The Next Step In Domestic Disarmament

Thanks to all for the kind wods and support. I've heard from atleast one of you who has read my published work. I'm sorry its being so hard to find, but that's how it goes when you're starting out small. I'm just glad that I've got the demand to justify more effort on my part. As some of you know, its hard to get published in a way that's meaninful.

We have reached a critical moment in our nation's history. Now, more than ever, firearms ownership matters. Twenty years ago, there was a lot written on this subject. today, you've got to dig to find authors of any kind who are willing to speak out in favor of the second amendment. Some of you have asked me how I've managed to get this far. Let me tell you, as quickly as I can.

The simple fact of the matter is that good citizenship means using your voice. When the people don't speak, the government assumes that their silence means acceptance. During the last two decades of the 20th century, Americans stopped talking about their second amendment rights. As the Soviet Union fell, many of my high school and college class mates jumped to the conclusion that Utopia was just around the corner. Many good men and women of my generation thought we might never need our guns again.

In spite of my bad eyesight, I went to public school and then on to college. I was a good student. never great. Just good. B- material all the way. Like the rest of my peers, I was ready to enjoy life after the Wasaw Pact. Because I knew the army wouldn't take me, I trained for a career in Federal civil service.

Seven years in to my career, I had one of those things happen to me that you see in the movies. "The incident." I wanted my normal life so very much that I was willing to turn a blind eye (no pun intended) to a lot of what went on around me. the office I worked in at that time had what you could call a higher than average degree of corruption.

Eventually, my boss got fed up with my Boy Scout routine, and he gave me a choice. Participate, or lose my career. I was ready to fight the b*stards. I was, after all, in the right. Right? Taxpayer dollars are sacred to me, and I wasn't going to stick my hand in the cookie jar just because "everyone else was doing it." Thankfully, my very smart wife helped me get through that bad chapter in my life.

In spite of everything else that has ever happened to me, I've never been so completely and utterly defeated. No challenge has ever beaten me as badly as my run in with "The Feds." I resigned, which was the smart thing to do. I walked away on my own terms, which was the smart thing to do. I am not bitter, I sleep well at night, and my marriage is still going strong. I got the better deal.

My professional references dried up faster than I could say my own name. I was living my very own conspiracy. At the time, I was angry and I was bitter. What to do? Life as a visually impaired person has prepared me for adversity. I'm used to being a second class citizen in my own country. The only defeat you can't come back from (so far as I know) is death. They hadn't killed me, so...I looked around the "the next thing."

It has been said by many authors through the centuries that you should write what you know. I knew about government corrupt (first hand), and I do know a few things (one or two) about the many civil liberties that are Constitution is supposed to afford us. So, that's what I decided to write about. The last thing the world needs is another dull dry and boring textbook, so I spiced up my lingo with fast cars, hot women, and automatic weapons.

The simple fact is that I should have failed by now. Each time my efforts to be "that writer guy" seem to hit rock bottom, something new and good happens. After years of being dragged across the cheese grater of life, I now find myself on the verge of great things. I'm shopping several manuscripts, I do some radio, and I get to be on the front page of ATS. How cool is that?

I'm here because I'm persistent. I believe in these things just as much as you do. You'd be wrong to think that you couldn't do what I have done. We all need to speak up for our rights. The most real of real conspiracies is happening right in front of you. The political and social elites who have never walked a mile in your shoes have already decided what's good for you. In the case of your right to bear arms, the've already decided that your capability to resist their dominance is not to their liking.

In the months to come, you're going to see more published material from me on a variety of subjects. E-books are coming. Having seen who "they" are up close and personal, I probably won't stop talking about this and other subjects until I'm gone or behind the wire with the rest of you.

The recent shootings at Virginia Tech will no doubt galvanize the gun control lobby to greater action. They will attack with renewed energy, and it'll be hard to respond to them without anger. I'd like to take a moment to point out a few things that you might not hear from anybody else.

Because the trend in government today points to greater centralization of power, those of us who wish to defend our privilidge to own firearms need to do so with that factor in mind. Disarmament in the face of growing Federal authority is not a good idea.

Second amendment advocates would be well advised to discuss the recent high profile shootings in the context of what they really are. The unfortunate results of a very disturbed mind that would have found other outlets if it had not been capable of the violence it chose. In the aftermath of this tragedy, it will be found that any number of security measures could have slowed, but not stopped, this killer.

It's already starting to emerge that existing social safeguards failed him, and the people who were his victims. the simple truth is that the disturbed walk among us and they are seldom seen until they call attention to themselves by some overtly desperate act that is ultimately self-destructive. As individuals, and as a society, we need to be better equipped to see these people when we're near them. More than that, we need to be equipped to understand what hurts them and why it drives them to do what they eventually do. Finally, as a society, we need to be capable of giving them the help they need.

This type of enlightenment does more than prevent our leaders from using incidents like this as yet one more excuse to disarm us. It takes us one step closer to transforming the society. As a person of some disability, I can tell you from experience that there is an unspoken and unwritten bias in our culture that incentivizes us to overlook people when they fail to meet our expectations. This attitude is most often focused on the people around us with obvious problems. It is also practiced by reflex and without conscious consideration when we are in the presence of people who are hurt or impaired in not-so-obvious ways.

We can all be hurt in ways that are not obvious to the people around us. We can have medical conditions that we are unaware of. We can be discriminated against because of our obvious disabilities. We can be spurned by lovers. We can be handicapped by brilliance that we just don't know how to express or use. We can suffer from a lack of friends. If we are truly unfortunate, our difficulties can result from any combination of these many possibilities.

As radical thinkers, we are willing to use words like "conspiracy" in spite of the negative social connotations associated with that noun and all that it means. If we can be so observant as to define and discuss the dark side of government, I would hope that we could also be bold enough to define and duscuss the reasons why people around us fall through the cracks.

When you get right down to it, I am a mean and ornery wordsmith, and I'm not afraid to admit to who and what I am. I'm not the guy who rampaged on a murder spree, but...in another life where I had been hit just a little bit harder...I could've been. I know what it is to be overlooked, undervalued, and ignored. I know why some people do it to me, and I can forgive them for it. In this regard, I am the except and not the rule.

Keep that in mind when you participate in a gun control discussion that centers on this mass killing. This is not another 'reason' to disarm our society. It's a reason to improve it.

Not being American this poses a great opportunity to me to ask a question I think many danes, atleast many of fríends also have.

Why do you think disarmament = government control?

I live in a country where you have to own a hunting license to own a basic rifle. Speciel kinda guns and machineguns are a no-no.

So I can't help thinking if Americans are so affraid of eachother that they need to own a gun to feel safe?

Besides that some old geezers wrote something on a piece of paper a long time ago, what other reason do you have that justifies the need (and when I hear about this subject elsewhere it is spoken as "NEEEED") to own and have a gun?

You must read this as if I was a reporter interviewing you on the behalf a foreign nation.

Originally posted by flice
Not being American this poses a great opportunity to me to ask a question I think many danes, atleast many of fríends also have.

Why do you think disarmament = government control?

I live in a country where you have to own a hunting license to own a basic rifle. Speciel kinda guns and machineguns are a no-no.

So I can't help thinking if Americans are so affraid of eachother that they need to own a gun to feel safe?

Besides that some old geezers wrote something on a piece of paper a long time ago, what other reason do you have that justifies the need (and when I hear about this subject elsewhere it is spoken as "NEEEED") to own and have a gun?

You must read this as if I was a reporter interviewing you on the behalf a foreign nation.

Those old geezers as you put it are the Fathers of my country. So show respect!

We are not afraid of each other, but we know that evil exist. It take only one sicko/criminal/terrorist to kill a lot of people. The police do a good job of stopping grime where ever they are but the police can't be everywhere.

Now look at the VT killing. The first two happened and the police were drawn off in the wrong direction allowing the killer to kill 30 more people. IF there was an armed citizen in those buildings he/she could have stopped the killer.

VT campus is a "gun free zone" so the killer had a free hand. You will find that in a "gun free zone" there are a lot of killings.

Roper

Sorry... but hey all they did was write down some rules The same thing as the founders of Denmark did, not that big of a deal.

But don't you think that if you had had a nationwide government controlled distribution of arms in the first place you wouldn't have to fear that some sicko went off and bought an AK in 5 min in the first place?

I can understand that you might be opposed against the disarmament now where there are so many unregistered guns around, but... had it not been so easy getting guns in the first place you wouldn't have to worry about this now.

Hello flice, it's good to meet you. Your question is not out of line. That's one of the many reasons why I am here. In addition to being a dark master of U.S. politics, I think its a good idea to answer questions like this.

You're not wrong when you suggest that some Americans "need" their gun ownership rights. The answer isn't very complicated, though it is very sociological.

As a nation, our polity has existed for roughly 232 years. That's not a long time, especially when compared to the likes of Denmark. As you may know, our origins stem from a series of political and economic disputes with "the mother country." Colonials in 1770's America had developed a low-grade mistrust of government officials while at the same time being pinched by what seemed like a never ending series of new taxes and edicts that they had no redress for.

Bear in mind that each of the 13 colonies had deeply religious populations that were radical in their thinking. They rather enjoyed the freedoms assoociated with being an ocean away from Europe, and it inspired them to be somewhat independent in the pursuit of their ideologies and their private lives.

When the Revolution ignited (1773), there is a full-blown "tradition" of what you might think of as anti-authoritarianism. What began as a backlash against the Monarchy became a strong dislike of royalty (elites) which later translated itself in to what we called anti-Federalism. The historical footprints of this evolution can be found in the language of several documents. First, the Articles of Confederation. Then, the Declaration of Independence. Then, the Constitution itself.

The actual revolution itself had a great deal to do with our "passion" for guns. At that time, it was common practice for British troops to be quartered in colonial homes, whether the people liked it or not. While on campaign, British regiments routinely requisitioned-by-taking, which was the standard military practice of the day in Europe. These, and other practices, left many feeling preyed upon and exploited.

In the aftermath of the revolution, governments were almost exclusively "local." For the better part of 50 years, people lead rough and ready lives without the benefits of what you might think of as a standing army or a deterrent police force on ready call-up. Rapid territorial expansion which begain with the Lousiana Purchase and ended with the 1812 war with Mexico resulted in a 70 year period during which Frontier Justice prevailed. He who did not have a gun got no justice.

Long before we developed our mistrust of the Federal government, weneeded guns to protect ourselves and put food on the table. This in and of itself created a binding social tradition which has remained in tact among many clans and families. The notion that we need to protect ourselves from an increasingly powerful social and political elite is a relative new phenomena. The old-school survival mechanisms which allowed us to be strong enough as a people to build this nation relied heavily upon the expected norm of self-defense.

The simple truth of the thing is that we, as a society, have expected trouble from our governments and we've gotten it. If our leaders could somehow sustain century of relatively mild corruption and mild peace, we would most likely lose sight of the need to hold on to this tradition of firearms ownership.

Until recently, our elite classes have never had the political "muscle" to enforce their will on the rest of us. The movement to ban guns has gained considerable strength in the last 17 years, and it shows no signs of stopping. It's not the social movement that one might suspect. It is, in fact, a shift in political power that allows our leaders to enact progressively restrictive legislation in spite of what is now a decreasing opposition.

I hope I didn't bore you with the history lesson, but there it is in short form. As a historian, I admit that the trend is now definitely in favor of disarmament. Apathy among voters is at an all time high, and shows no signs of abating. Our leaders will do as they please in this matter and it's not likely that opposition like mine will stop them.

Interesting stuff and I appreciate the indepth insight in the American psyche in this point.

From what I can understand do to natural opposition throughout the American history you have somewhat forced upon yourself the need to be armed to fend off enemies who either wanted your taxes (the crown of england) or invaders from other countries who wanted your land.

Could the sense of loss you now are feeling somehow be explained with the words "because I'm used to it"?

Cause I would never think that the American people would lose power against your government or the NWO because they disarmed you?
I mean if they really wanted your submission they wouldn't have to worry about your arms when they probably have the military/federal forces behind them ready to enforce their will?

Is the opposition aginst disarmament about the need to be ready for trench fighting within your own country incase something radical changes the balance of power in America?

Originally posted by flice
Interesting stuff and I appreciate the indepth insight in the American psyche in this point.

There really is a lot more to it than what I put down in my post, but i was trying to be brief.

Originally posted by flice
From what I can understand do to natural opposition throughout the American history you have somewhat forced upon yourself the need to be armed to fend off enemies who either wanted your taxes (the crown of england) or invaders from other countries who wanted your land.

There was in fact a real need for domestic self defense, so that's what we did. Again, I point to our short history. Just to give you some idea of how short that really is, my great grandmother talked to me face-to-face time about life as she knew it right after the civil war (1861-1865). This tradition of self defense is, in that regard, still 'new' in European terms.

Originally posted by flice
Could the sense of loss you now are feeling somehow be explained with the words "because I'm used to it"?

You've just described what happens when people lose ANY tradition. Traditions remain in force because a majority in the society feel the need for it. If our past experiences had been different, we might not have this tradition at all.

Originally posted by flice
Cause I would never think that the American people would lose power against your government or the NWO because they disarmed you? I mean if they really wanted your submission they wouldn't have to worry about your arms when they probably have the military/federal forces behind them ready to enforce their will?

Our history says differently. From our point of view, it is possible for a population to resist greater military force. Think of it as another of our traditions. Even our mistakes serve to make this point. Vietnam and Iraq demonstrate to us that if a population has the will and the means, they can resist what should be overwhelming military force.

Originally posted by flice
Is the opposition aginst disarmament about the need to be ready for trench fighting within your own country incase something radical changes the balance of power in America?

It's true that there is a very small but radical segment of our society that really does think that way...but...the average gun owner prefers to have their weapons of choice while at the same time hoping they'll never need them. Whether it's home defense or a new revolution, the idea among most is to simly have and pass on to future generations in the hopes that it'll never be needed.

Justin, I have read your essay with great interest. I would like to thank you for the inspirations and a lot of food for thought.
I'm not American but Swiss, but our countries share some striking similarities. Both countries currently enjoy moderatly liberal laws on weapons and in both countries, this liberty is in danger. Also, in both countries, there are forces who want to build or join "unions" that would be not much more than a bureaucratic nightmare and which are opposed by a lot of people.

Interestingly, it looks like the anti-gun forces in both countries have some things in common:
In Switzerland, the same forces who want to disarm the honest people want Switzerland to become part of the EU.
In the USA, from what I gather, the same forces are working towards the NAU (I'm not too sure if this is so evidently specific, do you have more Info on this?)

We had our own little amok-headline only 3 days before the VT shoothing and our anti gun forces are screaming to heaven and hell because of it. They want to abandon some very strong traditions:
Service men take their weapons home between service terms.
Service men have the choice to keep their weapons after their service time, but it will be modified so it can't fire fully automatically (which is OK for sporting purposes and does make sense socially).

This tradition prevented Lenin, who resided in Zurich for some time, from starting the socialist revolution in Switzerland. He knew that whoever has the guns has the power. In Switzerland, the people had the guns. This is also true for the USA. But for how long?

Originally posted by Swordbeast
This tradition prevented Lenin, who resided in Zurich for some time, from starting the socialist revolution in Switzerland. He knew that whoever has the guns has the power. In Switzerland, the people had the guns. This is also true for the USA. But for how long?

Before we can effectively deal with the matter of the North American Union, we must first deal with issues that hit more close to home. I have just one thing to point out to those who are not in favor of the NAU. It will be just a little easier for politicians to enact the NAU if we (the Americans) are disarmed.

Firearms ownership has the potential to make the people safe-er, and that same civic responsibility also means better national security.

That's right. Civic responsibility. If we really want guns, we have to be prepared to act responsibly. That meand defending our right to have them, and then acting properly once we posess them. Those of you who have read my book know just how easy it will be for us to lose this fight. Know your subject, and be prepared to speak with a civil tongue. Use your voice while you still have it.

Great thread Justin.

I'd just like to say a word on Australia first who has been disarmed.
We still have people getting shot and killed.
We still have drug dealers and criminals who are in possession of guns.
Guns that were handed in were supposed to be melted. Guns that have been handed in and supposedly destroyed have turned up in crimes.
The guns were sold by corrupt people in the Police Force to societies enemies - the criminals. Bikie gangs with criminal connections have recently been found with rocket launches that were stolen and sold by corrupt members of the Australian Army.

The only people who will be armed are the ones that they are trying to disarm by bringing in gun prohibition. Think about it.

Guns can still be bought on the black market. Usually by the very same people who were the reason that people wanted all guns surrendered in the first place. The bad guys!


You don't know what is going to happen in 1 or 5 years time. A huge domestic terrorist group could raise it's head who have pre-armed themselves ( stockpiled guns in the woods, underground etc.) who are just waiting for the day that Americans hand in their guns en masse before they make their move.

Sinister people with sinister plans are very patient.
They will wait decades until their turn at power comes around.
Whether that be the Government or some other big group, the very least you can do for yourself and your family is have the tools to protect yourself should the day ever come. Just knowing that you can arm yourself if you ever need to is the best insurance policy you will ever have.

Unfortunately, we have a sense of helplessness here. We can't go out and buy a gun to defend ourselves if ever a situation arises where we would ever need to. We are now hostages to whatever future Governments have in store for us and also sitting targets if ever a looney terrorist group wants to create their own militia group to short circuit our system from within and gain control.

At least keep your options OPEN.
If you surrender your right to bear arms you wont have any OPTIONS.
You only have what freedom you have now because they know you can arm yourselves to defend it. Take away that and freedom won't exist. You'll also be a defenseless hostage to whatever future enemies want to enslave you.
Government or civil.

My 2 cents worth.

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
Firearms ownership has the potential to make the people safe-er, and that same civic responsibility also means better national security.

That's right. Civic responsibility. If we really want guns, we have to be prepared to act responsibly.

THANK YOU JUSTIN!

You hit the nail right on the head! Owning a firearm is a Responsibility, with a capital R. People often think it's just a right, and forget the responsibility that is involved in having a weapon in their hands. Guns can make us a free and safe people, but only if we are prepared to accept the resonsibility that comes with it.

Most anti-gun people complain about the idea that a gun is dangerous. The flaw with this argument is that they are blaming the gun for the owner/user not being responsible. To show how absurd this argument is for other reader, it's the equivelant of blaming and trying to Ban cars, because people speed and run red lights (Rediculas isn't it?). The reason you need to be 18 to own a long gun or 21 for hand guns, is that by those ages you are supposed to have the maturity to act Responsible.

Instead of banning guns, what we need is More gun right for the avrage American, and stiffer penelties for thoes who prove they can't be Responsible once they have them!

Tim

"Proper and efficient law enforcement" will always be open to debate. One person's good policing effort is another person's tyranny. Real gun control starts with us. As parents, we have it in our power to instill proper respect for other people in our children. We and we alone are the soul providers of their logic and their ethics. If we raised our kids to be unaccountable, they will be unaccountable and very irresposnible.

Let's be clear bout one thing. It has taken us decades to end up in this unwanted position. It will take us decades to get out of this unwanted position, if we prevail at all. It may already be too late for that. The legal situation seems cut and dried for some, but its not going to stay that way. Opponents and advocates alike are in for a new round of legal actions that will begin when the next President takes office.

You've got it correct, Justin. As parents, it is our power and responsibility to teach our young.

Spoken by Richard Henry Lee
[W]hereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.

Originally posted by Flighty

Unfortunately, we have a sense of helplessness here. We can't go out and buy a gun to defend ourselves if ever a situation arises where we would ever need to. We are now hostages to whatever future Governments have in store for us and also sitting targets if ever a looney terrorist group wants to create their own militia group to short circuit our system from within and gain control.

Flighty,
I agree with everything you have said except the above quote.....At the moment we CAN go out and buy guns, it is not illegal or prohibited to own a firearm in Australia.....not yet anyway. You are limited by law to what firearms you can purchase and own, and you must have a need for it.

The Port Arthur incident many know off was the trigger point to bring in the laws we have in Australia at the moment and as I understand it, the US want to have the laws the same as in Australia now.....that is to say you can only own a bolt action rifle, pump action rifle, or only a 2 round shotgun, and they must be locked away and safely secure as should the ammunition but in a seperate lockable compartment.

You cannot have any sort of rifle with a capacity of 9 rounds.

The Remington 7600 when released here (Pump action rifle) was fine, but people in the "know" knew that in the US you could fit a 30 round Banaclip into them and some people brought them over. When authorities caught on, they banned them......but theres still some out there.

At the moment there is a "proposal" thats been sent out to hunting clubs and the like of changes that the government wants to make to firearm ownership that will take it up a step. The main point in this second stage gun control agenda is the removal and/or ban of any rifle with an external cartridge !

This is just going too far. But their reasoning is that an external cartridge is easier and quicker to reload than an internal one, which can get fiddly at times and you are limited to atlmost 4 rounds with an internal one.....3 in the cartridge and 1 in the chamber.

They are slowly tightening the noose on us. Seems like every ten years here they want to take it up a notch. I honestly wouldnt be surprised if at some stage in the future they only allow a single shot rifle for hunting......that it just crap!

I have heard years ago a story, thou unconfirmed and it never would be confirmed by the government that in the late '70's, when maritime workers were almost uncontrollable and almost anything went, that a container of Chinese AK-47 came to Australia and quickly disappeared by the time the Feds caught on. Many think its bikie gangs, and yes they do control alot of the illegal firearm business in Australia but no one has ever found them.....so someone has a very big stash of weapons ...... "Just in case"

Black market guns you can come across here in Australia if you know where to go, it is not that hard.....but are you prepared to accept the consequences of being caught with them????

What would it take Justin, do you think, before the people of the US begin to rise up and defend their civil rights and liberties? That Militia group raided the other day, they just stood back and let the feds take their weapons. Was that a staged event or for real?

What will people keep accepting before they have had enough?

Originally posted by Melbourne_Militia
What would it take Justin, do you think, before the people of the US begin to rise up and defend their civil rights and liberties? That Militia group raided the other day, they just stood back and let the feds take their weapons. Was that a staged event or for real?

Good evening to you, MM. I don't think that the alabama incident was a staged event. It's true that Federal authorities did surveil them before they were infiltrated, and some will call what the FBI and ATF did a form of "entrapment." The simple fact of the matter is that those would-be militants who could have been terrorists were doing several things that could and should be regarded as "suspect."

Real patriots might very well see the need to make rocket launchers if things get bad enough to warrant the use of such items by rebels, but...they won't actually do it...be-cause...as persons of civic virtue, they would know better than to provoke a response from Federal authorities who won't be capable telling the difference between defensive minded patriots and plotting trans-national terrorists.

There's only one way to defeat the stereotypes that Federal authorities capitolize on. As I have said in "The coming demise of American militias," gun owners of all stripes must not go out of their way to look like they are "trouble." When it becomes possible to point to certain societal trends that defeat this stereotype, it will then be our task to insist that Federal authorities do a better job of guessing who the terrorists really are...while at the same time...insisting on our Consitutional privilidges.

Justin , Your words once again touch the deepest roots of truth and sanity. In a world gone insane you are a great reminder to stay stong and to be brave enough to speak up for and about what makes us all so blessed, this beautiful country America. If you do not mind I will print this post and share it with my Grandfather to give him encouragement to see that there is a brave and intelligent and hard working opposition still keeping it possible, keeping it real. Thanks Antar

I'm just glad I can be helpful. If I can do this, so can you. When you get rioght down to it, I'm just a struggling writer trying to make his way in a tough business. It's a lot harder than you would think to get publsihed. It's even ahrder when you are trying to publish on subjects like this from MY point of view. It's not what you'd call popular with the major publishing houses.

Anything worth doing is hard. Some day, I will connect with somebody who sees the merit in my work, and you'll be able to get my stuff at your favorite book store. It's all about persistence. I would be a bad role model if I gave up now. There are days when even I get frustrated and want to give up. Then, out of no where, somebody sends me a book review or a kind word, and I know that I haven't totally failed.

I'm telling you this so that you can put the gun control issue in to its proper context. I will be going back to college in September to get a pair of Master's Degrees. Yes, I am a glutton for punishment, but I also need to update my c.v. when I left Federal service, I embarked on this author thing and it has left a hole in my resume that most employers won't overlook. Who knows? I may keep going 'til I get a PhD. In the mean time, i wll keep writing and looking for brave publishers.

In general terms, you know how to fight this thing. You've just got to break down and get your hands dirty with it. I am doing it. So can you.

I would like to see them try and take all our guns here in New Mexico... That would be fun. Have to drive from Las Cruces, Albuquerque or Santa Fe for 3 hours to someones house. Maybe even 4-8 hours pending on where it is. heheheheeh. Local sheriff would be in a hotbed of glowing red coals if he tried.
What amuses me so much about the people who want to take our guns away is they do not learn from history nor think about it. I met a college history teacher who is so foolish as to think our guns should be taken away. However she omits the fact of what happened in: Germany, USSR (Soviet Union), England when attacked by Germany, France, Poland, China, etc. Hitler WALTZED over Europe because they had no guns! Britain was so disarmed they screamed bloody murder to us living in the USA for guns and SHIPS! They had NOTHING TO FIGHT WITH! Shoot, America as we know it WOULD NOT BE HERE IF THE COLONISTS HAD BEEN DISARMED!
It is our right to keep and bear arms so that should any tyrant try and take over, foreign or domestic, we can resist. When we live in a society where only the military, police or as it could be said in a generalized way: THE GOVERNMENT has all the weapons: we live in a George Orwell 1984. A true gestapo, police state, martial law and 0 rights IF WE ARE LUCKY!!!

I am not sure what other people around the world think, but for those us in the USA who are awakened, we do NOT trust the government. Then whenever they try this stuff: first thing into our heads: martial law around the corner, then we are done for. Those Americans who want our guns stripped away yet do not trust the government have a serious problem in the head and they R-E-A-L-L-Y need to see a shrink.
Their head must work like this:
#1: I do not trust the government! But you can take my guns! I trust you to protect me!

!?!?!?!?! That makes no sense, they want to loose their right to protect themselves then in the SAME STEP EXPECT THE SAME GOVERNMENT TO PROTECT THEM! That is UTTER TROLLOP AND IDIOCY!

Anyway to conclude: Take the guns away: the only ones with guns are the criminals. That and the revolutionaries.

Hello Vekar, it's good to meet you. As you can see from what's in this forum, the political move to disarm you has been under way for quite some time. It is in fact just one of many attacks on your civil liberties designed to fulfill a larger agenda. Centralized power is the most real conspiracy you will face in the 21st century.

It's true that house-by-house disarmament is not practical. There is only one circumstance in which that would be possible, and that's a revolt. In that specific case, you would see Federally authorized persons (soldiers, special agents, and police) going door-to-door in targeted neighborhoods in a search for illegal guns.

As you can see from the timeline presented earlier in this thread, the move to disarm has largely been at the Federal level, and its been going on for half a century. You and I may not live long enough to see this agenda carried out in total, but we will live long enough to see atleast two more generations of future Americans grow up in a society that is gradually disarming at a rate that will be just fast enough to see a total moratorium on future firearms sales and owners.

The family dynasties, corporations, political groups, and politicial organizations that want to see this happen have learned to take the long view. Justin's third rule of conspiracy, if you will. These guys and gals are playing for all the marbles, and a century is a fair price to them. Why? Look at the gain's they've made in the last five decades. Consider what the next President is likely to do to us. You get the idea.

This is why I say that anyone who wants to fight this also needs to take the long view. We've also got to understand that even though there will come a time for the beans and bullets, we are now still able to wage a bloodless fight through social and political means. If it helps, you can think of it as fighting a conspiracy with a conspiracy. Don't believe me? Let me explain.

The conspirators who plot against you are doing so by social and legal means. They are influencing social attitudes. They're also mobilizing special interest groups to mount legal challenges. As if that weren't enough, they put people in to high office that agree with them. The sum total of all these quietly managed agenda work to defeat YOU because you don't fight back. They count on that, and it factors in to their decision making all the time.

When you're young, its easy to get suckered. You're not patient, and they know it. Your desire to "do something" in the here-and-now makes it very hard for you to take the long view. they bank on your inability to stand still and focus. Most of your options to fight this covert plan to disarm require time. They are, in fact, the same tools your enemies will use to enslave you.

Think of what you have to do to beat these guys as a counter-intelligence operation. Yes, you can keep cash in your mattress, beans in your pantry, and guns in your cellar, but that's just not enough. You've got to have your own network, and that network must act with unity of purpose. It must also act within the law. Remember that there's a fine line between terrorists and patriots.

If you know ten people who think like you do, there will be a good chance that all of you will stay informed and up to speed on your issue. When your "crew" goes on a letter writing campaign, they might turn a few heads. When you pool your money to support a candidate, start a business, or stash supplies...you might do just enough to get somebody's attention at the local level.

As all good conspirators know, size realy does matter. When theirs is bigger than yours, you lose. Your long term goal is to out-organize "them." When your group links up with other groups, you harness the power of larger numbers. Eventually, you can be a part of something that generates enough money, votes, and social pressure to influence a Federal election. Long term. It's all about the actual doing, and the passage of time.

Uh-huh. Some of you are still doubtful. I can see that you're not impressed. Yes, YOU. The one with his hands on the keyboard. You don't believe me. The simple fact is that I started out just like you. One person, with one voice. Before I did my first book, I wrote letters. I started making my case for the things I believe in before there was an Internet. Years before the first www-dot came online, I had begun to develope my communications skills. The first meeting of MY inner circle too place at an undisclosed location some time during the 1980's.

You'll be shocked and amazed at just who you will know after you've been a strong advocate for five or six years. In just one respect, it won't matter what you believe in, or want to support. Networking....works. Letters, essays, books, blogs, radio, and all that other stuff that is hard but looks cool on t.v. can be at your disposal...if you work for it. This kind of power doesn't come to anyone unless they earn the trust of others.

The conspirators who want to disarm you know all of this, and they're gambling on your laziness.