what should we do when they come for our guns?

Great Debates
141

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.

142

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.

143

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.

144

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. :wink: 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.

145

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.

146

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…

Right, my “fantasies.” Try, “analogies,” but no, I don’t think it disrupts them.

147

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.

148

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.

149

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.

Chechnya.

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?

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”?

Crafter_Man, please see my first post in this thread.

150

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?

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.

151

All I can say is: shit. And sorry for the eye strain there.

152

No worries, Crafter_Man, it’s kind of a busy thread… :wink:

153

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.