taking your guns from you

[DParker]

Don't believe that it can't happen here!

I don't think anyone has said that it can't happen here. Some of us have stated that it's unlikely though, and for good reasons.

A number of Australian publication have printed eyewitness accounts putting large numbers of foreign troops -- including U.S. forces in Australia. The U.S. troops are rumored to be "assisting" in the gun confiscation as part of "urban warfare training.

The last paragraph was intresting to me. US troops helping the aussies???

A couple of problems with the paragraph:

1) U.S. military forces are present to one degree or another in most friendly countries. "Large numbers" of foreign troops is pretty vague, and gives no hint as to what % of those nebulous "large numbers" might be U.S. forces.

2) The phrase "are rumored to be" ought to send up a red flag for any reader and cause him/her to take what follows with a rather large grain of salt.

[The Annoyed Man]

While I agree with you that such a thing is far from likely to ever happen, I don't think your calculations above - even though they're essentially accurate - are all that meaningful given the extreme disparity in the *type* of weaponry employed by the military vs. private citizenry, not to mention the lack of combat training possessed by the latter.

WOLVERINES!!



Seriously though, and meaning no insult to anybody who served in Southeast Asia during the Vietnam war era, but I think the Vietnamese put paid to the notion that a lightly armed, and less well trained force can't defeat a heavier armed and well trained force - providing that the lightly armed group is properly motivated, and the heavily armed group lacks the political will to prevail. Similarly, Afghan resistance to the Soviets proved the same thing. Lightly armed insurgents in Baghdad successfully proved that lightly armed troops carrying Molotov cocktails can knock out an Abrams Tank in an urban environment. Somali warlord Mohamed Farrah Aidid's relatively lightly armed militia prevailed against a much more heavily armed and MUCH better trained American and multinational force because of lack of political will. The gun grabbers simply can't muster enough national political will to prevail in one fell swoop in Congress and force through a national gun confiscation. They just can't. If they could, they'd have done it 40 years ago. There exist otherwise liberal Democrats who are pretty decent on gun rights; and the majority of Republicans wouldn't support it either; and there simply doesn't exist a Congressional majority with enough steam to force through a national gun ban, particularly a large enough majority to force one through by overriding a presidential veto.

Consequently, such tactics must necessarily be restricted to the local level, and that's why it would never succeed in Texas, except possibly in Austin, and even in Austin the liberals tend to be libertarian enough to not want government squashing them.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that the single most dangerous thing being done to this country by the left is the effort to fragment us into a bunch of smaller victim groups. Divide and Conquer. As long as We the People tend to think of ourselves as an amorphous mass of Americans, an attack on the rights of one of us is an attack on the rights of all of us. But when the left succeeds in getting people to think of themselves first as [name your race], or [name your country of ethnic origin], or [name your gender], or [name your sexual preference], and as Americans second, then it is easy for all the other groups to ignore sociopolitical sins committed against one group, because those sins don't directly affect (in their minds, anyway) any of the other groups. It is exactly that effort to reduce our collective self image to our particular subgroup which is what makes it possible to incrementally erode our individual gun rights. If half the households own guns, it means the other half doesn't. Of the half that don't, some are somewhat favorable to gun rights, but just never got around to owning any themselves, and the rest are either neutral on the subject, or they hate guns. The the gun haters don't see anything wrong with attacking gun rights, and the neutrals don't care because it isn't upsetting their particular rice bowl. We have become a nation of politically and constitutionally apathetic people, and national interest in any given issue depends upon whose ox is being gored. (Nice use of multiple metaphors, wouldn't you agree? )

Anyway, I'll concede that there is always a slim possibility of such a national calamity. Anything is possible; but a lot of things are extremely unlikely; and I put a national gun confiscation here in the US in the latter category. Maybe I'm overly optimistic, but I've always been a "glass is half full" kind of guy.

That's just my 2¢.

[boomerang]

In fact, I would go so far as to say that the single most dangerous thing being done to this country by the left is the effort to fragment us into a bunch of smaller victim groups. Divide and Conquer. As long as We the People tend to think of ourselves as an amorphous mass of Americans, an attack on the rights of one of us is an attack on the rights of all of us. But when the left succeeds in getting people to think of themselves first as [name your race], or [name your country of ethnic origin], or [name your gender], or [name your sexual preference], and as Americans second, then it is easy for all the other groups to ignore sociopolitical sins committed against one group, because those sins don't directly affect (in their minds, anyway) any of the other groups.

They're balkanizing America. It's an important step in their plan to turn the USA into a Third World country.

[longtooth]

Folks our only victory has got to be at the polls.

LT,

You are correct to a point. We need to start winning some battles before they reach the polls. Head them off at the pass, so to speak.

Anygunanywhere

Yes sir you are completely correct. I consider that heading off (nominating process to be a part of it.)
Get the good guys running. Be involved on the local level. This is fighting the first small battles. Folks that dont care about the local level politics are far more likely to be apathetic on the National level too. ie just pull the Party Lever cause Grampaw did back in 1942.

If the liberal antis cant win the Mayor election they will never think of running for National office.

[DParker]

We might still be the afore-mentioned quasi-violent agreement mode on most of this, but the discussion seems to be remaining on a positive and civil note, so I'll lob a couple back to your side of the court.

WOLVERINES!!

Yeah, but we now know we probably can't rely on poor Mr. Swayze to take up arms on our behalf for much longer.

Seriously though, and meaning no insult to anybody who served in Southeast Asia during the Vietnam war era, but I think the Vietnamese put paid to the notion that a lightly armed, and less well trained...

Or in this case, not really trained at all (at least that goes for the vast majority of the civilian population.)

...force can't defeat a heavier armed and well trained force

When it came to the in-the-jungle guerilla warfare that occured in Vietnam there wasn't nearly as much of a differential between the arms used by our troops and theirs as would be the case in a U.S. military vs. civilian population scenario.

- providing that the lightly armed group is properly motivated, and the heavily armed group lacks the political will to prevail.

I think that's the most compelling part of your argument. But I would take it a step further and suggest in this case that lack of political will would be so extreme as to prohibit the action in the first place, rendering the remainder of the discussion moot.

Similarly, Afghan resistance to the Soviets proved the same thing.

Well, if you overlook the fact that the Mujihadeen had U.S. material backing (stinger missiles...great for taking out Soviet attach choppers...and the instructions for their use weren't just found laying around the Afghan countryside by goat herders). Similarly, the N. Vietnamese had some significant help from a couple of large communist powers as well.

Lightly armed insurgents in Baghdad successfully proved that lightly armed troops carrying Molotov cocktails can knock out an Abrams Tank in an urban environment.

That's true. But it hasn't exactly spelled military defeat for U.S. forces there (despite all of the media coverage suggesting otherwise.)

Somali warlord Mohamed Farrah Aidid's relatively lightly armed militia prevailed against a much more heavily armed and MUCH better trained American and multinational force because of lack of political will.

I'd disagree here. Aidid's militia was - in terms of numbers of both men and weapons - greatly superior to the small force sent in against him. And I don't know how much lighter their (the militia's) weapons were (the had plenty of full-auto AKs and similar arms.) I seem to recall that the U.S. force went in pretty lightly armed...and that the infamous "Blackhawk down" event was the result of Aidid's possession of RPGs and the like. Certainly firepower the likes of which U.S. civilians would not be able to bring to bear.

The remainder of your post is snipped, as I'm in complete agreement with it...and pointing that out isn't nearly as much fun.

Oh, and...yes...extra points for the composite metaphore usage.

[The Annoyed Man]

- providing that the lightly armed group is properly motivated, and the heavily armed group lacks the political will to prevail.

I think that's the most compelling part of your argument. But I would take it a step further and suggest in this case that lack of political will would be so extreme as to prohibit the action in the first place, rendering the remainder of the discussion moot.

It may be moot, but it's sure fun arguing, isn't it?

The remainder of your post is snipped, as I'm in complete agreement with it...and pointing that out isn't nearly as much fun.

Oh, and...yes...extra points for the composite metaphore usage.

[The Annoyed Man]

In fact, I would go so far as to say that the single most dangerous thing being done to this country by the left is the effort to fragment us into a bunch of smaller victim groups. Divide and Conquer. As long as We the People tend to think of ourselves as an amorphous mass of Americans, an attack on the rights of one of us is an attack on the rights of all of us. But when the left succeeds in getting people to think of themselves first as [name your race], or [name your country of ethnic origin], or [name your gender], or [name your sexual preference], and as Americans second, then it is easy for all the other groups to ignore sociopolitical sins committed against one group, because those sins don't directly affect (in their minds, anyway) any of the other groups.

They're balkanizing America. It's an important step in their plan to turn the USA into a Third World country.

I would only disagree to the extent that their real goal is to turn it into the (socialist) European Union. They don't want "Third World," because that would require that they get their shoes dirty and grow some calluses on their hands.

[tarkus]

Lightly armed insurgents in Baghdad successfully proved that lightly armed troops carrying Molotov cocktails can knock out an Abrams Tank in an urban environment.

Think of what they'll do to cars. If they hit the right cars the freedom fighters might get a couple of guns for their side if they're lucky and move fast.

[bdickens]

Oh, man. Not The Spotlight! Are some of y'all going tinfoil hat or what?

[NcongruNt]

New Orleans and Katrina. There will be an emergency that will be the excuse just like New Orleans. How many of those people fought the police when they came?

Jerry

What happened in New Orleans was an extremely localized phenomenon. Many of those people in New Orleans historically viewed the gummint as their savior and the sole answer to all of their problems - including their income problems (or rather, the problems they didn't have as long as the gummint kept sending them welfare checks). They did not view government as a pesky but necessary evil, so they are all too glad to comply. They were not - at least until after Katrina - conservatives. Look at the people they kept electing to public office down there. Those elected leaders represent the spiritual and moral soul of pre-Katrina New Orleans - former Governor Kathleen "I will NOT ask a Republican president for help" Blanco, Mayor C. Ray "School buses? We don't need no stinkin' school buses" Nagin, Representative William "I keep the bribes in my freezer" Jefferson.

Post Katrina, a social conservative, Bobby Jindal, has been elected as Governor. He's far from perfect, but he is also far from the Blanco mold. For you Ron Paul fans, Jindal has an A rating from Gun Owners of America, Paul's favored gun rights organization. With a governor in office who shares Ron Paul's views on gun ownership, I seriously doubt you will see another gun grabbing attempt in Louisiana as long as he's in office.

Katrina was a large scale emergency, crossing state boundaries, but different locales responded differently to the crisis, and the gun grabbing wasn't state wide in Louisiana, it was just in the vicinity of New Orleans. It is important to note that, in neighboring Mississippi, where Katrina related damage was nearly as severe, there were no gun grabbings, and there was no whiny insistence on government entitlements, and Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour well understood the relationship of local to federal government, posse comitatus, and his responsibilities to his citizens during the crisis. I am also fairly confident that, had Mississippi been saddled with a blistering canker of a governor like Blanco, any order given to LEOs to go forth and confiscate guns along Mississippi's gulf coast would have been responded to by LEOs with a "Heck no! YOU go do it. I don't wanna get shot!"

As I posted previously, the NO gun grabbing effort was an eye opener for the public at large, and I seriously doubt that it can be repeated. It was only successful because it was a localized effort, and even the courts later ruled against them. A national effort to pull off a NO style gun grab would be doomed to failure, and result in a lot of killing on both sides - for which the government would be eventually held accountable. The political fallout from such an effort would likely result in a complete, top-to-bottom housecleaning, if not an outright overthrow, of federal government. A similar localized effort might be successful in San Francisco, but it wouldn't work in Los Angeles, where small business and shop owners confronted "Rodney King" rioters outside their front doors with AR15s, and in some cases engaged looters in full scale firefights. It might be successful in DC, but not in Dallas.

You've all seen the "red state, blue state" map. The map shown below shows a red/blue breakdown by county, rather than by state, in the 2004 presidential election, and it represents a more accurate national distribution of conservatives and liberals than the red state/blue state map. The blue counties are those were a gun grabbing effort might be successful. The red counties (about 90% or more of the U.S. land mass) are those areas where a gun grabbing effort would most likely fail. (By the way, Alaska, which is not colored on this map, came in completely red in actual fact.)

Please note that, in Texas, one of the blue areas is Austin. Please note that Austin is surrounded by a vast sea of red. I don't think Austin is going to try and take away Texas's guns.

I believe your illustration is somewhat flawed.

Making the assumption that Republican = Pro-Gun and Democrat = Anti-Gun is a generalization without true merit, IMO. Political opinion covers a very large spectrum of issues of which RKBA is a very small part. I know oodles of people who vote mainly Democrat that are pro-gun and believe in the RKBA. Your map also does not take into account the independent vote, which is proportionally greater here in Austin (and some other locales) than in most parts of the state. Also, your example cites the 2004 election, in which there was serious disapproval of the Republican candidate, which still exists and is even greater now than it was then. Just because someone votes against a Republican candidate that they have no faith in does not make them anti-gun nor a through-and-through democrat (again, I believe the assumption that Democrat=Anti-Gun is wrong). I have family members in the Midwest whose gun collections would dwarf most of the members' collections on this forum (except maybe El Gato ), but have been lifelong Democrats. They are very involved in politics on a much more local level, and as has been pointed out in this thread, that is where the real changes happen. Another example that demonstrates that this is not simply a party issue was one of the amicus briefs filed in the DC vs. Heller case, where large numbers from both sides of the aisle in Congress expressed disapproval of DC's strict anti-gun laws. Belief in the Second Amendment doesn't fall as starkly across party lines as you may believe.

[LarryH]

I have family members in the Midwest whose gun collections would dwarf most of the members' collections on this forum (except maybe El Gato ), but have been lifelong Democrats.

Yep. Just seeing the portion of ElGato's collection he brings to the class is almost by itself worth the price of admission.

[The Annoyed Man]

I believe your illustration is somewhat flawed.

Making the assumption that Republican = Pro-Gun and Democrat = Anti-Gun is a generalization without true merit, IMO. Political opinion covers a very large spectrum of issues of which RKBA is a very small part. I know oodles of people who vote mainly Democrat that are pro-gun and believe in the RKBA. Your map also does not take into account the independent vote, which is proportionally greater here in Austin (and some other locales) than in most parts of the state. Also, your example cites the 2004 election, in which there was serious disapproval of the Republican candidate, which still exists and is even greater now than it was then. Just because someone votes against a Republican candidate that they have no faith in does not make them anti-gun nor a through-and-through democrat (again, I believe the assumption that Democrat=Anti-Gun is wrong). I have family members in the Midwest whose gun collections would dwarf most of the members' collections on this forum (except maybe El Gato ), but have been lifelong Democrats. They are very involved in politics on a much more local level, and as has been pointed out in this thread, that is where the real changes happen. Another example that demonstrates that this is not simply a party issue was one of the amicus briefs filed in the DC vs. Heller case, where large numbers from both sides of the aisle in Congress expressed disapproval of DC's strict anti-gun laws. Belief in the Second Amendment doesn't fall as starkly across party lines as you may believe.

Of course it is a simplistic assumption, and yes, you're correct that there are a few very strongly pro-gun Democrats in office. I've alluded to this in other posts, and in one of my more recent posts, I gave my observation that liberals in Austin seem to have an independent libertarian streak, which would make them more sympathetic to gun rights than, say liberals in San Francisco. Senator McCain (AZ), a Republican, has not been as good on gun rights as has been Senator Jim Webb (VA), a Democrat, for instance. That being said, if you look at where most of the anti-gun legislation attempts have originated in the past 40 years or so, you will find that they originated from within the Democratic party. And, since the 1960s, conservatism in general has been better represented by the Republican party than the Democratic party - at least until more recent administrations, since there are some strong arguments that the Republican Party has shifted more toward the center/center-left as the Democratic party has shifted further left.

To the extent that the Republican party better represented conservatism than did the Democratic party during the past 40 years, that is the extent to which gun rights tended to be better represented by Republicans than Democrats over that period. Of course there have been exceptions on both sides. And that is the value to me of that map. Republicans took a beating in the 2006 congressional elections, and Democrats now hold a majority in both houses of Congress. However, I'd be willing to bet a box of Federal Gold Match 168 grain .308 SMKs that a 2007/2008 map of the same kind as the 2004 map pictured here would still reveal that Republicans (who tend to be center/center-left) still hold more counties than Democrats (who tend to be center-left/hard-left); and that the blue counties would still be clustered mostly around the large population centers of the west and east coasts, and from the great lakes down the Mississippi river valley. So yes, the gun rights debate does not always fall starkly along party lines, but party lines is a useful tool for determining trends; and the trends seem to show that Republicans (as a group) tend to be more supportive of gun rights than Democrats (as a group).

Also, I think that (again, differentiating between individual voters, and party leadership) that the reason that the Democratic party had backed away from gun rights confrontations in recent years is because, the last time they got behind gun-control, they took a beating at the polls. Even so, they are growing in confidence, and look for some serious gun rights challenges to come up if we get a Democrat president at the same time as we have a Democrat majority in Congress.

At least, that's how I see it.

[Chemist45]

It can happen here.
It has happened here. (Texas)
Remember Waco?

When you find yourself believing it can't happen again, you need to watch this video:
http://www.gunowners.org/neworleans.ram

As Jimlongley pointed out, the people coming to take your guns will not be the neighborhood cops you grew up with.
They will be New York or California national guardsmen who are just following orders.
It will be for your own safety.
Or to protect the children.

[tarkus]

As Jimlongley pointed out, the people coming to take your guns will not be the neighborhood cops you grew up with.
They will be New York or California national guardsmen who are just following orders.

That cuts both ways. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIWb8HJ5gLo

[israel67]

Another fascinating thread.

The big problem is that most of us are deferential to authority, because that's the way we've been brought up. You only need to look at the way most encounters with LEOs by CHL holders are recounted.

I take a zero tolerance (and probably quite radical) view of abuse of power by those in authority. I'm always amazed that the advice to those wrongfully arrested is: don't resist. Why should I not resist? Why should I allow someone who has no legal right to imprison me, to do so? I believe that if I'm being wrongfully deprived of my liberty, I have the G-d-given right to resist, even if it involves the use of lethal force. Whether the person trying to imprison me is wearing a badge or not, should make no difference.

The law gives elected officials and police officers enormous power, and everyone seems to have forgotten that old axiom that with power, comes responsibility. If the authority given by the badge or the office is abused, then it should be known that there will be violent resistance.

A good twenty years ago in Britain, a police officer in civilian clothing scaled a wall and entered someone's garden. Now it should be pointed out that the guy whose garden he entered was a bit of a skuz, but the fact was that the officer was not wearing a uniform, and he did not identify himself. The suspect stabbed him to death, was charged with murder, but was subsequently aquitted.

I agree with the verdict.

I'm not advocating the murder of police officers, let's be clear on that. My father (may he rest in peace) was one, and 99.99% of them do a fantastic job. If it weren't for them, the barbarians would rule over us.

I live in a police state. A Bordeaux appeal court ruling of (IIRC) 1997 ruled that even when police officers are acting outwith their lawful authority, 'rebellion' (no I'm not kidding: that's the word the law uses) is an offence. In other words, you can be walking along the street with your wife and children and a policeman starts beating up on you, and you cannot resist.

There is a law here in France (Article 78-2 of the Code of Penal Procedure) which defines the four situations in which an officer can ask you for your identity. Tellingly, the word is 'contrôle d'identité'. Appropriate, isn't it? 'Contrôle'. Anyway, that law is disregarded on a daily basis, and if a cop asks you for your ID, even if he has no legal right to do so, you'd better comply or you're going downtown for a kickin'.

Two nights ago, three officers came out of a bar here in Paris, too drunk to stand. One of them sat down on the pavement ('sidewalk'), unholstered his service weapon and started waving it around, before firing off six or seven shots. Three teenagers were hit, one of them in the lower back. He's in intensive care. In another story from maybe last weekend, a gendarme fired nine shots at a fleeing (and handcuffed) suspect. The suspect died.

To be fair, both officers have been charged, but I believe that they were only charged because they used their weapons. The police regularly beat suspects with their fists and boots, but because that leaves less of a trace than a bullet, any charges that the victim makes, are almost automatically dropped, because the police charge him with 'rebellion', and thus courts take the view that the violence was 'necessary to effect an arrest'.

The whole thing stinks.

You'll tell me things are different in the US and I believe you, and every day that passes, my impatience to get over there, grows. But we're sheep. All of us. If the day comes when the federal government starts to confiscate guns, then most of us will acquiesce, because of that deference to authority. And that's wrong, in my humble opinion.

What should happen, is that the state should be relegated to its rightful position, i.e. as the servant of the people and not the reverse. The state should be left in no doubt that if it seeks to violate the rights of law-abiding citizens by any means, then its agents will be met with deadly force. And when the shooting stops, the agents of the state still alive who tried to violate our rights, will be spending a long, very long time behind bars.

Sorry, I get very worked up when my rights are trampled upon.