come out until after these incidents were concluded. And, yes, the .gov got merely a slap on the wrist. But no such incident has happened since.
Sebastian says he’d hide is guns. Well, that’s great but you just got on the internet and told everybody that. And I know the feds read my site (hi, guys).
But the consensus among these two is that, generally, gun owners won’t do much. I dunno. First and foremost, I think the political process is working now. Most states have CCW, the JD has taken the individual right view of the second amendment, both houses of congress affirm that, and both political parties’ platforms in the last elections state that too. It’s not absolute victory but it shows that we’re heading the right direction. We’re winning*. So, first and foremost, gun owners should be active in the political process now. It’s not the 1990s any more. More importantly, the various anti-gun groups have about zero clout.
Chris disagrees that gun owners won’t do much. I tend to concur. Not all gun owners would but I think a substantial portion would.
As for me, what would I do? Turn them in. Ammo first.
* Update: note on we’re winning: except certain states (like NJ, NY, IL, CA, and MA) where it’s mostly hopeless.
November 14th, 2007 at 10:22 am
Tyranny is smart enough to never say “turn them in!” Tyranny’s voice was heard in 1986: “no new machine guns, but grandfather the existing ones.” Tyranny in this country is smart and patient.
Tyranny hates all freedoms, not just gun ownership. Incrementalism, as you put it, is working against every area of our freedoms.
November 14th, 2007 at 10:26 am
Two words, Unc: New. Orleans.
Those bastards went door-to-fucking door taking guns from law-abiding people. After the NO cops just walked off the job; after NO cops were FILMED LOOTING A WALMART; after the criminals had their way with anything not nailed down; after all this, it was decided that the best use of law enforcement resources would be to take guns away from the law-abiding residents.
And not a single fucking shot was fired.
If NO wasn’t the time to start shooting the bastards, there will never be. NO represented the absolute worst case scenario possible – natural disaster, devastation, criminals running unchecked, and people banding together using their personal firearms to defend themselves.
And the government decided it was time to round the guns up. They sure as hell didn’t take them away from the criminals; no, that would have been the right fucking thing to do.
They took them away from the good people. They went door-to-door and demanded that good, honest people hand over their guns. Body-checking old ladies. “No one will be armed”.
These frogs are boiled, Unc. Guys like you and me, who will only turn in their guns upon their expiration, will be “Waco’d” – false charges run up, alphabet agencies lying through their fucking teeth, etc.
And we’ll be enough of a statistical aberration that they’ll get away with it.
No, the second amendment is dead, because the American spirit that wrote it into the Bill of Rights has passed on as well…
November 14th, 2007 at 11:38 am
Yeah, I guess I kind of screwed up that strategy 🙂 Either way, I think, even if it comes to confiscation, you’re not quite out of political options. If a state does it, you can move. If the feds do it, there’s still the option of political resistance at the state level. As I’ve been saying, Canada’s response to the gun registry is a good example. That’s not confiscation, but the western provinces have basically said they won’t be enforcing that law.
I really think the only way to effectively resist a federal gun ban is through state action, up to and including secession if necessary. If that comes to violence, so be it, but at least there would be someone running the show. But would we get enough people to care to motivate a state to actually leave the union? All it takes is one state to do it.
November 14th, 2007 at 12:30 pm
Just call me Alfred E. Newman. What? Me Worry? I think that the fedgov is about to disappear in an economic meltdown. Watch for the nationwide riots to start, as the dollar continues to fall and the price of crack cocaine increases. The fedgov might just try, in its last gasp, to confiscate our guns, but we’d be extremely foolish to comply, wouldn’t we?
November 14th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
The federal government didn’t disappear in The Great Depression. In fact, I would argue that The Great Depression damn near brought socialism to this country. I wouldn’t expect the federal government to just melt away. We’ve been through worse than a weak dollar as a nation.
November 14th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
I would disagree that no shots were fired, Jay G. Few shots were fired, but it turned out afterwards that they decided to go after a few places for confiscation, were told “no” in very definite terms, and simply moved on to the next old lady with a revolver. They didn’t have to guts to try to shoot it out to take the guns.
November 14th, 2007 at 1:25 pm
By day two in the Weaver case we knew:
1) He had been given the wrong court date and been charged with failure to appear.
2) A Federal informant had asked him to saw off the shotgun to try and get him in a position to be blackmailed into becoming an informant on the Ayran Nations.
2) The Feds fired first by shooting the dog.
By day two we knew one or more snipers had shot at Randy and Kevin without giving an order to surrender or even announcing the snipers were even on the property.
By day three we knew Vicki had been shot while inside the cabin.
There were lots of things overheard in the bars and restaurants in Sandpoint where I lived. Sandpoint was the off duty location for food and rest of law enforcement. The attitude of law enforcement was the only way Weavers would be allowed to come off the mountain was in body bags. A U.S. Marshall had been killed and that simply could not be tolerated. An example needed to be set.
November 14th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
Phelps,
I’m going to have to ask for references here.
Because, IMHO, had there been ANY resistance of the armed variety, the media would have been ALLLL over it – think “Angry gun nuts defying police orders!!!”-type PSH that would have been used to justify the confiscations.
Now, granted, it is entirely possible that local law enforcement steered the confiscators towards areas more likely to roll over, that I will not argue…
November 14th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
80 Million gunowners in the USA, if 5% stand they will out number LE by 4 to 1
November 14th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
Add one to the “by day two” and “by day three” statements
And I agree we are winning. This entire thread was based on the hypothesis that we lost big at the SC level. I don’t think that will happen. We might lose a little bit, but it won’t be a big loss.
As for nationwide outnumbering LE by 4 to 1… big deal. In any given location LE will outnumber the gunowners during the time of conflict. Plus you probably aren’t including the National Guard in your numbers. The National Guard and the State Police were called out during the Weaver event. There were hundreds of people there to make sure the Feds could “do their job undisturbed”.
November 14th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
As for nationwide outnumbering LE by 4 to 1… big deal. In any given location LE will outnumber the gunowners during the time of conflict. Plus you probably aren’t including the National Guard in your numbers. The National Guard and the State Police were called out during the Weaver event. There were hundreds of people there to make sure the Feds could “do their job undisturbed”.
The Idaho NG most likely was’nt told by the feds what was acually going down. I’m sure that had the Idaho NG known what was really going on they would’nt have done shit to support the feds.
I dont believe that the the National Guard would help the feds if it came down to outright firearm confiscation. Certainly not if the feds used Waco and Ruby Ridge tactics against anyone who objected. As a example I was in L.A. with the California NG during the Rodney King riots in ’92 and we had orders to shoot looters on sight. Our response was “fuck no! We’re in uniform to PROTECT American citizens, not shoot them.”
I’ll say with absolute certainty that the NG would’nt lift a finger to help the feds if they were attacking the NG’s fellow citizens. I’m sure that the regular Military would’nt do so either.
November 14th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
Cactus Jack, I won’t contest the NG issue in the scenario you have envisioned. There may be others, much more subtle, that will get NG help and accomplish essentially the same ends.
Another thing to keep in mind is the “power that be” aren’t generally stupid and have at least a general awareness of what public opinion is. They will do their best to keep things “below the boiling point”. And that awareness will extend to an awareness of whether the NG and others will follow certain orders.
Back to Ruby Ridge–another thing we knew on or about day three or four was that Sammy had been shot in the back and killed. In my mind, at that time, we had far more than enough information to know it was the time to “start shooting”. Yet, no one did.
I had my excuses of not having a gun or the training. I don’t know what excuses others used. Since then I have eliminated mine. Perhaps I’ll find more excuses when the next time comes, but at least those excuses are out of the way. I will have more options next time.
November 14th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
I’m probably going to be absolutely slaughtered for this, but I’ve posted by thoughts on this.
Short answer: I’d comply within the letter of the law.
November 14th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
I don’t have a problem complying with the law, as long as those who are supposed to be enforcing it comply as well.
November 14th, 2007 at 7:26 pm
Phelps, what you were told about N O was true. I can’t cite a source right now, but the police did go to a neighborhood that had instituted an armed watch and mutual assistance group. Their demands for the guns were refused and the cops left, to never bother them again.
If I can remember any of the names of the neighborhood group or where I stumbled across the account I will try to post it. You are correct, though that the MSM didn’t report it. The lapdogs of big government were not about to show that armed resistance could be successful against the state. Especially without bloodshed.
November 14th, 2007 at 7:33 pm
Resistance will have to be carried out by old men. Most everyone else is more interested in comforts and baubles. I’ve been told that history shows that only 7% will actively participate and only then in dire situations as the American Revolution. I’ve read that there are only about 900,000 LEO’s total in this country and you can imagine how many are actively keeping watch on the gobblins. In an active rebellion local LEO’s will be overwhelmed by the goblins stealing everything that isn’t nailed down and the LEO’s will most likely wash their hands and not worry about them.
November 14th, 2007 at 8:58 pm
My meagar little collection is all I’ve got and probably all I’ll ever have. If I can’t have that then I’ve nothing to lose.
November 14th, 2007 at 11:55 pm
In an active rebellion local LEO’s will be overwhelmed by the goblins stealing everything that isn’t nailed down and the LEO’s will most likely wash their hands and not worry about them.-AgPilot
Most likely a good portion of them will be involved in the looting, just like New Orleans.
November 15th, 2007 at 10:25 am
Sebastian,
Read this.
November 15th, 2007 at 12:58 pm
Outside the urbanized centers which keep generating the ban-proposals, there’s a lot of non-compliance already including in CA…
November 16th, 2007 at 11:25 pm
New Jersey, land of corrupt politicians and global leftists – it’s why I moved to the SE plains of Colorado.