The Role of the Gun in Society

[Captain Bill Burt]

Like they did at Kent State?

 

Undoubtedly some will, but enough? In 1857, the Sepoys repeatedly attacked their own people and still remained loyal to their conquerers until that business with the cartridges. Even then, 2/3rds remained loyal, and the rebels ended up being blown from cannon muzzles.

 

Are you willing to bet your children on a wholesale mutiny of the US armed forces?

 

With all due respect Beady you set up comparisons that don't stand up.

 

During the Vietnam War there was a tremendous amount of hostility between college students and the military. Currently civilian support for our military is very high and has been for quite some time.

 

Sepoys came from a markedly different culture than our soldiers and swore an oath to the East India Company and to the salt they ate, quite different from our soldiers who swear to uphold the constitution. Sepoys were uneducated, and often provided for themselves by plundering, compared to our soldiers who are well educated and certainly hold themselves to a much higher ethical standard. Comparing our soldiers to them is not only not valid, but an insult to our military.

 

You may simply be playing the devils advocate, which can be fun and lead to useful exchanges. Or you may be revealing that you would rather live on your knees than die on your feet, if forced to choose I prefer the latter.

[Manatee]

I mentioned this exchange to a friend a few minutes ago, and he said the major fallacy in the OP is the assumption that the "oppressed" are able to take on their oppressors on somewhat equal terms. I don't know the details of what's going on in Syria, but the way I remember it the rebels were getting stomped until their arsenal started to get beefed up with heavier weapons. Even now, they're doing an awful lot of bleeding. I don't know too many private citizens with access to RPGs, drones and such. There was a time when the civilian population matched the military in weapons type and quality, but those days are long past. I do wonder how well a non-unified, unsupplied and untrained civilian populace would fare against what is supposed to be the best and best-armed military force in the world.

 

I think SCOTUS was a bit too restrictive on their interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. In my view, if you can afford to maintain an F-18, you should be able to own one.

 

I wonder what category I would put that under on a 4473....probably "Other".

[Stump Water]

Upon what do you base that confidence?

 

Common sense. And the capabilities of those I choose to associate with.

 

Then again, when I think back to the first Tuesday in November, I'm reminded of how many morons there are. You're right, we're probably doomed.

[The O'Meara Himself]

Thomas Jefferson listed three reasons why private citizens should be armed: 1. To defend themselves and their families and homes, 2. To hunt for food, and 3. to overthrow a tyrannical government. Those reasons are as good now as they were in the 1770s. Trouble is, there are a lot of Americans that seem to think that 1. The police are there to protect them so they shouldn't have to worry about it, 2. Supermarkets provide their food and will always do so, and 3. the government handles all the rest of it for them. (This particularly applies to city people who are afraid of guns (And taking care of themselves), have no idea how to provide their own meat, (and crops don't grow well on asphalt), the government is there to provide for them. And they're multiplying.

 

The O'Mea4ra Himself

[Widder, SASS #59054]

Great discussion.

 

Don't be so 'quick on the draw' against Badlands. Go after his points of view and not the man.

 

My guess is that he would be a formidable and trustworthy allie if you had to share the same fox hole.

 

Personally, I don't see a military vs. civilian situation on the horizon. We have too much freedom at the ballot box, freedom of speech, right to protest, etc...

 

I would even venture that some states would succeed the union before serious armed agression became emminent. Of course, after succession, I would venture to say that a serious fight would probably happen. Question is: WHO will be the ones carrying out the attacks? UN forces...maybe?

 

just my .02

 

..........Widder

[Gunner Gatlin, SASS 10274L]

Common sense. And the capabilities of those I choose to associate with.

 

Then again, when I think back to the first Tuesday in November, I'm reminded of how many morons there are. You're right, we're probably doomed.

 

Yup ;)/>

 

GG ~ :FlagAm:/>

[crosscut hardy]

Thanks Colonel Dan, you know how to say exactly what

 

needs to be said. Thank you for standing for the truth.

 

....crosscut hardy

[Badlands Beady]

We (the military) are not mindless robots. We can still think for ourselves.

 

N.C.

 

All right, what would it take for you to commit mutiny under fire? This assumes that the citizens that you are refusing to shoot at don't have a problem with shooting at the US military.

[Badlands Beady]

Great discussion.

 

Don't be so 'quick on the draw' against Badlands. Go after his points of view and not the man.

 

My guess is that he would be a formidable and trustworthy allie if you had to share the same fox hole...........Widder

 

Thanks! Considering some of the exchanges you and I have had, I really appreciate the comments.

 

My actual point of view here is that there's always been a lot of loose talk about the threat of armed rebellion keeping the government in line. I would just feel more comfortable if I were convinced that the folks saying those things had some appreciation of the underlying implications, problems and consequences. Armed rebellion inherently means a lot of fighting and dying, on both sides. And yes, that gives me pause.

 

I also feel that this nation is nowhere near a situation that would justify such a rising. If it happened under the present conditions, you could count me as a loyalist. I further feel that there's nothing particularly special about our armed forces that would cause them to mutiny under fire, especially under present conditions.

 

I enjoy shooting as much as anybody else here. Unlike most, here, however, I believe the rationale for the 2nd Amendment is obsolete until/unless, like Manatee(?) said, civilians own military-grade weapons. Until that happens, I really don't think a few uncoordinated outlaw militias armed with with deer rifles is a realistic option.

[Gunner Gatlin, SASS 10274L]

Thanks! Considering some of the exchanges you and I have had, I really appreciate the comments.

 

My actual point of view here is that there's always been a lot of loose talk about the threat of armed rebellion keeping the government in line. I would just feel more comfortable if I were convinced that the folks saying those things had some appreciation of the underlying implications, problems and consequences. Armed rebellion inherently means a lot of fighting and dying, on both sides. And yes, that gives me pause.

 

I also feel that this nation is nowhere near a situation that would justify such a rising. If it happened under the present conditions, you could count me as a loyalist. I further feel that there's nothing particularly special about our armed forces that would cause them to mutiny under fire, especially under present conditions.

 

I enjoy shooting as much as anybody else here. Unlike most, here, however, I believe the rationale for the 2nd Amendment is obsolete until/unless, like Manatee(?) said, civilians own military-grade weapons. Until that happens, I really don't think a few uncoordinated outlaw militias armed with with deer rifles is a realistic option.

 

You are assuming folks don't understand the underlying implications, problems, consequences....wrong assumption.

 

..and just because you feel the nation is nowhere near a situation that would justify such an uprising doesn't mean that folks can't discuss and remind people of our 2nd Amendment right. It's our duty to remain vigilant.

 

It puzzles me that you seem to be so bent on debating against the 2nd Amendment....like you have a problem with it and those that support it.

 

 

GG ~ :FlagAm:/>

[Hacker, SASS #55963]

If one reads federalist 46, one discovers the populace was intended to out it gun the standing army

 

I was under the impression that our founding fathers did NOT favor having a standing army.

(Just about impossible today.) I do not rememeber where I read it .

[Col. Nathan C. Riddles, SASS # 7462]

BB, it isn't mutiny when a soldier lives up to his/her enlistment oath. When I enlisted in the USAF I took an oath "to protect & defend the Constitution of The United States from all enemies, both foreign and domestic." I was willing to give up my life then (and still am today) if necessary to protect this nation from all enemies both foreign and (especially) domestic. BTW, when I was discharged nobody told me that I was released from my oath, so @ 67 years of age I'm still obliged to stand up to that oath I took 50 years ago.

[Hacker, SASS #55963]

There's a school of thought that says that it was more British political infighting that won the Revolution for the Americans, than it was American force of arms. And what if the French hadn't put an army ashore? And what if the Armed Neutrality hadn't existed? As for armed civilians confronting a standing army, Lexington and Concord is less typical than is Bladensburg. I also don't recall that Shay's and the Whiskey rebellions were or are considered resounding successes, although I'm a little fuzzy on those incidents.

 

The militia gathered at lexington were simply fired upon because they did not disperse when ordered to. There was no real attempt by them to stand up to the British army.

The conflict in Concord was very much resistance and the fire the redcoats took while retreating to Boston after failing on their mission to Concord was very much a show of resistance. It is easier to fire at a redcoat while it retreats from behind a tree and melt away than to stand and fight in a long line of soldiers shoulder to shoulder about to recieve a volley from a similar array of redcoats. The results of the Revolutionary War had to do with the British empire being stretched thin as it was already engaged world wide, logistics and the change in battlefield tactics not to mention the arrival of French Troops and the French Navy.

[Hacker, SASS #55963]

Much discussion in this thread on the issue of an armed citzen with a hunting rifle vs a tank. WRT opposition to a tyrnannical government.

The problem with this ralationship is that not all of the tyrannical government would be tyrants with a tank. Remember that the tyrannical government has many armed employees that don't ride in tanks and are technically civilians. Any resistance to a tyrannical government would involve the citizens against these armed civilian thugs of the tyrannical government (Note thugs and tyrannical government go together). Then the next item I see in the mix is the NG vs the thugs and Military vs NG.

 

Along the way the tyrannical government and what makes it tyrannical will be viewed by citizens, thugs, NG and Military WRT constitutionality of the tyrannicality (sp).

So the final question here is where do all these folks wind up. It is apparent to me that it is not necessarily going to be hunting rifle vs tank.

By the way citizens are still able to buy the Barrett M82 which is not a simple hunting rifle.

The thought that it would be citizen vs thug, NG and Military is not likely.

 

An interesting question would be what might happen if obamalongadingdong were to run for a 3rd term.

Please reference the 22 Ammendment.

[Hacker, SASS #55963]

By the way Colonel Dans OP in this thread is spot on.

Well done.

[Badlands Beady]

You are assuming folks don't understand the underlying implications, problems, consequences....wrong assumption.

 

..and just because you feel the nation is nowhere near a situation that would justify such an uprising doesn't mean that folks can't discuss and remind people of our 2nd Amendment right. It's our duty to remain vigilant.

 

It puzzles me that you seem to be so bent on debating against the 2nd Amendment....like you have a problem with it and those that support it.

 

 

GG ~ :FlagAm:/>/>/>

 

Well, I only "know" what most folk here think by what I read on the wire. If you say you're going to keep the government in line by threatening rebellion, why should I doubt it? The threat of rebellion is absolutely worthless without the actual intent to do what you say. And if you don't say anything else except pithy little one-liners that don't really answer a question about what you think and why you think it, why should I believe you've put any thought into it?

 

"Discussing the 2nd Amendment" means, or at least should mean, more than just repeating platitudes to people who agree with you. There isn't a single thing about the Constitution that shouldn't be debated, and I mean debated, with all sides contributing, pro-, anti-, and everything in-between. The more important it is, the more it should be debated. The Constitution was not written by divine inspiration; it's a human invention crafted by compromise and is not perfect, even the 2nd Amendment, and can be improved. None of it can be improved without debate and I for one don't want it "improved" without debate.

 

As I understand it, that's how the Constitution says it's supposed to be done. Armed rebellion is *not* how the Constitution says it is to be done, and such an action requires more justification than wild-eyed rhetoric claiming the Administration is out to subjugate the population. So sure, go ahead and discuss it all you want. But isn't it only prudent to hear another opinion before the shooting starts?

 

Given all that, I'm puzzled that you're puzzled.

 

Colonel: I, also, am a military veteran, with three enlistments. I am also a (civilian) Federal officer, and am actively under the same oath as the military. I am not going to take up arms against my own country until I am damned sure that the side I would be deserting to isn't the domestic enemy I swore to fight.

 

Now excuse me, I'm going to take a break until morning.

[Seldom Seen #16162]

To Captain Bill Burt,

 

Awesome reply!

 

To Badlands Beady,

 

Thank you for having the courage to admit your political view. Tories or "loyalists", as you prefer to be called, not doubt made the same arguements about why a ragrag group of malcontents would not win against the most powerful army in the world while sitting in their warm houses and enjoying all of the benefits from the Crown during the terrible winter of 1777 - 1778. What is not as commonly known was after the end of the Revolutionary War "loyalists" were stripped of their property and sent to England along with the Kings army.

 

“Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”

Benjamin Franklin

[Seldom Seen #16162]

The militia gathered at lexington were simply fired upon because they did not disperse when ordered to. There was no real attempt by them to stand up to the British army.

The conflict in Concord was very much resistance and the fire the redcoats took while retreating to Boston after failing on their mission to Concord was very much a show of resistance. It is easier to fire at a redcoat while it retreats from behind a tree and melt away than to stand and fight in a long line of soldiers shoulder to shoulder about to recieve a volley from a similar array of redcoats. The results of the Revolutionary War had to do with the British empire being stretched thin as it was already engaged world wide, logistics and the change in battlefield tactics not to mention the arrival of French Troops and the French Navy.

 

It probably distresses most Americans to find we actually fought Englands third string Army. War in Europe was England's primary threat and required the committment of her best troops.

 

England was also preoccuppied with putting down rebellion in her possessions in other parts of the world, such as India, which required troop committments.

 

If any one man can be given credit for bringing France into the war imho it is Baron (Freiherr) Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben.

[Gunner Gatlin, SASS 10274L]

Well, I only "know" what most folk here think by what I read on the wire. If you say you're going to keep the government in line by threatening rebellion, why should I doubt it? The threat of rebellion is absolutely worthless without the actual intent to do what you say. And if you don't say anything else except pithy little one-liners that don't really answer a question about what you think and why you think it, why should I believe you've put any thought into it?

 

"Discussing the 2nd Amendment" means, or at least should mean, more than just repeating platitudes to people who agree with you. There isn't a single thing about the Constitution that shouldn't be debated, and I mean debated, with all sides contributing, pro-, anti-, and everything in-between. The more important it is, the more it should be debated. The Constitution was not written by divine inspiration; it's a human invention crafted by compromise and is not perfect, even the 2nd Amendment, and can be improved. None of it can be improved without debate and I for one don't want it "improved" without debate.

 

As I understand it, that's how the Constitution says it's supposed to be done. Armed rebellion is *not* how the Constitution says it is to be done, and such an action requires more justification than wild-eyed rhetoric claiming the Administration is out to subjugate the population. So sure, go ahead and discuss it all you want. But isn't it only prudent to hear another opinion before the shooting starts?

 

Given all that, I'm puzzled that you're puzzled.

 

Colonel: I, also, am a military veteran, with three enlistments. I am also a (civilian) Federal officer, and am actively under the same oath as the military. I am not going to take up arms against my own country until I am damned sure that the side I would be deserting to isn't the domestic enemy I swore to fight.

 

Now excuse me, I'm going to take a break until morning.

 

Our Rights are God-given. The framers knew it and expressed it. Too bad if that doesn't jive with your views or opinion.

 

And where in my posts did I 'threaten rebellion'?

 

Defending my Rights....yes.

 

I do agree with you in that I don't feel we as a nation we are at the point of dealing with an oppressive and tyrannical government.

 

Have nice evening.

 

GG

[Gunner Gatlin, SASS 10274L]

By the way Colonel Dans OP in this thread is spot on.

Well done.

 

Yes it is.

 

GG

[Gunner Gatlin, SASS 10274L]

It probably distresses most Americans to find we actually fought Englands third string Army. War in Europe was England's primary threat and required the committment of her best troops.

 

England was also preoccuppied with putting down rebellion in her possessions in other parts of the world, such as India, which required troop committments.

 

If any one man can be given credit for bringing France into the war imho it is Baron (Freiherr) Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben.

 

They had another go at it in 1812....knowing what they knew they still lost

 

GG

[Cpt Dan Blodgett, SASS #75655]

 

"Discussing the 2nd Amendment" means, or at least should mean, more than just repeating platitudes to people who agree with you. There isn't a single thing about the Constitution that shouldn't be debated, and I mean debated, with all sides contributing, pro-, anti-, and everything in-between. The more important it is, the more it should be debated. The Constitution was not written by divine inspiration; it's a human invention crafted by compromise and is not perfect, even the 2nd Amendment, and can be improved. None of it can be improved without debate and I for one don't want it "improved" without debate.

 

.

 

If you believe our rights a derived from the Constitution and are thus dependent on the Constitution, you are laboring under a false premise. Rights do not come from governments they come from our creator or as free men we simply arrogated them unto ourselves. It matters not where they came from just so long as one understands the Government (Constitution) did not grant rights. Read US V Cruikshank 1876, long ago it was established that our rights predate the constitution. Anything granted by the government is a privilege and can be taken back at any time. We the people granted the government certain powers that were spelled out explicitly in the constitution. The bill of rights was added as a protection of our rights and to once again explain limits on the powers of the government. The 9th and 10th amendment deal with rights and powers and stresses not all rights are enumerated but that does not make them any less of a right. Powers are again restricted to just those powers enumerated, any other powers belong to the state or the people. There is a school of thought that says if the bill or rights falls so does the Constition as a whole, ratification was based on the contract that the bill of rights would be included removal would violate the contract...

[Nichols Creek, SASS #77627]

All right, what would it take for you to commit mutiny under fire? This assumes that the citizens that you are refusing to shoot at don't have a problem with shooting at the US military.

Mutiny under fire????? I prefer to disobey unlawful orders. Which, firing on the civilian populace would be. I would however defend myself with only the amount of force necessary to protect myself, or those innocents around me.

 

However, you ask when would I fire on a fellow American??

 

A couple of instances do come to mind. The shooter at FT Hood for one. The idiot at the Colorado theater for another.

 

However, I can more foresee a time when the American people may have to stand against the invasion of UN troops. That is much more likely than having to fight against or neighbors.

 

Hey!! I'll even protect your right to say and believe what you want, whether I agree or not.

 

N.C.

[Marauder SASS #13056]

According to modern liberals, you only have the rights the Supreme Court gives you.

 

Francis Schaeffer warned that without sound support of a constitution by the populous, a democracy may become the "dictatorship of 51%". In other words, the two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch.

 

I fear that we are approaching this point.

[Krazy Kajun]

According to modern liberals, you only have the rights the Supreme Court gives you.

 

Francis Schaeffer warned that without sound support of a constitution by the populous, a democracy may become the "dictatorship of 51%". In other words, the two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch.

 

I fear that we are approaching this point.

+1

[Cpt Dan Blodgett, SASS #75655]

I was under the impression that our founding fathers did NOT favor having a standing army.

(Just about impossible today.) I do not rememeber where I read it .

Again read federalist 46

[Lone Dog, SASS #20401]

"Sounds like a typical loser's revolution to me." That's a quote but I disremember from where if anyone can help me out with an attribution.

 

Seems we are perilously close to being oppressed by a tyrannical federal government. One that is out of control and cannot be controlled by any force anywhere. It goes so far as to jimmy an election.

 

If we had the strength of our convictions we would all be in the streets now demanding an end to such usurpations. But we cannot be bothered. No we are content to sit at home and blather amongst our pitifully few like mindeds. Amounts to nothing more than hot air and the worrying of electrons.

 

I used to bluster that if ye hear they got the Lone Dog's guns ye will know the Lone Dog is dead (with thanks to Dr Walter Williams). No longer. I done got too old and feeble. I can no longer march much less bug out. All my money comes from the allmighty State. I guess I could hole up and snipe a little in a rear guard action whilst ye young bucks take to the hills but I would really rather not. I much prefer to do my shootin' at steel on Saturdays and Sundays. The steel don't shoot back and doesn't outgun me by a factor of umpteen jillion. M1 Abrams and A10 Warthogs scare the bejeebers out of me.

 

No I sure hope it doesn't come to that and I doubt very seriously it ever will because patriots are fewer and fewer and the leeches are proliferating. Probably sooner than later even the bluster will die down. Last time it was tried in 1861 it didn't turn out so well for us down here. It won't be near the contest next time, if enuff believers can somehow band together to give it a go. Hopefully I will be long gone...

[Harvey Mushman]

Great discussion.

 

If we were to make one change to our modern education curriculum, particularly for "civics", it should be a return to the study of all the Federalist Papers when the Declaration and Constitution are taught (as well as the earlier foundations of Locke, etc).

 

What is (was?) unique about the intent of the "experiment" represented in the establishment of the United States of America is no longer taught, understood or properly appreciated by a growing majority of Americans. Obviously few in today's government, JUDICIARY, media or education establishment are familiar with the foundational concepts of our Republic, and the historical roots, deep thinking, and debate that birthed it. And yes, after years of study, I do believe the framers were inspired.

 

It is my understanding that at the time of the revolution our colonists were about evenly split into three camps, those who were against the tyranny of the British rule, those that were loyalists, and those that were undecided, uninformed, neutral or reluctant to take either side. It was only a citizenry adequately able to provide a defense for itself against tyranny that even made the opportunity comprehensible, let alone achievable. Power is granted to those who govern BY THOSE GOVERNED, but in reality, only if they have a practical means of ensuring that "permission" in the face of abuse. As usual, the "doers" in life risked their fortunes and lives, and made it happen for all.

 

 

"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."

 

"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?"

 

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

 

All three quotes: Thomas Jefferson

 

 

The Second Amendment still provides us this opportunity. Not necessarily to "overthrow" the government, but to provide a reasonable threat or constraint against unrestrained power and control. That is why Hitler and Lennin both wrote that the first step to achieving control and power was to remove the arms from the people (they both specified registration first, then using those records to identify and remove those citizens).

 

Today we are a country where independence, personal responsibility, free market capitalism, and success are publicly attacked, vilified and increasingly penalized by our government. This path is ultimately not sustainable were we to continue blindly down it.

 

Our military is a well educated, volunteer service, sworn to uphold and protect the Constitution, and in general, more aware of the factors above. It may be the biggest factor we have in supporting our citizenry against tyranny. While there is precedent for this in history, it is unusual, but the evolution and values of our all volunteer force fall on the right side of this one, IMHO.

 

 

Harvey

 

EDIT - Sorry for the long post - lot's of thoughts on this thread.

[Badlands Beady]

GG: Claiming that you want to keep and bear arms as a way to keep the government in line, without actually intending to use them, sort of robs your stated purpose of any credibility. To put it another way, open carry carries with it an implied threat. And, btw, the British fought the War of 1812 with both hands tied behind their back, just like they fought the Revolution. Bonaparte was considered a much bigger threat, and that's where they put their resources.

 

SS: "...after the end of the Revolutionary War "loyalists" were stripped of their property and sent to England along with the Kings army." I believe the balance of them went to Canada. Which brings up another point: Victorious oppressed soon become oppressors, themselves. But that's another conversation.

 

Capt Dan: The only rights you have are the ones you can defend. Isn't that the entire rationale behind the 2nd Amendment? Do you go unarmed for a walk in bear country, expecting the bears to respect the God-given right to life that their own Creator gave to you?

 

Further, it seems to me that saying you need a gun to defend a God-given right is like saying you need a computer and Christianmingle.com to find God's match for you. To quote James T Kirk, "What does God need with a starship?"

 

Personally, I venerate the Bill of Rights and I don't want it touched, even with the best of intentions, but I have never seen evidence that it is divinely inspired.

[pony racer # 39210]

The ability for the "common man or woman" to own firearms is at the very core of what makes us Americans. It is as important of a right as any of them!

 

PR

[Gunner Gatlin, SASS 10274L]

The ability for the "common man or woman" to own firearms is at the very core of what makes us Americans. It is as important of a right as any of them!

 

PR

 

 

GG

[Dee Mak Jack, SASS #55905]

Verrrry interesting. I'm certainly no scholar but I do believe that if at some time we allow registration of firearms our freedom is lost. I don't know how the how people would resist total government oppression but Americans have always been resourseful and I'm sure that this situation would prove no different. Lets hope that this is all conjecture, but I fear it is not. I'm probably too old to see it happen but I'm stocking up never the less (preparing for the worst and hoping for the best). You cannot invade American as there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.

[Seldom Seen #16162]

I found the comments by this poster on another forum interesting. Somy of you may also.

 

G'day Kid , if i may

 

there where lots of dundee's as you call em , Patriots is what the rest of reality uses , from ranging from your own "professor wonderful" from disney , moved to Oz in the late 70's , was my teacher in physics here

 

when the gun grabber came at 4 am he refused , and was carted away , 9 days later they charged his wife and kids as accessories so he handed it over

 

good mate of mine Rodney Ansell , ( he's the guy in real life they based Croc dundee's character on , fact , google it ) shot once in the back and again in the side by police , we had hundreds of thousands in the streets here

 

260,000 folks made criminal , maybe 15,000 locked up , 15 year olds who found a air rifle and traded it for a bike , busted weapons dealing , 5 years

 

when they lock up your kids dont you dare give in eh ..

 

since then we've been fighting back , warrentless search and seazures ended a recent win see no licence or registration for most BP weapons that predate 1900

 

there are now more gun here that when they took em

 

we have more shooters rights here in many ways than what i see you all going through

 

i shot 90 something deer this year , how'd you do ?

 

( a fair few hundred foxes and roo's as well but thats what i do )

 

we've recently gotten shooters ( pretty much anyone who wants ) as feral animal controllers in our national parks

 

yes we cant have AK's or AR's , but specialist shooters who cant prove requirments can buy mini 14's and other semi's

 

as for hand guns yes they are hard and theres limits , i own my limit

 

and a fair few more in the US that i'm working on getting back here too

 

the UN gun control cost a lot of good folks their lives , some gunned down on their door steps in front of their family

 

most called up to the boss's office at work and arrested by the awaiting cops or pulled over in thick traffic while driving alone

 

i was in cambodia when i went down and thankfully got many semi's out with the help of a ex marine mate in FL , who i sold my collection to on agreement i get first offer if he resells i've 1/4 of it back over the years

 

you may think aussies are wimps and all that you infer but mate

 

its a tough man who can see his wife and kids locked up in the holes we have here for his right to stand on his principles or get shot in the back while talking to the media

 

now that the US is looking to adopt all the UN policies and throw our the constitution we'll get to see how you folks all do in the next few years

 

and though i'm 55 now i'll get to see it real close as i promised some mates i'd come over and help fight back , save you folks from what went on here

 

but you can scale it to US proportions if you wish

 

200 millions guns say

 

300 million folks

 

they dont grab you they grab your family when they go to the store

say 20 million in fema camps for a few years .. ( we had almost enough gaols here then , you dont ) get you to surrender ,

 

make you the bad guy and anyone who may know where you be is a accessory , look how the UN works , it wont be blue helmets it'll be your cops

 

it wont be over night , it'll start with buy backs and such then some terrible things will happen and kneee jerk laws you'll have to submit too , then they'll play the AR folks off against the hand gunners and folks will devide to protect their interest shotgunners will be targeted hard as legitimate but threatened if they dont go anti semi auto

 

how do i know this ?

 

that how it went in the UK and Australia

 

Big bold speakers divided opinion and folks stance so they created little self interest groups that could be picked off by the anti gun lobby and government

 

sounds like the USA at the moment eh ?

 

 

 

you got a marxist in charge of the place . lies deception are everyday things to them , to find the truth find what they dodge to answer..

 

keep what your founding fathers gave you , and keep it safe , never trade a section of it for anything , you'll lose the lot if you do

 

and remember we never had that , we started as a penal colony and if i may remind you of some factual history

 

when Australian freemen and convicts both wish to rebel and sent money to the new USA to buy guns ( 15200 USD in gold then ) , you decided not to upset the british some more and kept our funds , told the brits what we had planned and vinegar hill was a flop and all the participants even those only armed with sticks , locked up in chains again for life

 

as you where reworking sea routes and whaling was way more important to the US economy that a colony of slaves of the british , brits offered you berthing in fremantle and melborne in Australia , while they ran the joint , so thats the way the deal went

 

we dont hold grudges and have with the USA the world longest and continuous military agreement in the world

 

if we're such wimps , why do you always call upon us to help and why do we always rock up ?

 

cheers folks

 

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=688032&highlight=arrested

[Gunner Gatlin, SASS 10274L]

GG: Claiming that you want to keep and bear arms as a way to keep the government in line, without actually intending to use them, sort of robs your stated purpose of any credibility. To put it another way, open carry carries with it an implied threat. And, btw, the British fought the War of 1812 with both hands tied behind their back, just like they fought the Revolution. Bonaparte was considered a much bigger threat, and that's where they put their resources.

 

SS: "...after the end of the Revolutionary War "loyalists" were stripped of their property and sent to England along with the Kings army." I believe the balance of them went to Canada. Which brings up another point: Victorious oppressed soon become oppressors, themselves. But that's another conversation.

 

Capt Dan: The only rights you have are the ones you can defend. Isn't that the entire rationale behind the 2nd Amendment? Do you go unarmed for a walk in bear country, expecting the bears to respect the God-given right to life that their own Creator gave to you?

 

Further, it seems to me that saying you need a gun to defend a God-given right is like saying you need a computer and Christianmingle.com to find God's match for you. To quote James T Kirk, "What does God need with a starship?"

 

Personally, I venerate the Bill of Rights and I don't want it touched, even with the best of intentions, but I have never seen evidence that it is divinely inspired.

 

The British still lost....and we still have our God-given rights. It is what it is...so you pound sand against it, but it doesn't change it ;)/>

 

GG

[Guest Texas Jack Black]

Who exactly would be taking up arms against the most powerful and best trained military ?? the I-PAD generation? or the old health ridden folks who are fed up.