Gun rights supporters hypothetical

In My Humble Opinion
21

You’re quite Wrong.

“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their
lairs, paling in terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand? […] The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s
thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!”

The Gulag Archipelago, A. Solzhenitsyn.

22

They’re doing their job in enforcing the law. If they say “We’re placing you under arrest for breaking the law.” they have not done anything violent. They should only be using force if YOU bring them to it by pulling out that crossbow, Mac 10 or AK-47.

23

A, then E.

I’m both a Libertarian and a single woman who lives alone. If my government deprived me of the ability to defend myself and guaranteed that the only firearms in the country would be in the hands of the government and criminals, I would find this a violation of my right to life, liberty, and property and would renounce my citizenship.

24

So I say, " no, I won’t go with you." If cops are trying to arrest someone and they refuse to get in the cop car, they will physically grab them, cuff them, and drag them into the car. That’s violence.

BTW, the Nazi’s and the KGB were “just doing their job”, enforcing their law. Doesn’t make it right.

25

What you’re talking about is passive resistance. You don’t fight the police. You just refuse to cooperate.

I was saying that violence would be wrong in these circumstances, on both sides.

We’re not talking about the KGB and Nazis, we’re talking about America. Police have rules of conduct.

I sense that this is quickly turning into a GD, so I’d like to apologize to Gomez in advance.

26

If someone - anyone - lays hands on me and drags me somewhere, that’s violence. If I did that to someone, I could be charged with assault.

Just because it is part of some police “rules of conduct” doesn’t make it right. And they break their own rules all the time.

But that isn’t the real issue.

The issue is, how many deaths (on both sides) is gun control worth to you?

27

As a US citizen, I would be obligated to follow the rules/laws that are set by the established government. I would have to give up my arms if ordered by an official of the state. I would not be happy about that at all, but I would do it. If I had not already emigrated. Not entirely sure where I would go though…the UN is attempting to make small arms illegal for the public to possess in all countries, even ours!

I am already a life member of the NRA, have been since I was old enough to hold a .22, so I don’t have to join up.

If the seizure was unlawful, I would resist! That is the very reason that the 2nd amendment was added. Weapons do not merely protect us from private predators, they also protect our rights from those in power if their will runs counter to the will of the people.

–==the sax man==–

—sorry, no nifty quotes come to mind atm…

28

No, if you are implementing passive resistance, there should be no need to “drag” you anywhere, unless you are physically resisting. Police officers must put their hands on you anyway to place you into a vehicle, that’s not violence. That is a rule they have to abide in the considerations of their own safety. All police officers are not out to get you. They are following an order that is a duty of their line of work, a line of work that puts them in danger as well.

29

And in the same light, it doesn’t make it wrong either. Those rules of conduct, as said in my last post, are made to ensure the safety of the officers, who are just doing their job.
When they do break those rules, they are duely punished for it. Both of my parents are police officers. As was my grandfather. And my great-grandfather.
I challenge you to find a case where an officer breaks the rules of conduct and isn’t punished for it.
But seriously, cops aren’t out to get you. They’re just doing their job so they can make money, to feed their families. If all of you refused to do something ordered to you by your supervisors because you didn’t necessarily agree with it, there would quickly be an increase in the rate of unemployment around the US.

30

A lot of people seem to be missing a vital point here: The Bill of Rights ENUMERATES rights. It does not CONFER them. The right to keep and bear arms, freely assemble, be free from unwarranted search and seizure, etc., are not granted by the Constitution. They exist among people simply by their being born. They are listed in the Constitution to curtail the rights the government perceives itself to have beyond those confered upon it by the people.

Several courts have held this to be the case (and I’m too tired to go dig up the site, but the first one I recall was in Texas in, I believe, 1878). As a result, the banning and confiscation of weapons, regardless of the wording shoehorned into the Constitution to justify the action, invalidates the government en toto.

That being the case, the wording of the Declaration of Independence would, in my mind and case, immediately supercede the wording of the now invalidated Constitution.

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 **

I would then add the words, “by any means necessary.”

31

I would turn in my weapons of mass destruction. Bullet by bullet…

32

Uh…just in case anyone took me seriously…Don’t…

33

I would like to point out that the constitution was designed to change with the times. This doesn’t mean we all have to like it. I, for one, would turn in my weapons lawfully, though demanding repayment for their value, and join some protest group.
As a side note, I am not personnally a much of a gun collector or user (I don’t trust my skill level with enough to feel safe with them) but I do support those who are.
Of course, I would immediately stock up on knives and other blades…

34

I’ll steal yours if you’ll steal mine. :wink:

35

That sounds like an excellent arguement for gun control. The irresponsible gun owners who are willing to TAKE A HUMAN LIFE, and leave a husband/wife spouseless, and a child with one less parent, are the people who shouldn’t have guns. The only justification for private gun ownership I can think of for owning guns is protection.

If a police officer is forcing you into the car for breaking the law and you respond by COMMITTING HOMICIDE you deserve a special place in Hell.

Are you really willing to murder a human being just so that you can own a little piece of metal that grants you the power to kill.

I understand that most gun owners are responsible people who simply want to protect themselves. But those who would use it to kill someone who wasn’t directly threatening their own life are the people who don’t DESERVE to have a gun.

36

–kalashnikov
If you like the War on Drugs, you’re gonna just LOVE the War on Guns.

37

>> the UN is attempting to make small arms illegal for the public to possess in all countries, even ours!

SMUsax, I’m sure they are, of course they are! The people of LA VERKIN, Utah, are getting ready for it.

38

If I were to take the life of a law enforcement agent acting in accordance with the situation put forth in the OP, it would not be simple homicide. I would be assering my legal rights as FallenAngel points out. All American citizens have a duty to support the Constituion of the United States. Many of us have even taken an oath to do this. These oaths specifically spell out that we are to obey legal orders given by higher authority. The problem is that we have another duty implicit in the support of the Constitution: the duty and obligation to resist tyrrany. Anyone who willingly submits to tyranny has turned his back on his neighbors. Confiscation of legally-owned firearms is one of the first steps toward tyranny. If we all meekly submit, one day we’ll find it to late to go back.

I can tell you that they will (probably) take my gun from my cold, dead hand. The more I think about this, the more I feel that I am obligated to resist, peacefully if possible, violently if necessary. If my feeling this way means that if they come, they’ll come using a no-knock warrant (if they bother to get a warrant in the first place), someone will probably be killed. Just how moral does that make the act of confiscation? My gun never harmed anybody and probably never will, as I am a responsible gun owner. If I am killed because I refuse to surrender it, how is that any less tragic than me killing the man trying to take it away in the first place? In the opinion of most gun owners, the agents’ position is unlawful and they are morally obligated to refuse the order.

39

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by kalashnikov *
**

[bitter sarcasm]
The same way all those drug dealers who kill cops are just “soldiers” fighting to maintain their God-given rights, as well. They deserve to go to Heaven for fighting a civil war with those damn cops who try to enforce the law, so you don’t need a weapon (and whose job weapon carrying citizens only make harder). We all know, after all, that property is more important than life.[/bitter sarcasm]

Getting back to reality… Nobody is threatening your life by trying to take your weapon. They may be threatening your perception of freedom, but nothing more. Killing a police officer will achieve nothing but cause grief. Besides, what about the cop’s fundamental right to life. Your right to own a firearm/crossbow is more important?

40

And by the way, you should be speaking of weapons (plural). Everyone I know personally who owns a firearm, owns several.