• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Everyone has their line

Brimstone Baritone

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2010
Messages
786
Location
Leeds, Alabama, USA
Of course, I know you're not referring to my question with this comment.

No. I answered your question on his behalf based on the self-righteous direction he was going. I then took him to task for implying that the rest of us weren't as good as him because we might choose to act differently.

I'm not sure how you saw that as being aimed at you, but I apologize for the misunderstanding.
 

45acpForMe

Newbie
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
2,805
Location
Yorktown, Virginia, USA
Being a Christian we are told to be Salt and Light to this darkend world. If we aren't salt and/or light we are worthless and can be trampled under foot or discarded as useless. Being salt (preservative) and light (shining the truth) means being good by following the 10 commandments and spreading the good news (Gospel), that Jesus bought everyone a ticket to Heaven if we are humble enough to accept it.

We are to fight evil. We are to love God above all things and our neighbor as ourselves. When righteous leaders are in power the people prosper, when evil leaders are in power the people groan. We get only what we deserve in our elective process.

So if our neighbor is being threatened or killed and we can do something about it we are supposed to fight that evil. If the government takes away our mode of self defense, that is an evil act (natural law) and should be resisted.

Jesus wasn't a pu55y. He allowed himself to be murdered to fulfill prophesy (keep God from being a liar) and to legally pay for everyones sins (our guilt can be blotted out in the court of God if we accept Jesus' payment for our sins, justice is served, case dismissed) When HE comes again (maybe pretty soon say 7+ years or so) HE will be coming to reign forever in power and glory, not as some limp wristed pansy.

So, where is my line? I would do everything to protect my family including disobeying evil & probably unconstitutional laws. The latter part assumes the constitution hasn't been scrapped.

If I was a cartoonist or a movie maker I would like to create a picture/film starting the day after those laws were passed and billy-joe-bubba loading up his guns in his pickup truck and heading to Washington to clean house. Of course when you pull back in the scene you would see 100s, 1000's of billy-bobs doing the same. If it came to civil war the people passing those laws would have a price on their heads. The reward would be liberty!

Edited to add:
PS: Also remember that 11 of the 12 disciples were put to death by resisting the worlds demand that they deny our Lord. So being a Christian means holding your faith even in the face of death.
 
Last edited:

McLintock

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2010
Messages
87
Location
NW Wisconsin
If our Founding Fathers were willing to die for there freedom, we should follow there lead if we want the same freedom. So, yes if it came down to force, my guns are my guns and I will die with them in my hands. This is the power factor the governments would like to have, if they have all the guns you live in fear.
 

SouthernBoy

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
5,837
Location
Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
No. I answered your question on his behalf based on the self-righteous direction he was going. I then took him to task for implying that the rest of us weren't as good as him because we might choose to act differently.

I'm not sure how you saw that as being aimed at you, but I apologize for the misunderstanding.

Ok, my mistake in interpretation. I obviously read it incorrectly. Thanks much for the get back. Good day to you, sir.
 

SouthernBoy

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
5,837
Location
Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
In post #26, I mentioned that I had posed this question (the subject of this thread) to military folks where I used to work. Not one of them answered that they would follow orders, illegal as they would be, and disarm citizens up to and including requiring the use of armed force. Think about this for a moment.

And executive order is issued to the states to begin the process of rounding up privately owned firearms. The states are charged with the responsibility of putting together plans for this within their cities, counties, and townships as it is believed they would know best how to go about doing this. Perhaps most local police jurisdictions across the country would refuse to do this. They are not stupid. They know they are outgunned and outmannedk, and besides.. many are neighbors and friends of the very people who would be victims of their illegal confiscations.

So the executive branch, seeing that their initial plans were stalled and in most cases being ignored, would insist the national guard be used for this task. They would soon find out the same thing would occur as happened with the police. Enter the military.

The government would want to use the military for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that those units operating in, say, Garden City, Kansas, would call some other part of the country their home. They wouldn't want ties of community allegiance to affect the willingness of the military personnel to carry out orders. And then shooting breaks out.

Those military units firing on civilians in Kansas would soon come to realize that their own towns and communities would be under attack by other military units. Do you think they are going to be of a mind to continue with this,especially in light of the almost certain fact that hostilities will escalate? That plus the fact that a large number of officers would no doubt refuse any such orders before hostilities even begin.

So is it likely to escalate to the point of helicopter gunships strafing neighborhoods, housing developments and gathering places being bombed, and people being rounded up and either shot or imprisoned in internment camps? I hardly think so. Possible? Yes. Likely? Not at all.
 

Dreamer

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
5,360
Location
Grennsboro NC
So is it likely to escalate to the point of helicopter gunships strafing neighborhoods, housing developments and gathering places being bombed, and people being rounded up and either shot or imprisoned in internment camps? I hardly think so. Possible? Yes. Likely? Not at all.


Yeah, you're right. Our government would NEVER drop incendiary bombs onto occupied dwellings, just to send a message to the country about some rabble-rousing revolutionary group. Nah, that would NEVER happen...

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4651126

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-05-11-philadelphia-bombing_x.htm

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/05/11/national/main6472296.shtml


And the idea of internment camps? no, they'd NEVER do that either. Especially not since they've already spent nearly $390 million to build them...

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/kb...siteid=mktw&dateid=38741.5136277662-858254656

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_Inmate_Labor_Program


Wake Up people...

It's not a "conspiracy theory" when they publish the plans in the newspapers, and do it right in front of our faces...
 

SlackwareRobert

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2008
Messages
1,338
Location
Alabama, ,
Amazing how it is always the Democrats who love the little guy that bombs them
out of existence, on our shores but scream bloody murder when you do the same to
terrorists overseas.

I never asked the feds who were training with me at the next table, couldn't stop laughing
when my tables sheeple asked what they were doing here. I told them, as this was just after
ruby ridge, that they were hear to learn to shoot women and children in the head for no reason.
The sheep all got up and fled, I finished my meal, truth was on my side. When you join a terrorist
group you can't complain when you are labeled a terrorist.

As for the military, I do not envy them. You either refuse an unlawful order and get a court martial,
or you obey it and get a court martial and have to live with being a murderer as well.
The only way to make it safe would be to allow a soldier to shoot the commander who gives them
the unlawful order, since the lawfulness of the order is decided by a court later, and either way the officer
is dead, they will not issue gray area orders to try and skirt around the criminal act they want to commit.
M. Woo, proved that unlawful orders are to be obeyed anyways or you get court-martialed.

But best thing about all guns and bullets being outlawed, is full auto, AP , no .50 size limit, explosives.
If you are going to jail anyways, you can put up a much better defense once all weapons are the same.
 

Leonidas117

New member
Joined
May 25, 2010
Messages
2
Location
Virginia Beach, VA, Virginia, USA
Our Founding Fathers wrote:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Since confiscation of firearms would be a clear violation of the Constitution that our Founding Fathers also wrote. I believe it would be my duty to resist such tyrannical acts.
 

SouthernBoy

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
5,837
Location
Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
Our Founding Fathers wrote:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Since confiscation of firearms would be a clear violation of the Constitution that our Founding Fathers also wrote. I believe it would be my duty to resist such tyrannical acts.

Yes it would be. And you'd be surprised how many Americans don't know that We the People have not only the right but the duty to replace our government, even with force of arms, should the need arise.
 

PavePusher

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
1,096
Location
Tucson, Arizona, USA
But where is your line? First i'd like to say I hate violence. I never endorse violence and I would be the first to defend a stranger if he is being unjustly beaten up by a large mob. Some of you, if you even remember who I am, might find my views a bit extreme. That is ok.

I come here today to ask a simple question, because it is very important to the foundations of 2A.

There are limtless scenario types, but I'll just stick with the simplest. Let's say some law is passed, despite the objections and outcry of pro-2a groups, that ban guns. Part of that bill required local police to go door to door confiscating them, and (Since you guys have lovely registered CW permits or OC permits) they come straight to your door, hungry for your Wilson Combat 1911.

The next part of the question will seperate the Armchair warriors from the men.
Are you so passionate about your rights that you are willing, if necessary, to die in defense of them?

In this case, would you let the cops know somehow that if they attempt to unconstitutionally violate your rights and take your weapons they will be met with extreme force? If they ignored your warning and came anyways, would you resist using force?

Or would you cower down, comply with the Authority like a drone all the while voicing your complaints.

This is not some "Will you go down in a blaze of glory fantasy", it's simple a question to all of you individually asking if you have the balls your founding fathers had.

P.s. a simple "yes" or "no" will suffice.

Resistance. I suspect that the cost of life and medical insurance for police would soon be prohibitively expensive.

Home-made suppressors, helpful neighbors and lots of empty desert mean "Nope, no-one ever came by here, sorry I can't be more helpfull...."
 

KRM59

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2010
Messages
256
Location
louisville, Kentucky
Post Heller / McDonald, such hypotheticals are meaningless and make us look less than the legal and legislative professionals that we are.

Mass confiscation of all firearms, instigated either by the federal or state government, would be struck down as unconstitutional.

The fight has now moved to one of attrition, where the antis will try to nibble away at the types of firearms and ammo that may be possessed and carried and the places where we may carry.

In response, we need to focus on continuing the streak of legislative and judicial successes we have seen over the last several decades at all levels of government and continue to liberalize our gun laws. We need to make gun ownership a normal and healthy part of a civil society.

What to do to make this happen?
--------------------------------------

- Raise your children to be gun owners!
- Take a friend or co-worker shooting
- Open Carry and be a goodwill ambassador for gun rights
- Join your state gun-rights group
- Join the NRA
- Join GOA
- Work tirelessly to elect only pro-gun representatives at all levels of government


John

unconstitutional. when has that ever stoped them.........obamacare !!!!!! thats unconstitutional to but we have it. never under estimate what they will try.
 
Top