Small Unit Tactics contact patriot-dawn Patriot Rising

Gun bans: What does non-compliance look like?

Home Forums Information & Intelligence Gun bans: What does non-compliance look like?

This topic contains 54 replies, has 14 voices, and was last updated by Profile photo of tango tango 1 week, 2 days ago.

Viewing 25 posts - 31 through 55 (of 55 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #65362
    Profile photo of Lineman
    Lineman
    Participant

    This becomes a factor in those always wanting to buy time for preparation, a point comes where you have to go with what you got.
    I would say if you haven’t got at least your community on your side or the very least won’t side with the Commies then I wouldn’t jump unless of course you don’t want to win…The Bundy’s had the support of the Community and if they would of stuck to a plan and didn’t go off on a different tangent then they might of not had the legal troubles they did…If Dwight would of said I’m not going back to Jail because of a Judge being malicious and people would of stuck together it would of been a match for Freedom and this whole country would of been changed…

    #65364
    Profile photo of Joe (G.W.N.S.)
    Joe (G.W.N.S.)
    Moderator

    Why reinvent the wheel? ;-)

    Here is the best overview of what we know of proposed Federal Legislation at this point from James Wesley Rawles at SurvivalBlog.com.

    The Legislative Onslaught Begins: Federal Gun Grabbing in 2019

    As they promised, the Democrat Party majority in the U.S. House of Representatives is wasting no time in gun grabbing in 2019. They are launching a raft of new civilian disarmament legislation. Although there is still a Republican majority in the U.S. Senate, there is a risk that some of these bills may be passed into law, following some across the aisle quid pro quo deal-making or legislative bundling. What I fear most is President Trump accepting such a deal, in order to get his coveted Border wall funded. I’m also concerned that some grand “compromise” might be reached, with the laudable Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act (introduced but not passed by the previous Congress) thrown into a package of legislation that would include one or more anti-gun bills.

    There have already been three bills introduced or announced, and undoubtedly there are many more now being drafted. This will be a veritable onslaught of legislation. They seem intent on doing it California Style: That is, throwing a bunch of bills against the wall, in the hope that some of them will stick:

    A FEDERAL RED FLAG LAW

    In the U.S. Senate both Democrats and a few Republicans have re-introduces S.7, a bill that seeks to encourage states to pass red-flag laws that would make it easier for courts to disarm “dangerous people.” It is titled the “Extreme Risk Protection Order and Violence Prevention Act.” Led by Republican in Name Only (RINO) Marco Rubio, this law has a good chance of passage, and alarmingly President DJT has promised to sign such legislation.

    The proposed law flies in the face of the American tradition and the constitutional promise of Due Process, under the 14th Amendment. Typically, Red Flag laws do no give the accused any opportunity to defend themselves in court before having all of their firearms and ammunition seized by force. It is only post facto that they have their day in court, and then they must essentially beg to have their birthright restored. This is very bad legislation. I predict that the inevitable doorstep confrontations with police will result in far more deaths than the massacres that the authors of this bill claim will be prevented.

    A FEDERAL SEMI-AUTO AND MAGAZINE BAN

    Senator Dianne Feinstein (D.-California) has once again introduced S. 66, a ban on many semi-autos and magazines holding more than 10 cartridges. This monumentally unconstitutional bill is even worse than its previous incarnations, for several reasons:

    It bans 205 models by name, and hundreds of other models, by description, to wit: “…any ‘assault weapon’ that accepts a detachable ammunition magazine and has one or more military characteristics including a pistol grip, a forward grip, a barrel shroud, a threaded barrel or a folding or telescoping stock.”

    It vaguely bans “parts that can give semi-auto firearms the rate of fire of machineguns.” Unless the law delimits a specific rate, then it is void for vagueness. And consider that a skilled shooter can achieve a rate of fie of nearly 700 rounds per minute, with a standard trigger. For comparison, an M3 Greasegun fires full auto at a rate of 450 rounds per minute.

    It has a Grandfather Clause, but requires a Federal background check for subsequent transfers–even for a father passing a gun down to his son as a gift.

    Requires that grandfathered “assault” weapons be stored using a secure gun storage vault or with safety device like a trigger lock. This would make them unavailable for quick use in self-defense situations.

    Prohibits the transfer of high-capacity ammunition magazines. Once this law goes into effect, the 11+ round magazines that you own will become your lifetime supply. And once you die, it will be a Federal crime to pass them down to your children. They can only be turned in for destruction.

    It bans pistol arm braces. These have become very popular for ARs, AKs, and even shotgun “firearms”, in recent years. It is not yet clear if this part of the ban would have a Grandfather Clause.
    Bans stocks that are “otherwise foldable or adjustable in a manner that operates to reduce the length, size, or any other dimension, or otherwise enhances the concealability of a firearm.”

    It will ban Thordsen-type grips and stocks. This makes the new law an unconstitutional Bill of Attainder, since it singles out one company’s products, by name.

    It has no Sunset Clause. This will be permanent legislation, with no sure end in sight. (At least the 1994-2004 Federal ban had light at the end of the tunnel. This will be a ban with No Hope.)

    Violations of most of the provisions of this law are Federal felonies. Conviction would result in the permanent loss of most other gun rights and the right to vote.

    The Government Printing Office (GPO) web site reported: “As of 01/14/2019 text has not been received for S .66,” So we don’t yet have the exact wording of the bill–only what Feinstein’s staffers have summarized, at her web page.

    I predict that if Feinstein’s bill is signed into law, it will immediately cause 100% or more inflation in Pre-Ban black rifle prices, and 1,000% inflation after just a few years. It will be roughly analogous to the inflationary effect of the 1986 Machinegun Freeze, but on a grand scale. All bans and freezes with Grandfather Clauses cause galloping prices.

    According to Feinstein’s web page: “In addition to Feinstein, Murphy and Blumenthal, co-sponsors of the bill include Senators Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Tom Carper (D-Del.), Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), Bob Casey (D-Pa.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Tina Smith (D-Minn.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Mark Warner (D-Va.).”

    It bears mentions that all of those are Democrats, except for socialist but nominally Independent Bernie Sanders.

    A FEDERAL BAN ON PRIVATE PARTY SALES OF USED GUNS

    Under the innocuous-sounding goals of “Universal Background Checks” and “Closing the Gun Show Loophole”, H.R. 8, a bill has been introduced and put on the fast-track for passage. Dubbed the Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019, this is a horrible piece of legislation that probably would not survive a test by the Supreme Court. The key issue is that it is a ban on on inherently intrastate commerce (sales of used merchandise between private party residents of the same state) by stretching the meaning of the Interstate Commerce Clause. Clearly, there is no INTERstate commerce involved, since an INTRAstate sale of a used gun is outside of interstate commerce! I expect teh current court to expand the U.S. v. Lopez precedent, the next time that the Commerce Clause is tested vis-a-vis the Second Amendment.

    This background check law would also undoubtedly trip up hundreds of thousands of “unlawful users” of controlled substances. They would be forced to lie in their responses to the ATF Form 4473 questions. Providing false answers on that form is a felony, with a penalty of up to 10 years in prison. It is noteworthy that both medical and recreational use of marijuana is still a Federal violation, even though it is now “legalized” in many states. Eight states and the District of Columbia allow recreational marijuana, while 29 states allow medical use.

    Roll Call reported: “Five Democrats and five Republicans signed on as original co-sponsors of the bill. GOP Reps. Brian Mast of Florida, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Peter T. King of New York, Fred Upton of Michigan, and Christopher H. Smith of New Jersey joined Democrats Jerrold Nadler of New York, Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas, Robin Kelly of Illinois, Lucy McBath of Georgia, and Thompson.”

    As a prepper, I am particularly concerned about requiring a phoned-in FBI National Instant Check System (NICS) background check for all sales of post-1898 guns. I assume that it will become a felony to privately sell a modern gun outside of the NICS process. If there is ever a natural or man-made disaster that takes down either the power grid or the phone networks, then there will be no sales of modern guns until those systems are restored! And even a government shutdown or a localized emergency that affects FBI administrative functions could bring gun sales to a halt, nationwide.

    Lastly, this law would essentially ruin gun shows as we currently know them–reducing them to flea markets where you can buy ammo, jerky, and pepper spray, but not much else. Presently, the majority of gun show tables are operated by private parties, rather than Federally-licensed dealers. Many of those vendors will likely quit renting tables, if this horrible law is enacted.

    THIS LEGISLATION MUST BE STOPPED!

    Please, contact your congressman and senator, and do so often, and politely. maek it clear that they will NOT be-re-elected if they vote for any ant-gun legislation. I recommend that you mark your calendar to make contacts once every two weeks for the foreseeable future. Alternate between phone calls, snail mail, faxes, and e-mails. When you make calls, pay attention to when your representatives are back in their districts, on legislative breaks. Make your calls to their in-state offices during those breaks.

    Should be enough to get the “Fear motivated” to wet their pants and spend money!

    B-)

    #65367
    Profile photo of Joe (G.W.N.S.)
    Joe (G.W.N.S.)
    Moderator

    Almost forgot to address this comment…

    My solution is still the same and has been a slow progress but still moving forward…I know it’s been vilified on here so won’t bring it up again…

    Definition

    vilify
    v. To make vicious and defamatory statements about. See Synonyms at malign.

    At no time has any comment posted by you been vilified!

    However what has happened is your repeated attempts to push your chosen path as the only viable option.

    While this was accepted as one of many options available, you continued to berate us to accept as dogma your path.

    Such actions are not acceptable on this Forum.

    Hence the reason for moderation of a few of your posts in the past.

    Such moderation will not be necessary if you follow the accepted behavioural norms established at MVT.

    You are free to start your own Threads and express your opinions, but you can not expect everyone to except your opinions as fact.

    Disagreements with your opinions are not attacks, just a legitimate difference in point of view.

    Should you desire to discuss this side topic further start a separate Thread.

    Remember we will not tolerate arguing for the sake of arguing with nothing constructive added. On occasion the best we can accomplish is to agree to disagree. ;-)

    #65371
    Profile photo of Robert
    Robert
    Participant

    Joe- very well said!

    www.jrhenterprises.com
    RMP, TC3, NODF, CRCD 6/14, CP 9/14. NODF, Land Nav, 6/15. Rifleman Challenge 9/15- Vanguard. FOFtactics 3/16, 10/16, 11/16, 6/17,11/17 CTT, 6/15, 11/16, , LRMC-1 9/17 GA Mobile CTT and DA 10/16, GA mobile DCH 3/18, HEAT1 3/18 Alum weekend 8/18, Opfor CLC 10/18, DA 11/18 CQBC 12/18

    #65381
    Profile photo of tango
    tango
    Participant

    a point comes where you have to go with what you got.

    A-fucking-men.

    Baptême du feu
    L'appel du vide

    #65390
    Profile photo of WTL
    veritas556
    Participant

    The outright loss or stark diminishment of our rights – be it arms, speech, privacy, property, etc are inevitable. Our political process, fueled by our decades-old progressive social institutions and changing demographics guarantee it. Opposing this wave will merely slow it – a short-term victory for us perhaps – while leaving our children on the beach as the wave eventually crashes onto them.

    The more interesting question, since we all inherently understand the options: A) live with it or B) fight it (non-politically) is: what are the moral and ethical justifications for use of force? If you cannot form a logical and moral framework for this, then A is your only course. If you refuse to even participate (as many are) in this theoretical exercise, then you are back to A once again.

    Keep in mind, this is a separate question from tactical matters pertaining to B. Who, what, when, where and such.

    I have yet to see a reasonable discussion of this most basic premise. Whether or not this is the right place for it, another matter altogether.

    #65391
    Profile photo of Joe (G.W.N.S.)
    Joe (G.W.N.S.)
    Moderator

    …what are the moral and ethical justifications for use of force?

    What do you want them to be?

    In reality the whole moral/ethical argument/discussion only allows those who are not sociopaths to sleep at night after killing/maiming!

    I am quite capable of justifying any action intellectually.

    Does this make it right?

    Depends on the eye of the beholder, as a Society we have the basics covered on use of force.

    Beyond that it’s only a matter of scale and accepted belief of participants.

    I have yet to see a reasonable discussion of this most basic premise.

    There are books on this, but ultimately it’s point of view of the victor in relation to judgement by society that victor resides in after use of force.

    Do you lack a moral justification to use force?

    #65393
    Profile photo of WTL
    veritas556
    Participant

    It is quite true the victors write the history and with it, the intellectual validation for their actions. The permanence of the victors relies on whether the population believes their actions “right”. So yes, being right is important in the long run.

    But do we all agree today on appropriate use of force? I think not as there are many in our society and ruling class who do not believe you or I should have the means of firearm for self-defense! Or consider the varying ROE allowed by the various states when it comes to defending yourself and/or property.

    Now you and I agree that should an unknown intruder burst through your door at 2am, we are morally and ethically permitted to stop the threat up to and including deadly force. This goes even if you do not know their intentions or even if they pose a credible threat to you. Maybe the guy is high on drugs and wanted to take a TV set to pawn. Doesn’t matter. Bad guy goes in a bag and society gives you the thumbs up for a job well done. There is some pretty wide latitude when it comes to the whole “in fear for your life” thing. And rightly so. Bad things happen fast and your own life should get the benefit of the doubt.

    But what if the intruder is known to you? What if their purpose IS known. What if the intent is not to kill you but to deprive you of your means of self-defense? An A Priori right. This is the conversation yet unresolved…

    Individual moral justifications are easy to conjure. The brain is spectacular at this task. Yet I see no one laying out this moral framework (rightly so – they’d probably be droned!) to create a moral/ethical nucleus around which to act should “the” line be crossed. You know, a Declaration of sorts…

    Do you lack a moral justification to use force?

    I do not.

    #65394
    Profile photo of Joe (G.W.N.S.)
    Joe (G.W.N.S.)
    Moderator

    What if the intent is not to kill you but to deprive you of your means of self-defense? An A Priori right. This is the conversation yet unresolved…

    I don’t have this unresolved burden!

    This question has been resolved since my early childhood.

    I was raised that those who attempt to disarm me can be resisted by any force I deem necessary.

    #65395
    Profile photo of wheelsee
    wheelsee
    Participant

    …… You know, a Declaration of sorts…

    One of the documents drawn heavily upon for the Declaration of Independence was The Virginia Declaration of Rights (Adopted unanimously June 12, 1776 by the Virginia Convention of Delegates and
    drafted by Mr. George Mason) which the first paragraph declared

    “That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.”

    Somewhere in the recesses of my gray matter was the belief that the original DOI (draft) had possessing property listed but was dropped in the final edit. Regardless, notice that BOTH state these rights come from above, NOT from some government – for what government grants, government can rescind…….

    Which is heavier - a soldier's pack or a slave's chains? Napoleon

    Strength, Honor. Maximus (Gladiator)

    If you tolerate evil, you yourself are evil.
    Col Hugo Martinez, Commander Search Bloc

    William, in The Republic - CRS/CTT 2017, HEAT 2/CQB/FonF 2018, DCH 2018

    #65396
    Profile photo of Max Velocity
    Max
    Keymaster

    @veritas – My intent with this thread is not to have people make statements on an open forum that could potentially be used against them in the future, perhaps following actions post-ban etc. Not that you are doing that, but I note your comments that use of force is not being discussed.

    It would assume (?) that people here understand what right looks like, and moral guidelines for the use of force. Clearly, any sort of 2A ban is unlawful, but the point is that it may become law (unlawfully), and that may result in unlawful but (on the face of it) lawful raids etc.

    The point I was driving at was not the moral right to use force, but rather a hard look at the situational parameters for the use of that force. It is not an easy thing, despite the prevalence of memes that make it appear so.

    1) Many people who blindly mouth slogans now, may not actually be ready or prepared to use force if it ever becomes necessary. Adjunct to that, is the specific situation where you may be mentally / morally prepared to use force to defend your rights, but if surprise is used you may not be ready in the moment, unless you live in a protected compound with a guard roster and a QRF! Fighting a SWAT raid at 0300 in your jim-jams may be the moral thing to do, but it may not be the practical answer, especially with wife and kids in the house.

    2) Thus, there are hard decisions to be made about the practical outcome of pursuing a morally right course, if that isolates you as an individual. Such a situation can make you, and more importantly your family, potential victims to be killed ‘justifiably’ by law enforcement, for breach of unlawful laws.

    3) Thus there is a morally right course, and there is a practical course centered on survival and practicality.

    4) Hence my point on numbers and assessing the mortal character of the nation as a whole. I think it would be crazy to stand and die as an individual. I only think there is a point standing if large enough groups find their courage beyond FaceBook and memes, and actually take a stand. I also think that hiding equipment is equally as bad, becasue it still allows individuals to be picked off.

    5) I think it is great to have a discussion on the moral use of force in defense of life and liberty. I am not encouraging anyone to spell out here any specific intent or chest-beating. What I am encouraging is not only a moral assessment of what may be the right course of action, but a rational practical assessment based on what happens in the country should such bans go ahead. You cannot do this alone. Added to that, you cannot do it as a static protest as per Bundy / Malheur, because you are simply fixed in place and will be reduced. Poor tactics and training.

    #65397
    Profile photo of tango
    tango
    Participant

    @veritas556 All that I’m about to say is not meant to be a lecture, or directed entirely at you specifically. This topic has come up a few times and is a common difficulty of many of us ultra type-A training folk so this should apply to many as something chew on. The use of “You” applies to “the reader”.

    It’s not that the ethical or moral framework is not available. It’s that nobody has the stomach or motivation to die for it…yet. Do you? War is a two-party game requiring the willingness to not only take other lives, but also give your own.

    “But do we all agree today on appropriate use of force?”
    This point seems to be hinged upon public perceptions of your actions. Like you’re already thinking about your day on trial before anything has ever happened. This is hard to think about, but your ideas may never be socially accepted or validated in court or society. So what? We should only fight and die for things widely socially acceptable? Absolutely not. There is limited utility in applying structure to chaos. There comes a point where you realize your intellectual capacity and reason are no longer the right tools. Make the decisions you can live with and live with them.

    As a reminder, this is why the 6th amendment specifies state AND district. So we should actually not expect to agree entirely, more like we should expect to disagree and structure our community to deal with that accordingly.

    6th Amendment specifies:

    …an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed…

    The people of your own district (society) are meant to judge you. What seems like the idea of some universal moral justifications is not natural or correct. That idea comes from getting sucked into the idea of social justice and social media. People from around the world are not meant to judge what you do, or you to them.

    One of the many stresses of modern society we all feel is our increased subjection to an increasingly large “society” and the judgement that comes along with that. It’s extremely hard to function socially in that environment. We simply have not evolved to handle that. The technological removal of barriers to interaction has, without our consent, expanded the magnitude of social interactions we have beyond our capabilities.

    If you have no sense of belonging to your community, that’s a terribly stressful, and natural feeling. So fix it. Either lead yourself your own type of local “community”, however you choose to do that. Or move yourself to an area that you can fit in to a welcoming community.

    With respect to deprivation of rights: This sounds like frustration with human nature. Which is legitimate. How many people walked on their own two feet into the gas chambers of Nazi Germany? How many people walked on their own two feet through the Soviet Gulags? Fear is stronger than self-preservation among many humans and there will always be other bad humans to take advantage of that. People would rather die at someone else’s hand, knowing full well it’s coming, than face immediate harm upon themselves by their own volition. It’s just how it is. Insert manipulation via social justice and social media. Think we can all agree that all of those people in the camps and gulags deserved their natural right to self defense to fight the people and systems depriving them of their self-determination in the years leading up to their murder, right? Would you die for that?

    This is why leadership is so damn important. It only takes 1 person with enough guts to break the silence to change the direction of the mob and put a stop to the malevolence.

    This goes to everyone: Stop waiting for someone else to do it.

    Baptême du feu
    L'appel du vide

    #65398
    Profile photo of Joe (G.W.N.S.)
    Joe (G.W.N.S.)
    Moderator

    My intent with this thread is not to have people make statements on an open forum that could potentially be used against them in the future, perhaps following actions post-ban etc.

    Exactly!

    My response above is not much different than my “Lawful vs Unlawful Order” brief I used to teach new junior NCO’s when active duty.

    …but if surprise is used you may not be ready in the moment…

    Decisions must be tactically prudent hence…

    …can be resisted…

    …can be resisted, not must be.

    Thus there is a morally right course, and there is a practical course centered on survival and practicality.

    Pay attention to this point.

    What I am encouraging is not only a moral assessment of what may be the right course of action, but a rational practical assessment based on what happens in the country should such bans go ahead.

    This knowledge allows developing options!

    I have many options ready for me based on updated awareness of what may unfold in as yet hypothetical events.

    These options vary from isolated cabins to leaving country, with many choices in between.

    Many are surprised by my last option which includes leaving country!

    It certainly isn’t my first choice, but yes I include this in my inventory.

    Some of you may not have that option due to logistics.

    If this country goes much more in the Socialist direction without effective resistance developing, I’ll leave.

    Not to freedom; as that will probably end with this nations demise, but to comfort.

    I only think there is a point standing if large enough groups find their courage beyond FaceBook and memes, and actually take a stand.

    Without this happening I’ll chose to finish my remaining years on a beach in one of my favorite third world countries playing retired tourist.

    I’ll die to defend our nation, but I won’t commit suicide for it.

    So hurry and wake up so I don’t become a beach bum overseas! ;-)

    #65399
    Profile photo of Dimitri Povozhaev (NE Ohio)
    ctpelok
    Participant

    “And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?… The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If…if…We didn’t love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation…. We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”
    ― Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn , The Gulag Archipelago 1918-1956

    Fully awake here and thought things through. I will stop here.

    @joe (G.W.N.S.) “So hurry and wake up so I don’t become a beach bum overseas!”

    No beach bumming for you Joe! :-)

    Dimitri P.

    #65400
    Profile photo of RampantRaptor
    rampantraptor
    Participant

    Unless the Senate proposes equivalent legislation I’m not concerned about any federal bans at the moment. House Democrats are also proposing a $15 federal minimum wage, also won’t pass, just a matter of getting their platform public to rally the progressive base and contrast them to the GOP. It amounts to little more than posturing at the moment. At best I’d expect Trump to be open to universal background checks and red flag laws, which are infringing, sure, but those of us in blue states have been living with them for a while now. I was much more concerned after the Parkland shootings because the winds were in the sails of every Democratic state legislature seeking to pass any gun and magazine ban they could conjure up.

    If Trump can get another conservative justice in SCOTUS that could also be a firewall against gun regulation, that’s probably the best argument for dealing with his BS.

    If we’re looking at a mag ban, that’s a pain in the ass, but there are easy ways to circumvent that if there’s a collapse in law and order, especially as technology improves. A revival of the AWB would leave us with stuff like Mini-14s and whatever semi-auto firearms are made to circumvent the ban; the militia-types found ways to practice in spite of the 1994 AWB. An Aussie-style semi-auto ban would be far worse, but we’d still have lever-action, pump-action, and revolving firearms to work with. In any of these scenarios we’re looking at a reduced volume of fire. If things go all CWII or whatever folks with legal firearms would be forced to conduct hit and run attacks against better armed criminal and/or hostile government forces until they could acquire better weapons through the black market or battlefield acquisition.

    (This is not an endorsement of illegal activity, but a discussion of tactics when legal authority has collapsed. Wave hi to the FBI guys reading this! :bye: )

    I don’t see any mass movement for gun rights by themselves because too much of the population is already against them, especially in the population-dense urban centers, and beyond that you have fudds. I can only see gun rights being attached to some broader political movement, such as the old Tea Party protests. Being that the mainstream left hates guns, I’d expect it to be right-wing in nature, my main concern is that it dwaddles into wingnut territory and becomes too exclusionary to be effective. The yellow vests in France have managed to create a large-scale, big-tent protest movement while keeping out the fascists, so it’s not impossible.

    The only way I see things going hot is if there is a large-scale protest movement and the feds manage to pull off another Waco. So far they haven’t been so stupid.

    If I had to flee the US, maybe Canada, though by then they’d probably be inundated with American refugees. If the Democrats have their way Canada will soon be more free than America. In some ways Canadian gun law is already more open than the laws of places like CA or NY, though if the anti-gunners here win in the land of guns it will embolden anti-gunners everywhere else and have a cascade effect.

    #RaqqaSummer2017
    - - -
    Jîn, Jiyan, Azadî

    #65408
    Profile photo of WTL
    veritas556
    Participant

    @Max – Agree with all your points. Well said. Having moral certitude is only one of the check boxes.

    My fear is that we may be only one or two unspeakable acts by a mentally deranged individual from a swift and sudden “turn em in” moment. This, we are sorely unprepared for as individual or tiny pockets of patriots scattered across the land. And I think for many (though not as many as we might like) THAT would be the line of departure. But without organization, communication and leadership (Sounds like the dirty “M” word, doesn’t it?) also doomed to fail.

    @tango – any luck along these lines?

    #65415
    Profile photo of Max Velocity
    Max
    Keymaster

    I’ll make a simple statement of the truth, so that others don’t have to. It is testimony to our current lack of true Liberty and the general anti-Americanism of our current authoritarianism society that anyone should have to worry about making essentially American statements, in the fear that they will be read by Agencies.

    The bottom line is that tyranny must be fought. If basic rights that were codified into law in the Constitution are attempted to be rescinded, curtailed or infringed by government, the very purpose of the document being to prevent that, then that action must be fought.

    “Fought’ of course falls onto a sliding scale of rules of engagement, from legal / protest all the way up to actually having to physically fight people who are raiding your home.

    The previous statement is all very well and good, but how good have the American people been so far on fighting encroaching authoritarianism? Not very good, in my opinion. Treasonably so, in my opinion. Simply look at the authoritarian nature of society, and taxes.

    So my other main point, separate from the rights or wrongs of it, is that you have to assess the situation when it occurs. If a large part of the American people follows form so far, and does nothing, then why die on your porch, risking the life of your family in the process?

    The ‘so what’ of that statement is that you need community, you need support, you need a movement. If that does not happen, then you have to make hard decisions over moral vs. rational actions.

    That is simply my point. Hard thoughts. Start thinking.

    #65416
    Profile photo of tango
    tango
    Participant

    @tango – any luck along these lines?

    @veritas556 Yes. PM’d

    Baptême du feu
    L'appel du vide

    #65420
    Profile photo of Max Velocity
    Max
    Keymaster

    Joe: Thoughts on moving this to the alumni forum? Not decided, just wondering. It’s not then an open page for all agencies to read at will. Or just leave it here – it’s not as if we would discuss anything, but as I said above, it is the mere nature of the authoritarian surveillance society we live in that we should worry about talking like Free Americans….

    #65423
    Profile photo of Joe (G.W.N.S.)
    Joe (G.W.N.S.)
    Moderator

    Joe: Thoughts on moving this to the alumni forum? Not decided, just wondering. It’s not then an open page for all agencies to read at will. Or just leave it here – it’s not as if we would discuss anything, but as I said above, it is the mere nature of the authoritarian surveillance society we live in that we should worry about talking like Free Americans….

    It’s a sad state of affairs that we have to consider this question!

    I think for now at least, we continue this thread.

    We can use moderation if something is questionable. Understand that may mean we hide someone’s post until moderators and Max can discuss it. If we do this you will be notified by PM that you post is being reviewed and we will let you know the final decision.

    Remember if your post vanishes without notification, PM a moderator as it is another type of problem, most likely spam filter.

    :good:

    #65425
    Profile photo of WTL
    veritas556
    Participant

    The fact this question must be asked begs the very question! I say move it out of an abundance of caution.

    #65545
    Profile photo of backofbeyond
    backofbeyond
    Participant

    Interesting thread with some good points made.

    Tango’s point above got me thinking. Alot of times, definitions of “gun control” in the context of LEO’s being pro/anti is left out of the conversation.

    For instance, I’ve been to 20+ classes over the years. Some had very large LE attendance. I would say in general, they considered the ‘civilians’ on the line as being ‘good guys’ the same way they view themselves. For the most part. Some remained skeptical. We had 4 LEO’s at a class last year travel to Western NC for a class from NYC. They sort of couldn’t wrap their heads around the fact we carried guns every day and could own stuff that citizens up there cannot. They also couldn’t wrap their heads around the fact that civilians were out training their LE bretheren in general and out shooting them in the course. Folks would probably consider them pro gun by their attendance in the class with other ‘civilians’ but every day, they are enforcing NYC gun laws.

    To bring this back full circle. I think in the general view that LE are against gun control is actually a view that they sort of like most of the gun control as it stands right now, but dont really want any more, particularly on the federal level. I’m sure MOST would enforce those laws just as they are currently enforcing the 20,000 gun laws across the country right now.

    Just an interesting example from the Old North State. NC still has a pistol purchase requirement for non CCW holders to obtain prior to purchasing a pistol in NC. It is an actual relic of slave society and Jim Crow. You must go to the sheriffs office and pay 5$ and get the permit, which is nothing really anymore than the 4473 at the gun shop anyway. But its a small revenue stream they will not give up. They also want the control to decide who can purchase pistols in their county. It always struck me as odd that people continually tell me how pro gun LE is in the country, yet in NC for instance, the Sheriffs associations and Police unions in the cities are even bigger opponents of constitutional carry and eliminating the purchase permits than the legitimate anti gun groups. I was always baffled why the ‘pro gun’ sheriffs aren’t just ordering their deputies to stand down and declare their counties ‘no ccw/chp permits required in my jurisdiction…’

    One last anecdote. There was an emergency ordinance passed in a jurisdiction near me. It contained language in there that complied with some federal emergency laws, that stated the county could confiscate whatever property they saw fit in times of emergency, including guns, farm property, etc. The sheriff attended a town hall put on by the local LP. He pulled every politician answer he had to not answer if he would follow the order from the county government to confiscate firearms in a state of emergency if ordered to do so. And he is still considered to be ‘pro gun’ by nearly all the usual suspects because they say ‘he likes to shoot.’

    Sorry for the rant boys.
    BTW, good meeting up with you this past weekend, Tango.

    #65546
    Profile photo of Joe (G.W.N.S.)
    Joe (G.W.N.S.)
    Moderator

    Ultimately it doesn’t really matter what views LEO’s have regarding the debate of gun control.

    Obviously it will vary much by region as many have pointed out. It will come down to actions and despite false bravado, it will not be an easy decision for most!

    When faced with being unemployed and its associated poverty or worse yet imprisonment. This combined with all the other various points this thread has brought out, so only the ignorant still think it will be a clear cut and simply decision.

    I think most of the refusal to enforce such a ban will revolve around self-preservation, rather than some deep seated support for Rightful Liberty. So as long as we don’t get too many kooks targeting LEO’s we might not have too big a hurdle to overcome.

    Sure if we get the classic “society collapses” this would make things easier, but if we get the slow burn with people still going to work, having to pay mortgage, buying food for family etc…

    Who is really prepared to go full-time insurgent in an otherwise normal America?

    Not many!

    Even Large scale Armed Civil Disobedience may not be enough to prevent enforcement, until they find some willing cannon fodder to come after banned items.

    Then things might go “hot,” but it will likely be a very small group relatively speaking. I am guessing maybe .5% to 1% of hardcore gun owners will be in a position to act.

    Consider reviewing Interesting Threats and Numbers (Updated 29OCT16) to then compare to my guess 9,000 to 18,000 hardcore gun owners.

    Remember you could have 9,000,000 to 18,000,000 million active (nonfighting) supporters and up to ten times that in the will look the other way category.

    Any thoughts?

    #65728
    Profile photo of Trailman
    trailman
    Participant

    Thought I’d toss this out here, this is what Maryland Shall Issue is reporting in the pike for this years session in Annapolis.

    https://www.marylandshallissue.org/jmain/legislation-tracker?utm_source=Main+Membership+List&utm_campaign=b20b8866e5-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_02_07_12_42&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_51231bbc70-b20b8866e5-50335425

    ———————-
    If you are a gun owner who resides or could reside in Maryland, your rights are under attack like never before. The Maryland General Assembly has put forth a series of egregious bills this session and we ask you to HELP US fight them! Not only do we need self-defenders, but also hunters, competitors, tinkerers, and recreational shooters, as the legislature has declared all of us public enemy number one!

    Not content with making the lives of handgun owners miserable, now they are after the hunters and long guns. Bill SB737 was just introduced and that bill requires anyone desiring to purchase or “receive” a long gun obtain a LONG GUN QUALIFICATION LICENSE! Highly similar to the Handgun Qualification License, this license will require 4 hours of training and fingerprinting and ban any person from receiving a long gun without having first applied to the State Police for this LGQL. Even after getting an LGQL, a purchaser would also have to wait 7 days before picking up their long gun, and the bill would limit them to a single long gun purchase per month! Additionally, anyone who moves into the state will be required to register their long guns within 90 days of establishing residency! And there are loads of severe criminal penalties for those who fail to comply for any reason.

    If this law passes, you will need the blessing of the State of Maryland to purchase ANY firearm.

    That is just ONE of the horrible laws being passed this session. Another bill, HB 96, would ban temporary “loans” of a handgun to another person, including a spouse or another person in the family in the home. Every such “transfer” would have to go through the State Police using the 77R process and would include the 7-day waiting period. This bill would mean that a person could not leave their handgun accessible to any other person in the home. Each spouse would have to have separate ownership and each would have to have their own gun safe that is inaccessible to anyone else.

    If all of the anti-gun laws introduced thus far are passed, here is what you have to look forward to:
    • Ban on purchasing any firearm without first paying a fee and obtaining training for a license
    • Ban on obtaining any firearm without first waiting 7 days
    • Ban on purchasing more than one firearm a month
    • Ban of Colt HBAR AR-15 and similar rifles
    • Ban of any payment method other than credit cards for permit applications
    • Ban of handgun rentals
    • Ban on lending handguns or regulated firearms to anyone
    • Ban on anyone in your house having access to your guns
    • Ban on school programs using lead ammunition
    • Ban on the manufacture of any firearm by an individual
    • Ban on the possession, reception, or distribution of information on how to manufacture a firearm

    CRM, CTT 1501, CP11/15, CTT5/16, FoF, DCH, CLC Opfor, Team Minion

    Just remember, Anne Frank was a criminal because the government made her one and she died because she broke the law.

    #65774
    Profile photo of tango
    tango
    Participant

    Thought I’d toss this out here, this is what Maryland Shall Issue is reporting in the pike for this years session in Annapolis.

    If all of the anti-gun laws introduced thus far are passed, here is what you have to look forward to:
    • Ban on purchasing any firearm without first paying a fee and obtaining training for a license
    • Ban on obtaining any firearm without first waiting 7 days
    • Ban on purchasing more than one firearm a month
    • Ban of Colt HBAR AR-15 and similar rifles
    • Ban of any payment method other than credit cards for permit applications
    • Ban of handgun rentals
    • Ban on lending handguns or regulated firearms to anyone
    • Ban on anyone in your house having access to your guns
    • Ban on school programs using lead ammunition
    • Ban on the manufacture of any firearm by an individual
    • Ban on the possession, reception, or distribution of information on how to manufacture a firearm

    Baptême du feu
    L'appel du vide

Viewing 25 posts - 31 through 55 (of 55 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.