Why An American Government Confiscation of Gun Rights, or Radical Change of Gun Laws, Will Be Enligh

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 10:11 AM
link   
Why An American Government Confiscation of Gun Rights, or Radical Change of Gun Laws, Will Be Enlightening

This is a concept and a sort of theory I have. I will present a few different angles that are part of the reasoning in order, but otherwise I will try to keep this simple and not a painful wall of text.

The first thing I want to mention is that of recent ( date of this post is 1/10/13 ) there has actually been alot of 'gun control' talk, pretty much everywhere. This is due to the Arizona Gabrielle Giffords shooting, the Aurora Colorado James Holmes shooting and the most recent Connecticut Sandy Hook shooting with Adam Lanza involved. These events have been pivotal, without them there would never have been legitimized the serious discussion on a change in American laws and rights concerning firearms.

There are many who are aware of the evidences that these events did not happen as the official story tells. Many conspiracy theorists and researchers who have delved into the stories, especially those of the Aurora and Connecticut shootings, have decided there is true conspiracy going on - for purposes of involving all people, even those who do not do that kind of research or make those kind of conclusions, I won't associate this thread with that line of thinking entirely. Wether you believe the official stories, or a manchurian candidate conspiracy, this thread's concept is relevant.

Now, back to the original thought which is that without these shootings there would never be the kind of talk going on about radical change in our gun laws and even our gun rights. One of the things worth considering is that the Second Amendment states



A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


So basically, these talks should never even be happening. Someone who is against the legality of guns should never even be humored in America, basically. But it's actually happening, more so though the attention and legitimate discussion is going towards the talk of radical change in laws that center around further limiting what 'kinds' of guns are legal for the public to own, rather than a plain ban on all gun rights alltogether.

As everyone knows ( hate to repeat things said already ) the right to bear arms is not for hunting etc. It's for violent oppositon against a government that has become corrupt and tyrannical towards it's people. American's originally gave themselves the right to firearms so that they could form militias to fight their own government and by having firearms actually have a chance against the government and winning by force.

There is a big point to be made - That time is over. As it is now we could NEVER violently oppose the American government and win. Firstly, the American government is well organized and has as it's disposal specially trained hoards of armies who are willing to carry out orders unbiased to their implications. The American government has technology that we know of which the people of America, even with gun rights, have NO access to. They have sound cannons for instance that can put entire rioting crowds onto the ground in seconds, turn up the power and that sound cannon can simply stop their hearts completely - and that's just the range of power their NONlethal tools yield. This is not to mention top secret technology, technology we may or may not know of, some of which we get glimpses of here and there from whistleblowers, leaks or 'conspiracy theories'. Even if the American people were as organized and commited as their government, it would be impossible to overthrow or oppose by force their government due to the technological advantage it has over them.

My main point - Because of this, the era of the second amendment bearing any possibility of being used for it's original use ( successful comandeering of government by the American people, by force ) is IMPOSSIBLE.

Most people have seen the movie The Last Samurai, the one with Tom Cruise. In a basic sense it touches on a huge paradigm shift in the Japanese culture. As the Western influence came to reach Japan the Emperor had to make a choice to hold on to the old Japanese ways to the point of not modernizing - or to modernize to the point of destroying much of the old Japanese way ( my wording ). With this came the new laws against the right to carry a sword. This marked the death of the age of the Samurai but it marked the beginning of the new era of Japan. Since then the Japanese people have engaged in different ways, such as World War 2 when it is basically well known they had arguably the strongest Naval fleet of all the other nations due to their intense research and modification/improvement on Western fleets etc. I mean, America had to nuke them, twice, in order to get them to give up.

My reasoning is that when one tool is taken away those who survive do so with ingenuity by developing a new tool. Japan could never have survived the age of firearms with mere swords. Likewise I made the point that the American people could never survive against their government with 'civilian legal' firearms against government weapons with no limit.

So now, I want to present one more concept which will be the crux of it all.

Why a radical change in gun laws or outright ban on the 2nd amendment will lead the way.

What did the events of September 11th, 2001 lead to? It certainly lead to war. But it also lead to alot of 'hey, this official story.. kinda has a few holes'.. Essentially, for all the effects that Sept 11 was conspired to create ( go into the Middle East without any other nation or even the American people questioning it ) IRONICALLY, Sept 11th enlarged the acceptable number of 'conspiracy theorists' and the like who question official stories and look into government actions more critically.

Now imagine an entire ban on guns. Imagine how many people that will be a wake up call for.

I say we play their own game, play their moves to their own disadvantage. I doubt they will openly just ban guns because that would be alot harder. I always assumed it would be such a slow and drawn out process, one small legislation after another, that it would creep unnoticed. But with the recent shootings and attention, I can see we have the chance. The government has perfected corruption, however, so it'd be wrong to assume 'they've made some mistake'..

Ultimately though, I say they are intensifying the slow proccess, and it's a little sped up now in order to get the momentum to keep going. So what makes sense is to allow them their play in order to wake up others who aren't aware. Some people will simply disbelieve the government doesn't have their best interest in their mind until certain events glare them in the face - I say allow those events to materialize and there will be more people on the side of the American people, less people in the brainwashed state.

Thoughts?
edit on 1/10/2013 by indigothefish because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 10:25 AM
link   
Try and confiscate our guns, and you'll see why our founding fathers created the second amendment.

Executive order == Dictatorial order



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by acacko
Try and confiscate our guns, and you'll see why our founding fathers created the second amendment.

Executive order == Dictatorial order


exactly my point, the response most gun owners have is that if the government tries to take their guns ... THAT'S when they will rebel, THAT's when it's 'OK to be against the government'

As if what is going on currently is not enough to form a change in our system?

As you put it, and I presented here, executive order, disctatorial order, this will be the prime mover that will order an organized thought process and real action against a corrupt government. Otherwise, people will take no action and remain under control, essentially.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 10:36 AM
link   
Molon Labe!

2nd line.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 10:39 AM
link   
You are absolutely incorrect in almost all of your statements. If at any time a rebellion was to occur in our country it would not be standing army vs standing army. Instead it would be government forces vs a guerrilla group of american citizens utilizing hit and run tactics. Look at Iraq and Afghanistan we most certainly have not won in those theaters and they use those tactics and that is with american air superiority. Further more we have a country full of patriotic former service men and women who not only know the tactics used by our military but many of whom have gone into the tech industry which I am willing to bet could hack or at the very least find a way to interfere with drones. we have the knowledge and ability to make bombs and other destructive devices that makes armor more of a liability than an advantage. we live around military installations in which we can over run and take what we need to defend our self.

We as a country truly do not wish to do these things or for it to escalate to that but you must understand that the second amendment is only important to defend the rest of our constitution. With out the second amendment the rest of our constitution is at risk and I can guarantee you that the first amendment will follow quickly. If you truly believe that the very same government who considered killing the leadership of occupy wall street who was exercising their first amendment right is looking out for your best interests here? Your age of enlightenment sounds more like a life of subjugation with no recourse if our government decides it no longer likes a free citizenry.

You must understand there is no one to defend the constitution or our rights except for us it is our responsibility.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by indigothefish
 


Why yes,yes I can defeat the federal govt. Numbers and positioning are already in place.I know how to kill armor with improvised weapons and tactics,drones and aircraft take off from fixed positions I can destroy.Underground bases have enter and exit points I can blow up once I find them.
They would need a foreign army ,which would enrage us by the way,or some whiz bang tech to take us all down simultaniously.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 10:45 AM
link   
Your right, more and more people are waking up.
As for your point, I rather oppose the change with less manpower than allow the change to happen for the sake of gaining more manpower to revert back to the original state.
One reason why "they" can pull off this slow conditioning is because million and million of people kind of, don't care, they live their lives and are contempt with their basic needs. These are the same people that just mindlessly believe whats on the big news outlets.

I don't see your tactic as sacrificing a bishop or tower to get the queen... I see it as just sacrificing the bishop or tower.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 10:46 AM
link   
Your premise that an insurgency can not fight the modern military is false. All the military high tech weapons are designed to attack opposing forces. a smart insurgency never masses or organizes to allow those weapons to be effective. It has often been stated that you cannot stop a lone nut from carrying out a shooting or a bombing. This is true and is true for a lone freedom fighter as well. One lone freedom fighter planning, equipping and carrying out an attack all alone is not a problem to a government. 100,000 or more doing it is a nightmare.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 10:56 AM
link   
The 2 admendment was never meant to 'overthrow a tyrannical govt' or 'for hunting' alone.

It was meant for american citizens to protect their lives, their loved ones, home and nation.

Tyranny does not need to come from the govt alone. It could come from anywhere else outside and beyond the nation.

USA might have a standing military and advance weapons, but other entities have MUCH more.

In a time of war, there is NO TIME to manufacture even enough rifles to arm everyone in the nation, and thus every one to have their own arms and upkeep, well oiled at all times.

In the event, for example, commie china with its 2 million army decides to take a swipe at USA, it will not face the US military alone, but 200 MILLION WELL ARMED americans who may decide to do some blowback upon the chinese mainland, if it ever decides to do so.

However, destroy the 2nd amendment, even if bit by bit, it will ensure the disarmament of the population and render american citizens to great danger, not only from outside, but within USA itself, from better armed groups or criminals.

Today we may live in peace. But we do not live in Utopia, or in an innocent world, as citizens of Syria and Mali found out, as well as drug states such as Mexico and other latin states.

No one enjoys carrying a gun or to live in fear, but pragmatism must rule, while we mankind attempt to achieve Utopia, or no human would be left alive to see Utopia. This is the true enlightenment and lesson made for this era and the reason why the gun debates are happening.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 10:57 AM
link   
Agreed, you don't sacrifice your only real means of defense (no matter how useless it may be) on a hope that you will simply have enough bodies to pile up and eventually suffocate the opposition. Not to be offensive but this is a very "child like" evaluation of the situation.

I will say this I own plenty of guns and know people who own plenty of guns that would put me on a fair or fair enough grounds to engage your standard infantry, the difference between a fully automatic and semi-automatic in gurellia type fighting is small.

I don't really care if my rifle can go fully automatic, I wouldn't use it anyway. I also do not believe the american military could be used to engage the civilian population anytime in the near future. Im sure portions of it could be but I promise you that your average base commanders and platoon leaders would NOT roll out on the general populations around them and "clean house"

A foreign army would unite both the civilian population and the military and would spell annihilation of the current administration and military coupe in the US.

Even as things are now if we want to talk chess, the pieces are still being placed on the board. The youth are not brainwashed or reliant enough. The constant dumbing down of our kids and turning them into submissive slaves is still inefficient to engage in outright war against the american population. You have to understand as it is right now only 20% of the population ( and Im being generous) would acttualy take up arms and fight the govt. If you are foolish enough to try to use the american military on its own population or allow UN soldiers to start evicting populations of towns as they are doing in brazil that percentage will hit well over 80% and that will be the end of it in a very short time.


edit on 10-1-2013 by vind21 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by vind21
Even as things are now if we want to talk chess, the pieces are still being placed on the board.


good point!



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 11:10 AM
link   
In many posts promulgating the idea of an all powerful government military machine`I have to point out this inconvenient problem.

The military we know as used in foreign lands and such is extremely dependant on an uninterrupted supply and maintenance chain.

Hypothetically it can be fair to say 50% if not greater number of military, police and other federal forces will outright refuse to participate in such an endeavor in the first place - many of those may switch sides or work against the regime from within making for a command and control nightmare.

Civilians who do much of the supply and maintence on heavy weapons systems would have a higher rate of defection than the uniformed forces - nonetheless sabotage of the supply and maintenace chain can be counted upon.

For a short time the government would have the upperhand but as time wore on it would find itself severely degraded in almost all areas it now finds force multipliers with sophisticated systems so dependant on supply, repair and maintenance needs.

Couple the supply chain problems, man power shortages and potential closure of interstate highways, airports and rail systems to related transport and soon that vaunted modern military would not have the teeth left to win an american insurgency if it came to that.

I havent even broached the what if of a major repair/supply depot takeover yet by opposing forces - that would really throw a wrench into the works as those are somewhat centralized at this time.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 11:11 AM
link   
I do not agree whatsoever. On the other hand, that was very well written, with many valid points, for that, S +F. I

I personally believe, that if we were to ever deliberately play into their game, even if only for a second, it would be game over. Do not pass go, do not collect 200 dollars. We may never be able to beat them, but id rather put up a fight then simply give in.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 11:31 AM
link   
If there was a game, I would like to share my insight.

Look towards the alex jones confrontation with the brit fugitive piers morgan.

Piers acted innocent, played the gentleman, allowing alex to make a fool of himself with his ranting and raving.

It reinforces to the public by the anti-gun lobbyists on what they had consistantly portrayed the gun owners as - raving lunatics and conspiracy theorists.

The point is this - the more constitution loyalists play up to the 'govt conspiracy' line and out to grab guns, and gun owners threatens with 'armed rebellion' , the more alienated the fence sitters will become for the 2nd amemdment cause, and the more this supposed game will be played out for martial law and DHS free to act.

By all means, express yourself, but stick to the true aim of the constitution to educate and create awareness, stick to legal means, and no one will end up like alex or harming the cause set up by crafty others.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by indigothefish
 

You are making excellent points! I have often argued, - online and in personal conversations - that the whole gun issue against a tyrranical government is mute. After all, even the best .50cal sniper rifle or 50 rounds clip holding AR is in military ranks still the lowest weapon available. Against the weapons that the military really possesses, thats a mosquito bite. I am not even talking about the govt using nukes. Just a bit of nervegas can do the trick or any heavy assault with tanks, artillery and bombers. So a resistance in an all out civil war has to come with ranks of the own military splitting and siding with the people. However for this to happen, as you pointed out is the "change over" in the minds of people that "something is awefully wrong..." and this understanding has to penetrate the brains of the members of the serving armed forces, active, reserve as well discharged.
In the same line of thinking of your post, a bit a side-tracking.
Personally I have always been opposed to a "Professional and voluntary Army". I prefer a draft system. If some person for religious reasons, - Quakers i.ex. - does not want to serve in the military make it a "National Service Year". Where one person might do his year in the army and another serve in a hospital, nature reserve or what ever.
One has to undertsand that Professional armies do attract an element of society that is prone to be more on the "Sadistic side". Best example given was WW2 Nazi Germany. Also it had a mandatory DRAFT, units as the SS, were vonteers. And ask any WW2 vet in Gemrany who fought on the Russian front. Those who had no chance but to surrender... the common draft soldier went POW, the SS went against the wall.
In the same line with draft vs professional: Get rid of these private military contractors as the Blackwater guys. Just another "Legitimate Sadist group".
Once this shift in the minds of people has taken place, then naturally a change will happen. With a military siding with the people, one never knows how bloody or how bloodless this change can become.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by acacko
 





Try and confiscate our guns, and you'll see why our founding fathers created the second amendment.


I'll believe it when I see it mate.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 01:15 PM
link   
The reasoning put forward by pro-gun advocates is that you Americans needs these weapons to protect yourself from any potential tyrannical government.

Well....take a look around.

If you look at the laws that have been introduced, the rights that are being eroded surely, the surveillance police state which is being established more and more each passing year.

It's happened in an insidious way, rather than a President just outright declaring himself a dictator one day. It's always been done for your protection.

Yet you've all allowed it to happen. Mark my words they will ban assault rifles and none of you will bat an eyelid. Those that do will be demonised and pilloried by the media which is practically in the pocket of the governments.

Those responsible gun owners who would stand up for the right's of their fellow citizens are in a minority.

The only way to stop any of it would be civil war. The police now have military style equipment and entire arsenals at their disposal which are more akin to those used in war.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by indigothefish
 


Dude,

the federal government cant confiscate squat.

They can request that each state do what they ask....but they only have jurisdiction in DC....after that each state and its own laws reign supreme....



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 02:27 PM
link   
I was thinking about what the actual definition of the 2nd Amendment is after I watched the Alex Jones rant the other night. Let's say this issue gets taken to the SCOTUS, or even expand on the issue to a point that would really make idiots like Piers Morgan lose it. That amendment protects us from tyranny.......SO......if we are entitled to reasonably defend ourselves......which is I think the way the SCOTUS would interpret the 2nd, then we should be equally armed to what is coming against us right? So if they use drones why can't we have them? Or apache helicopters, A-10's, tanks, etc.etc.etc. This discussion is quickly going to change from no you can't take my guns to what do we really need to fight tyranny. It does not matter if every citizen has an AR-15 and unlimited rounds of ammo. If tyranny is coming it will happen because they will always have superior arms. So in the midst of all this ridiculous arguing about the 2nd, what is the use really? We have the right to keep and bear arms until we don't PERIOD. They have to remove that right, which they won't, and BTW someone define what the founders meant by "arms" before we go any further because my argument would be we are not nearly armed enough.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Guenter
 


I think they are way beyond worrying about asking our own troops to violate posse comitatus. If it happens they would use foreign troops which I have heard are already here in large numbers.





new topics
top topics
 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join