# what should we do when they come for our guns? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 23, 2001, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-we-do-when-they-come-for-our-guns/77645 "2001-08-23T02:20:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Crafter\_Man](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crafter_man/32/458_2.png) [@Crafter\_Man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crafter_Man)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2001, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-we-do-when-they-come-for-our-guns/77645/141 "2001-08-27T21:56:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Anthracite \* > \*\*I think anyone who follows these debates here knows I am not only a gun owner and user, but I am rabidly anti-banning and pro-gun. > > That having been said - when they outlaw my guns, I will follow the letter of the law exactly and turn them in, destroy them, or whatever they ask of me. Because I, as one person, can make no difference, affect no change by resistance, other than to end my own life, livlihood, or career by becoming a criminal. > > I obey 100% of all Federal, State, County, City, and other laws with my firearms. That will not change. \*\* **Anthracite** : I have always enjoyed reading your posts (I much admire your objectiveness), but I certainly do not share your opinion in this regard. The British tried to disarm Bostonians in 1774. It was _the law_. Patriots did not comply. Should I assume that, if _you_ were living in 1774 Boston, _you_ would have handed over your guns? . . . Not me. Just because there’s a “law” doesn’t make it _ **right** _. Just because there’s a “law” does _not_ mean **I** am going to follow it. Rosa Parks refused to give up her bus seat to a white person in 1955. In doing so, she broke the law. Are you saying she did the _wrong_ thing? Based on your “blindly-follow-the-law-no-matter-what” philosophy, I can only assume so. ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2001, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-we-do-when-they-come-for-our-guns/77645/142 "2001-08-27T22:04:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Crafter\_Man \* > \*\*Rosa Parks refused to give up her bus seat to a white person in 1955. In doing so, she broke the law. Are you saying she did the _wrong_ thing? Based on your “blindly-follow-the-law-no-matter-what” philosophy, I can only assume so. \*\* I think you need to read up a few posts, where I confess that I need to perhaps reconsider my words, or be more explicit about the situations involved, based on the context of this discussion. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2001, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-we-do-when-they-come-for-our-guns/77645/143 "2001-08-27T22:21:55Z")
**erl:** \*Gun control advocates remove certain weapons and provisions from us, and then explain “well you can’t really defend yourself anyway; and besides its much more effective for a tank to run you over or a national guardsman to kill you than it is to defend yourself.” \* :rolleyes: So why are you tamely lying down under the brutal denial of your right to private possession of shoulder-launched anti-aircraft missiles and tactical nukes, then? If the point of weapons ownership is to be able to defend yourself against the government, why aren’t you demanding the means to do so effectively? I’m not “removing” any weapons or provisions from you, I’m just pointing out that the ones you have are damned unlikely to be anywhere near as effective in protecting against government tyranny in our modern state as the weapons of free speech, democratic representation, and public opinion. Sorry if that interrupted your _Terminator/The Matrix/Dark City_ fantasies. ---
**Author:** ![Crafter\_Man](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crafter_man/32/458_2.png) [@Crafter\_Man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crafter_Man)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2001, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-we-do-when-they-come-for-our-guns/77645/144 "2001-08-27T22:30:04Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Anthracite \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by Crafter\_Man \* > > \*\*Rosa Parks refused to give up her bus seat to a white person in 1955. In doing so, she broke the law. Are you saying she did the _wrong_ thing? Based on your “blindly-follow-the-law-no-matter-what” philosophy, I can only assume so. \*\* > > I think you need to read up a few posts, where I confess that I need to perhaps reconsider my words, or be more explicit about the situations involved, based on the context of this discussion. \*\* You’re right; I’m kinda late to the game on this thread, and should have read up. I apologize. Back to the OP… There _will_ be a day when my bolt action is illegal for me to own. _History is on my side._ And what will I do? Hand it over to “The Authorities”? **Hell no**. And if they come a-knock’n at my door asking for it, I’ll give them the bullets first. 😉 I’m being serious… what have I got to lose? I would rather be **dead** than a slave. Some folks think it can only occur after passing a Constitutional Amendment. _Get real_. The Fed doesn’t need a stink’n Amendment! All it needs is two things: 1) A Supreme Court made up of five or more Ruth Ginsburg look-a-likes, and 2) a Majority of the populous believing guns are evil. _That’s it._ The Fed is feverously working on #2. After #1 is in place, the Big Court will simply rule that the 2nd Amendment is not an individual right, and the story is **over** , w/ Constitution “intact.” Simple. Easy. And with only a slight aftertaste. ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2001, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-we-do-when-they-come-for-our-guns/77645/145 "2001-08-27T22:30:44Z")
I would say that there are really two key factors which must be considered together in determining the effectiveness of Armed Resistance: [list=1] [li] **The popularity of the resistance.** The Anti-War sentiment in America was somewhat high by the time of kent State, so even the people who didn’t approve of the protestor’s actions sympathized with their motivations.[/li] Contrast that with The Troubles in Ireland. Six counties against the rest of the country? In this instance, the North might have some sympathy for their cause, but are almost universally reviled for their actions. [li] **The political will of the nominal “oppressor”.** to use whatever means necessary to quell dissent. Admittedly, there may be an element of desparation in such tactics. The Bolsheviks didn’t really have to worry too much about ruining Russia’s economy, from their POV, while the Tsarists were attempting to hang on to their power base, however threadbare it may have been.[/list=1][/li] It is interesting to note in point 2 that the great mass of Russians were already used to central authority, and Lenin at least provided a hope to them, and therefore support from them, and thus the acquiesence to the Lenin (and later Stalin) regimes to pogroms and purges. The plethora of variables makes it difficult to say what would be effective resistance (passive or active) in a hypothetical gun confiscation program. Suffice it to say that extreme violence against rank-and-file police and soldiers would probably be counter-productive. Select violence against political proponents of gun confiscation may or may not be productive; it may depend more upon the tactics used by the “gun police”. If Grandma and Grandpa are being dragged from their homes by SWAT teams while armored vehicles patrol the streets… But more likely, a lone John Nutcase will blow away a team of [insert your city’s name] police going door-to-door with blanket search warrants, and provoke the SWAT teams backed up with light armor, and maybe more. Rewards may be offered; “turn in your gun nut neighbors for a $1,000 reward” and such to motivate the citizenry by their base impulses. Unless there was a widespread, simultaneous uprising by every gun owner in America (call it a coordintion factor) to resist the gun police, the little groups of isolated resistance would be crushed like eggs under the treads of tanks, live-and-in-color on the evening news. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2001, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-we-do-when-they-come-for-our-guns/77645/146 "2001-08-27T22:35:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Kimstu \* > So why are you tamely lying down under the brutal denial of your right to private possession of shoulder-launched anti-aircraft missiles and tactical nukes, then? I don’t think those weapons are necessary for defense against our own government, and I also don’t think the government would use a scorched earth policy to remove guns from individuals. Dropping a tactical nuke to squash a city of dissadents?? As I said, if the black helicopter fits… > [@](#): > > Sorry if that interrupted your _Terminator/The Matrix/Dark City_ fantasies. Right, my “fantasies.” Try, “analogies,” but no, I don’t think it disrupts them. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2001, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-we-do-when-they-come-for-our-guns/77645/147 "2001-08-27T22:41:24Z")
Thanks, **Tank**. You raise the important point that public opinion is usually much more on the side of unarmed victims than of violent resisters. While many of us can muster up some sympathy for the people standing off the troops in Waco/Ruby Ridge type situations, we are also apt to feel that these folks sound pretty dangerous and threatening and maybe forceful repression is the only solution. When the cops shoot somebody unarmed and unresisting, however (cf. the Diallou case), there is usually much more public outrage and much closer public scrutiny. Sorry if that sounds as though I’m telling the gun advocates to abandon self-defense and go be martyrs: I’m not. What I am saying is that if you’re going to be a martyr anyway—which I think is inevitable if you’re trying to resist a truly tyrannical government—in our society you will minimize the damage and maximize your effectiveness by being an unarmed, sympathetic, and highly-publicized martyr on the evening news. ---
**Author:** ![Crafter\_Man](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crafter_man/32/458_2.png) [@Crafter\_Man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crafter_Man)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2001, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-we-do-when-they-come-for-our-guns/77645/148 "2001-08-27T23:16:31Z")
**Kimstu** : I think you’re right, but Freedom Fighters don’t behave that way. A patriot _ **fights** _. Because of this, we will use forceful measures to defend ourselves. If we die fighting, and thus don’t get the “public sympathy” which might prove valuable to our cause, so be it. The important thing is to simply do what is _right_ on an individual level, and worry about other things (public opinion, etc.) later. ---
**Author:** ![Weird\_AL\_Einstein](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c67d28/32.png) [@Weird\_AL\_Einstein](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weird_AL_Einstein)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2001, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-we-do-when-they-come-for-our-guns/77645/149 "2001-08-28T01:11:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by erislover \* > \*\* > Oh, a government should have fluidity to it for sure. My opinion is that a government’s structure should not be completely fluid. > \ > The Bill of Rights outlines rights which are seemingly fundamental… my problem is that they are _not_ fundamental. I agree that both philosophically and practically “rights” are a concept which are understood only in the context of a government or other organizational construct, but what I don’t understand is why we would want the ability to change those rights. > \ > > > [@](#): > > > > I don’t quite get your “chess clock” analogy, no. > > Consider, then, a mathematical problem. > \ > There are 100 senators and something like 450 house members. In order to completely mutilate the constitution it takes a 2/3 majority, plus the president (as I understand it). That is, you need to convince a mere 351 (or so, there are actually 435 house reps, but 450 is a nice round number) people. You don’t need to ever, ever, ever take it to the people, we don’t vote on that stuff. > > 351 people. You live your life at the whim of these people. Should they all happen to agree on something, _it is a law._ \*\* **erislover** : A lot of very interesting ideas here. Probably several potential new threads. Just speaking for myself, I would hope you would divide all this into several threads, as I am frankly having trouble digesting all this and organizing my thoughts into a coherent response. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Kimstu \* > \*\* > But my reasons do not include the idea that such weapons are an important part of our “ability to resist” government tyranny, because I think that’s pretty much bull._\* Chechnya. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Kimstu \* > \*\* > **WAE:** \*In the meantime I will simply note that the country in which I live was founded on violent resistance to actions that were not a lot more than property confiscation […] \* > > Which is one of the reasons that the Constitution was written to embody a governmental structure that would make such actions much more difficult. > \\*\* What you have failed to address here is what _you_ would do, or consider it morally acceptable to do, if the government _were_ to engage in “such actions” despite them having been made “more difficult”. That was the gist of my question to you at the beginning of this exchange: "Can you conceive of any law which, if passed, would be so onerous that you would feel morally compelled to _actively_ resist it, said active resistance possibly including violence? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Kimstu \* > \*\* > \*Are you suggesting that people who commit crimes with guns, as in, say, your two examples above, have a greater tendency to morally rationalize their crimes as those who commit similar crimes but don’t use guns? > > “No.” > > So what were you trying to say, exactly?\* > > Exactly what I did say: “I suspect that quite a few people who commit crimes with guns think of themselves as essentially moral people who are still abiding by what is morally right even when they break the law.” \*\* And we’ve come full circle. Let me try to rephrase my question: If I modify your statement slightly, to read: “I suspect that quite a few people who commit crimes think of themselves as essentially moral people who are still abiding by what is morally right even when they break the law.” would it still be just as valid, in your opinion? If so, why do you feel the need to add the phrase “with guns”? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Crafter\_Man \* > \*\* > There _will_ be a day when my bolt action is illegal for me to own. \*\* **Crafter\_Man** , please see my first post in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2001, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-we-do-when-they-come-for-our-guns/77645/150 "2001-08-28T02:30:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Kimstu \* > \*\*Thanks, **Tank**. You raise the important point that public opinion is usually much more on the side of unarmed victims than of violent resisters. While many of us can muster up some sympathy for the people standing off the troops in Waco/Ruby Ridge type situations, we are also apt to feel that these folks sound pretty dangerous and threatening **and maybe forceful repression is the only solution.** [em added] But this is the point exactly! The government theoretically has a monopoly on force from normal human interactions, and i frankly _enjoy_ that particular form of “tyranny,” you know? We want them to go ahead and take down a group of people who are doind things we don’t agree with. And don’t get me wrong, I want the democratic process to work. Very much so, in fact, which is why I said I would happily _go to jail_ as a matter of protest over gun confiscation rather than willfully give it up. But I won’t pretend that the democratic process can’t fail for the same reason I won’t let myself (any longer) pretend that the market can’t fail: neither is true. When a government breaks down, their “monopolies” on force, and all their “normal” power, no longer apply. The rules are gone. Now it becomes a matter for social upheaval to decide. If we have no means to reassert [i[our\* rights… well, do you see what I’m saying? > [@](#): > > …in our society you will minimize the damage and maximize your effectiveness by being an unarmed, sympathetic, and highly-publicized martyr on the evening news. Sure, provided the general structure of the country remains the same, I agree that martyrs may be more effective than armed resistence. However, when faced between a choice of kill or be killed, I don’t think I’ll be overly concerned about anything but saving my ass. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2001, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-we-do-when-they-come-for-our-guns/77645/151 "2001-08-28T02:31:52Z")
All I can say is: shit. And sorry for the eye strain there. ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2001, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-we-do-when-they-come-for-our-guns/77645/152 "2001-08-28T03:39:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Crafter\_Man \* > **You’re right; I’m kinda late to the game on this thread, and should have read up. I apologize.** No worries, **Crafter\_Man** , it’s kind of a busy thread… 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2001, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-we-do-when-they-come-for-our-guns/77645/153 "2001-08-28T18:52:39Z")
**Kimstu:** _I suspect that quite a few people who commit crimes with guns think of themselves as essentially moral people who are still abiding by what is morally right even when they break the law…_ **WAE:** \*I don’t understand this at all. Are you suggesting that people who commit crimes with guns, as in, say, your two examples above, have a greater tendency to morally rationalize their crimes as those who commit similar crimes but don’t use guns? \* **Kimstu:** \*No. \* **WAE:** _If I modify your statement slightly, to read: “I suspect that quite a few people who commit crimes think of themselves as essentially moral people who are still abiding by what is morally right even when they break the law.” would it still be just as valid, in your opinion?_ Yes. Got any other ways to keep asking essentially the same question, **Al**? I am happy to keep answering it, but it doesn’t seem to me that I’m providing any new information here. **WAE:** \*If so, why do you feel the need to add the phrase “with guns”? \* Because I was discussing the potential willingness of gun owners to commit crimes with guns, in a thread devoted to guns. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-should-we-do-when-they-come-for-our-guns/77645.md?page=7)