Where’s Your Line?

[WhiteFeather]

Interesting points on how far people are willing to let thing go before they say enough. The only common thread I have found in people over the years is when they do a UK style out right confiscation ban, turn all firearm in or your a criminal, its the line that most people say they won't let them cross. Yet look what happen in major anti-gun cities over the years to people firearm rights or in the after math of Katrina, how many fought back and how many were disarmed for public safety.

Note the points on giving ground and comprise your rights away, that is how PA has gotten so many anti-gun laws enacted to date, death by hundreds of little slices with all the so called common sense and reasonable infringements out of fear, crime or worse yet lack of any real opposition from pro-gun groups, or any direct involvement by gun owners to personally stop them.

IF people won't get involved politically to stop them from taking your rights with just a stoke of the pen. I often wonder how many people would then be really willing to stand up to stop them with the force of arms, risking life and limb, when they could win right now without anyone blood being shed.

I guess that means that would have to do something politically then to protect their rights.

The estimate is that ONLY 29% of gun owners in PA voted on Nov 4, so why shouldn't more firearm laws be enacted?


http://www.ohioccw.org/content/view/4107/53/

Where’s Your Line?

Written by Jeff Knox
Thursday, 06 November 2008

The Knox Report
From the Firearms Coalition


(November 4, 2008) Last week in this space I painted with a broad brush and general terms on the topic of armed revolt. The trouble with speaking in broad, general terms is that the author’s general intent and the reader’s general perception can turn out to be pretty far apart – generally speaking. That causes unnecessary conflict and is just sloppy writing. I’ll try to do better. In this installment I’d like to try to clear up a few things and hopefully get you thinking about what matters to you.

First, about last week’s column: In no way did I intend to suggest that anyone who quotes Jefferson or wears a “MOLON LAVE” T-shirt is just guff and bluster. I quote Jefferson and wear a “MOLON LAVE” T-shirt and I’m absolutely serious about them. I know I’m not alone in that. I think that sending that message loud and clear to the powers that be is very important and useful.

My suggestion that 99.995% of the time the slogan will be removed before it is lived up to was intended as hyperbole, but when you consider the thousands of people whose gun rights are temporarily or permanently revoked each week by traffic cops, divorce courts, and criminal indictments, that figure might not really be that far off.

Finally, the three key points I was trying to make were:

1. The time for violent revolution is when all other avenues and options have been exhausted. We are not there yet.

2. With a small portion of the coordination and commitment (not to mention pain and heartbreak) that would be necessary to win a violent revolution, a political revolution could be waged and won.

3. Any act of violence against the government or politicians in the current environment will do nothing but hamper efforts to regain and restore the Second Amendment and the Constitution.

Writing about the subject of armed rebellion, and when and whether people would or would not participate, is complicated because different people draw their lines in different places. It is easy to say, “I will never give up my guns,” but what does that really mean? Does it mean refusing to temporarily surrender a sidearm to a paranoid cop writing you a speeding ticket? Does it mean disobeying a court order stemming from a domestic restraining order (a routine move among some divorce lawyers)? Does it mean disobeying a law requiring registration of “assault weapons?” One man’s inconvenience is another man’s last straw.

The question then is, “Where do you draw the line?” “When do you fight?” Most of the people I have spoken with about this have an image in their head of government teams with 4473’s and NICS reports going house to house searching for and confiscating all weapons they find. The scenario usually includes one or more Waco-style stand-offs leading to masses of gunowners rallying in defense of their fellows.

The problem with such scenarios is that the gun banners in Washington know how that story plays out too. While some are arrogant and stupid enough to push forward with a confrontation, cooler and smarter heads generally prevail. Incrementalism isn’t just about only getting what they can when they can, it’s part of the slow boil strategy to keep the frogs from jumping out of the pot.

Playing into the hands of those who gradually turn the heat up are those who would make deals to accept legislation that is “less bad” rather than standing firm for “all or nothing.” Anytime someone speaking for the Gun Lobby signs off on a bad bill to avoid a worse bill, they are signing away the right to reasonably resist the resulting law. By conceding the principle, they also make the next turn of the ratchet that much harder to fight.

At some point in the incremental erosion of your rights each of us will have to make a choice regarding what we will and will not tolerate. The good thing – perhaps the only good thing – about incrementalism is that your first choice probably won’t have to be one of life or death. It might be to refuse to register a firearm you already own.

The bad thing about incrementalism is that where a major step like confiscation would clearly cross the line for a lot of people and precipitate a broad response, some would see a little step as no big deal. It is difficult to rally opposition to “minor” changes. The key is to draw specific, realistic lines in advance. Consider the various gun control schemes that are likely to be put forward starting with those that would have the least impact on the fewest people and work your way up from there. For each scenario, decide what you think the public reaction will be and what your reaction will be, then move on to the next. It’s an exercise in core values and taking care of this soul searching before you are placed under the stress of the moment will make it easier to make the right decision at the right time.

What are your core values? Where do you draw your lines?

WE are going back to Harrisburg in the spring 2009 for another legislative lobbying interactive event, so hopefully WE never have to get that crossing the line point were you have only limited choice of fight or surrender. Please consider joining with with US so we don't let it ever get to that line, that no one should be allowed to cross.

Second Amendment Second to None Rally in Harrisburg PA - 2008
http://forum.pafoa.org/political-138...arrisburg.html

[Eugene V. Debs]

I think the most effective response to gun confiscations would be civil disobedience. Shooting back would only result in a speedy death and would be spun by the media and government to justify the confiscations from these "obviously violent" gun owners. No revolution would happen because gun owners decided to shoot back. The only way it would happen is if the confiscations were in response to a general state of rebellion in the first place. But if there was no rebellion afoot and the government believed it had the political capital to expend on gun confiscations, you can bet the majority of the population would go along with it.

I think the better way of going about it would be collective and non-violent. That is, if such a day should ever come, gun owners in a given area get together and openly carry in defiance of the government but with no ammo (and let it be known there's no ammo). When the government demands people hand over the guns they simply say no and keep them on their hips or over their shoulders with their arms crossed, and be prepared to get hit over the head or tasered or gassed then thrown into a prisoner transport and sent away to jail, in full view of their neighbors and the media. That's more likely to spark the outrage of the people then shooting at police or soldiers (which might spark outrage of a negative kind to our cause). I should note at this point that I am speaking purely in theoretical terms and am not encouraging anyone to engage in any illegal act whatsoever, even non-violent disobedience.

The fact is that violent revolution against a domestic power is difficult and rare. It only happened once in this country and that was largely directed against a foreign power, unless you count the Civil War as a revolution (which I might). People thought it might happen in the 1930s and the 1960s and it didn't. If the Great Depression or social upheaval on the scale of the Civil Rights movement didn't lead to revolution in this country then you can bet the government confiscating people's guns just because it can won't spark it.

An armed revolt is a romantic idea but nearly certain to fail in all but the deepest and most severe of economic, military and social crises. That's why I don't own my guns for the purposes of rebellion, even though I think that is what the 2nd Amendment is all about-- I own them for fun and because it's my right to do so. If we want to keep those rights we need to set about building a non-partisan movement to get the public to recognize and defend those rights long before we're at the point that the government starts confiscating them, because when the government feels comfortable enough to start doing that I doubt even civil disobedience will be able to stop it.

[Shawn.L]

WE are going back to Harrisburg in the spring 2009 for another legislative lobbying interactive event, so hopefully WE never have to get that crossing the line point were you have only limited choice of fight or surrender. Please consider joining with with US so we don't let it ever get to that line, that no one should be allowed to cross.

Second Amendment Second to None Rally in Harrisburg PA - 2008
http://forum.pafoa.org/political-138...arrisburg.html

see you there.

I spoke with Kim during election time about trying to help with the planning for next years.

We need to get a solid date and enough info for people to plan on coming, and clubs to get the word out and orginized as far in advance as possible.

[tes151]

I know that an armed conflict with the government is not the best idea. I tend to think that I would just ignore any anti-gun laws and just keep a low profile. Thats right, having guns the government knows nothing about is the way to go in this situation. JMHO................

[mark775]

These people don't care about the Constitution or anybody's rights but their own. They are all about feminism until the vice-presidential candidate is a conservative woman - then she is "the most vile thing to have ever crawled from under a rock." They are staunch advocates of the right to free speech - until someone disagrees with "The Golden Child" then that person is banned and berated. They are all over gun ownership rights - even Joe "Avid Sportsman" Biden believes we should have the type of guns that he has, but no other. They are so "fare" it makes you want to vomit but by fare they mean unconstitutionally pull everyone down to the lowest common denominator - not a fare chance to succeed (If we succeed, we are not inclined to be government subjects). The ONLY thing that can maintain our right to keep and bear arms is a two year filibuster and for them to be afraid that we are whacko and ready to go to war with them. You cannot reason with the leftists. They have to be afraid of us. Buy more guns and talk crazy, I say!

[The_War_Wagon]

We crossed the line in 1994. And 1986. And 1968. And 1934. And 1913. And 1865. Only a matter of time, before we realize we crossed it. THAT, will be a painful, but necessary day.

Bob

[pacodelahoya]

The fact is that violent revolution against a domestic power is difficult and rare. It only happened once in this country and that was largely directed against a foreign power, unless you count the Civil War as a revolution (which I might). People thought it might happen in the 1930s and the 1960s and it didn't. If the Great Depression or social upheaval on the scale of the Civil Rights movement didn't lead to revolution in this country then you can bet the government confiscating people's guns just because it can won't spark it.

Poor old Colonel Jeff Cooper is rolling in his grave.

It is interesting to hear certain kinds of people insist that the citizen cannot fight the government. This would have been news to the men of Lexington and Concord, as well as the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan. The citizen most certainly can fight the government, and usually wins when he tries. Organized national armies are useful primarily for fighting against other organized national armies. When they try to fight against the people, they find themselves at a very serious disadvantage. If you will just look around at the state of the world today, you will see that the guerillero has the upper hand. Irregulars usually defeat regulars, providing they have the will. Such fighting is horrible to contemplate, but will continue to dominate brute strength.”