Violate Your Oath And Turn On American Citizens At Your Legal Peril, Gun-Grabbers

[anygunanywhere]

I think the real issue is that it would take a major organizational effort to set up such a thing. The government already stops any group that even looks like they may eventually be a threat. It's not likely everyone would just decide to start shooting at the cops when they come to confiscate your guns. Let's just say for fun that they banned all firearms and started going around to get them all, which is not they way I think they would do it anyway. So I decide I am going to shoot back. How many would come running to my place to assist me? I bet none. I would be labeled a gun nut by the media and they would show pictures of the cops hauling me or my dead body out of the house.

The way they will do it is to outlaw them. Then they outlaw the ammo for them, Then they outlaw us transferring them. Then they outlaw us shooting them at the range by forbidding we carry them out of the house. Then they sit back and wait for us all to get old and die off or simply accept the guns are useless to us.

Ever hear of the Viet Cong?

Do you actually think that there is no organized effort that will take place once the sportiness is triggered?

[03Lightningrocks]

I think the real issue is that it would take a major organizational effort to set up such a thing. The government already stops any group that even looks like they may eventually be a threat. It's not likely everyone would just decide to start shooting at the cops when they come to confiscate your guns. Let's just say for fun that they banned all firearms and started going around to get them all, which is not they way I think they would do it anyway. So I decide I am going to shoot back. How many would come running to my place to assist me? I bet none. I would be labeled a gun nut by the media and they would show pictures of the cops hauling me or my dead body out of the house.

The way they will do it is to outlaw them. Then they outlaw the ammo for them, Then they outlaw us transferring them. Then they outlaw us shooting them at the range by forbidding we carry them out of the house. Then they sit back and wait for us all to get old and die off or simply accept the guns are useless to us.

Ever hear of the Viet Cong?

Do you actually think that there is no organized effort that will take place once the sportiness is triggered?

Viet Cong? Yes, my father was killed over there when I was 9 years old. The Viet Kong were fighting foreign invaders. The same would happen here if a foreign regime came in trying to take control of our country. That is really not a good analogy.

[03Lightningrocks]

I am curious though. Where were all the tough guys willing to die when they instituted the assault weapons ban the last time? Yeah, exactly.

[Grayling813]

I am curious though. Where were all the tough guys willing to die when they instituted the assault weapons ban the last time? Yeah, exactly.

Today's environment is not 1994. It's 2019 with communists openly holding elected office in the federal government, communists running for President, communists openly advocating doing away with parts of the Constitution they don't agree with.

[eyedoc]

This is the best factual data we have from 1995. It is the infamous 29 Palms questioner.

Firing on U.S. Citizens?

While all of the questions in this survey should have stimulated concern, the survey’s final question has generated an enormous amount of attention:


The U.S. government declares a ban on the possession, sale, transportation, and transfer of all non-sporting firearms. A thirty (30) day amnesty period is permitted for these firearms to be turned over to the local authorities. At the end of this period, a number of citizen groups refuse to turn over their firearms. Consider the following statement: I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the U.S. government.

The survey results: 42.3 percent strongly disagreed with this statement; 19.3 percent disagreed; 18.6 percent agreed; 7.6 percent strongly agreed; and 12.0 percent had no opinion. In one of the footnotes appearing in his thesis, Cunningham quotes comments placed by some of the Marines next to their answers to this question: "What about the damn Second Amendment? … I feel this is a first in communism! … Read the book None Dare Call It Conspiracy by Gary Allen." "I would not even consider it. The reason we have guns is so that the people can overthrow the gov’t when or if the people think the gov’t is too powerful." "Freedom to bear arms is our Second Amendment. If you take our Amendments away then you can take this job and stick it where the sun don’t shine! … It is a right to own firearms for defense (2nd Amendment); I would fight for that right!"

Based on the disagreement expressed by 61 percent of the Marines, Cunningham concluded that "a complete unit breakdown would occur in a unit tasked to execute this mission."

http://jpfo.org/articles-assd/29palms-mcmanus.htm

[RicoTX]

I think the real issue is that it would take a major organizational effort to set up such a thing. The government already stops any group that even looks like they may eventually be a threat. It's not likely everyone would just decide to start shooting at the cops when they come to confiscate your guns. Let's just say for fun that they banned all firearms and started going around to get them all, which is not they way I think they would do it anyway. So I decide I am going to shoot back. How many would come running to my place to assist me? I bet none. I would be labeled a gun nut by the media and they would show pictures of the cops hauling me or my dead body out of the house.

The way they will do it is to outlaw them. Then they outlaw the ammo for them, Then they outlaw us transferring them. Then they outlaw us shooting them at the range by forbidding we carry them out of the house. Then they sit back and wait for us all to get old and die off or simply accept the guns are useless to us.

I think this is a correct assessment. They have time on their side. They just have to wait.

[Texas_Blaze]

I’ll speak plainly about this. As a born again believer I don’t see any biblical support of taking up arms against the government over matters such as this. In fact, as a believer, all are deputized as ministers to bring the good news of the gospel to everyone around us. This is our purpose for living. Killing others due to the violation of our constitution is contrary to my purpose. I’ll protect innocent human life from imminent danger with any sort of weapon I can. My position of not engaging in a civil conflict has nothing to do with my wife and kids, but everything to do with my reason for living. As the old sayin goes, what would Jesus do, thats what I’ll do. My home is elsewhere.

[eyedoc]

Up to 25% of the American population fought against the British during the revolution.

https://observer.com/2017/07/soldiers-m ... evolution/

[The Annoyed Man]

This is the best factual data we have from 1995. It is the infamous 29 Palms questioner.

Firing on U.S. Citizens?

While all of the questions in this survey should have stimulated concern, the survey’s final question has generated an enormous amount of attention:


The U.S. government declares a ban on the possession, sale, transportation, and transfer of all non-sporting firearms. A thirty (30) day amnesty period is permitted for these firearms to be turned over to the local authorities. At the end of this period, a number of citizen groups refuse to turn over their firearms. Consider the following statement: I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the U.S. government.

The survey results: 42.3 percent strongly disagreed with this statement; 19.3 percent disagreed; 18.6 percent agreed; 7.6 percent strongly agreed; and 12.0 percent had no opinion. In one of the footnotes appearing in his thesis, Cunningham quotes comments placed by some of the Marines next to their answers to this question: "What about the damn Second Amendment? … I feel this is a first in communism! … Read the book None Dare Call It Conspiracy by Gary Allen." "I would not even consider it. The reason we have guns is so that the people can overthrow the gov’t when or if the people think the gov’t is too powerful." "Freedom to bear arms is our Second Amendment. If you take our Amendments away then you can take this job and stick it where the sun don’t shine! … It is a right to own firearms for defense (2nd Amendment); I would fight for that right!"

Based on the disagreement expressed by 61 percent of the Marines, Cunningham concluded that "a complete unit breakdown would occur in a unit tasked to execute this mission."

http://jpfo.org/articles-assd/29palms-mcmanus.htm

Thanks for posting this link! I was just looking for this a couple of days ago because someone was doing it wrong on Twitter, and I couldn’t find it.

[narcissist]

I am curious though. Where were all the tough guys willing to die when they instituted the assault weapons ban the last time? Yeah, exactly.

I was under age at the time but I see your point. The way they monitor everything nowadays unless you have a couple million followers on social media junk type platforms. That would actruly follow through all at the same time it would be extremely hard to accomplish much. Unless every gun owner had our same thoughts about the situation and every police officer/ex military/military actruly followed through with the Oath they took. It's going to be a challenge!

[03Lightningrocks]

This is the best factual data we have from 1995. It is the infamous 29 Palms questioner.

Firing on U.S. Citizens?

While all of the questions in this survey should have stimulated concern, the survey’s final question has generated an enormous amount of attention:


The U.S. government declares a ban on the possession, sale, transportation, and transfer of all non-sporting firearms. A thirty (30) day amnesty period is permitted for these firearms to be turned over to the local authorities. At the end of this period, a number of citizen groups refuse to turn over their firearms. Consider the following statement: I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the U.S. government.

The survey results: 42.3 percent strongly disagreed with this statement; 19.3 percent disagreed; 18.6 percent agreed; 7.6 percent strongly agreed; and 12.0 percent had no opinion. In one of the footnotes appearing in his thesis, Cunningham quotes comments placed by some of the Marines next to their answers to this question: "What about the damn Second Amendment? … I feel this is a first in communism! … Read the book None Dare Call It Conspiracy by Gary Allen." "I would not even consider it. The reason we have guns is so that the people can overthrow the gov’t when or if the people think the gov’t is too powerful." "Freedom to bear arms is our Second Amendment. If you take our Amendments away then you can take this job and stick it where the sun don’t shine! … It is a right to own firearms for defense (2nd Amendment); I would fight for that right!"

Based on the disagreement expressed by 61 percent of the Marines, Cunningham concluded that "a complete unit breakdown would occur in a unit tasked to execute this mission."

http://jpfo.org/articles-assd/29palms-mcmanus.htm

Thanks for posting this link! I was just looking for this a couple of days ago because someone was doing it wrong on Twitter, and I couldn’t find it.

That was a good read.

[03Lightningrocks]

I am curious though. Where were all the tough guys willing to die when they instituted the assault weapons ban the last time? Yeah, exactly.

I was under age at the time but I see your point. The way they monitor everything nowadays unless you have a couple million followers on social media junk type platforms. That would actruly follow through all at the same time it would be extremely hard to accomplish much. Unless every gun owner had our same thoughts about the situation and every police officer/ex military/military actruly followed through with the Oath they took. It's going to be a challenge!

That pretty much sums up what I am trying to say. I gave my thoughts on it so I will now gracefully bow out and lurk this thread.

[ScottDLS]

I think the real issue is that it would take a major organizational effort to set up such a thing. The government already stops any group that even looks like they may eventually be a threat. It's not likely everyone would just decide to start shooting at the cops when they come to confiscate your guns. Let's just say for fun that they banned all firearms and started going around to get them all, which is not they way I think they would do it anyway. So I decide I am going to shoot back. How many would come running to my place to assist me? I bet none. I would be labeled a gun nut by the media and they would show pictures of the cops hauling me or my dead body out of the house.

The way they will do it is to outlaw them. Then they outlaw the ammo for them, Then they outlaw us transferring them. Then they outlaw us shooting them at the range by forbidding we carry them out of the house. Then they sit back and wait for us all to get old and die off or simply accept the guns are useless to us.

Ever hear of the Viet Cong?

Do you actually think that there is no organized effort that will take place once the sportiness is triggered?

Viet Cong? Yes, my father was killed over there when I was 9 years old. The Viet Kong were fighting foreign invaders. The same would happen here if a foreign regime came in trying to take control of our country. That is really not a good analogy.

One could argue that the VC were the foreign invaders, or at least their local supporters, with the NVA being the actual "foreigners". The North, supported by the Soviets was pouring weapons and support for the VC into the South through Laos and directly across the border. Unless you make the argument that the ARVN and the US were the bad guys and all the South Vietnamese were just pining for a murderous communist dictatorship?

[03Lightningrocks]

I think the real issue is that it would take a major organizational effort to set up such a thing. The government already stops any group that even looks like they may eventually be a threat. It's not likely everyone would just decide to start shooting at the cops when they come to confiscate your guns. Let's just say for fun that they banned all firearms and started going around to get them all, which is not they way I think they would do it anyway. So I decide I am going to shoot back. How many would come running to my place to assist me? I bet none. I would be labeled a gun nut by the media and they would show pictures of the cops hauling me or my dead body out of the house.

The way they will do it is to outlaw them. Then they outlaw the ammo for them, Then they outlaw us transferring them. Then they outlaw us shooting them at the range by forbidding we carry them out of the house. Then they sit back and wait for us all to get old and die off or simply accept the guns are useless to us.

Ever hear of the Viet Cong?

Do you actually think that there is no organized effort that will take place once the sportiness is triggered?

Viet Cong? Yes, my father was killed over there when I was 9 years old. The Viet Kong were fighting foreign invaders. The same would happen here if a foreign regime came in trying to take control of our country. That is really not a good analogy.

One could argue that the VC were the foreign invaders, or at least their local supporters, with the NVA being the actual "foreigners". The North, supported by the Soviets was pouring weapons and support for the VC into the South through Laos and directly across the border. Unless you make the argument that the ARVN and the US were the bad guys and all the South Vietnamese were just pining for a murderous communist dictatorship?

[mayor]

If our government officials are stupid enough to actually attempt to ban guns, then a march on the capitol to deliver them should be organized.