We'll 'pry guns from cold, dead fingers'

Originally posted by FeatherofMaat
He's an idiot to be sure. But he is, essentially, correct about one thing ... if the Gov't wants the guns, they can get them. A bunch of nitwit survivalists armed with popguns are NO match for an M1 tank or a drone. Red Dawn is a fantasy. They just let you believe you have some control and then scare you so you will cower in the corner with your little guns.

In short, they have you RIGHT where they want you.

Give me a week with your "nitwit survivalists armed with popguns", and then go ahead and send in your tanks and drones at will...

A week, to get them up to speed and make a few preparations, is all I ask.

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by FeatherofMaat
He's an idiot to be sure. But he is, essentially, correct about one thing ... if the Gov't wants the guns, they can get them. A bunch of nitwit survivalists armed with popguns are NO match for an M1 tank or a drone. Red Dawn is a fantasy. They just let you believe you have some control and then scare you so you will cower in the corner with your little guns.

In short, they have you RIGHT where they want you.

Give me a week with your "nitwit survivalists armed with popguns", and then go ahead and send in your tanks and drones at will...

A week, to get them up to speed and make a few preparations, is all I ask.

You got more than a week. The bill needs to be passed, time given for registering existing weapons and after the expiry of that deadline is when they will come to get the unregistered and outlawed weapons.

But they won't be coming in tanks or sending drones. Nor will they be rounding up whole towns. They will come with warrants for search and seizure, warrants issued after information from reliable sources (yes, someone in the neighbourhood) about the presence of such weapons in a person's home. No, the informant's name will not be made public. There will only be a few such arrests a week in any given town.

Exactly at what point and in what manner will you interfere and come to the rescue of those gun owners who did not register them?

We always hear the negative, how the Government will confiscate all Guns, etc... but I don't think it's realistic.

Why? Because there are more Guns than people in the United States and sales number are going to the roof from month to month. So even they like to bring Gun Laws into effect, logistically it will be impossible to enforce them - right now it's just hot air talk.

The United States have a long tradition of gun ownership (basically from the beginning of the US) - that is so deeply knotted in our daily lives that nobody really wants to touch this - even a Obama will have a tough time to sell that. Many countries around the world don't understand that and don't have a sense the true meaning of private gun ownership, but I strongly believe that the 2nd Amendment is one of the key "rights" that keeps this country out of dictatorship and war on our own soil.

Even they should be some kind of gun control - these new laws will only affect guns sold after the law becomes active. The United States is prohibited from passing so called Ex post facto laws. There have been a few laws that have some kind of retroactive meaning, but these were aimed towards criminals (e.g. sex offender registration, etc).

So in fact nothing will change, these 300M+ Guns will still be legal and it will take a long long time until there is any impact on these new potential gun control laws. By then those laws maybe have been retracted by a different administration.

On the other side, the Government could strip us from our constitutional rights and remove the 2nd Amendment - and if they do that, they need to take away some other Amendments as well - which I think will end in a stand-off and probably in Civil War.. at one point people will be feed-up and take matters in their own hands .. and I don't think that the Military will be on the side of the Government .. in recent decades we have seen, that the Military was always on the side of the citizen and opposed the Government (like in Egypt) - sure they had their own agenda, but better this way than being shot by a Obama Drone ...

All the rats are getting nervous. They're trying to move two steps ahead of everyone but they are so arrogant that they do not realise that there are many who are two steps ahead of them. It's almost as if they know a bunch of bad stuff is going to happen to average citizens, so they're trying to take away the one thing that citizens can use to level the playing field. They fail to think that in a SHTF scenario, there may be more people using IED's, rather than assault rifles. This is just speculation, of course. Talking about prying a gun from someone's dead hands and DOING IT are two totally different things. It's also a threat to the life of gun owners. Why hasn't he been arrested yet? Deport this trash out of my country please. My second amendment is not up for discussion, much less to a foreigner.

Originally posted by Fylgje
All the rats are getting nervous.

The "rats" are hardly nervous. Since the only thing they have to fear, even from those exhibiting the keyboard bravado, is an open and en masse gun confiscation, they are safe as long as they don't attempt it.

reply to post by TrueAmerican


Star and Flag from the UK.

reply to post by HomoLuminous


Why are you surprised Obama actually received the prize. The people voted now they will be punished.

Do NOT under ANY Circumstance give that man a Gun!

Crazy loon.

He's a good example of who shouldn't own a gun here in the u.s.

Originally posted by Observor

You got more than a week. The bill needs to be passed, time given for registering existing weapons and after the expiry of that deadline is when they will come to get the unregistered and outlawed weapons.

But they won't be coming in tanks or sending drones. Nor will they be rounding up whole towns. They will come with warrants for search and seizure, warrants issued after information from reliable sources (yes, someone in the neighbourhood) about the presence of such weapons in a person's home. No, the informant's name will not be made public. There will only be a few such arrests a week in any given town.

Exactly at what point and in what manner will you interfere and come to the rescue of those gun owners who did not register them?

The second seizure. I'm guessing that in your scenario, the first seizure will be needed to alert, so the second one is where the ambushes would start in that scenario.

That is, of course, a hypothetical answer to a hypothetical scenario. Real-world scenarios never play out as planned, and so you sometimes have to adjust the plan on the fly.

Sometimes, you have to adjust it on the fly a lot, to where the original plan isn't even legible.

Here's the basic philosophy. The US Constitution lays out the law. All of the rest of the laws are allegedly measured against it to ascertain their validity. The Second Amendment affirms an individual right to keep and bear arms (Heller vs, District of Columbia). All the rest of the laws in contravention of the Constitution are invalid. Now, if the government can't even obey their OWN laws, how can they expect anyone else to?

If it comes, there will be blood in the streets, and lots of it, whether I do anything personally or not at all. On that day, you'll have your choice of weapons available for the picking up...

... by prying them from the cold dead fingers of their former operators.

Tanks will not matter. They can be invalidated. I'm not going to explain how here.

Drones will not matter. They can be invalidated. I'm not going to explain how here.

Door-kicking raids will not matter. They can ALSO be invalidated. If you ever get the chance, ask a Russian vet of their Afghan War how many raids he went on towards the end of the war. The answer is damned few. They were pretty well buttoned up in their bases, and the Muj owned the countryside.

I think you or me or nearly anyone here can do at least as well as an Afghan Muj.

Originally posted by Hawking

Originally posted by TrueAmerican


Deport him to the UK.

How about we make YOUR hands cold and dead, you friggin idiot?

I got your radical measure, right friggin here.

I don't get upset at much anymore, but this guy? If I EVER see you face to face, it's war. WAR! You hear me?

I think you both sound nuts...which was his goal.


This guy can publish whatever garbage he wants and then villify you for your reaction, making you the gun-crazed nutjob. Why play in to it?

Why you ask? Because number one we still have the right to freedom of speach ( for now ) and number two we have to. We can no longer sit idly by and watch our freedoms be snaped up like a sausage on Sunday. We have to do something. I understand it was a terrible, terrible tragedy. We all understand that. But lets not allow our freedoms to be taken away because of a mad man. Dont you think there are other ways for mass murders to happen. Sure their are. No one says get rid of cars when someone is killed in a drunk driving accidentt. Was it the cars fault, how about the roads the guy drove on, how about the bar he drank in, how about the key he used to start the car, the tires, the blinkers and head lights, Where does is stop. When will people stop looking for someone or something to blame and start taking accountability. I think thats what is really sad. Everyone wants to judge and blame. No one wants to stand up and say, you know what, I messed up. Its my fault. No, its the meds, the parents, the bullies, the drugs, the booze, the devil made me do it. You know what. There are bad people in this world and some just arent right in the head.

Apologies for quoting, but only just seen the thread.

Without wishing to get into the whole UK/US argument about guns (I'm a Brit, btw), I can't help but comment on this post and the ones it replies to.

The OP has gotten himself very angry indeed about a writer taking an (admittedly strong) stance he doesn't agree with. Given the OP cheerfully throws around threats of violence, can he not understand why anti-gun people of all nationalities get fed up of their views being countered with veiled or open threats about how gun ownership is the most effective way to silence them. Whilst (I think) most people are joking, it's not hard to find yourself wondering about some comments given how outraged certain posters become at the mere suggestion that there should be any limit at all about the sort of gun they can own.

Admittedly the writer the OP refers to has taken a virtually unique position that people should be de-armed using violence, but the OP should also realise that the same rhetoric that has angered him so much is often the rhetoric used to intimidate people who don't agree with guns.

Secondly, whilst not an American myself, I can't understand how taking an anti-gun position is in any way unpatriotic. Protection from tyranny, blah blah blah - but none of the people who consider blind defense of gun ownership somehow 'patriotic' never seem to wonder why many normal people oppose guns. Those people aren't TPTB, or part of some 'tyranny' (whatever that means)... it might be that they've personally witnessed the way a civilian held gun can tear a family apart, seen their local area fall prey to gun violence. That sort of # makes people angry - even to the point where they're happy to lose their 'right' because they don't think it's worth it on balance. A patriot wants his people to succeed, remain safe and prosper together - the American way, surely.

Of course, the only 'solution' is more guns - and, of course, if everyone was armed all the time then half of this wouldn't happen. After all, the good guy is always quicker, braver and more accurate than the bad guy - despite him knowing what's going down before anyone else.

Either way, threads like this prove why a lot of normal people (both in the US and elsewhere) see many pro people as gun nuts. I certainly wouldn't want to have a beer with the OP, knowing that his trigger finger gets itchy when he hears something he doesn't like. The American Constitution is a great thing, but don't let the Second Amendment become worth more than the First. By defending one core right by curtailing another, it makes some of you 'Patriots' sound like you like having guns because they're really cool and make you feel powerful rather than some grand, ideological protection of your precious freedom.

Peace.




Do you really think that people who have seen their neighorhoods fall prey to gun violence are going to be helped by more laws and more gun control? Criminals don't buy guns from the store. Just like drug addicts don't buy drugs from the drug store. I mean really...come on man. I know your smarter than that.

Whilts the right to bear arms has been skewed my mean to mean the right to own a gun for personal protection or hunting that is no the original intent. The original intent was to protect us against the government itself. If you remember, my non-american friend, when they gave us that right American just won a very important battle. I will protect that right till the end.

Originally posted by nenothtu
The second seizure. I'm guessing that in your scenario, the first seizure will be needed to alert, so the second one is where the ambushes would start in that scenario.

That is, of course, a hypothetical answer to a hypothetical scenario. Real-world scenarios never play out as planned, and so you sometimes have to adjust the plan on the fly.

Sometimes, you have to adjust it on the fly a lot, to where the original plan isn't even legible.

Ambush those coming to enforce the due process of law? Sure, I suppose you can do that. But did you consider the Waco scenario that would follow that, where the insurgents are confined to a space, all supplies in cut off and wait out for the internal contradictions among the insurgents to surface? How long do you think before the rest of the people of the town/neighbourhood turn against the insurgents and arrest the "cop-killers" themselves?

Here's the basic philosophy. The US Constitution lays out the law. All of the rest of the laws are allegedly measured against it to ascertain their validity. The Second Amendment affirms an individual right to keep and bear arms (Heller vs, District of Columbia). All the rest of the laws in contravention of the Constitution are invalid. Now, if the government can't even obey their OWN laws, how can they expect anyone else to?

Who said the law will be in contravention of the constitution? The Supreme Court can rule differently this time and uphold the validity of the law. If the law stands the scrutiny of the SCOTUS will you surrender the weapons or will you still hold it to be ultra-vires the constitution and refuse to obey it? If you refuse to comply, you will be admitting that the constitution as it exists is an unworkable document. What will you be fighting for? To restore rule according to a proven unworkable document?

If it comes, there will be blood in the streets, and lots of it, whether I do anything personally or not at all. On that day, you'll have your choice of weapons available for the picking up...

... by prying them from the cold dead fingers of their former operators.

Tanks will not matter. They can be invalidated. I'm not going to explain how here.

Drones will not matter. They can be invalidated. I'm not going to explain how here.

Door-kicking raids will not matter. They can ALSO be invalidated. If you ever get the chance, ask a Russian vet of their Afghan War how many raids he went on towards the end of the war. The answer is damned few. They were pretty well buttoned up in their bases, and the Muj owned the countryside.

I think you or me or nearly anyone here can do at least as well as an Afghan Muj.

All true. But the Afghan Mujahiddeen have been operating from self-sufficient (for their way of living) bases and definitely for something more than a right to carry guns.

Originally posted by Observor

Ambush those coming to enforce the due process of law?

Absolutely not. However, I'm quite certain that in many locations those who come to confiscate weapons will likely be dealt with rough. "Due process" is one thing, following illegal orders is another thing altogether. Honest cops do not enforce illegal laws, just as honest soldiers do not obey illegal orders, and in fact have a legal obligation under the UCMJ to refuse such orders.

I refer you to THIS POST made by a currently active police officer for confirmation of what I'm saying. Many of them will refuse to enforce illegal laws, and will resign if required to do so.

Sure, I suppose you can do that. But did you consider the Waco scenario that would follow that, where the insurgents are confined to a space, all supplies in cut off and wait out for the internal contradictions among the insurgents to surface?

That would be the folks at Waco's problem - allowing themselves to get pinned down and buttoned up like that. A guerrilla force they were not, as evidenced by that very thing.

How long do you think before the rest of the people of the town/neighbourhood turn against the insurgents and arrest the "cop-killers" themselves?

Clearly you are unfamiliar with the conduct of a guerrilla war, in particular the psychological aspects thereof. I think it would be a long, LONG time before that occurred.

It appears to me that you are making the same assumptional mistakes that many others have made in the so-called "global war on terror". A guerrilla war is neither a police matter nor a conventional war, both of which have been used against the opposition, with very little effect.

Trying to fight a conventional war against unconventional forces is what cost the Soviets Afghanistan.

You appear to be thinking in terms of police action against little to no resistance. You probably ought to amp that up a bit, and leave the police to handle matters of police business, and send soldiers after soldiers. In particular, you're going to want to use unconventional soldiers against guerrilla irregulars.

The police would not be able to mass enough firepower in all the locations they would need to. If they spread out too thin, they would be picked apart, and if they concentrate, they wouldn't have enough coverage for all the little fires that spring up. In other words, by concentrating sufficient force in any one location, they leave too many more with no coverage at all.

It's better left to soldiers rather than police. War is not a matter of criminal justice.

Who said the law will be in contravention of the constitution?

The Constitution. The Second Amendment is very plainly written. As you say, the SCOTUS could rule in favor of confiscation, but in order to do so they would have to ignore precedent, which they are loathe to do. In Heller vs. District of Columbia, the SCOTUS ruled that the second clause in the Second Amendment is the operative clause, and the first clause is merely introductory, setting forth one potential justification, but not limiting justifications to that one point.

The Supreme Court can rule differently this time and uphold the validity of the law. If the law stands the scrutiny of the SCOTUS will you surrender the weapons or will you still hold it to be ultra-vires the constitution and refuse to obey it?

I have no firearms to surrender, so the point is moot. If the time ever comes that I need to pick one up again, they will be laying around for the picking. I don't anticipate ever having to, though. My abilities lie elsewhere these days.

If you refuse to comply, you will be admitting that the constitution as it exists is an unworkable document.

Abuse of power by people unwilling to obey their own laws does not prove the Constitution to be "unworkable", it just proves there are greedy and power hungry people around willing to ignore it. The document has never been written that is capable of enforcing itself without human intervention, and the occasional necessity for that intervention is the primary argument in favor of the citizenry keeping available the means to intervene. In your scenario ALL documents are "unworkable" by the simple expedient of simply refusing to acknowledge them, and if that is the case, why bother learning to write at all?

What will you be fighting for? To restore rule according to a proven unworkable document?

No. I've never fought for a document in my entire life, workable or not, and I'm too old to start now. People are what you fight for, not paper or parchment.

All true. But the Afghan Mujahiddeen have been operating from self-sufficient (for their way of living) bases and definitely for something more than a right to carry guns.

If that were so, we wouldn't be hearing about the Stingers and other arms that the US supplied to them still to this day. Very few humans are truly self-sufficient, and as hardy as the mujaheddin were, they weren't self-sufficient, either. They depended on foreign assistance AND local assistance from sympathetic non-combatants. When you spend all your time fighting, it leaves very little time for raising food. Help was and is always needed in such cases.

That is, in fact, one of the basic pillars of prosecuting a guerrilla war. One of the very basics is to move among the people as a fish swims in the sea. A guerrilla depends on them a lot more than they depend on him... but they DO depend on him to a degree, or else he'd never be able to move among them.

reply to post by nenothtu

1. As long as a law has been passed, and not struck down by the competent courts as being unconstitutional, all orders passed under that are legal orders. LEOs are absolutely unlikely to ignore legal orders whatever their consituionality. Even the ATS poster (who appears to be an Illinois LEO) quoted said he would resign if the Illinois law is passed, not ignore the orders under the law.

2. The law itself would not be in contravention of the SCOTUS ruling in the case of DC Vs Heller, because it does not propose to ban possession and sale of guns used for self-defence. It does also not propose to ban the possession of other types of guns already in possession either (not just yet, anyway), only require their registration.

3. If the SCOTUS does rule the law unconstitutional, extremely unlikely given the judiciary's response to NDAA, the law in present form will not be enforced. There will no open violations of the constitution. All the branches that are supposed to act as checks and balances against each other will be on the same page. Those who are waiting for an open violation of the constitution as a trigger to begin their action will wait for a long time, probably ever.

4. I agree with your statement that a set of meta-laws written on a piece of parchment isn't in itself workable. But not just when some of those deriving the authority from it ignore it, but also when all those deriving their authority from it do not openly violate it. I mentioned it only because many seem to believe that the document is infallible and the intent cannot be violated except by violating the letter. I am glad to see one who is not trapped in the same illusion.

5. You claim to fight not for the piece of paper, but for the people. It is not very clear which people. Evidently it is not for what the majority believe in, because the majority seem to be with the government or at least don't care either way. Perhaps it is for an idea? If so, you need to be clear that the idea you are fighting for is the same as that of the others who are fighting or at least those believing in your idea should be in control at the time of victory or the replacement for the current enemy could be worse than it.

6. Regarding the self-sufficiency of the bases that the Afghan Mujahiddeen are operating from, I didn't mean they were self-sufficient in fighting the invaders, I meant the Afghan country-side is self-sufficient (for their way of living) that an economic seize doesn't work. But it is a different story in the case of US country-side which is where the "rebellion" is expected to start.

The bottom line is regardless of how much you hate them, those in-charge are not going to oblige by giving an explicit excuse for rebellion.

Originally posted by Observor

5. You claim to fight not for the piece of paper, but for the people. It is not very clear which people. Evidently it is not for what the majority believe in, because the majority seem to be with the government or at least don't care either way. Perhaps it is for an idea? If so, you need to be clear that the idea you are fighting for is the same as that of the others who are fighting or at least those believing in your idea should be in control at the time of victory or the replacement for the current enemy could be worse than it.

Agreed. It would likely be a hum-dinger, in the onset at least, with so many differing factions competing for supremacy that one would need a score card to keep track of them. The people I would fight for, were I in any sort of fighting form - which I'm not any more - would be the people where I am. Family, friends, neighbors, etc. A man can bite off more than he can chew by becoming over-ambitous and fighting for ideals much farther away than the end of his arm.

The "don't know, don't care" crowd doesn't concern me much. They'll follow along with whichever leader presents himself in the end, and not squawk. Until then, they won't be much trouble for either faction involved in the fight. Contrary to what our history books tell us, not everyone was raring for liberty during the first Revolution, either. Then, as now, some few had opinions either way, and the majority was seized with ambivalence. Had the rebellious Americans waited for a clear majority to jump into their wagon, we would still be paying homage to the British Crown, and living under British law.

I can't think of anything much that was ever done by a clear majority, but then I'm not a big fan of Democracy anyhow, so I've not really studied up on it. Most change is effected my a minority, but a minority with fervent opinion. Nearly every little war that springs up and brings change, even just the change of the name plates on the government offices, is hatched and nurtured by a fairly small segment of society.

The rest just follow the leader of the day when the dust settles.

You are absolutely correct about keeping a weather eye out for which faction is at the top of the heap when the dust settles. I learned that hard lesson in Nicaragua many years ago. The communist faction, although a vanishingly small minority of the Sandinistas, were at the top of the heap when the dust settled, even though most of the fighters weren't in favor of them. Still, a small core of them mobilized a lot of people with pretty promises and fudging facts here and there, and keeping their politics to themselves, and we got what we got down there. Eden Pastora, alias "Commandante Cerro" was REALLY thrown under the bus by the victors, even though he was supposed to BE one of the victors. He wasn't too happy about that, but it's a matter for the history books now. Last I heard he was quietly living out his days guiding fishing expeditions on the coast, or something like that.

And the band plays on.

6. Regarding the self-sufficiency of the bases that the Afghan Mujahiddeen are operating from, I didn't mean they were self-sufficient in fighting the invaders, I meant the Afghan country-side is self-sufficient (for their way of living) that an economic seize doesn't work. But it is a different story in the case of US country-side which is where the "rebellion" is expected to start.

You're right to a degree, but there ARE places here that are fairly self sufficient. Also, because of the nature of guerrilla operations, it would be hard to starve out the guerrillas without also starving out the populace, and thereby making even MORE guerrillas. That's another pillar of irregular warfare - get the government to act harshly, during which action the hammer comes down of the guilty and innocent alike, breeding more cannon fodder for the rebellion.

Urban areas will be the worst - they are death-traps just waiting to be sprung. Much easier to button up and control an urban population, because of their concentration and the fact that everything they need has to come from somewhere else. Everything flowing into a city can be easily controlled by a few, and restricted or even cut off altogether at will. A fairly small force can "Audi Murphy" an entire concentrated population and effectively "flank" them using those means, and still keep itself fairly concentrated with backup not too far away.

Urban areas are not recommended for any sort of "revolution", especially in the beginning. Rebels have to build numbers, alliances, and logisitics first, before tackling urban areas, which is why cities always fall last to rebels, and are secured first by their opposition. The only actions possible in urban areas at the outset are underground activities - intelligence, sabotage, and that sort of thing, and it's a mighty dangerous game to play, especially these days.

The bottom line is regardless of how much you hate them, those in-charge are not going to oblige by giving an explicit excuse for rebellion.

You're probably right here. It's a dangerous game THEY would be playing to overtly make a grab. For several years now it's been the boiling frog scenario - since at least the days of King George Bush the First, if not longer. I've noticed an acceleration of heating the water up as time goes on, but a carefully controlled, accelerating, simmer all the same. Every so often, someone appears to bump the burner knob a bit too much, and some of the frogs get jittery, and that's what I believe we are seeing at present.

The only way anything would happen is if a few too many of those frogs jump and say "I'm clean enough, and this bath is OVER!" - it's not likely to come from the government side, since I believe they are aware of just how fragile and precarious their situation is should they over-reach themselves.

There seems also to be a game afoot to convince the populace that they couldn't win anyhow - "we got tanks, we got drones, we got all manner of glorious tech that will eat you if you don't behave!" Like the monster in the closet, that advantage is illusory. That stuff don't run on magic, it doesn't operate or maintain itself. They know that, but are trying to convince us of that the boogey man is REAL. If you can beat a man in his own mind, no fighting ever becomes necessary to accomplish your goal - he defeats himself at your command. Sun Tzu said "the highest art of generalship is to gain victory without ever fighting a battle".

That sir, seems to be the name of this game currently.

reply to post by TrueAmerican


I stopped reading the article after they mentioned killing gun owners
and dragging gun supporting politicians to death.

reply to post by nenothtu

There seems also to be a game afoot to convince the populace that they couldn't win anyhow - "we got tanks, we got drones, we got all manner of glorious tech that will eat you if you don't behave!" Like the monster in the closet, that advantage is illusory. That stuff don't run on magic, it doesn't operate or maintain itself. They know that, but are trying to convince us of that the boogey man is REAL. If you can beat a man in his own mind, no fighting ever becomes necessary to accomplish your goal - he defeats himself at your command. Sun Tzu said "the highest art of generalship is to gain victory without ever fighting a battle".

That sir, seems to be the name of this game currently.

The game is not to convince the populace that they couldn't win anyhow. The game is to convince the minority of rebels that it is not yet time to start the fight.

They would probably not even make any arrests under the law for a long while after the law has been passed. The law, like the drug laws, is much less about preventing the population from possessing the items and more about expanding their power by criminalising the possession, which can be used as they see fit and when they see fit.

About the only way to defeat them is not to play their game on their terms, which is not to wait for them to attempt enforce their laws. If the passage of the bill in the Congress is enough to trigger an open rebellion, it might work. Otherwise not.