cival war, marshall law?

G

glockguy45

New member
Just curious on what everybody's take on this would be. I fear soon (5-10 years) that one of these if not both will take place unless some dramatic measure's are taken. I see more and more gun rights being taking away. What will happen when the total ban of all guns takes place. Here in Maryland, the commies want to ban the sell of all dumb guns and impose the smart gun by 2001. (I think that is the date/year) What will Americans do, play by THEIR rules, Become criminals, or revolt. Now dont get me wrong I havent given up the fight, But not enough people are fighting. But if another bleeding heart liberal gets into office it could get scary. I can see the gov't sending in troops to get rid of gun owners to. Maybe I am a little off my rocker, but I just want to see what others felt about the subject.

------------------
Rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
 
Well Glock, I guess I will become an outlaw,I
will not surrender anything in my collection to no one. I believe that when the time comes we will all do what we have to .
I may take a bashing on this but so far I do what I have to,to abide by current law,I submit to filling out the 4473 form and instant check and also renew my carry permit when it needs it. But when it goes to far we all will know when and what will happen.
I personally don't think the loser politicos will push it that far.
My thoughts,for what its worth :)


Happy Shooting :)

------------------
Help Stamp Out Gun Ignorance.
 
What troops they gonna send? Just about every grunt I know, and most of the officer corps would refuse that as an illegal order. Maybe the BATF nerds would try something, but imagine the ATF vs the USMC. That's right, ain't gonna happen. Couple more decades when the military is completely gelded than maybe, but not yet. Semper Fi...Ken
 
I've said this B4, and once again I'll utter the words.

It won't be US troops to enforce these illegal laws. It will be UN types from elsewhere who will open fire upon the resistance.
Proof you say. OK.
Where are most of our active military right now, overseas right. Risking their lives for the UN, not for their nation.
And where are most of the active NG at right now? Overseas, in place by the UN.

So, if they're over there, and the call to police the American public comes, who then will do this? You, by admission know many(most) who advocate that they'll NOT enforce unjust laws against us. That leaves but one answer left, doesn't it?

Besides, do you think for a second any UN troops that come over here as actives, would hesitate to open fire? It might have something to do with their being told about the millions of firearms we Americans have. And our deep distrust of anyone telling us what to think, or do.
It makes sense doesn't it? If you were sent somewhere like Vietnam(America), wouod you hesitate to fire upon the enemy of your purpose? I'm assuming that you also want to return home, wherever that may be. That would mean to protect yourself at any cost, right? The rest should make sense then.

So, who then will be called to enforce these
unjust laws. How abouy UN troops from say, Iran, or Iraq, or Vietnam. Do you think they'd have any reason to treat Americans in general with extreme prejudice? Not that they'd have any reason to be resentful of you or I, huh?

Best Regards,
Don


------------------
The most foolish mistake we could make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms; history shows that all conquerers who have allowed their subjected people to carry arms have prepared their own fall.
Adolf Hitler
 
Just off-paw, if UN Peacekeepers can't carry loaded weapons in: Rwanda/Somalia/Bosnia/Beirut/Northern Ireland/East Timor/etc., ad nauseum, why do we think the ground rules will change for Peacekeeping Operations in the United States?

Now, I have a little experience in these affairs, and the thought of facing UNARMED Pakistani/Malaysian/Saudi/Lesser Graustarkian troops, who-- don't speak each others language/do hate each others religions/don't have the brains to get out of military service/are dirt poor to begin with/think 'discipline' is a word between 'dildo' and 'dissonance'-- doesn't exactly fill me with dread.

But that's just me.

LawDog

[This message has been edited by LawDog (edited February 22, 2000).]
 
"What troops they gonna send? Just about every grunt I know, and most of the officer corps would refuse that as an illegal order."

Don't expect serving troops or LEOs to respect your constitutional rights. The vast majority will gladly violate them to keep a paycheck rolling in. LEOs do this daily via enforcement of unlicenced carry laws, drug laws,etc.

When our masters order confiscation of weapons there will be plenty of JBTs willing and able to step up to the plate :(
 
I also don't believe the statists will have much trouble finding willing bodies to confiscate firearms...at first.

We must keep in mind that these actions will first be diffused through the controlled media. They won't be going after apple pie eating, flag waving, mom and pop patriots who believe in the Constitution, they'll be going after anti-government terrorists, kooks, religious zealots, and those who encourage and support school shootings. It will of course be "for the children." Most law enforcement and military may even feel patriotic, doing their duty to protect the country. And the vast majority of people in this country, after brain washed some more, will support their efforts. Many of them will willfully inform on their neighbors. We're already seeing that in Connecticut.

Sure, there would be many good and decent law enforcement officers who will see through the nonsense and refuse--like those who post here--but they'll be dealt with as well. There's no shortage of thugs in this country to take their place. Most of the others would quickly fall in line, probably out of fear. Cops are regualr people just like anyone else; and most, like most people in this country, are sheeple who will do just as they're told.

Now if there was a great deal of resistance from gun owners and many fatalities among those confiscating, there might be a revolt among their ranks. If you do the numbers, even if every tenth raid results in a fatility, there may not be much incentive to continue.
 
I guess it just depends on how stupid the arm chair liberal politicians can get. Do the math. At what point during any attempt at disarmament in the US does the first citizen shoot a LEO of any persuasion. There are a lot of people who own guns in this country. At that point, or shortly thereafter you choose sides. Thats how a civil war starts. But I think that gun control is a side show with most politicians. Their main concern is to pick your pockets clean without rocking the boat too much.

------------------
In the shadow of Bunker Hill from the People's Republic of Massachusetts
 
I think most of you are half right. Here's where you're wrong:
Who will be taking the guns? It'll be the good ole, flag wavin' U.S. Army. Do you doubt me? Then you haven't observed the present enough to see the future. When it happens, the Army will be staffed by fine products of our public school. The (presently) five year olds growing up on Rosie O'donnel, and Ted Koppel will be the ones taking the guns. Will they even know what the constitution is? I doubt it as 90% of our soldiers now don't know nor have they ever even read the constitution. I once offered any man in my squad ten bucks to recite just one (1) amendment in the bill of rights closely to the original wording. I offered a 3 day pass of my choice of days to anybody who could loosely tell me 5 out of the ten. Guess how many got a day off, or my ten dollar bill? You probably guessed it, but for the more dense crowd in denial, There was not one troop out of 12 who could pass my informal test. NOT ONE. Are you really that deluded that you think things are getting better in our public schools? Law Schools are now graduating lawyers who are virtual constitutional idiots. Do you expect our military composed of mostly Government school Gradiates (spelling doesn't matter anyway nowdays), to have ever read the enlightened view of our founders? What about the officer corps? Surely they'll resign their commissions right? Right. Like they did in droves over unconstitutional actions such as: The Korean War, Viet-Nam, Grenada, Panama, The Gulf War, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, and all the others. Yep, the military had a mass exudus of officers who cared about the constitution didn't they? I'm ex-Army, and I'll tell you that the only service that *Might* balk at this would be the Marine Corps. They have the highest calibre of troops, and the finest staff of Officers. They actually have had senior officers who have resigned their commissions, and they have gone through commandants galore. They stand up to the politicians and pay a dear price. I wished I had joined the Marines instead. All you jar-heads out there have somthing to be proud of. You may not be the brightest candle in the store, but you damn sure have pride, and patriotism which is sorely lacking in the rest of the services by comparison.
 
Just FYI, fellows, the word meaning "warlike or related to military affairs" is spelled "martial", as in martial law, martial arts, and courts martial. "Marshal" is a noun which refers to a civil or military officer, such as a deputy marshal or a field marshal.

We all make spelling mistakes but we need to be doubly careful in political discussions to avoid reinforcing the "dumb redneck gun owner" stereotype.
 
Erik, I understand your continued concern about how we appear to the bigots, but the fact is, IT DOESN'T MATTER.

Don't believe me? Look at how they treat John Lott. He's probably the single most intelligent, well-spoken pro-gun person alive, and they dismiss him as an illiterate redneck.

Frankly, I don't give two shiites how the antis perceive us. If they want to see a bunch of beer-swilling wife beaters (thanks, Mario), they will. Continuing to chide us for discussions like this accomplishes nothing.

------------------
"If your determination is fixed, I do not counsel you to despair. Few things are impossible to diligence and skill. Great works are performed not by strength, but perseverance."
-- Samuel Johnson
 
Since Matt started on the spelling thing, I'll pile on.

It's civil war, albeit a most uncivil situation.

;)


------------------
veritas vos liberabit
 
One of the first laws of economics is "Demand creates supply". There is currently some smuggling of guns into this country to meet the demand of criminals. When new gun sales are banned, then there will be massive amounts of guns smuggled in to supply those who want a gun no matter what the law says.
Just like when the Volstead Act was passed, entrepreneurs appeared to supply a nation with the booze that the elites said we couldn't have (because they knew what was best for us).
I suggest that members of this board go to the library and check out a book or two on the prohibation era to see what the future may look like for gun owners.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top