Subscription Status

Supporting Member : No
Pro Supp. Member : No

Join & Become a Member
Supporting Memberships

Our Local Sponsors


Forum Links

CTGUNTALK.COM Forum Links
  1. CT AWB / LCM FAQ
  2. CT Shooting Range Info
  3. CT Gun Shops


Like & Follow us on :


Author Topic: Think They’ll Never Come For Your Guns Without an Armed Revolt? Think Again  (Read 451 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online sbhaven

  • Global Moderator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Highly Active Member
  • ****
  • Join Date: Aug 2008
  • Posts: 18449
  • Thanked: 186 times
  • Keep the 2nd Amendment Alive.
  • Referrals: 2

Think They’ll Never ‘Come and Take’ Your Guns Without an Armed Revolt? Think Again
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

The recent gun control debate ignited by last month’s tragedy in Parkland, Florida, has liberals trotting out what has become a favorite Leftist talking point - Australia’s 1996 National Agreement on Firearms, an act which, among other things, severely restricted semi-automatic rifles after after a similarly horrific mass shooting.

Liberals consider the cornerstone of the law, a massive forced gun buyback program, a “common sense” approach to what might otherwise be perceived by gun owners as an unwelcome curtailing of traditional American freedoms. Sure, the government may be forcing gun owners to make the transaction, but exchanging money for items IS capitalism, right? And it sure beats the alternative, a Communist-style door-to-door roundup of weapons that both sides agree would likely lead to civil war.

Don’t get me wrong, I think most true Leftists would LOVE to harness the power of the State to crush liberty-minded gun owners by every means necessary, and if a few of the right eggs are broken in the process, so much the better. But realists on both sides know such a scenario is highly unlikely to happen, at least to a result the Left would want. In all likelihood, open displays of tyrannical force such as openly rounding up certain people groups or door-to-door weapons confiscations are highly likely to result in open displays of resistance, and a civil war that is likely to be fought, and won, by the good guys.
CARTOONS | Ken Catalino
View Cartoon

On this matter, right-wing pundits are correct:

On the topic of whether or not citizens could resist “violent tyranny,” Townhall’s Kurt Schlichter writes, “The short answer is, ‘Yes.’ As Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan all teach, a decentralized insurgency with small arms can effectively confront a modern police/military force ... But the bottom line is that two untrained idiots with handguns shut down Boston. What do you think 100 million Americans – many trained and some battle-tested – could do with their rifles?”

“There is no other way around it: The mandatory confiscation of the American citizenry’s guns would involve tens of thousands of heavily armed federal agents going door-to-door to demand of millions of Americans that they surrender their guns. That. Is. Not. Going. To. Happen,” opines National Review’s Mark Wright.

“Make no mistake, armed rebellion would be the consequence,” writes Varad Mehta for The Federalist in a piece that’s par for the course when it comes to most thinking on the right. “Armed men would be dispatched to confiscate guns, they would be met by armed men, and blood would be shed. Australia is a valid example for America only if you are willing for that blood to be spilled in torrents and rivers. To choose Australia is to choose civil war.”

Even the more sane gun control proponents are wise to the political situation. University of Sydney professor Philip Alpers, who is also the founding director of GunPolicy.org, told the New York Times, “What Australia did was a confiscation of private property under the threat of jail time, compensated or not. That wouldn’t wash in the United States.”

Further, when unduly oppressive laws are actually passed in the United States, such as recent laws in New York and Connecticut passed after the Sandy Hook massacre, they are often ignored by the majority of gun owners and sparsely enforced by the states themselves. “New York and Connecticut authorities so far have shown no inclination to enforce their laws by going door to door to round up unregistered guns and arrest their owners,” Mehta wrote in the 2015 piece. “But that’s what would be necessary to enforce the law. A federal law, therefore, would require sweeping, national police action involving thousands of lawmen and affecting tens of millions of people. If proponents of gun control are serious about getting guns out of Americans’ hands, someone will have to take those guns out of Americans’ hands.”

Sure, it’s hard to argue with Mehta’s logic, at least on the surface. And it’s a good thing for gun owners, right?

Not necessarily, not if you look just beneath that surface.

Consider: If rational minds on the Left know all this, to what end are they still pushing for such laws, especially when it’s obvious that they don’t care whether ANY gun control laws are actually enforced. Not yet anyway. (Remember, it’s always conservatives, not liberals, pushing for enforcement of existing law.)

And yet, they do want more and more laws on the books, and the more draconian, obscure, and hard to keep track of, the better. But why?

Here’s the answer, and it should scare every gun owner in the country:

They want to make de facto criminals out of the majority of the gun owning population.

That way, they can essentially pick us off, one by one.

Without necessarily meaning to, Mehta hits on this critical point in his piece: “A national gun buyback law would turn a significant portion of the American people into criminals,” he wrote. “Residents of New York and Connecticut snubbed their new laws … Compliance with the registration requirement has been modest at best, as hundreds of thousands of gun owners in both states refused to register their weapons. So far, then, the laws have been most successful in creating hundreds of thousands of lawbreakers who feel obligated to break the law.”

If liberals are able to pass any sort of “assault weapons” ban, buyback or no buyback, they know they will make criminals out of several million currently law-abiding gun owners. And even if the majority of those gun owners don’t follow the law now, that won’t make them any less a criminal. They just haven’t been caught yet.

But when the ‘right people’ control the levers of power and the ‘right laws’ are all in place, make no mistake - they will be caught.

<see link for rest of article>


Potentially, a government is the most dangerous threat to man's rights: it holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force against legally disarmed victims.
- Ayn Rand

Online Bottom Rung

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Highly Active Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jun 2014
  • Posts: 271
  • Thanked: 8 times
  • PROTECT the 2nd!
  • Referrals: 1
So they’re going to take gun owners out one by one with petty laws? Interesting thought, but it still doesn’t quite stand. 

That being said, the nanny state loves its petty tangled laws so it can “convict” every living person of something.

Conceptualizing our demise is necessary for planning to an extent, but largely ends up reduced to fools’ banter.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2018, 05:27:41 PM by Bottom Rung »

Online Steevo

  • Forum Contributor Pro
  • Trade Count: (45)
  • Highly Active Member
  • ***
  • Join Date: Jul 2009
  • Posts: 9303
  • Thanked: 70 times
  • Referrals: 3
half of the people will just hand them over, and then ask why they are doing it since they agreed to ban bumpstocks......

#ButMuhRights
#ButMuhOverUnder
#ButMuhReachAround
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Online sbhaven

  • Global Moderator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Highly Active Member
  • ****
  • Join Date: Aug 2008
  • Posts: 18449
  • Thanked: 186 times
  • Keep the 2nd Amendment Alive.
  • Referrals: 2
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
So they’re going to take gun owners out one by one with petty laws? Interesting thought, but it still doesn’t quite stand. 
Progressives always look long term. They know darn well they cannot go door to door to do mass confiscations. Both for budgetary reasons and the likely hood of people shooting back.

Instead they are choking off the legal supply through banning the sale and transfer of "icky" guns and "baby killing" magazines. They know that in one or two generations in CT there will only be prebans left and 10 round magazines. They then mandate everyone have to spend money to obtain permission from the government (through the form of certificates/permits) to buy ammunition in addition to guns/magazines.

In the mean time they are arresting people one at a time as people run into "the man" for one reason or another. Got an angry spouse/significant other? One call to police and those unregistered AW's and undeclared LCM's get confiscated. You get robbed and call police. Police then arrest you when they find unregistered AW's and undeclared LCM's in your gun safe when they investigate the robbery. Don't think these kinds of things happen? Both have happened already.

With the constant push to demonize guns Progressives are hoping that in 10, 20, 30 years down the road when coupled with laws that choke off the legal supply, and the cost to obtain permits/certificates, and instilling fear in gun owners by arresting them one at a time for "illegal guns", they can shrink legal gun owners to a small insignificant group of people.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2018, 05:19:37 PM by sbhaven »
Potentially, a government is the most dangerous threat to man's rights: it holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force against legally disarmed victims.
- Ayn Rand

Offline undecided

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Highly Active Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Feb 2014
  • Posts: 430
  • PROTECT the 2nd!
  • Referrals: 0
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Progressives always look long term. They know darn well they cannot go door to door to do mass confiscations. Both for budgetary reasons and the likely hood of people shooting back.

Instead they are choking off the legal supply through banning the sale and transfer of "icky" guns and "baby killing" magazines. They know that in one or two generations in CT there will only be prebans left and 10 round magazines. They then mandate everyone have to spend money to obtain permission from the government (through the form of certificates/permits) to buy ammunition in addition to guns/magazines.

In the mean time they are arresting people one at a time as people run into "the man" for one reason or another. Got an angry spouse/significant other? One call to police and those unregistered AW's and undeclared LCM's get confiscated. You get robbed and call police. Police then arrest you when they find unregistered AW's and undeclared LCM's in your gun safe when they investigate the robbery. Don't think these kinds of things happen? Both have happened already.

With the constant push to demonize guns Progressives are hoping that in 10, 20, 30 years down the road when coupled with laws that choke off the legal supply, and the cost to obtain permits/certificates, and instilling fear in gun owners by arresting them one at a time for "illegal guns", they can shrink legal gun owners to a small insignificant group of people.

Sounds like a good plan ( if you are them ).

Offline M1A_All_Day

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Highly Active Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Dec 2016
  • Posts: 344
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • Referrals: 0
Look back at each major Federal and state firearm restriction since the 1994 AW ban.
All restrictions, exception being the 2004 AW ban sunset.
None else were an expansion of firearms rights, all were increasing layers of restrictions.
It's attrition- slowly, through generations now, wearing down what firearms are legal under what circumstances and to whom.

I can only say to Americans who have an open mind to visit Israel and their history.
That country scrounged together every last firearm they could to forge their independence and keep it.

If we were bordering our sworn enemies, let alone if we had periodic recurring incursions from our enemies, I guarantee the citizen's gun rights would be a non-issue. And one day we could be in a world very different from what it is now- with the United States safely bordered by two large oceans and our enemies unable to reach us. We've already had fits of terrorist attacks here in our country, but nothing like the Intifadas Israel experienced.

We haven't had a war on our soil for more than a hundred years* to remind us- the citizens, of what it takes to defend and protect when all other means are gone. Today is green lawns and picket fences, Rome fell- and some day this great country will need to defend itself again. We won't be able to win a debate for the moral upper ground to hold it.

*Exception is technically Japan invaded and held the furthest Aleutian Islands in WW2.
"We are not the same. I'm an American, you're a sick ahole."

Online sbhaven

  • Global Moderator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Highly Active Member
  • ****
  • Join Date: Aug 2008
  • Posts: 18449
  • Thanked: 186 times
  • Keep the 2nd Amendment Alive.
  • Referrals: 2
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Sounds like a good plan ( if you are them ).
Yep. If the majority of people are sheep their plan will work in the long term. Progressive Democrats have groups of people who sit around and plan this stuff up/out. Its why they have proposed bills sitting on the shelf that they dust off and introduce after every kind of tragedy they can exploit.
Potentially, a government is the most dangerous threat to man's rights: it holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force against legally disarmed victims.
- Ayn Rand