search
top

What Would We Do?

Joe Huffman asks what people would do if the Supreme Court rules the second amendment is an anachronism, and we eventually start losing our gun rights.

I agree with him, that I don’t think gun owners would do much.  I’ll be honest with you all, I’d probably not turn in the ammunition first, as I have no desire to fight for a lost cause against a law that’s not really enforceable.   Show me real opposition, and I might join, but aside from that, I plaster an off the books AR up in my wall with a “Break Wall In Event of a Emergency” note in my head, and keep a few thousand rounds of ammunition.   Then I’d be praying we soon develop technology to terraform other plants, because I think I’m starting to believe that in order to maintain liberty, people need the option of saying “Screw you guys, I’m going west!”

18 Responses to “What Would We Do?”

  1. straightarrow says:

    “I agree with him, that I don’t think gun owners would do much. I’ll be honest with you all, I’d probably not turn in the ammunition first, as I have no desire to fight for a lost cause against a law that’s not really enforceable.”- Sebastian

    And I agree with you both, that most will not do a thing and for the same reasons.

    What we forget is it is not necessary to be able to beat a predator, if you can assure the predator he will be seriously hurt. Predators dare not chance injury, for it negatively impacts their survivability. However, when you roll up in a ball and offer no resistance the pedator will eat you.

  2. Sebastian says:

    To me the next move is civil disobedience. This is not a country that is passionate about gun control at the root level, even if the elite typically support some measure of it. Even in DC, half of all cases brought under their gun ban get nullified by the jury.

  3. Linoge says:

    If you need a joint funder for the ship, drop me a line.

  4. kaveman says:

    SCOTUS has already stated the the 2A is a right held “by the people.”

    Read pages 19-20.

    http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf

  5. Sebastian says:

    That’s the original Parker decision by the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. It’s not a Supreme Court opinion.

  6. kaveman says:

    Wrong Sebastion, pages 19-20 are quoting a SCOTUS case from 1990.

  7. Joe Huffman says:

    As long as we have private sales, and to a certain extent even if we don’t, a year or two after you filled out your 4473 a firearm may be considered “off the books”. “Oh, that one? I didn’t care for it and sold it via an note I put up on the bulletin board at the gun shop.” Or, “I loved that gun but I lost it in a boating accident last summer.” But mere possession of a firearm isn’t the critical item.

    What will become difficult is to practice and receive formal training. You should be putting several hundred rounds down-range each month just for maintenance. If it becomes illegal to own then range availability as well as (black market) ammo prices will make practice nearly impossible.

    Without the practice then you really won’t know if that 75 yard shot at the guard beside “the cattle car filled with Jews” will mean the release of the victims or your death. A 400 yard shot? Forget it. With practice you know what you are capable of (at GBR-2007 do you think I would have started off-hand shooting at the 400 yard plate had I not thought I would be able to make at least a few hits?). With this knowledge you can have the confidence to make plans and execute them.

    It is my understanding that the “gardens of eastern Europe were well oiled” because of all the guns buried there. Even as tyrants of eastern rose to power, people were dragged off in the middle of the night, and the gulags killed their 10s of thousands those guns stayed buried in their well oiled graves.

    To me, burying your guns is little different than turning them over. It’s only a victory in your mind. You must use them or you have lost them.

    A further thing to think about is that it is exceedingly rare when the defender wins a war. As long as one side can choose the terms of all the engagements they are nearly certain to win in the long run. If you think holding on to your gun for another generation is a win then fine, you stand a fair chance of “winning” as long as you don’t tell any one about your guns and the high tech scanners in the patrol cars and helicopters overlook them as they go by. But what really it just means your loss will go unnoticed and unremarkable.

    If we loose at the SC it was for “all the marbles”.

  8. Sebastian says:

    I’m sorry, I didn’t notice you were referring to the citation. What they were referring to in that decision was stated by the court in dicta.

    It doesn’t have any presidential weight and isn’t considered binding on lower courts. What we’re trying to get with Heller is for the Supreme Court to say it’s an individual right as what is called Ratio decidendi, which is legal speak for part of the opinion that actually has precedential value and is binding on lower courts.

  9. straightarrow says:

    civil disobedience? Isn’t that where one side (the state) gets to beat and/or kill the other(peacefully resistant) side without consequence?

    Why, I believe it is.

  10. Sebastian says:

    It means a refusal to comply with certain laws as a form of protest against such laws… as in, when the feds pass registration and confiscation, refuse to comply, as the Canadians are currently doing.

  11. kaveman says:

    Thanks for bringing that up Sebastion, the Canadians have shown us the way. Last time I checked, 2 of the Provinces(I think they call them provinces) have stated that the laws concerning the whole debacle can not and will not be enforced.

    Where are they going to jail 100 million gun owners. Even if they did start building new prisons right away, I’m guessing that construction would be rather slow due to all the incoming fire and stuff.

  12. Peter says:

    Umm, Sebastian, what you’re saying is the ‘definition’ of the term Civil Disobedience, straightarrow is referring how that actually works on the street.

    I’d like to remind folks that in this fight, we can bring to bear the same sort of ‘remedy’ to the party as the State does.

    ARs and AKs are nice, but make sure you have something that reaches out to 5-600 yards. This is a Right we’re talking about here, and there’s nothing in the rules about being fair. If they want to show up with 300 yard rifles, then I’m bringing my 500 yard one. No sense letting them shoot at me and spoil my aim.

  13. Sebastian says:

    That’s a really good point, Joe

  14. GeorgeH says:

    Most gun owners wouldn’t do much, but all it takes is the looniest 1% of the guys you see at gun shows. Add in those of us who figure we are too old to change, an après moi le déluge attitude, those whose response to the govt. declaring war on them is to declare war on the govt. and all purpose anarchists and there are enough violent people to make Baghdad look idyllic.

  15. Sebastian says:

    But how many of those guys, when it came down to having an agent of the government in the cross hairs, would actually pull the trigger, knowing they probably aren’t going to leave alive at that point. I’m not sure I could do it, so I’m not going to get brash and say “Yeah, I’ll definitely kill the fuckers if they come for my guns.”

    I also kind of agree with previous posters, they aren’t likely to be that stupid and actually come for them. Californians were allowed to keep their guns, but come a generation, those guns will be out of state or destroyed.

    Nonetheless, I don’t think we should do nothing, and I think if the government comes to that point of ignoring the Bill of Rights, and infringing on those fundamental liberties enshrined in it, violent resistance is justified, because the government ceases to be lawful at that point. The question is, where’s the line? And once it’s crossed, how do you go about doing it?

  16. straightarrow says:

    California did come for the guns. Better read up on that.

    Those questions are not real questions, they are excuses.

  17. Sebastian says:

    You mean with the SKS thing? I know about that, but in general, they let most of the people keep what they had. Doing it that way, all they had to do was play the waiting game.

  18. straightarrow says:

    I bought one when I was in Ca. visiting my daughter and son-in-law at Edwards AFB. I don’t live in Ca., but I assure you they would not have confiscated mine until after.

    You know which after of which I speak.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Snowflakes in Hell » Blog Archive » A Victory of The Mind - [...] Huffman makes a good observation in the comment in regards to my post the other day, where I suggested,…
  2. SayUncle » Breaking Point - [...] Sebastian says he’d hide is guns. Well, that’s great but you just got on the internet and told everybody…
top