# Would you have shot the gun confiscators when they came to your door? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 11, 2009, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-have-shot-the-gun-confiscators-when-they-came-to-your-door/492770 "2009-04-11T20:55:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2009, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-have-shot-the-gun-confiscators-when-they-came-to-your-door/492770/161 "2009-04-13T23:42:10Z")
I’ll also add that **Una’s** solution (and that of many other gunowners in this thread) is very reasonable. Turning them over and suing the bejeezus out of the department)? Fine. Hiding the guns? Okay, whatever. Killing the cops to protect your constitutional rights? Indefensible murder. Consider other rights violated by the cops. Many people believe that it was a violation fo protestors’ rights to be confined to “free speech zones” during presidential speeches. If they’d shot the cops tring to confine them to these zones, based on the idea that the cops were acting illegally, would that be okay? What if a cop illegally searches a suspects car, violating the suspect’s fourth amendment rights: if that suspect kills the cop, are you ethically okay with that action? **Scumpup** , you asked me where I’d draw the line. I thought I’d answered that, but let me be very clear: I would only use deadly force to prevent an equal horror. That is, I would use deadly force to prevent deadly force, and possibly to prevent a very small additional set of horrors (torture, rape, mutilation, etc.). Nothing short of such major immediate violence justifies the use of deadly force against anyone, much less against someone attempting, to the best of their knowledge and reasoning capacity, to protect the population from violence. If you’re thinking of offering me other hypotheticals, please reread that paragraph to see if I’ve already answered it. ---
**Author:** ![Todderbob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e47774/32.png) [@Todderbob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Todderbob)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2009, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-have-shot-the-gun-confiscators-when-they-came-to-your-door/492770/162 "2009-04-13T23:54:25Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > A quick quiz: > Whose job is it to determine whether a a police order is constitutional or not. > A. The homeowner with a gun > B. The police officer carrying out the order > C. The court system I guess we should ask Thomas Jefferson. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2009, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-have-shot-the-gun-confiscators-when-they-came-to-your-door/492770/163 "2009-04-14T00:19:48Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > **Lumpy** , could you please furnish a link to what your OP quoted? Sorry, a book not available online. See post #24. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2009, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-have-shot-the-gun-confiscators-when-they-came-to-your-door/492770/164 "2009-04-14T03:18:45Z")
> [@Todderbob](#): > > I guess we should ask Thomas Jefferson. Fortunately, old TJ was pretty clear on this point, **Todderbob** : > [@](#): > > Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes . . . 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. . . . The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. You don’t overthrow the government because you have a minor disagreement with it. Indeed, you don’t overthrow it until “a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism.” In a democracy—a government which you might be aware is distinct from “absolute Despotism” or “absolute Tyranny”—the rule of law means that courts and government officials say what the law is. You’re free to disagree and persuade fellow citizens to disagree. Because democratic institutions are ultimately responsible to the people, that is how change happens. In extreme cases, you would probably be justified in exercising civil disobedience (though you’d need to cite theorists other than Jefferson). But what is quite clear is that you’re not free to violently rebel upon your (erroneous) belief that the Constitution has been infringed upon. The notion that because the founders advocated revolution against a monarchy means they would be hunky-dory with rebellion against a properly functioning democratic government is nearly as silly as the notion of committing suicide to protect the family TV. ---
**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:** [April 14, 2009, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-have-shot-the-gun-confiscators-when-they-came-to-your-door/492770/165 "2009-04-14T04:01:40Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > I’ve got no problem with how you would handle the situation _you_ described(although it wasn’t exactly how it was phrased in the OP). …and I made a second post addressing that situation, including the generic situation behind it. ---
**Author:** ![Todderbob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e47774/32.png) [@Todderbob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Todderbob)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2009, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-have-shot-the-gun-confiscators-when-they-came-to-your-door/492770/166 "2009-04-14T04:03:30Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > But what is quite clear is that you’re not free to violently rebel upon your (erroneous) belief that the Constitution has been infringed upon. I’d like to know how, exactly, a constitutional right _ **wasn’t** _ infringed upon in this particular situation? I’m quite certain the 2nd amendment to the Constitution quite clearly states one has “the right to keep and bear arms” (in those exact words, no?), and in this particular instance, people were having that right infringed (which, also, is, unless I’m mistaken, what the amendment disallows from happening). ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2009, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-have-shot-the-gun-confiscators-when-they-came-to-your-door/492770/167 "2009-04-14T04:09:56Z")
> [@Todderbob](#): > > I’d like to know how, exactly, a constitutional right _ **wasn’t** _ infringed upon in this particular situation? > > I’m quite certain the 2nd amendment to the Constitution quite clearly states one has “the right to keep and bear arms” (in those exact words, no?), and in this particular instance, people were having that right infringed (which, also, is, unless I’m mistaken, what the amendment disallows from happening). See post #156. If at the time of Katrina you thought you had a well-settled federal constitutional right to be free from state interference with your possession of firearms, you were wrong. It was not at all well-settled. Even after _Heller_ it cannot be called well-settled since the Supreme Court has not yet decided whether the Second Amendment applies to the states, and if it does, what state justifications are sufficient for overcoming Second Amendment scrutiny. Obviously you have a strong interpretation of what the Second Amendment means. But in our democracy, there is an authoritative interpretation, and it is not yours. More to the point, even if it was a violation of the Constitution, that doesn’t give the right to violently resist. We have a functioning system for dealing with violations of the Constitution. Perhaps you’d like to explain why Thomas Jefferson would think it would be ok to murder agents of a functioning democracy because you disagree with their good faith interpretation of the Constitution? ---
**Author:** ![Sophistry\_and\_Illusion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b3f665/32.png) [@Sophistry\_and\_Illusion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sophistry_and_Illusion)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2009, 5:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-have-shot-the-gun-confiscators-when-they-came-to-your-door/492770/168 "2009-04-14T05:58:08Z")
> [@billfish678](#): > > Then of course NOBODY ever stands up for their rights (to their own detriment) so that OTHERS may benifit. > > I know I sure as hell wouldn’t stand for attack dogs, tear gas, and water hoses so some other guy would be allowed to sit in front of the bus…much less so he or she can protect their family and property from criminals in trying times. > > Shocking as it may seem, some people have a moral compass that actually includes the bigger picture sometimes, rather than thier own precious hide. This is a foolish analogy. You cannot analogize the deep, persistent ongoing human rights violations perpetrated on blacks by Jim Crow and the temporary deprivation of people’s 2nd Amendment rights post-Katrina. (And I’ll note that despite all the chest-thumping about using guns to fight despotism, I don’t see that many rights for blacks were won by private citizens with firearms. Quite on the contrary, in fact.) \*\*Richard Parker \*\*has stated the case best. There is a mechanism in a democracy for challenging what you perceive to be violations of your constitutional rights. If you examine the constitution, that mechanism is not, “Kill the person you perceive to be violating your right.” Unless, of course, you simply prefer a state of nature to living in civilization. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2009, 11:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-have-shot-the-gun-confiscators-when-they-came-to-your-door/492770/169 "2009-04-14T11:30:26Z")
> [@Todderbob](#): > > I guess we should ask Thomas Jefferson. I would if he were alive, but since he isn’t why don’t _you_ go ahead and simply answer the question, o.k.? ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2009, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-have-shot-the-gun-confiscators-when-they-came-to-your-door/492770/170 "2009-04-14T14:29:54Z")
I’m not sure. If this were the military, I’d be more sure. A soldier has the duty to follow all lawful orders. [http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/militarylaw1/a/obeyingorders.htm](http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/militarylaw1/a/obeyingorders.htm) Following unlawful orders is no excuse. Unlawful orders should be refused. So… I’d say the policeman, first. In this case, since there were National Guardsmen doing it, I’d say… the Guardsman had the first responsibility to say it was an illegal order. Kinda puts the Guardsman in a tight spot, mind you. ---
**Author:** ![Chopper9760](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/cdc98d/32.png) [@Chopper9760](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chopper9760)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2009, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-have-shot-the-gun-confiscators-when-they-came-to-your-door/492770/171 "2009-04-23T15:35:58Z")
I’ve always thought that if government officials came to my home and demanded my guns that would be my personal breaking point. If they passed an unconstitutional piece of garbage and we heard on the news that it was time to surrender our guns, I’d most likely stand and fight. The Katrina scenario is troubling. Obviously I wouldn’t just hand over my beautiful, well-tended guns and family heirlooms to some ham-fisted piggy on a power trip _shudder_ And I sure as hell wouldn’t allow myself to be totally disarmed during a crisis. However, I think I would probably lie to the cops, maybe give them one or two guns to appease them. I find that distasteful in the extreme and it would rip me up inside, I would feel like a coward. However, in the midst of a natural disaster doesn’t seem like the right time to make a principled stand. As many others have noted, no court would find me justified in action against the police. As much as it pains me, I might try to lie and hide my guns even under the terms of the first scenario I described. It would depend on so many factors. Is there virulent, vocalized resistance to the passage of the law? Are citizens chattering about an uprising? What does the NRA say? Is the military with us or against us? I wish I was brave enough to just put my foot down and say, “No, not now, not ever. Pry it from my cold, dead claws.” I’m embarrassed to admit it, but for me it will probably come down to fear more than principle. If the government were to degenerate so much that it passed a firearms confiscation code, obviously Conservative/Libertarian values would be the minority. If they took our weapons, how long would it be before they started rounding up “political dissidents?” Then it’s religious people, pretty soon it’s gay people, and people that are too short. I’m not willing to give up the only right that guards against the removal of my other rights. ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2009, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-have-shot-the-gun-confiscators-when-they-came-to-your-door/492770/172 "2009-04-23T19:35:40Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > So, suppose you happened to be a resident of New Orleans during the Hurricane Katrina disaster, and the 2nd Amendment-supporters’ nightmare scenerio came to pass: armed government enforcers came to your door and demanded you turn over all your firearms and ammunition. They aren’t interested in anything a lawyer has to say, it’s not up for debate or discussion: turn over your guns. NOW. > > Here’s the question: do you turn over your guns and hope that maybe someday, weeks months or years later the government will eventually admit it was wrong? Or do you resist by deadly force, knowing that the overwhelming likelihood is that if you aren’t shot dead by a SWAT team, the state will do everything in it’s power to see you executed or spend life in prison for shooting police officers enforcing an official (if not constitutional) order? > > Myself, I can’t honestly say I know what I’d do. My personal feeling would be that turning over my gun would be a humiliating and cowardly surrender; but maybe at that time and place, it would be the smart thing to do. They wouldn’t have gotten it without shots being fired. The action was unlawful and if they had shown up at my house looking to steal my guns, they would have been treated just like anyone else trying to loot me. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-have-shot-the-gun-confiscators-when-they-came-to-your-door/492770.md?page=8)