Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 3/25/2006 12:52:34 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/25/2006 12:53:31 AM EDT by Sturmwehr]
Now, let me state before I start that I am a peaceful person. If I can find out a way to do something peacefully without the use of force, I will do so. Discretion is a useful tool.

That in mind, in my opinion, peaceful political movements to get back gun rights is the best way for us (and America as a whole) to get back out freedoms.

...However...


It's pretty much damn near impossible. With the BATFE in their current vehement campaign against us "criminals" bearing what we were Constitutionally righted to do... not to mention the 1989/86/68/34 legislature acts...

People, we have a lot of work on our hands and a lot of people that wish us failure.


For instance, how many people here would like to see the 86 ban go "bye-bye"? I sure as hell would.
Good luck getting the votes in Congress for it. Even with majorities in Congress, it's pretty unlikely.

That, and as mentioned early, the ATF. They have far too much power (any government entity that can declare shoelaces as a potentially illegal device has far too much authority). How can we, as citizens, curbtail that? I don't know, to be honest.


I would surely like to see all this happen on the Congressional floor, instead of a civil war, however I just don't see it happening. People are far too complacent and eager to settle nowadays.

Anyone have any thoughts on this? It's just that the more I think about it, the more unlikely peaceful means can be used to re-establish our Constitutional rights.
Link Posted: 3/25/2006 1:08:44 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/25/2006 1:11:32 AM EDT by Hylton]
No comment however I will say the voting option went out the window 15 years ago, that pretty much narrows it down.
Link Posted: 3/25/2006 1:17:11 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Hylton:
No comment however I will say the voting option went out the window 15 years ago, that pretty much narrows it down.



Yup.
Link Posted: 3/25/2006 1:58:27 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Hylton:
No comment however I will say the voting option went out the window 15 years ago, that pretty much narrows it down.


For those of us not in the know, okay me, what happened 15 years ago?

James
Link Posted: 3/25/2006 2:24:58 AM EDT

Originally Posted By schwindj:

Originally Posted By Hylton:
No comment however I will say the voting option went out the window 15 years ago, that pretty much narrows it down.


For those of us not in the know, okay me, what happened 15 years ago?

James



thats the first day he put on the tinfoil
Link Posted: 3/25/2006 2:29:36 AM EDT
I think we need to organize a march in an open carry state with all of us carrying our guns openly.
Link Posted: 3/25/2006 2:33:22 AM EDT

Originally Posted By NCPatrolAR:

Originally Posted By schwindj:

Originally Posted By Hylton:
No comment however I will say the voting option went out the window 15 years ago, that pretty much narrows it down.


For those of us not in the know, okay me, what happened 15 years ago?

James



thats the first day he put on the tinfoil

Our sole problem is having so many people with us believing people like the above poster are on our side.
Link Posted: 3/25/2006 2:34:16 AM EDT
I say go Ghandi on the issue. Worked for Prohibition and Speed limits, and is even working to some extent with marijuana. If it works for pot heads, well...who knows.
Link Posted: 3/25/2006 3:45:42 AM EDT

Originally Posted By NickN:
I think we need to organize a march in an open carry state with all of us carrying our guns openly.



If we did that, once we disbanded they would most likely come after individuals.

There's all kinds of ways they could 'intrepet' a gathering like that.

Assuming the word was out and people would show up (how many), we would look like an ordinary crowd of people (albiet large) until the OK was given for us to tuck shirts, exposing our holsters/pistol.

I'm not saying it would be any use for us to do such a thing though...
Link Posted: 3/25/2006 4:01:41 AM EDT

Originally Posted By NCPatrolAR:

Originally Posted By schwindj:

Originally Posted By Hylton:
No comment however I will say the voting option went out the window 15 years ago, that pretty much narrows it down.


For those of us not in the know, okay me, what happened 15 years ago?

James



thats the first day he put on the tinfoil



just another sheep that will cower down and give up(or worse turn you over) when the time comes
Link Posted: 3/25/2006 4:11:04 AM EDT
I doubt you would ever get a permit for a large march with firearms, even in a gun friendly state.

Also, I'm sure the police and/or National Guard will be there in advance decked out in their riot control gear as the gov't shows it's force.

Because you know, all of us gun owners are evil and nothing good can come from having so many evil, armed people in one place!
Link Posted: 3/25/2006 4:24:51 AM EDT
The solution is simple: elect ARFCOMMERS. I plan to run for office where I am in a few years. And guess what? I think I can win.
Link Posted: 3/25/2006 7:19:24 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/25/2006 7:19:37 AM EDT by Sturmwehr]

Originally Posted By BLY:

Originally Posted By NickN:
I think we need to organize a march in an open carry state with all of us carrying our guns openly.



If we did that, once we disbanded they would most likely come after individuals.

There's all kinds of ways they could 'intrepet' a gathering like that.

Assuming the word was out and people would show up (how many), we would look like an ordinary crowd of people (albiet large) until the OK was given for us to tuck shirts, exposing our holsters/pistol.

I'm not saying it would be any use for us to do such a thing though...



I tend to agree with BLY... that would likely get us just shitlisted with various government agencies.
Link Posted: 3/25/2006 7:27:02 AM EDT

Originally Posted By BangStick1:
I doubt you would ever get a permit for a large march with firearms, even in a gun friendly state.

Also, I'm sure the police and/or National Guard will be there in advance decked out in their riot control gear as the gov't shows it's force.

Because you know, all of us gun owners are evil and nothing good can come from having so many evil, armed people in one place!




not true
Link Posted: 3/25/2006 7:41:14 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/25/2006 7:42:55 AM EDT by SubnetMask]
Armed revolution doesn't require a majority by any means, but it requires *ALOT* more than a few pissed off gun owners. You don't have anywhere near a critical mass of willing combatants, so erase that thought from your head right now. Why? Peacable options are abundant. Don't believe me?

States (including mine) are now recognizing the right of lawful citizens to carry loaded firearms in public. In fact, most states in the Union are shall issue. Imagine hearing that 20 years ago. You'd think I was crazy.

Despite a majority of Americans supporting the renewal of the assault weapons ban (and I believe if put to a vote, it's a majority), our Congressmen wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole. It died, and it shows no signs of coming back.

In Florida, citizens no longer have to prove a duty to retreat as an affirmative defense.

In Michigan, machine guns are going to be (or are they already?) legal again.

In California (of all places), the Department of Justice has IN WRITING, allowed the importation of various AR-15 lower recievers, as the result of a court case. I'm talking over 30,000 lowers. Imagine that even two years ago. It's slowly getting better.

Nebraska looks to have their right to CCW back.

Since 1986, I no longer have to worry about what happens to me if I carry my guns across state lines. Since 1986, I don't have to submit personally identifiable information every time I pick up a box of .45 ACP at Wal Mart.

Bill Clinton is of the opinion - and has stated as much in his book - that the passage of the AWB in 1994 cost his party both houses. Right or wrong, alot of Democrats agree with him and they've backed off somewhat. They are still a threat, but we've knocked alot of their teeth out.

NONE OF THIS was the result of armed combat against our governemnt. ALL OF THIS was the result of effective lobbying, and voting. And there's alot more where this came from. I swear to God, if one of you fuck nuts goes Rambo and starts shooting before the rest of us have finished our EFFECTIVE lobbying efforts...

...you're going to fuck it up for everyone.
Link Posted: 3/25/2006 7:45:31 AM EDT
I doubt there would be a civil war over firearm laws.
Link Posted: 3/25/2006 7:49:14 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SubnetMask:
Armed revolution doesn't require a majority by any means, but it requires *ALOT* more than a few pissed off gun owners. You don't have anywhere near a critical mass of willing combatants, so erase that thought from your head right now. Why? Peacable options are abundant. Don't believe me?

States (including mine) are now recognizing the right of lawful citizens to carry loaded firearms in public. In fact, most states in the Union are shall issue. Imagine hearing that 20 years ago. You'd think I was crazy.

Despite a majority of Americans supporting the renewal of the assault weapons ban (and I believe if put to a vote, it's a majority), our Congressmen wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole. It died, and it shows no signs of coming back.

In Florida, citizens no longer have to prove a duty to retreat as an affirmative defense.

In Michigan, machine guns are going to be (or are they already?) legal again.

In California (of all places), the Department of Justice has IN WRITING, allowed the importation of various AR-15 lower recievers, as the result of a court case. I'm talking over 30,000 lowers. Imagine that even two years ago. It's slowly getting better.

Nebraska looks to have their right to CCW back.

Since 1986, I no longer have to worry about what happens to me if I carry my guns across state lines. Since 1986, I don't have to submit personally identifiable information every time I pick up a box of .45 ACP at Wal Mart.

Bill Clinton is of the opinion - and has stated as much in his book - that the passage of the AWB in 1994 cost his party both houses. Right or wrong, alot of Democrats agree with him and they've backed off somewhat. They are still a threat, but we've knocked alot of their teeth out.

NONE OF THIS was the result of armed combat against our governemnt. ALL OF THIS was the result of effective lobbying, and voting. And there's alot more where this came from. I swear to God, if one of you fuck nuts goes Rambo and starts shooting before the rest of us have finished our EFFECTIVE lobbying efforts...

...you're going to fuck it up for everyone.



I agree though I am less confident than you and think we should retain the option. The most important thing for the gov't to believe IMO is that we are willing to fight if need be.

But you are correct things have improved somewhat for many of us in most states. What about those in Kommie states? Their rights are important to me also and I oppose any infringement based on State's Rights bullshit.

The best thing would be a SCOTUS decision in our favor, establishing the 2nd as a right of the People and thereby negating most of the gun laws in this country. But what if they decide other than that, openly defying the very Law they are sworn to uphold? Then what?

Work within the system, be prepared for other than that.
Link Posted: 3/25/2006 7:57:51 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/25/2006 8:03:21 AM EDT by Dave_A]

Originally Posted By Sturmwehr:
Now, let me state before I start that I am a peaceful person. If I can find out a way to do something peacefully without the use of force, I will do so. Discretion is a useful tool.

That in mind, in my opinion, peaceful political movements to get back gun rights is the best way for us (and America as a whole) to get back out freedoms.

...However...


It's pretty much damn near impossible. With the BATFE in their current vehement campaign against us "criminals" bearing what we were Constitutionally righted to do... not to mention the 1989/86/68/34 legislature acts...

People, we have a lot of work on our hands and a lot of people that wish us failure.


For instance, how many people here would like to see the 86 ban go "bye-bye"? I sure as hell would.
Good luck getting the votes in Congress for it. Even with majorities in Congress, it's pretty unlikely.

That, and as mentioned early, the ATF. They have far too much power (any government entity that can declare shoelaces as a potentially illegal device has far too much authority). How can we, as citizens, curbtail that? I don't know, to be honest.


I would surely like to see all this happen on the Congressional floor, instead of a civil war, however I just don't see it happening. People are far too complacent and eager to settle nowadays.

Anyone have any thoughts on this? It's just that the more I think about it, the more unlikely peaceful means can be used to re-establish our Constitutional rights.



Armed revolution would be a mess, and the 'revolutionaries' would get their tails whupped...

Remember, a whole bunch of folks took an oath to protect 'the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic'... Many of us take offense to the idea of overthrowing an elected government by force - don't count on any order to put down a revolt being disobeyed...

Also, with the exception of a few ex/current military folks switching sides, the loyalist forces have the advantage of real-life combat experience as well as classes & range time (iok - we don't get enough range time)...

Then you throw in the heavy equipment & high-tech gear civillians don't have... You have an A2 SEP rolling down the street towards you - this vehicle can survive direct hits from it's own (120mm) weapons system, direct hits from car bombs, and in some cases 30-odd RPG hits... The commander and gunner can see your body heat thru most forms of concealment, and the thing carries enough small arms ammo (coax, loader's gun, commander's gun, 2 M4s, 2 M9s) to stock a small gun store.... Oh, he's not alone - there's either another one close by, or he's got an infantry escort... How does the would-be revolutionary unit fair in that situation???

All you'd do is end getting alot of folks killed on both sides...

Link Posted: 3/25/2006 8:11:27 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/25/2006 8:16:05 AM EDT by lippo]

Originally Posted By Triumph955i:
I doubt KNOW there would be a civil war over firearm laws.




There fixed it for you.

Wake up...there will NEVER be a revolution of this issue. If there were to be, you wouldn't be talking about it, you'd be out assassinating politicians that were against our 2nd Amendment Rights. How do I know this? Because that's how it started back in 1775!

Talk gets you no where. The Supreme Court won't even hear a case on the 2nd Amendment which would give us our actual Rights back.

Face it, as long as some guy can go down, buy a deer rifle or a shotgun, there will NEVER be a revolution over this issue. Too many gun owners are not on the side of the 2nd Amendment. Lazy, stupid and completely worthless describes most firearm owners when it comes to actual support of the 2nd Amendment. They say they support it, but they don't show it.

No go back to your Lazy boy, drink your beer and watch your Nascar.


* Edit *


NONE OF THIS was the result of armed combat against our governemnt. ALL OF THIS was the result of effective lobbying, and voting. And there's alot more where this came from. I swear to God, if one of you fuck nuts goes Rambo and starts shooting before the rest of us have finished our EFFECTIVE lobbying efforts...

...you're going to fuck it up for everyone.




I also agree with this statement. But what is going to happen when the Democrats get back into power because of war and the economy of the middle second class?

The democrats are NOT on the side of gun owners and they WILL take back power in the congress and the white house, because the Republicans are screwing the people that are swing votes and are just plain screwing up big time. The have total control of everything right now and they still can't get their act together.
Link Posted: 3/25/2006 8:19:25 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By Sturmwehr:
Now, let me state before I start that I am a peaceful person. If I can find out a way to do something peacefully without the use of force, I will do so. Discretion is a useful tool.

That in mind, in my opinion, peaceful political movements to get back gun rights is the best way for us (and America as a whole) to get back out freedoms.

...However...


It's pretty much damn near impossible. With the BATFE in their current vehement campaign against us "criminals" bearing what we were Constitutionally righted to do... not to mention the 1989/86/68/34 legislature acts...

People, we have a lot of work on our hands and a lot of people that wish us failure.


For instance, how many people here would like to see the 86 ban go "bye-bye"? I sure as hell would.
Good luck getting the votes in Congress for it. Even with majorities in Congress, it's pretty unlikely.

That, and as mentioned early, the ATF. They have far too much power (any government entity that can declare shoelaces as a potentially illegal device has far too much authority). How can we, as citizens, curbtail that? I don't know, to be honest.


I would surely like to see all this happen on the Congressional floor, instead of a civil war, however I just don't see it happening. People are far too complacent and eager to settle nowadays.

Anyone have any thoughts on this? It's just that the more I think about it, the more unlikely peaceful means can be used to re-establish our Constitutional rights.



Armed revolution would be a mess, and the 'revolutionaries' would get their tails whupped...

Remember, a whole bunch of folks took an oath to protect 'the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic'... Many of us take offense to the idea of overthrowing an elected government by force - don't count on any order to put down a revolt being disobeyed...

Also, with the exception of a few ex/current military folks switching sides, the loyalist forces have the advantage of real-life combat experience as well as classes & range time (iok - we don't get enough range time)...

Then you throw in the heavy equipment & high-tech gear civillians don't have... You have an A2 SEP rolling down the street towards you - this vehicle can survive direct hits from it's own (120mm) weapons system, direct hits from car bombs, and in some cases 30-odd RPG hits... The commander and gunner can see your body heat thru most forms of concealment, and the thing carries enough small arms ammo (coax, loader's gun, commander's gun, 2 M4s, 2 M9s) to stock a small gun store.... Oh, he's not alone - there's either another one close by, or he's got an infantry escort... How does the would-be revolutionary unit fair in that situation???

All you'd do is end getting alot of folks killed on both sides...




Gun owners outnumber the military by 9/1 or a little less. And yuo dont destroy populace and infrastructure you wish to govern, even the British understood this. That's why there was reluctance on both sides during the revolution to burn cities carelessly and kill people like sheep at a slaughter. And if it was so bad that there were battles in the streets the military would be in a shambles morally I am sure..
Link Posted: 3/25/2006 8:24:21 AM EDT
We will give up our gun rights as peacefully and cowardly as we have given up every other right and usurpation of power by our federal tyrants. We are the proverbial frog in the kettle. Generations in the future will look back at us as "gun nuts" and "barbarians".

Oh, and how will they protect their precious private property rights??? Excuse me while I go PUKE .

Link Posted: 3/25/2006 8:25:39 AM EDT
The problem is really two fold...

First, we need folks who will stand up and litterally fight for our rights.

On the other hand, we have way too many folks who, given the opportunity, will stand up and litterally fight for our rights.

Fuggin gun nuts

Just leave my squirrel gun alone!!!!
Link Posted: 3/25/2006 9:18:53 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Valkyrie:

Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By Sturmwehr:
Now, let me state before I start that I am a peaceful person. If I can find out a way to do something peacefully without the use of force, I will do so. Discretion is a useful tool.

That in mind, in my opinion, peaceful political movements to get back gun rights is the best way for us (and America as a whole) to get back out freedoms.

...However...


It's pretty much damn near impossible. With the BATFE in their current vehement campaign against us "criminals" bearing what we were Constitutionally righted to do... not to mention the 1989/86/68/34 legislature acts...

People, we have a lot of work on our hands and a lot of people that wish us failure.


For instance, how many people here would like to see the 86 ban go "bye-bye"? I sure as hell would.
Good luck getting the votes in Congress for it. Even with majorities in Congress, it's pretty unlikely.

That, and as mentioned early, the ATF. They have far too much power (any government entity that can declare shoelaces as a potentially illegal device has far too much authority). How can we, as citizens, curbtail that? I don't know, to be honest.


I would surely like to see all this happen on the Congressional floor, instead of a civil war, however I just don't see it happening. People are far too complacent and eager to settle nowadays.

Anyone have any thoughts on this? It's just that the more I think about it, the more unlikely peaceful means can be used to re-establish our Constitutional rights.



Armed revolution would be a mess, and the 'revolutionaries' would get their tails whupped...

Remember, a whole bunch of folks took an oath to protect 'the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic'... Many of us take offense to the idea of overthrowing an elected government by force - don't count on any order to put down a revolt being disobeyed...

Also, with the exception of a few ex/current military folks switching sides, the loyalist forces have the advantage of real-life combat experience as well as classes & range time (iok - we don't get enough range time)...

Then you throw in the heavy equipment & high-tech gear civillians don't have... You have an A2 SEP rolling down the street towards you - this vehicle can survive direct hits from it's own (120mm) weapons system, direct hits from car bombs, and in some cases 30-odd RPG hits... The commander and gunner can see your body heat thru most forms of concealment, and the thing carries enough small arms ammo (coax, loader's gun, commander's gun, 2 M4s, 2 M9s) to stock a small gun store.... Oh, he's not alone - there's either another one close by, or he's got an infantry escort... How does the would-be revolutionary unit fair in that situation???

All you'd do is end getting alot of folks killed on both sides...




Gun owners outnumber the military by 9/1 or a little less. And yuo dont destroy populace and infrastructure you wish to govern, even the British understood this. That's why there was reluctance on both sides during the revolution to burn cities carelessly and kill people like sheep at a slaughter. And if it was so bad that there were battles in the streets the military would be in a shambles morally I am sure..



However this does underscore that there are those in the military who would fire on their fellow citizens, even in a fight for our own freedoms. Pretty sad.
There are a lot of people in this country who are Vets that would be willing to fight if it came down to that however, and we also have training. I was a good shot when I was in the military. I am better now and I train a lot. I would however state that the people in the military now seem in general to be less concerned with their freedoms and those of their fellow citizens, and moreso with the direction of power at the behest of those who oppose it. Clearly a shift from when I ws in the military. I don't think a whole lot of guys would have done what he is saying he would. It would do us all well to bear that in mind if it comes to that.

Again though, it is a matter of tactics. I won't go into that more here other than to say you had better have a decent plan. Short and long term. Fighting any opponenet on their own terms is almost always foolhardy.
Link Posted: 3/25/2006 9:21:47 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/25/2006 9:31:19 AM EDT by Sturmwehr]

Originally Posted By Triumph955i:
I doubt there would be a civil war over firearm laws.



I wouldn't be so sure... Under the right circumstances, we could have a civil war at worst - at best, an armed revolt.

I don't know about you, but if for some reason, someone was going door-to-door collecting firearms/ammunition, I wouldn't be a happy camper.

However, the absolute last thing I want is Americans shooting at each other... I'd rather avoid that at all costs if possible.


Originally Posted By SubnetMask:

In California (of all places), the Department of Justice has IN WRITING, allowed the importation of various AR-15 lower recievers, as the result of a court case. I'm talking over 30,000 lowers. Imagine that even two years ago. It's slowly getting better.



Be that as it may, what about San Francisco. Goodbye to handguns there. That right there is pretty much completely unconstitutional.

The NRA is, thankfully, fighting the legislation. They stand a good chance of winning, but not for sure.


It seems like whenever we gain ground, we lose some. I'm not saying this is necessarily true, but it feels that way. Like when the AWB ended. HURRAY!!! ...Then they started targeting .50 cals... Next? Probably Title IIs.


Originally Posted By rifleman2000:
The solution is simple: elect ARFCOMMERS. I plan to run for office where I am in a few years. And guess what? I think I can win.



I'd gladly vote for you, sir.


Good luck in your future political endeavors!
Link Posted: 3/25/2006 10:03:04 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/25/2006 10:05:41 AM EDT by drjarhead]

Originally Posted By Sturmwehr:

Originally Posted By Triumph955i:
I doubt there would be a civil war over firearm laws.



I wouldn't be so sure... Under the right circumstances, we could have a civil war at worst - at best, an armed revolt.

I don't know about you, but if for some reason, someone was going door-to-door collecting firearms/ammunition, I wouldn't be a happy camper.

However, the absolute last thing I want is Americans shooting at each other... I'd rather avoid that at all costs if possible.



Agreed, but not at ALL costs.
None of us want that but a refusal to do so only emboldens Socialists seeking to cram their utopian vision up our ass. To gradually give in and compromise, over and over only harms us and results in a loss of our freedoms.

One really must ask: Why is it that they want to disarm law abiding Americans so badly?

IMO that question answers itself. YMMV.


Originally Posted By SubnetMask:

In California (of all places), the Department of Justice has IN WRITING, allowed the importation of various AR-15 lower recievers, as the result of a court case. I'm talking over 30,000 lowers. Imagine that even two years ago. It's slowly getting better.



Watch when they renege. They've done so before


Originally Posted By Sturmwehr:
Be that as it may, what about San Francisco. Goodbye to handguns there. That right there is pretty much completely unconstitutional.



Never stopped them before.


The NRA is, thankfully, fighting the legislation. They stand a good chance of winning, but not for sure.


Since the 9th has held that the 2nd is not an individual right I wouldn't expect much. Of course that is federal but I suspect we can expect even less from the State courts.



It seems like whenever we gain ground, we lose some. I'm not saying this is necessarily true, but it feels that way. Like when the AWB ended. HURRAY!!! ...Then they started targeting .50 cals... Next? Probably Title IIs.


Incrementalism.


They won't stop, ever, until we kick their ass.

Link Posted: 3/25/2006 10:52:30 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Valkyrie:

Gun owners outnumber the military by 9/1 or a little less. And yuo dont destroy populace and infrastructure you wish to govern, even the British understood this. That's why there was reluctance on both sides during the revolution to burn cities carelessly and kill people like sheep at a slaughter. And if it was so bad that there were battles in the streets the military would be in a shambles morally I am sure..



The vast majority of gunowners aren't interested in Black Rifles at all. In fact, because of all of the AWB misinfo, many see BRs as a threat to their ownership of "normal" guns, like their deer rifle, or granpappy's 12-gauge, or the revolver kept in their purse. If a new AWB compromise was offered that involved confiscation of all our "assault weapons" in exchange for never taking away their ordinary guns, I'd bet that very many gun owners would accept it. Incrementalism is working.

And don't plan on an armed revolution, a few people would fight confiscation, but most would rather give up what they see as a fun hobby instead of the lives of themselves and their family. Those who fought wouldn't be called revolutionaries, they would be terrorists or wackos or just paranoid nuts.

Our best strategy is to look and act "normal", emphasize freedom and liberty as general concepts (libertarian style). Avoid the subject of guns until they believe you are a rational and normal person. Arguing and confrontation is counterproductive and will only push opponents further away from your side. Once the liberals think you are one of them, THEN you can reveal yourself as a gunowner. Allow them to make the connection between gun ownership and their favorite "threatened causes" like gays in the closet or marijuana users. Many people have never even seen a real gun before, so they will be revolted by something they have been conditioned to fear, yet also curious about this taboo item. Offer to take them shooting so they can learn how to safely use a gun. Once a person has actually fired a gun, there is a very good chance they will understand and maybe have a change of heart.
Link Posted: 3/25/2006 11:03:38 AM EDT
Any so-called American who is determined and aggressive enough to try to take away my second amendment rights deserves to be shot at. The problem is that unless we form our own state and secede from the US we will never form large enough groups to effectively violently fight for our rights.

Let's say there has been one or more mass shootings sometime in the near future and Hitlory taking advantage of the emotional situation gets legal/congressional support to ban and immediately confiscate all of a certain class of weapons (assault type, semi-auto pistols or whatever). You go door to door in your neighborhood to round up people who are willing to ban together and physically resist the govt. How much support do you really think you would get????

Link Posted: 3/25/2006 11:22:09 AM EDT

Originally Posted By rifleman2000:
The solution is simple: elect ARFCOMMERS. I plan to run for office where I am in a few years. And guess what? I think I can win.



Excellent a New Party

The ARFCOMMERS Now can we get one us into the WhiteHouse ?
Link Posted: 3/25/2006 11:25:06 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Turnkey:

Originally Posted By rifleman2000:
The solution is simple: elect ARFCOMMERS. I plan to run for office where I am in a few years. And guess what? I think I can win.



Excellent a New Party

The ARFCOMMERS Now can we get one us into the WhiteHouse ?



Wrong! Run as a Republican, you'll get a lot of votes just for the R next to your name. You have a better chance of winning the election and changing the party (at state level) from within.
Link Posted: 3/25/2006 11:42:05 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Sturmwehr:
<snip>
Anyone have any thoughts on this? It's just that the more I think about it, the more unlikely peaceful means can be used to re-establish our Constitutional rights.



It's easy to tell what is going to happen. The government will get bigger and take more citizen rights and make them into powers. Other rights will be taken by the police and government before the gun laws will become more draconian. The police many of you defend will happily confiscate your firearms. A small percentage of people will cry and complain, but the vast majority will be happy as they can watch the football game on their plasma TV.

The Constitution and BOR are already just a footnote in history and not documents of any purpose.
Link Posted: 3/25/2006 12:28:25 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Turnkey:

Originally Posted By rifleman2000:
The solution is simple: elect ARFCOMMERS. I plan to run for office where I am in a few years. And guess what? I think I can win.



Excellent a New Party

The ARFCOMMERS Now can we get one us into the WhiteHouse ?



Stay Republican for now, we need the system. The only problem with most modern Republicans is that a lot of them support the right things but really have no clue about what they are are supporting. I knew a few "hard core" Republicans in school that would have flipped out if you showed them a gun. That is why they don't stand up against the normal BS that liberals fling; comparing gun owners to thugs, terrorists, criminals, Nazis, etc. Really ridiculous comparisons that only take a little common sense and level-headedness to contradict with truth.
Link Posted: 3/25/2006 12:33:50 PM EDT
The talk of revolution is both funny and depressing. Funny for the fact some of you still hold a positive image of sheep. Then thier is the depressing fact the sheep will work against you in masse and gladly say goodbye to thier rights. Once the 2nd goes and it will in most of our lifetimes everything else will go with it. This country is nearing the point of A lost cause if McCain, Rudy, or Shitlary are elected this country is officially shit.
Link Posted: 3/25/2006 12:41:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By NickN:
I think we need to organize a march in an open carry state with all of us carrying our guns openly.



Best idea so far
Link Posted: 3/25/2006 12:42:15 PM EDT
As much as I favor TX withdrawing from the union, I'd not want to do it with ARFCOMers.

The 2nd is about all that binds us

The friggin Christians would want to establish that as the state religion, and,
I don't even WANT to know the debate of letting WalMart in.

ARFCOM nation would dissolve into a squabbleing Babylon within a day :)
Link Posted: 3/25/2006 12:44:10 PM EDT
If the armed option was chosen by the people who would be first targeted? And what would you do first if war was declared by the people?
Link Posted: 3/25/2006 12:44:40 PM EDT

Originally Posted By distributor_of_pain:

Originally Posted By NickN:
I think we need to organize a march in an open carry state with all of us carrying our guns openly.



Best idea so far



Sounds like a "coup" to me


Or, should I say, how itwould be interpreted.
Link Posted: 3/25/2006 12:49:16 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Goonboss:
As much as I favor TX withdrawing from the union,



Dont be too quick to take that off the table. With whats coming in the future, it maybe the nuclear option.
Link Posted: 3/25/2006 12:52:22 PM EDT

Originally Posted By RAINBOW6:

Originally Posted By Goonboss:
As much as I favor TX withdrawing from the union,



Dont be too quick to take that off the table. With whats coming in the future, it maybe the nuclear option.



Nothing is off the table.

The first rule about fight club is that we don't talk about fight club
Link Posted: 3/25/2006 12:53:53 PM EDT
These tin-foilers crack me up.

You guys seem to forget the biggest weapon we have: the Ballot Box.

Years ago, I was a LEO in Texas. We had the worst handgun laws imaginable. The law simply said that no one, except a peace officer, could "carry, on or about their person" a pistol.

No carry permits even existed. None.

You simply could not carry a pistol on or about your person, with a very few exceptions.

If, at that time, you would have told me that there would some day be a "Shall Issue" carry permit in Texas, I would have laughed.

But, wonders of wonders, we now have such a system.

How? We elected enough conservative legislators to get the bill passed.

That's how you restore rights. By voting the right people into office.

It still works.
Link Posted: 3/25/2006 12:54:39 PM EDT
We would have to have a constitution. A dead one. And we would shoot the first person to call it living.
Link Posted: 3/25/2006 12:55:39 PM EDT
It does not take many for a revolution in spite of what people think. Look how few are opposing us in Iraq and Afganistan and we cannot stop them. There were very few communists at 1st in Russia and China. Same in our own Revolution. It just takes determination. You do not mass against the military. Insurgency is the secret. Melt into the populace and keep your mouth shut.

The sheeple would give in if the insurgency was effective
Link Posted: 3/25/2006 12:56:56 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Old_Painless:
These tin-foilers crack me up.

You guys seem to forget the biggest weapon we have: the Ballot Box.

Years ago, I was a LEO in Texas. We had the worst handgun laws imaginable. The law simply said that no one, except a peace officer, could "carry, on or about their person" a pistol.

No carry permits even existed. None.

You simply could not carry a pistol on or about your person, with a very few exceptions.

If, at that time, you would have told me that there would some day be a "Shall Issue" carry permit in Texas, I would have laughed.

But, wonders of wonders, we now have such a system.

How? We elected enough conservative legislators to get the bill passed.

That's how you restore rights. By voting the right people into office.

It still works.



We shouldn’t have to vote for our god-giving rights,
Link Posted: 3/25/2006 12:57:09 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Old_Painless:
These tin-foilers crack me up.

You guys seem to forget the biggest weapon we have: the Ballot Box.

Years ago, I was a LEO in Texas. We had the worst handgun laws imaginable. The law simply said that no one, except a peace officer, could "carry, on or about their person" a pistol.

No carry permits even existed. None.

You simply could not carry a pistol on or about your person, with a very few exceptions.

If, at that time, you would have told me that there would some day be a "Shall Issue" carry permit in Texas, I would have laughed.

But, wonders of wonders, we now have such a system.

How? We elected enough conservative legislators to get the bill passed.

That's how you restore rights. By voting the right people into office.

It still works.



*ppffffffffffffft*

Noth­ing sexy or fun about voteing.
Link Posted: 3/25/2006 1:02:26 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Hylton:

We shouldn’t have to vote for our god-giving rights,



You're absolutely correct.

But we do.

The best way to keep the idiots from violating our God-given rights is to vote them out of office.
Link Posted: 3/25/2006 1:04:24 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Old_Painless:

Originally Posted By Hylton:

We shouldn’t have to vote for our god-giving rights,



You're absolutely correct.

But we do.

The best way to keep the idiots from violating our God-given rights is to vote them out of office.



The best way to deal with traders to the constitution is not to vote them out of office my friend,
Link Posted: 3/25/2006 1:06:20 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Hylton:

Originally Posted By Old_Painless:

Originally Posted By Hylton:

We shouldn’t have to vote for our god-giving rights,



You're absolutely correct.

But we do.

The best way to keep the idiots from violating our God-given rights is to vote them out of office.



The best way to deal with traders traitors to the constitution is not to vote them out of office my friend,



Not trying to be a spelling nazi but it means somthing way different. My spelling sucks too.
Link Posted: 3/25/2006 1:30:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Hylton:

Originally Posted By Old_Painless:

Originally Posted By Hylton:

We shouldn’t have to vote for our god-giving rights,



You're absolutely correct.

But we do.

The best way to keep the idiots from violating our God-given rights is to vote them out of office.



The best way to deal with traders to the constitution is not to vote them out of office my friend,



You are mistaken, friend.

We are a society of lawful people. We depend on the law to keep society working correctly.

Our first recourse should always be the ballot box.

In 200+ years, with the exception of the War of Northern Aggression, this has served us well.
Link Posted: 3/25/2006 1:31:24 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SubnetMask:
Armed revolution doesn't require a majority by any means, but it requires *ALOT* more than a few pissed off gun owners. You don't have anywhere near a critical mass of willing combatants, so erase that thought from your head right now. Why? Peacable options are abundant. Don't believe me?

States (including mine) are now recognizing the right of lawful citizens to carry loaded firearms in public. In fact, most states in the Union are shall issue. Imagine hearing that 20 years ago. You'd think I was crazy.

Despite a majority of Americans supporting the renewal of the assault weapons ban (and I believe if put to a vote, it's a majority), our Congressmen wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole. It died, and it shows no signs of coming back.

In Florida, citizens no longer have to prove a duty to retreat as an affirmative defense.

In Michigan, machine guns are going to be (or are they already?) legal again.

In California (of all places), the Department of Justice has IN WRITING, allowed the importation of various AR-15 lower recievers, as the result of a court case. I'm talking over 30,000 lowers. Imagine that even two years ago. It's slowly getting better.

Nebraska looks to have their right to CCW back.

Since 1986, I no longer have to worry about what happens to me if I carry my guns across state lines. Since 1986, I don't have to submit personally identifiable information every time I pick up a box of .45 ACP at Wal Mart.

Bill Clinton is of the opinion - and has stated as much in his book - that the passage of the AWB in 1994 cost his party both houses. Right or wrong, alot of Democrats agree with him and they've backed off somewhat. They are still a threat, but we've knocked alot of their teeth out.

NONE OF THIS was the result of armed combat against our governemnt. ALL OF THIS was the result of effective lobbying, and voting. And there's alot more where this came from. I swear to God, if one of you fuck nuts goes Rambo and starts shooting before the rest of us have finished our EFFECTIVE lobbying efforts...

...you're going to fuck it up for everyone.



All thanks to the NRA.
Link Posted: 3/25/2006 1:32:37 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Old_Painless:
These tin-foilers crack me up.

You guys seem to forget the biggest weapon we have: the Ballot Box.

Years ago, I was a LEO in Texas. We had the worst handgun laws imaginable. The law simply said that no one, except a peace officer, could "carry, on or about their person" a pistol.

No carry permits even existed. None.

You simply could not carry a pistol on or about your person, with a very few exceptions.

If, at that time, you would have told me that there would some day be a "Shall Issue" carry permit in Texas, I would have laughed.

But, wonders of wonders, we now have such a system.

How? We elected enough conservative legislators to get the bill passed.

That's how you restore rights. By voting the right people into office.

It still works.



You raise a good point and reading your post gives me hope for a better future.

However, we shouldn't have to depend on politicians to hold onto our Rights.


Here from a legal site:


Civil rights are those which have no relation to the establishment, support, or management of the government.

That was from a very long write up on Rights and in general most I cam across were likewise very long. I found it interesting that no one seemed willing to just say that these were inalienable.
Link Posted: 3/25/2006 1:36:53 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/25/2006 1:37:29 PM EDT by Old_Painless]

Originally Posted By drjarhead:

Here from a legal site:

Civil rights are those which have no relation to the establishment, support, or management of the government.

That was from a very long write up on Rights and in general most I cam across were likewise very long. I found it interesting that no one seemed willing to just say that these were inalienable.



Very interesting.

However, as I'm sure you would agree, the concept of unalienable (or inalienable) rights is not as popular as it was when the Founding Fathers wrote about them.

Unalienable rights are those rights given by God unto men. No government has the right to deny these rights, since they are God-given.

It is still true, but not too PC nowadays.
Link Posted: 3/25/2006 1:40:46 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Goonboss:
As much as I favor TX withdrawing from the union, I'd not want to do it with ARFCOMers.Most of these guys are pretty nutty, ain't they.

The 2nd is about all that binds us ANd barely at that...

The friggin Christians would want to establish that as the state religion, and,
I don't even WANT to know the debate of letting WalMart in.goto the far left and you get communism, far right, theocracy Right? My personal feeling is that we have been brainwashed into thinking that the political spectrum is on dimensional, a straight line either left or right along it. The conventional representation of the political spectrum forces a narrow view of politics. I am pretty sure that all the pro gay, peacenik, free love folks out there are not interested in living under a totalitarian regime of any kind. Same can be said for a good portion of religious folks. The fuckers that want to legislate morality, either by restricting or by forcing acceptance of certain behaviors are the real enemies

ARFCOM nation would dissolve into a squabbleing Babylon within a day :)fuck you....

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top