If it came down to it, would you stay and fight?

[AK10mm]

Re: If it came down to it, would you stay and fight?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SANDRAT</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Someone asked me yesterday if the man came to my house, would I actually go out in a blaze of glory, risk dying, risk my children not having a dad, etc. I really had to think about, but I said yes I would. I would hope my life being taken would stand for something. I also know my 15 year old daughter would back me if something happened. We have scenarios we act out if someone breaks in, etc. I am confident she would pull the trigger, the 14 year old, well she is more interested in butterflies and saving the planet.

My question is, when you have a choice to give up your firearms, or you will die, what would you do? I know we all can say we would, but really think of the consequences after, would you take the ultimate step knowing they are going to get your guns anyways? </div></div>

Just ask Randy Weaver how it worked out for him.

He was exonerated,but was the End Result worth it ?

Confucius Say; Better to keep inner thoughts to self,not post on Web.

 

[Ratbert]

Re: If it came down to it, would you stay and fight?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sleepymonkey</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 416barrett</div><div class="ubbcode-body">heres what i think they would send out maybe 2-4 sheriff deputy's to do a collection in every county . i would tell my brother to go out the back dor and sitt up the 270 in the wood. next i would sneek up on the roof and use my 10 ga and my neighbor has a small armory just about , it wouldnt be pretty but that would never happen . you dont tell people stuff like that man it;s like talking about ghost or uf's and trying to be for real lmao </div></div>

I can't tell if this is satire or a real post.
</div></div>

Either way it doesn't leave me thinking he's the sharpest knife in the drawer.

 

["Partridge"]

Re: If it came down to it, would you stay and fight?

freedom only exists when the government fears the people,reverse it and you are headed towards communism,and for what it is worth just do a little research and one will see what has happened after every disarming of the citizens.

LITTLE GUN HISTORY


In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control.
From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------

In 1911, Turkey established gun control.
From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------

China established gun control in 1935.
From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------

Guatemala established gun control in 1964.
From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
---- ------------- -------------

Uganda established gun control in 1970.
From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------

Cambodia established gun control in 1956.
From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
-----------------------------

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
------------------------------

It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own Government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:

List of 7 items:

Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent.

Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent.

Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is
unarmed.

There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort, and expense was
expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.

You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!

The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson.

With guns, we are 'citizens'. Without them, we are 'subjects'.

During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America 's mainland because they knew most Americans were ARMED!

If you value your freedom, please spread this anti-gun control message to all of your friends.


The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible victory in defense. The sword is more important than the shield, and skill is more important than either. The final weapon is the brain. All else is
supplemental.

SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN! SWITZERLAND 'S GOVERNMENT TRAINS EVERY ADULT THEY ISSUE A RIFLE. SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!!

IT'S A NO BRAINER! DON'T LET OUR GOVERNMENT WASTE MILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE ALL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS AN EASY TARGET.

The 2nd Amendment was set in place for a very good reason.

Sorry for the long post but we feel strongly on this and it is very important to the United States.

 

["Partridge"]

Re: If it came down to it, would you stay and fight?

this is not my research,just somthing someone emailed me a while back.

 

[81sfo]

Re: If it came down to it, would you stay and fight?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: teambarlar</div><div class="ubbcode-body">freedom only exists when the government fears the people,reverse it and you are headed towards communism,and for what it is worth just do a little research and one will see what has happened after every disarming of the citizens.

LITTLE GUN HISTORY


In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control.
From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------

In 1911, Turkey established gun control.
From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------

China established gun control in 1935.
From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------

Guatemala established gun control in 1964.
From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
---- ------------- -------------

Uganda established gun control in 1970.
From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------

Cambodia established gun control in 1956.
From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
-----------------------------

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
------------------------------

It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own Government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:

List of 7 items:

Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent.

Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent.

Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is
unarmed.

There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort, and expense was
expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.

You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!

The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson.

With guns, we are 'citizens'. Without them, we are 'subjects'.

During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America 's mainland because they knew most Americans were ARMED!

If you value your freedom, please spread this anti-gun control message to all of your friends.


The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible victory in defense. The sword is more important than the shield, and skill is more important than either. The final weapon is the brain. All else is
supplemental.

SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN! SWITZERLAND 'S GOVERNMENT TRAINS EVERY ADULT THEY ISSUE A RIFLE. SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!!

IT'S A NO BRAINER! DON'T LET OUR GOVERNMENT WASTE MILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE ALL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS AN EASY TARGET.

The 2nd Amendment was set in place for a very good reason.

Sorry for the long post but we feel strongly on this and it is very important to the United States.</div></div>
Good stuff here!

 

[jasonk]

Re: If it came down to it, would you stay and fight?

Who's this man everyone keeps speaking of? I mean seriously if it's only one man, why's everyone so worried about him?

WOLVERINES!!!!

and

DOORKICKER!!!!

 

["Partridge"]

Re: If it came down to it, would you stay and fight?

yep , almost scary . i can just imagine what the majority of these folks were thinking as their time came .

 

[KYS]

Re: If it came down to it, would you stay and fight?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sleepymonkey</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 416barrett</div><div class="ubbcode-body">heres what i think they would send out maybe 2-4 sheriff deputy's to do a collection in every county . i would tell my brother to go out the back dor and sitt up the 270 in the wood. next i would sneek up on the roof and use my 10 ga and my neighbor has a small armory just about , it wouldnt be pretty but that would never happen . you dont tell people stuff like that man it;s like talking about ghost or uf's and trying to be for real lmao </div></div>

I can't tell if this is satire or a real post.

</div></div>

To much Halo and Code Red for this kid.... that's not even English!

 

[patriotoutlaw]

Re: If it came down to it, would you stay and fight?

Bullshit!!! Let's hope it never comes to that, but if you are going to be disarmed quietly, you deserve what you get. And since you are so law -abiding in all things, slow the hell down on the freeway and stop tearing the tags off of your mattresses!

 

[waveone]

Re: If it came down to it, would you stay and fight?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Personally, I intend to obey the law. It is not up to me to pick and choose which laws apply to me based on whether I like them or not.

Look at the subject historically:

In Britain, they disarmed quietly.
In Australia, they disarmed quietly.
In Canada, they disarmed quietly.

What makes you think that it would be any different anywhere else?

Because for people with something to lose - a family and a decent standard of living for example - to resist in the way the OP proposes would be both foolish and futile.

For those who want to talk like lions, have at it, that's one of the things that the Internet supports so well. But I suggest that those quick to talk the 'cold, dead fingers' line have never been forced to make such a decision: to me it betrays a lack of experience. </div></div>

While I have no intention of responding to the frivolousness of the first post, this one vexes me to say the least. Moreso than the rash nature of the first. THough I am not persuaded to presume your intent here Graham, the language is unmistakable.

Last I checked 2A IS the Law.It states succinctly:

<span style="font-weight: bold">A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the rightof the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.[/</span>b]

Nothing in that single sentence is ambiguous nor merits 10K+ abridging laws.

& Amendment IV

<span style="font-weight: bold">The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.</span>

The spirit and intent of our Constitution in these united States is as an instrument which serves to limit the powers of the government, not for the governement to delineate the right of the People. THose rights are unalienable.

Thus any law which violates the Constitution or it Amendments is no law at all.

THis is underscored in Madison vs Marbury 1803.

G.Britain, Canada and Australia now implore the citizens of the US not to become disarmed. Furthermore how or why they were disarmed has no relevance here. THe cultures are significantly different starting with how their nations were birthed in relation to ours. Last I checked they were all colonized and are still essentially under the jurisdiction of the crown. We Declared our Sovereignty and Independence, then substantiated those proclamations with vigorous action.

People with something to lose typically lose alot more when they are subject to the whim and fancy of a governing body.One of the Founding Fathers had something to say about that.

"Those who would trade in their freedom for their protection deserve neither. Those who give up their liberty for more security neither deserve liberty nor security"- Benjamin Franklin

 

[MontanaMarine]

Re: If it came down to it, would you stay and fight?

To the OP, I'd suggest you read "The Art of War" by Sun Tzu.

 

[Ratbert]

Re: If it came down to it, would you stay and fight?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: patriotoutlaw</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Bullshit!!! Let's hope it never comes to that, but if you are going to be disarmed quietly, you deserve what you get. And since you are so law -abiding in all things, slow the hell down on the freeway and stop tearing the tags off of your mattresses!</div></div>

It's not illegal for the consumer to remove the tags, Mr. Carlin.

 

[Veer_G]

Re: If it came down to it, would you stay and fight?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KYshooter338$</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gasitman</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Someone asked me yesterday if the man came to my house, would I actually go out in a blaze of glory, risk dying, risk my children not having a dad, etc. I really had to think about, but I said yes I would. I would hope my life being taken would stand for something. I also know my 15 year old daughter would back me if something happened. We have scenarios we act out if someone breaks in, etc. I am confident she would pull the trigger, the 14 year old, well she is more interested in butterflies and saving the planet.

My question is, when you have a choice to give up your firearms, or you will die, what would you do? I know we all can say we would, but really think of the consequences after, would you take the ultimate step knowing they are going to get your guns anyways? </div></div>

You really should step back and do a ruff draft of what you plan to post..... this is beyond stupid. You sound like a zombie theory person who hides in his basement every night. </div></div>

I think Ruff may have <span style="font-style: italic">done</span> the draft!

 

[rifleman0321]

Re: If it came down to it, would you stay and fight?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: waveone</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Personally, I intend to obey the law. It is not up to me to pick and choose which laws apply to me based on whether I like them or not.

Look at the subject historically:

In Britain, they disarmed quietly.
In Australia, they disarmed quietly.
In Canada, they disarmed quietly.

What makes you think that it would be any different anywhere else?

Because for people with something to lose - a family and a decent standard of living for example - to resist in the way the OP proposes would be both foolish and futile.

For those who want to talk like lions, have at it, that's one of the things that the Internet supports so well. But I suggest that those quick to talk the 'cold, dead fingers' line have never been forced to make such a decision: to me it betrays a lack of experience. </div></div>

While I have no intention of responding to the frivolousness of the first post, this one vexes me to say the least. Moreso than the rash nature of the first. THough I am not persuaded to presume your intent here Graham, the language is unmistakable.

Last I checked 2A IS the Law.It states succinctly:

<span style="font-weight: bold">A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the rightof the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.[/</span>b]

Nothing in that single sentence is ambiguous nor merits 10K+ abridging laws.

& Amendment IV

<span style="font-weight: bold">The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.</span>

The spirit and intent of our Constitution in these united States is as an instrument which serves to limit the powers of the government, not for the governement to delineate the right of the People. THose rights are unalienable.

Thus any law which violates the Constitution or it Amendments is no law at all.

THis is underscored in Madison vs Marbury 1803.

G.Britain, Canada and Australia now implore the citizens of the US not to become disarmed. Furthermore how or why they were disarmed has no relevance here. THe cultures are significantly different starting with how their nations were birthed in relation to ours. Last I checked they were all colonized and are still essentially under the jurisdiction of the crown. We Declared our Sovereignty and Independence, then substantiated those proclamations with vigorous action.

People with something to lose typically lose alot more when they are subject to the whim and fancy of a governing body.One of the Founding Fathers had something to say about that.

"Those who would trade in their freedom for their protection deserve neither. Those who give up their liberty for more security neither deserve liberty nor security"- Benjamin Franklin </div></div>

Bravo! I do not intend to die in a blaze of glory, at least not on my own porch. But I will not be like those mentioned in the Gulag Archipelago, wishing from the gulag that I had had the nerve to resist. There is no glory in dying like a fool in front of one's children. Indeed there is rarely any glory in the death of a patriot. He often either dies nameless in mortal combat against tyranny, or is first villified, then executed, if arrested. I would rather die nameless in a struggle to retain my liberty, than be used as an example to discourage other patriots from action. To the OP, if one is to die for his beliefs, then it would be better for him to take many of the enemy with him, rather than one or two, would it not? Read Sun Tzu, learn to make your battle on a field of YOUR choosing, not the enemy's. And for the sake of your children, learn to choose your battlefield at least as well as your enemy, if not better.

 

[shootist2004]

Re: If it came down to it, would you stay and fight?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SANDRAT</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SANDRAT</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Someone asked me yesterday if the man came to my house, would I actually go out in a blaze of glory, risk dying, risk my children not having a dad, etc. I really had to think about, but I said yes I would. I would hope my life being taken would stand for something. I also know my 15 year old daughter would back me if something happened. We have scenarios we act out if someone breaks in, etc. I am confident she would pull the trigger, the 14 year old, well she is more interested in butterflies and saving the planet.

My question is, when you have a choice to give up your firearms, or you will die, what would you do? I know we all can say we would, but really think of the consequences after, would you take the ultimate step knowing they are going to get your guns anyways? </div></div>

Just ask Randy Weaver how it worked out for him.

He was exonerated,but was the End Result worth it ?

Confucius Say; Better to keep inner thoughts to self,not post on Web.
</div></div>

Randy Weaver didnt start shooting when they came for his guns...
he started shooting after they walked on to his property and shot his son and dog. Not the same thing. They eventially paid him 3 million dollars.

 

[Graham]

Re: If it came down to it, would you stay and fight?

waveone, don't misunderstand what I said. I am not supporting or condoning the disarming of free citizens. I am talking about what people do, not about politics or political systems. I don't think what happened in the other countries was right, or even necessary. My intent was to inject a dose of reality into an otherwise mundane topic upon which so many people let their ego write a check that their daily lives can't cash. I am talking about what is, not what should be. And what is, is that the second amendment gives one a constitutional right to keep a handgun in the home for self-defense. The rest has yet to be decided.

 

[Gasitman]

Re: If it came down to it, would you stay and fight?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KYshooter338$</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gasitman</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Someone asked me yesterday if the man came to my house, would I actually go out in a blaze of glory, risk dying, risk my children not having a dad, etc. I really had to think about, but I said yes I would. I would hope my life being taken would stand for something. I also know my 15 year old daughter would back me if something happened. We have scenarios we act out if someone breaks in, etc. I am confident she would pull the trigger, the 14 year old, well she is more interested in butterflies and saving the planet.

My question is, when you have a choice to give up your firearms, or you will die, what would you do? I know we all can say we would, but really think of the consequences after, would you take the ultimate step knowing they are going to get your guns anyways? </div></div>

You really should step back and do a ruff draft of what you plan to post..... this is beyond stupid. You sound like a zombie theory person who hides in his basement every night. </div></div>

Yeah, I'm hiding in my basement, but I bet you were one of the few idiots that went and bought every round of ammo you could when Obama was elected.

So by your posting you mean what? I should not have a talk with my kids if a intruder comes in? Or how they should defend themselves if I get taken out? I fail to see your point. And my post was a question that I was asked at my girlfriends work, where they are about as green and liberal as they get, in Olympia Washington. I'm sorry if you think it was a stupid question, but I would like to hear your answer. I mean do you really think it cannot happen? Because I am sure some Britts thought the same as you, and now they have no guns.

 

[High Binder]

Re: If it came down to it, would you stay and fight?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: patriotoutlaw</div><div class="ubbcode-body">but if you are going to be disarmed quietly, you deserve what you get </div></div>

It's not being done quietly, it's being done incrementally.

 

[Graham]

Re: If it came down to it, would you stay and fight?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Shot In The Dark</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: patriotoutlaw</div><div class="ubbcode-body">but if you are going to be disarmed quietly, you deserve what you get </div></div>It's not being done quietly, it's being done incrementally.</div></div>Well said.

 

[AK10mm]

Re: If it came down to it, would you stay and fight?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: shootist2004</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SANDRAT</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SANDRAT</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Someone asked me yesterday if the man came to my house, would I actually go out in a blaze of glory, risk dying, risk my children not having a dad, etc. I really had to think about, but I said yes I would. I would hope my life being taken would stand for something. I also know my 15 year old daughter would back me if something happened. We have scenarios we act out if someone breaks in, etc. I am confident she would pull the trigger, the 14 year old, well she is more interested in butterflies and saving the planet.

My question is, when you have a choice to give up your firearms, or you will die, what would you do? I know we all can say we would, but really think of the consequences after, would you take the ultimate step knowing they are going to get your guns anyways? </div></div>

Just ask Randy Weaver how it worked out for him.

He was exonerated,but was the End Result worth it ?

Confucius Say; Better to keep inner thoughts to self,not post on Web.
</div></div>

Randy Weaver didnt start shooting when they came for his guns...
he started shooting after they walked on to his property and shot his son and dog. Not the same thing. They eventially paid him 3 million dollars. </div></div>

They Came for him OVER Guns,that was the reason they were on his property to begin with,it is the same thing.

Screw that 3 million dollars.The Asshole that Murdered his wife is still running free.

This was All About Guns.

 

[Short-bus]

Re: If it came down to it, would you stay and fight?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: teambarlar</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN! </div></div>

Not true, however I think you just need to reword. Every military aged male serves, and maintains their service rifle at their residence. Not every household. I have family in Switzerland, and have been many times, they do not have any firearms in their house, and they've been citizens for the better part of 20 years now, my uncle is icelandic, and my aunt is US born.

As for the low crime rate there, you're very correct. Switzerland makes great efforts towards a true rehabilitation of it's criminals rather than the institutionalization that the US does on it's criminal element.

Branden

 

[Guest]

Re: If it came down to it, would you stay and fight?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: shootist2004</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Randy Weaver didnt start shooting when they came for his guns...
he started shooting after they walked on to his property and shot his son and dog. Not the same thing. They eventially paid him 3 million dollars. </div></div>

"They" were after him over a unreg SBS (sawed off shotgun), that they forced him to make first. "They" caused the issue in the first place to try to gain info on another group. Weaver was just caught up in something he never seen coming. The Government never pays for their wrong doings unless caught and made Public, they paid him for a loss, that never should have happened in the first place. There was fault on both sides but most was with those in power that should have never been allowed that power in the first place. Bad intel is one thing, Lying about it is another, they lied, and that is/was fact!

This country does not kill woman without a very good reason and children always get a pass, even in far away lands, that's who Americans are.

A hand full of bad apples fucked up and the train of events that followed, killed alot woman and children there after.

True Americans Don't kill Woman and Children, period. Some orders are unlawfull, it's up to the trigger puller is understand that fact and also understand were the fuck his bullets are going after sent. If you don't know, don't shoot, simple as that.

 

[Ratbert]

Re: If it came down to it, would you stay and fight?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gunfighter14e2</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
This country does not kill woman without a very good reason and children always get a pass, even in far away lands, that's who Americans are.
</div></div>

Wasn't there just a thread the other day where the consensus was 'kids these days need to be tried as adults, charging someone as a juvenile offender is just a loop hole to let these hardened felons off the hook?'

 

[Guest]

Re: If it came down to it, would you stay and fight?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Ratbert</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gunfighter14e2</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
This country does not kill woman without a very good reason and children always get a pass, even in far away lands, that's who Americans are.
</div></div>

Wasn't there just a thread the other day where the consensus was 'kids these days need to be tried as adults, charging someone as a juvenile offender is just a loop hole to let these hardened felons off the hook?' </div></div>


Trying a child as an Adult, is way different than out right killing one.


Children are not capable of making their own choices. Some "Children" are <10 years old and some are 70+
When people start making their own life an death decisions they are no longer "Children". I've been around alot of Children that were taught at a young age to kill Americans, did we kill them, no. There are other ways to stop them without killing them. Americans do not kill "Children" no matter their age.

 

[waveone]

Re: If it came down to it, would you stay and fight?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body">waveone, don't misunderstand what I said. I am not supporting or condoning the disarming of free citizens. I am talking about what people do, not about politics or political systems. I don't think what happened in the other countries was right, or even necessary. My intent was to inject a dose of reality into an otherwise mundane topic upon which so many people let their ego write a check that their daily lives can't cash. I am talking about what is, not what should be. And what is, is that the second amendment gives one a constitutional right to keep a handgun in the home for self-defense. The rest has yet to be decided. </div></div>

Graham, that aspect of your post is academic. The bravado complete w/ internet muscle is readily ostensible. Real life has a tendency to whisk that away with the quickness as they say....

However, I am still predisposed to your position on 2A and our rights as Ameicans.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> And what is, is that the second amendment gives one a constitutional right to keep a handgun in the home for self-defense. The rest has yet to be decided. </div></div>


THat is 2A at it's basest level. The Second is not instituted for hunting purposes or solely for personal protection as many surmise. Nor as certain "officials" might wish or incline their constituency to believe.

Amendment II is Primarily a protection against and as an instrument of eradication for tyrannical government in all it's forms.Period. It is also for the various Governemental agencies that knowingly or even ignorantly attempt to enforce unConstitutional rules. I say rules b/c IF they violate the LAW they are illegal.THe other uses of weapons are by-prucducts, nothing more.

Anyone who has a problem with this application is suspect at least which strongly suggests they have a problem with the Constitution.

Somewhat akin to the Ten Commandments, there is a specific order to the Amendments to the Constitution. THey weren't instituted on whim,but for purpose. The one protects and builds upon the other.


Finally, in regard to Randy Weaver- He was an idiot at best, bottom line. He is partially to blame for the deaths of his wife and children from the accounts I've read. No one foced him to create an SBS. He was coerced perhaps, yet that is a far cry from being forced. Ignorance is not an excuse. He was further guilty because he knowingly aligned hmself with subversives. His penalty will thus be with him for the rest of his life.

THe LE agencies , and their agents on the other hand are also guilty and Did Not get what they deserved. The one clown deserved sentencing and execution , yet he skated.

Ambivelance carries a heavy toll.

 

[jollyrancher]

Re: If it came down to it, would you stay and fight?

if we were being over run then yes i would fight but if it was a Brady Obama regime confiscating weapons well almost all the guns i buy are second hand so they dont even know what i have and secondly i think it worked out just fine for the people in the Middle East to just put the weapons in a container and bury til needed

 

[Short-bus]

Re: If it came down to it, would you stay and fight?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: waveone</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
THe LE agencies , and their agents on the other hand are also guilty and Did Not get what they deserved. The one clown deserved sentencing and execution , yet he scated.

Ambivelance carries a heavy toll. </div></div>

I don't think that the over exuberant sharpshooter with the FBI HRT necessarily deserves such a swift judgement as you couldn't possibly know what information he was being force fed about the man in his crosshairs. For all we know his superiors were whispering in his ears that this guy had a handful of children sex slaves in the house. He could have been convinced that this guy was Osama bin Laden hence the swift actions against Weaver. We have plenty of time now to knock holes in the judgement of his actions, and crucify him over actions that were prompted by factors we don't know of. If you weren't there, you just don't really know. We all know that the press twist and turns facts into details to improve the story's readability.

The sharpshooter was charged, and the charges were dropped. I'm sure there was a reason that they were dropped, and i'm sure that the details are sealed away just waiting for someone to access through the freedom of information act, and it's possible that it wouldn't be accessible since it's possibly an intra-agency memo detailing that somebody instructed the HRT Sharpshooter to fire.

We will never know. The whole incident was handled poorly on all levels, Weaver f'd up, gov't f'd up. Only thing we can do is examine what we know that happened, and try to learn from it.

Branden

 

[waveone]

Re: If it came down to it, would you stay and fight?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dust_Remover</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: waveone</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
THe LE agencies , and their agents on the other hand are also guilty and Did Not get what they deserved. The one clown deserved sentencing and execution , yet he scated.

Ambivelance carries a heavy toll. </div></div>

I don't think that the over exuberant sharpshooter with the FBI HRT necessarily deserves such a swift judgement as you couldn't possibly know what information he was being force fed about the man in his crosshairs. For all we know his superiors were whispering in his ears that this guy had a handful of children sex slaves in the house. He could have been convinced that this guy was Osama bin Laden hence the swift actions against Weaver. We have plenty of time now to knock holes in the judgement of his actions, and crucify him over actions that were prompted by factors we don't know of. If you weren't there, you just don't really know. We all know that the press twist and turns facts into details to improve the story's readability.

The sharpshooter was charged, and the charges were dropped. I'm sure there was a reason that they were dropped, and i'm sure that the details are sealed away just waiting for someone to access through the freedom of information act, and it's possible that it wouldn't be accessible since it's possibly an intra-agency memo detailing that somebody instructed the HRT Sharpshooter to fire.

We will never know. The whole incident was handled poorly on all levels, Weaver f'd up, gov't f'd up. Only thing we can do is examine what we know that happened, and try to learn from it.

Branden </div></div>

I'm not about to hi-jack the thread here. Yet I will say this:

Your logic is reasonable but convenient. Most definately the suspect's superiors were just as guilty. Neuremberg offers a sterling example of the consequences of "just following orders".

Nothing justifies offing a woman holding baby in her arms unless she intended to harm it.

The Press -who cares what they print? I am speaking of accounts given by current /former LE members who hold strong feelings against what transpired.

Dropped charges- convenience again plays a role here. He was .gov agent. Anyone familiar with the .gov MO know they are particularly adept at sweeping mistakes under the proverbial rug. THen throwing money at the mistakes the cannot.

 

[sharac]

Re: If it came down to it, would you stay and fight?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">People only obey the laws they believe in.

The United States Government ask me and countless others many times to take up arms to defend, an impose this nation's will an policys, on others. If they or anyone else thinks it's OK for me to bare arms for this country but not my own protection, their in for a wake up call.

I could care less about what other nations did myself that's not, American History. That 3% that stood up in 1775 is.</div></div>

Spot on!!!

While you in US won't understand it since you don't have conscript army (and most of newborns here and pretty much everywhere in "developed" world won't) we were good to serve our country and be a good boy and do your time in armed forces (and in reserve) but when you come out you need to give reasons why you want guns, you will need medical exam to be able to have guns, you need weapons knowledge exam to get guns or as is the case in some countries you CAN'T own guns...

But i think most of us are aware of hypocrisy and real reasons behind ANY type of gun control...

PS: And yes compromises/yielding and few good men that did nothing... has brought us to this "shitpile of zombies" waiting to happen.

 

[teknikallysekure]

Re: If it came down to it, would you stay and fight?

So to simplify, this thread begs the question:

Will you kill the police officers that come to your house if you don't agree with them?

This thread had potential. Now it's in the dumps.

 

[Jeepin_Lawyer]

Re: If it came down to it, would you stay and fight?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: COURAGEWOLF</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We have a drill in my house called operation swollen member. We lock all the doors and close all the windows and listen to rap music as loud as the stereo will play. We each drink 2 40oz bottles of 2/11 steel gravity reserve.

Then we turn on strobe lights and have a squirt gun fight inside of the house.

It's been a success for the last 3 years so far no injuries. Only a whole lot of pride lost. </div></div>

LMAO!!!! Wonder if this thread ever gets back on track?!?!?!

 

[waveone]

Re: If it came down to it, would you stay and fight?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: COURAGEWOLF</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So to simplify, this thread begs the question:

Will you kill the police officers that come to your house if you don't agree with them?

This thread had potential. Now it's in the dumps.

</div></div>

That is a significant amount of generalization which eschews what most folks on this thread are discussing, namely me.

For example I could re characterize/change your comment by stating

"I would kill the Nazis if they came to the door for me, my family or my guns."

or

"I would defend myself by whatever means necessary to protect my Lawful right against the criminal, traitors who came to my door in violation of the supreme law of the land."

The details of the situation make all the difference. History is full of individuals guilty of human rights violations, gross negligence and outright criminal activity , though they wore a badge.

 

[teknikallysekure]

Re: If it came down to it, would you stay and fight?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: waveone</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: COURAGEWOLF</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So to simplify, this thread begs the question:

Will you kill the police officers that come to your house if you don't agree with them?

This thread had potential. Now it's in the dumps.

</div></div>

That is a significant amount of generalization which eschews what most folks on this thread are discussing, namely me.

For example I could re characterize/change your comment by stating

"I would kill the Nazis if they came to the door for me, my family or my guns."

or

"I would defend myself by whatever means necessary to defend my Lawful right against the criminal, traitors who came to my door in violation of the supreme law of the land."

The details of the situation make all the difference. History is full of individuals guilty of human rights violations, gross negligence and outright criminal activity , though they wore a badge. </div></div>

So yes you would kill the police that come to your door.

Let's all just air it out. The cops are coming for our gun. WHAT DO?

This thread is pretty stupid for a number of reasons. Let's try to keep it relevant though. How many cops will you kill when they come for your guns?

 

[stefan73]

Re: If it came down to it, would you stay and fight?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dust_Remover</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Stefan73</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dust_Remover</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I can't honestly know what I would do, talk is talk, and until words become actions it's just talk.

I would prefer that in a situation where the man is coming to get you, you're better off taking the fight to the man than to let the man get the upper hand and bringing it to you, where you're stuck in a fixed location, surrounded, and unable to retreat, resupply, or be reinforced. The prepared will prevail. Holing up in your house isn't preparing, no exit strategy, resupply, or reinforcement contingency. The people could win against the government through attrition and guerrilla tactics much like those being used by the insurgents overseas, however that's really oversimplifying the whole theory, and really hoping that the members of our military don't have the heart to fight their own countrymen. I don't think that local LEO and Feds (non govt military) stand a chance against guerrilla tactics and medium to long range precision fire. Nor a mobile mass of armed angry individuals that significantly outnumber them.

Now, would I fight, or lay down and comply. Can't be sure, but i'm sure i'll make what I feel is the right decision right after I look in both of my daughters eyes for guidance. I will never intentionally put their lives in danger for any reason whatsoever be it morally right, wrong or otherwise, but if you put their lives in danger, god help you, 'cause i'm going to make it hurt for you.

Branden </div></div>

Oath of Office

I (insert name), having been appointed a (insert rank) in the U.S. Army under the conditions indicated in this document, do accept such appointment and do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God.

Any more questions?

</div></div>

Define the enemy? If the government is using it's military might to force a end game like facism, socialism, or (insert bad thing) despite it's citizens wishes or demands, does it's orders become unlawful orders? That is what I speak of. The oath will only be used in an attempt to force the soldiers to engage in a activity that they personally object to. Doesn't mean that because they took an oath, that they WILL abide. I took that oath as well, if I was ordered to begin an operation against my fellow citizens that i'm suppose to protect that I had a deep moral objection to, it's not going to force my hand. I would still have the ability to not follow orders regardless of the fact I took the oath. Yes, there would be consequences, but perhaps those consequences aren't as going another route. For some living in prison is better than not being able to live with yourself.

Branden

P.S. Stefan, you're post stalking me again aren't you??? lol. </div></div>

As described in the oath the enemies could be both foreign and domestic. Violation of the constitution by an actor, state would designate them as an enemy. In the oath we swear protection of the Constitution and nothing else. Now under law of land warfare following orders does not preclude you from criminal prosecution for criminal acts.

Soldiers join for the most part to do good things. Not to be the oppressor of their people and/or to be tyrants.
Soldiers would <span style="text-decoration: underline"><span style="font-weight: bold">not</span></span> fight their own people! Hell, we have guys who have a hard enough time killing the enemy!

Just my .02

 

[waveone]

Re: If it came down to it, would you stay and fight?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: COURAGEWOLF</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: waveone</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: COURAGEWOLF</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So to simplify, this thread begs the question:

Will you kill the police officers that come to your house if you don't agree with them?

This thread had potential. Now it's in the dumps.

</div></div>

That is a significant amount of generalization which eschews what most folks on this thread are discussing, namely me.

For example I could re characterize/change your comment by stating

"I would kill the Nazis if they came to the door for me, my family or my guns."

or

"I would defend myself by whatever means necessary to defend my Lawful right against the criminal, traitors who came to my door in violation of the supreme law of the land."

The details of the situation make all the difference. History is full of individuals guilty of human rights violations, gross negligence and outright criminal activity , though they wore a badge. </div></div>

So yes you would kill the police that come to your door.

Let's all just air it out. The cops are coming for our gun. WHAT DO?

This thread is pretty stupid for a number of reasons. Let's try to keep it relevant though. How many cops will you kill when they come for your guns? </div></div>

Now it has gone into the dumps ,congratulations.

I'll answer your questions with pertinent questions.

Are they coming for my guns?

If "they" were ordered to do so, would the majority of "they" comply and do so?

Does that make the non compliant "officers" criminals?

Finally, if the law is broken by an "LEO" and a non LAW Enforcement individual resisted it, would "he/they" be a criminal?

EDIT: Answer- Yes they are criminal b/c they broke the real Law and violate their oath of office.

No one here is encouraging the use of force against any LEO of any sort at any time from what I can surmise. What they might be thinking I will not guess. However at this point thinking is not a crime.

 

[teknikallysekure]

Re: If it came down to it, would you stay and fight?

In that case, for the sake of their welfare let us all hope that the police never have to face you in a deadly struggle.

 

[stefan73]

Re: If it came down to it, would you stay and fight?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: COURAGEWOLF</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: waveone</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: COURAGEWOLF</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So to simplify, this thread begs the question:

Will you kill the police officers that come to your house if you don't agree with them?

This thread had potential. Now it's in the dumps.

</div></div>

That is a significant amount of generalization which eschews what most folks on this thread are discussing, namely me.

For example I could re characterize/change your comment by stating

"I would kill the Nazis if they came to the door for me, my family or my guns."

or

"I would defend myself by whatever means necessary to defend my Lawful right against the criminal, traitors who came to my door in violation of the supreme law of the land."

The details of the situation make all the difference. History is full of individuals guilty of human rights violations, gross negligence and outright criminal activity , though they wore a badge. </div></div>

So yes you would kill the police that come to your door.

Let's all just air it out. The cops are coming for our gun. WHAT DO?

This thread is pretty stupid for a number of reasons. Let's try to keep it relevant though. How many cops will you kill when they come for your guns? </div></div>
What and who would it benefit?
You would be labeled <span style="text-decoration: underline"><span style="font-weight: bold">"just another whacko!"</span></span> further fueling the fire.

Its easy to be the tough guy on the internet! Its a different thing when your family is on the line!!
What sacrifice are you willing to make and what impacts does it have?
A couple of fatherless children? How does that help the cause besides develop resentment? Long term strategy would be to father those children through out their life and teach them about the freedoms that were lost/taken away! Youth has always been on the forfront of democratic, political change.
Your minute of sacrifice would mean absolutly nothing in the scale of things honestly, you might make a 2 minute section of the news and will quickly be forgotten in 2 days as a result of the apathetic population who only cares about their next handout!

Just my .02

 

[patsim]

Re: If it came down to it, would you stay and fight?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: COURAGEWOLF</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: waveone</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: COURAGEWOLF</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So to simplify, this thread begs the question:

Will you kill the police officers that come to your house if you don't agree with them?

This thread had potential. Now it's in the dumps.

</div></div>

That is a significant amount of generalization which eschews what most folks on this thread are discussing, namely me.

For example I could re characterize/change your comment by stating

"I would kill the Nazis if they came to the door for me, my family or my guns."

or

"I would defend myself by whatever means necessary to defend my Lawful right against the criminal, traitors who came to my door in violation of the supreme law of the land."

The details of the situation make all the difference. History is full of individuals guilty of human rights violations, gross negligence and outright criminal activity , though they wore a badge. </div></div>

So yes you would kill the police that come to your door.

Let's all just air it out. The cops are coming for our gun. WHAT DO?

This thread is pretty stupid for a number of reasons. Let's try to keep it relevant though. How many cops will you kill when they come for your guns? </div></div>

The "badge" with which you seem to be consumed loses its right when it represents a usurpation of those authorities which have been granted its wearer by those whom it would seek to subjugate.

 

[Graham]

Re: If it came down to it, would you stay and fight?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: waveone</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...would the majority of "they" comply and do so? Does that make the non compliant "officers" criminals?...EDIT: Answer- Yes they are criminal b/c they broke the real Law and violate their oath of office.</div></div>Nope. It would just make them unemployed.

Let me go way, way out on a limb in front of this crowd to say: I am a citizen of a vibrant democracy and probably the freest nation on earth. If a law was passed that said I had to surrender my guns, and 'they' came to my door to get my guns, I would give them my guns. If the law was unconstitutional and I was able to file a lawsuit I would file a suit for damages and to try to get my guns back.

I suppose the above doesn't make me sound 'cool' on this Thread, but last time I checked if talking tough made people tough, then more people would be tough.

 

[patsim]

Re: If it came down to it, would you stay and fight?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Stefan73</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dust_Remover</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Stefan73</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dust_Remover</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I can't honestly know what I would do, talk is talk, and until words become actions it's just talk.

I would prefer that in a situation where the man is coming to get you, you're better off taking the fight to the man than to let the man get the upper hand and bringing it to you, where you're stuck in a fixed location, surrounded, and unable to retreat, resupply, or be reinforced. The prepared will prevail. Holing up in your house isn't preparing, no exit strategy, resupply, or reinforcement contingency. The people could win against the government through attrition and guerrilla tactics much like those being used by the insurgents overseas, however that's really oversimplifying the whole theory, and really hoping that the members of our military don't have the heart to fight their own countrymen. I don't think that local LEO and Feds (non govt military) stand a chance against guerrilla tactics and medium to long range precision fire. Nor a mobile mass of armed angry individuals that significantly outnumber them.

Now, would I fight, or lay down and comply. Can't be sure, but i'm sure i'll make what I feel is the right decision right after I look in both of my daughters eyes for guidance. I will never intentionally put their lives in danger for any reason whatsoever be it morally right, wrong or otherwise, but if you put their lives in danger, god help you, 'cause i'm going to make it hurt for you.

Branden </div></div>

Oath of Office

I (insert name), having been appointed a (insert rank) in the U.S. Army under the conditions indicated in this document, do accept such appointment and do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God.

Any more questions?

</div></div>

Define the enemy? If the government is using it's military might to force a end game like facism, socialism, or (insert bad thing) despite it's citizens wishes or demands, does it's orders become unlawful orders? That is what I speak of. The oath will only be used in an attempt to force the soldiers to engage in a activity that they personally object to. Doesn't mean that because they took an oath, that they WILL abide. I took that oath as well, if I was ordered to begin an operation against my fellow citizens that i'm suppose to protect that I had a deep moral objection to, it's not going to force my hand. I would still have the ability to not follow orders regardless of the fact I took the oath. Yes, there would be consequences, but perhaps those consequences aren't as going another route. For some living in prison is better than not being able to live with yourself.

Branden

P.S. Stefan, you're post stalking me again aren't you??? lol. </div></div>

As described in the oath the enemies could be both foreign and domestic. Violation of the constitution by an actor, state would designate them as an enemy. In the oath we swear protection of the Constitution and nothing else. Now under law of land warfare following orders does not preclude you from criminal prosecution for criminal acts.

Soldiers join for the most part to do good things. Not to be the oppressor of their people and/or to be tyrants.
Soldiers would <span style="text-decoration: underline"><span style="font-weight: bold">not</span></span> fight their own people! Hell, we have guys who have a hard enough time killing the enemy!

Just my .02

</div></div>

Reference the earlier post that detailed the numerous incidents of mass-murder perpetrated during the 20th Century and reconcile that against your suggestion that "our soldiers" wouldn't do that. I'm not being a wise ass, but I've often wondered who would be the enforcement arm of "the man". No one likes to think that their own countrymen would or could do that, but there's 50 million in the last century who probably thought the same thing.

 

[waveone]

Re: If it came down to it, would you stay and fight?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: COURAGEWOLF</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In that case, for the sake of their welfare let us all hope that the police never have to face you in a deadly struggle. </div></div>

Courage, I'm going to assume you directed your presumptuos sarcasm to me, so I will answer you directly.

We were speaking hypothetically, and no one is looking for excuses or even justification to engage in conflict of any sort.

There is no simple answer to this situation unless of course you are simple. Seems you are filling the bill nicely

What you are now doing is goading me and putting words in my mouth cyber-wise.

Last I checked Arfcom is full of punks who do that. So I'm sure another one would be welcome.

Have fun.

 

[patsim]

Re: If it came down to it, would you stay and fight?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: waveone</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...would the majority of "they" comply and do so? Does that make the non compliant "officers" criminals?...EDIT: Answer- Yes they are criminal b/c they broke the real Law and violate their oath of office.</div></div>Nope. It would just make them unemployed.

Let me go way, way out on a limb in front of this crowd to say: I am a citizen of a vibrant democracy and probably the freest nation on earth. If a law was passed that said I had to surrender my guns, and 'they' came to my door to get my guns, I would give them my guns. If the law was unconstitutional and I was able to file a lawsuit I would file a suit for damages and to try to get my guns back.

I suppose the above doesn't make me sound 'cool' on this Thread, but last time I checked if talking tough made people tough, then more people would be tough. </div></div>

Where, pray tell, would you draw the line, sir?

 

[Gasitman]

Re: If it came down to it, would you stay and fight?

As some stated at first, this was a dumb question, but it sure has sparked a nice debate. The few that have to misconstrue the original question, are probably the ones that would lie down.

 

[Graham]

Re: If it came down to it, would you stay and fight?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: patsim</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Where, pray tell, would you draw the line, sir?</div></div>I am low enough on the food chain that I don't often get to make line-drawing decisions of any real significance. But lines get drawn on our behalf every day. There are the more common and universal ones, like never to seriously hurt one's family or children, but I have drawn enough lines to know that there's no real answer to a question like the one you pose because those whom have done it, even on a small scale, know that they are never quite sure ahead of time where the line is. I do know, however, that responding with deadly force to try to keep an inanimate object makes absolutely no sense to me.

 

[larbhills]

Re: If it came down to it, would you stay and fight?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: patsim</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Where, pray tell, would you draw the line, sir?</div></div>I am low enough on the food chain that I don't often get to make line-drawing decisions of any real significance. But lines get drawn on our behalf every day. There are the more common and universal ones, like never to seriously hurt one's family or children, but I have drawn enough lines to know that there's no real answer to a question like the one you pose because those whom have done it, even on a small scale, know that they are never quite sure ahead of time where the line is. I do know, however, that responding with deadly force to try to keep an inanimate object makes absolutely no sense to me. </div></div>

Some people are talking about inanimate objects here. Some people are talking about God-given rights being usurped. The difference in perspective might be where the line is drawn.

 

[waveone]

Re: If it came down to it, would you stay and fight?

THis is my final answer then I 'm done here because clearly simple minded and conditioned individuals such as Courage Wolf cannot handle the hypotheticals and varied perspectives which could charge complex issues such as this.

Gasitman- you should give it a rest dude. No one wants to be in that situation and most would lie down. Personally speaking I shudder at the very idea of it for obvious reasons.

Graham- IF those individuals violated a Law as simple as 2A what makes you think the Rule of LAw would be in effect or effective enough to allow you to engage in such recovery?

Ultimately what you have inferred is that 2A is window dressing and the abridging laws are in effect. Therefore it is according to whim as to what will be upheld or enforced so long as the person enforcing it/them is employed by the State and wears a badge. Therefore the order du jour is supreme and violation of indivudal rights carries no consequence except to those not in uniform and in violation.

You further infer that a "civilian" is obligated to comply regardless of the lawfullness of the action. Which reduces that individual or set of individuals as subjects, not free sovereigns as the Constitution outlines.

out

 

[teknikallysekure]

Re: If it came down to it, would you stay and fight?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: waveone</div><div class="ubbcode-body">THis is my final answer then I 'm done here because clearly simple minded and conditioned individuals such as Courage Wolf cannot handle the hypotheticals and varied perspectives which could charge complex issues such as this. </div></div>

You're such a badass. I hope someone like you will be there to protect me when the bad men come for us all.

If you can't recognize this thread as the raging circle jerk it really is you're taking things a little to seriously. You should start an internet militia.

This thread comes and goes about once a month or two, and it always ends the same. Bunch of people talking about what they'll do when the time comes.

Hopefully no extenuating circumstances screw up your current fantasy. Might as well combine this thread with the "anyone preparing for a disaster such as 2012 thread".

It's the same thing. A bunch of talk about "what if".

 

[waveone]

Re: If it came down to it, would you stay and fight?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: COURAGEWOLF</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: waveone</div><div class="ubbcode-body">THis is my final answer then I 'm done here because clearly simple minded and conditioned individuals such as Courage Wolf cannot handle the hypotheticals and varied perspectives which could charge complex issues such as this. </div></div>

You're such a badass. I hope someone like you will be there to protect me when the bad men come for us all.

If you can't recognize this thread as the raging circle jerk it really is you're taking things a little to seriously. You should start an internet militia.

This thread comes and goes about once a month or two, and it always ends the same. Bunch of people talking about what they'll do when the time comes.

Hopefully no extenuating circumstances screw up your current fantasy. Might as well combine this thread with the "anyone preparing for a disaster such as 2012 thread".

It's the same thing. A bunch of talk about "what if". </div></div>

THis response is strictly for you dude. How you can surmise that I think I am a .."badass" or inferred such a notion simply from addressing your hypothetical and purposely provocative garbage is something no rational person could do.

On the other hand based on this one thread, it is clear that in any situation someone would have to pity your pathetic ass.

THat assumption is easily justified b/c I noticed that you and I have esentially the same tenure on this site. THe one notable difference is you have amassed @ 4.5 times the post count. That in conjunction with the garbage you deliberately stirred on this thread indicates one thing:

You courage Wolf are more adept at running your mouth than getting out and doing.....

Get help

 

[teknikallysekure]

Re: If it came down to it, would you stay and fight?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: waveone</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: COURAGEWOLF</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: waveone</div><div class="ubbcode-body">THis is my final answer then I 'm done here because clearly simple minded and conditioned individuals such as Courage Wolf cannot handle the hypotheticals and varied perspectives which could charge complex issues such as this. </div></div>

You're such a badass. I hope someone like you will be there to protect me when the bad men come for us all.

If you can't recognize this thread as the raging circle jerk it really is you're taking things a little to seriously. You should start an internet militia.

This thread comes and goes about once a month or two, and it always ends the same. Bunch of people talking about what they'll do when the time comes.

Hopefully no extenuating circumstances screw up your current fantasy. Might as well combine this thread with the "anyone preparing for a disaster such as 2012 thread".

It's the same thing. A bunch of talk about "what if". </div></div>

THis response is strictly for you dude. How you can surmise that I think I am a .."badass" or inferred such a notion simply from addressing your hypothetical and purposely provocative garbage is something no rational perosn could do.

On the other hand based on this one thread, it is clear that in any situation someone would have to pity your pathetic ass.

THat assumption is easily justified b/c I noticed that you and I have esentially the same tenure on this site. THe one notable difference is you have amassed @ 4.5 times the post count. That in conjunction with the garbage you deliberately stirred on this thread indicates one thing:

You courage Wolf are more adept at running your mouth than getting out and doing.....

Get help </div></div>

We're talking about police raiding our homes for firearms, and standing up against them using deadly force.

If you think you're standing up against an entry team you're either a badass, or you simply intend to die in defiance.

Simple enough concept. I stirred the shit on this thread, because the entire premise is retarded.

Saying whether or not you will do something of particular relevance in some future hypothetical situation is utter fantasy and mental masturbation. I find it amusing when people talk about all the awesome things they will do when they are pressed.

It's hard to take these things seriously for a guy like me. I know I'll deal with whatever happens to me when it happens. I'm not gonna get my jollies imagining "what if". You keep at it though it suits you well.

 

[waveone]

Re: If it came down to it, would you stay and fight?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: COURAGEWOLF</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: waveone</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: COURAGEWOLF</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: waveone</div><div class="ubbcode-body">THis is my final answer then I 'm done here because clearly simple minded and conditioned individuals such as Courage Wolf cannot handle the hypotheticals and varied perspectives which could charge complex issues such as this. </div></div>

You're such a badass. I hope someone like you will be there to protect me when the bad men come for us all.

If you can't recognize this thread as the raging circle jerk it really is you're taking things a little to seriously. You should start an internet militia.

This thread comes and goes about once a month or two, and it always ends the same. Bunch of people talking about what they'll do when the time comes.

Hopefully no extenuating circumstances screw up your current fantasy. Might as well combine this thread with the "anyone preparing for a disaster such as 2012 thread".

It's the same thing. A bunch of talk about "what if". </div></div>

THis response is strictly for you dude. How you can surmise that I think I am a .."badass" or inferred such a notion simply from addressing your hypothetical and purposely provocative garbage is something no rational perosn could do.

On the other hand based on this one thread, it is clear that in any situation someone would have to pity your pathetic ass.

THat assumption is easily justified b/c I noticed that you and I have esentially the same tenure on this site. THe one notable difference is you have amassed @ 4.5 times the post count. That in conjunction with the garbage you deliberately stirred on this thread indicates one thing:

You courage Wolf are more adept at running your mouth than getting out and doing.....

Get help </div></div>

We're talking about police raiding our homes for firearms, and standing up against them using deadly force.

If you think you're standing up against an entry team you're either a badass, or you simply intend to die in defiance.

Simple enough concept. I stirred the shit on this thread, because the entire premise is retarded.

Saying whether or not you will do something of particular relevance in some future hypothetical situation is utter fantasy and mental masturbation. I find it amusing when people talk about all the awesome things they will do when they are pressed.

It's hard to take these things seriously for a guy like me. I know I'll deal with whatever happens to me when it happens. I'm not gonna get my jollies imagining "what if". You keep at it though it suits you well.

</div></div>

If you believe what you just stated it appears you live in mental masturbation....whatever that is. Not to mention being a complete moron

You deliberately "stirred the shit" to illicit a specific response. When you got what you percieved was it you then further dumbed down the content in your own unique style.

In fact, you precipitated the hypothteticals b/c speaking of the rule of law and how it applies to such situations was too sedate for you. So one could only determine that you were not only "masturbating " yourself but all the posters on this thread. Somewhat of a cyber reprobate if you will.Disgusting but there you have it.

It is painfully obvious that you took this thread seriously b/c of the number of your posts and clear offense you have taken on what you are now casting as a trivial matter.

Um you apparently do get your jollies playing what if b/c you initiated the greater amount of just that. Or you are some angry prick who needs to validate himself w/o recourse on the internet. Probably both



Besides being a walking contradiction, and a moron, you're a mess.


If your employer retains a psychiatrist? Get help, you need it.