A Victory of The Mind

Joe Huffman makes a good observation in the comment in regards to my post the other day, where I suggested, in response to a “Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in!” scenario would be to plaster one up in my wall:

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.

That’s a very good point.  Practice would be difficult or impossible, and skills would quickly deteriorate, rendering your firearm a short range weapon at best.  Another thing I hadn’t considered is that ammo has a fixed shelf life.  In 50 years, that 2000 rounds of ammo might no longer be viable.

I’ve never been convinced that a violent movement in response to a federal gun confiscation program would spontaneously erupt, but that action would occur through state governments either actively resisting federal power, or by leaving the United States entirely.  I think the place to start would be civil disobedience, as the Canadians are successfully doing with their long gun registration program.

I wouldn’t suggest burying firearms in a wall and then stop fighting, but to continue to push the issue.  While I don’t think most gun owners would have the stomach for violent resistance, I don’t think most people would have the stomach to violently enforce a gun confiscation either.  If a few states refused to do it, and brought the issue to a head, it might be enough to get folks to back down.  Most people aren’t passionate about gun control, and I think that could be used to our advantage if it ever comes to confiscation.

8 thoughts on “A Victory of The Mind”

  1. “I don’t think most people would have the stomach to violently enforce a gun confiscation either.”

    It doesn’t take most, just a few. Most people wouldn’t have the stomach to burn women and children to death, but Janet Reno and the ATF still did it at Waco. What did most people do in response to that? How many Waco’s does it take?

    I think squirreling a couple of guns away for a rainy day is a good idea, but not all of them — just like you squirrel away some money for a rainy day.

  2. I’ve got some Turkish ammo that’s over 60 years old & still fires ok, with some caveats. Properly stored, ammo can last 50 years.

  3. Dry & Fairly Cool are what you are after,
    I have seen properly stored WW II ammo fire with no problem.
    It was 60 years old.

  4. Also if and when the bomb sniffing dogs are brought out to your property to sniff out your buried ammo, start collecting your shot brass and bury small piles ALL OVER THE PLACE. Make the dogs and their masters spend endless hours digging up sacks of spent brass.

  5. Illinois has given us a very important lesson in an effective way to resist gun control and gun confiscation. In response to draconion gun legislation at the state level, dozens of Illinois counties have passed pro 2nd Amendment resolutions:


    This is noteworthy as Illinois is not known as being a particularly gun friendly state, but these resolutions have passed in numerous counties.

    If draconian gun control or confiscation legislation is passed at a national or state level this could be a model response for the rest of the country. While the resolutions are not legally binding, it certainly lends considerably moral authority to those who oppose such draconian measures. Additionally, it puts authorities at all levels (national, state, and local) on notice that enforcement of such draconian measures would be unacceptable to a sizable portion of the population.

  6. While it gives me a mild warm and fuzzy feeling to see the counties in IL support our side of the issue I’m not sure what practical good it does. The Clinton adminstration was “unacceptable to a sizable portion of the population” but he still got a lot of what he wanted.

    How is this different than if we manage to keep the AWB from being renewed and numerous cities pass resolutions in favor of renewing it? We either say, “Tough!” or we ignore them and move on.

    Am I missing something?

  7. Joe,
    I’m not really sure what you mean. In regards to the practical good of passing these resolutions at the county level in Illinois- it is certainly better than doing nothing. These counties are putting the state on notice that the legislation in question is unacceptable. The county Sherrif’s department and local law enforcement in these counties also would be very hesitant to enforce the legislation in question when the county board has passed such a resolution. State law enforcement would also be hesitant to enforce such legislation when the Sheriff and local law enforcement do not support them.

    If legislation is passed at a national or state level to confiscate firearms then these types of resolutions should be passed at the county and/or local level. This will be our way of standing up to such unconstitutional and unlawful legislation and to put all on notice that the legislation is unacceptable.

    While a state or national legislature in certain circumstances may be anti-gun and willing to pass confiscatory legislation, it is very unlikely that county boards and/or local government will all be made up of anti-gun individuals. This is evident by the circumstances in Illinois. Illinois is a rather anti-gun state, with a particularly anti-gun county in Cook County and anti-gun city in Chicago. Yet, even though Cook County and Chicago are able to tilt the balance of power in the state legislature it will be very difficult for them to enforce their unlawful policies in the face of dozens of counties passing pro 2nd Amendment resolutions. This is how our system of federalism is supposed to work. This helps to prevent the centralization of power and allow the people to both govern themselves and protect their inalienable rights in the face of a despotic government.

Comments are closed.