SteyrAUG, now you're changing your story. Halfway up page 2 you wrote:

But at the bottom of page 2 you argue: Yes, the LEO's already are violating the Constitution -- but they're just following orders, so it's not their fault.

I support the Constitution and oppose anyone who violates it -- including potentially, as westman431 wrote, "LEOs, and even ... soldiers".

Discussions like this give LEO's the chance to think about what they are doing. If an LEO violates the Constitution and attacks me, I will defend myself. I will not forgive the LEO for attacking me simply because he is just following orders.

There is nothing to change. The Constitution remains valid. The anti-gun laws are invalid. Any LEO who acts on the anti-gun laws is acting unlawfully. I have only to defend myself against unlawful force.

Not me acting alone, with only a gun. That alone would not terminate the government's illegal activities.

And why do you keep suggesting that I want to get forceful? I don't want that. I'll be satisfied if the government stops using unlawful force on citizens; if the government stops, then citizens will have no need to defend themselves.

So they're just following orders, ja?

[img]http://www.stjohnsprep.org/htdocs/sjp_tec/projects/internet/covino/poljew2.gif[/img]

Ok, for the sake of arguement.

[b]"Cop pulls me over for having an M16."[/b]
This is a far fetched possibility.  Chances are you would not be pulled over, but ratted out and confronted in your own home.  If you get pulled over for speeding, and the cop finds an M16, he will respond appropriately (of inappropriately as the case may be).

Now you have a choice.  Submit to the arrest and fight it out in court, or draw on the officer and take the chance.

[b]"Would I be justified in resisting arrest?"[/b]
That all depends.  The state of the Union at the time, the political climate, public opinion, the laws on the books, are all factors which should influence your decision to resist.

If you resist, you must:  be faster and better with a gun than the officer (and all of his backup), have a safe place to hide indefinately, have millions of armed friends ready to assist, have a sympathetic jury, and [u]be prepared to die.[/u]

Never forget.  [b]Everyone has the right to revolt, and everyone has the right to pay for their own revolution.[/b]

If any of you are spoiling for a revolution of some sort, you had better wait a little longer.  It won't fly now.

Your whole point is a symphony of assumptions of the worst kind.

You are assuming:

A.  I own an [i]illegal[/i] machine gun.
B.  Owning such a device is Constitutional.
C.  Police or SWAT or whoever are Unconstitutional.
D.  An arrest violates your C. rights.
E.  I have a gun in my hand when arrested.
F.  Authorities will execute a no-knock.
G.  Current law applies.
H.  I will do somthing to prevent this.

a.  I don't own one, and unless SHTF, I don't plan to.  Legal options are available.
b.  Your interpretation is worthless unless you can persuade the SCOTUS.
c.  You [b]can[/b] be arrested in your home.
d.  Your arrest is permissible if there is probable cause to believe that you have comitted a crime.
e.  This is unlikely.
f.  This may or may not happen.  It's constitutionality is dubious.
g.  Are you assuming that things are far worse then they are?  I'm not.
h.  Why wouldn't I simply submit to an arrest?  After all, I didn't do anything that is against the law (see a.).

If things were bad enough to that JBT's are going house to house killing people who don't turn in their weapons, then I would fight.  I also must be prepared to die.  

But that is not quite what we are discussing now, is it?

Killing soldiers/law enforcement, etc. is a popular topic with the Alamo syndrome crowd.  I remember reading threads on the best way to down helicopters, ambush police at dinner, helmet shaped targets with badges on them,, etc.  One gentleman posted that he would call in a false alarm and then shoot firemen to draw in the police. His theory was that the police would be at a disadvantage because where they would try and avoid killing fireman, he wouldn't. Because of morons like this,  gun owners have quickly become a perceived threat.  Not because it's true, but because of wannabe commando's with big mouths. I'm certainly going to be wary of anyone that feels the need for a loaded rifle on his passenger seat. After all,  he might be one of those whacko's I read on the bulletin boards. 6shooter, I'm impressed that you know what I, and thousands of others, are going to do in a given (Highly unlikely) situation.  please enlighten me on how you can read minds into the future like that.

But you also refuse to explain why EVERYone in the FBI and ATF is willing to confiscate newly made M16's from citizens.

JackBurton, do you think newly made M16's are [b]not[/b] protected by the 2nd Amendment?

Do the words of the 2nd Amendment suggest that M16's aren't protected?

Has the Supreme Court ruled that M16's aren't protected?

I'm as pro-constitution as the rest of you, but I'm also in the Marine reserve. I don't really expect to be given any orders such as the ones described above while I'm still in, but if I were, my loyalty is to my oath to uphold the constitution, not my CO.

That being said, if I or my unit were fired upon, the shooter would die. [b]Just the all the rest of you[/b], my self-preservation instincts would take over regardless of whether or not the person firing at me thought he was in the right. Would you try to stop a no-knock by shouting, "You're violating the constitution! Please leave!" No. Likewise, if a "gun-toting lunatic" with noble motives were to shoot at my platoon, he would be martyred within moments by accurate automatic small arms fire.

I'm a freedom-lovin' gun nut like all of you, and my loyalty is to the constitution. I won't follow an unlawful order but I WILL defend own life.

For that 0.01% of us who think killing military and LE is the way to go, please consider my words. The rest of us, I know, are more reasonable than that.

I believe in this country, and I do not believe that my government wants to take away my liberty.  America IS liberty.

That said, if the shtf, I will not be staying in my cookie cutter anyway.  It's [b]North!  To Alaska![/b]

No, remember, I said that this is far likely to happen with "assault rifles" aka semi-automatic rifles.


It most certainly is.


Well of course Police aren't "unconstitutional"!


Of course it would.


Oh well...


That's a given.


Unconstitutional laws are unenforcable.


No, I guess you wouldn't. Geben Sie mir Ihre Gewehren, Juden!  


I don't think you're understanding what we're talking about here. We're not talking about going *after* LEOs and military! We're only discussing what would happen if the ATF, FBI, or even the military broke down our doors to illegally confiscate our arms. And I can assure you that number is more than 0.01%.

As for defending your own life, if you won't follow an unlawful order then you won't be in a position to have to defend your life from a gun owner.

That is exactly what I'm talking about: [b]Defending myself against an illegal attack[/b].

And yet the anti-machinegun crowd continues to claim that I want to launch attacks on firemen and cops indiscriminately.

[b]Typical propoganda[/b] put forth by the [b]anti-machinegun[/b] crowd.

Not one friggin person on this thread has explained to me how they can support the Constitution and yet trust LEO's who [b]today[/b] confiscate protected arms.

6shooter, do you have a class 3 license which allows you to legally own an M16 (meaning a full auto or 3rd. burst M16)?  If you have gone through all proper channels to legally obtain an M16 (or other NFA weapon) then you most likely have nothing to fear unless your under suspicion of a criminal act.  People who have class 2, class 3 or concealed carry permits aren't generally the folks the FBI or ATF have the most concern with.

Kevin,

Federal law ([url]www.atf.treas.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/nfireact.pdf[/url]) distinguishes between machineguns produced before and after 1986.

The government permits citizens to possess only machineguns produced before 1986. Newer machineguns are [i]absolutely[/i] prohibited, except to government agencies and licensed manufacturers/importers/dealers.

Any machinegun produced after 1986 is flat-out [b]banned[/b]. No amount of tax-stamps or government forms will change this.

This ban on modern machineguns is a violation of the Constitution, yet the FBI and ATF uses the so-called ban to justify its use of force against citizens (i.e., if the ATF knows you have a modern machinegun, they will INCARCERATE you and they will CONFISCATE your gun).

While people on AR15.com speculate about the future, most seem oblivious that the anti-Constitutional confiscations have been going on for years already -- with the unanimous support of the FBI and ATF.

I have everything to fear, Kevin:

-- The Constitution is being violated TODAY. The government IS confiscating machineguns produced after 1986.

-- People who speak in defense of the Constitution are branded "extremists" and "cop-haters".

-- Today's ban on modern machinegun paves the road for future incremental anti-gun bans and confiscations. If left unchecked, the legislators will ban additional guns; the LEO's will confiscate these guns; people who object to the confiscations will be branded "extremists" and "cop-haters".

-- Pro-gun people put undue faith in LEO's to refuse illegal orders "when the time comes". The time CAME in 1986, and the LEO's obeyed the illegal orders.

Don't you understand? The ATF and FBI are not at fault. They don't make these laws. They're just doing their jobs. If you've got a problem with that and think you're going to try to do something about it you'd best [u] be prepared to die[/u].

Ok then, to further clarify, do you have a class 3 license for an M16 produced before 1986?  Just because it was produced before 1986 doesn't give you the right own one w/out a license.   Non-licensed civilian ownership of class 3 firearms (full auto, etc.) was ended back in the 40's or something.

Thank you for the advice. I know the Bill of Rights, and I know the federal laws that violate it. Since LEO's ignore the Constitution, I'm not going to talk about my possessions, except to assure you that they are all protected by the Constitution.

Then the discussion about shooting people because of your fictious M16 is over!