-49 votes

When They Come For Your Guns . . . You Will Turn Them Over

"When they come for my gun, they will have to pry it out of my cold, dead hands," is a common refrain I often hear from the Neo-Cons when there is a threat, credible or otherwise, that the US government is going to take their firearms.

And, when I hear this crazy talk, I agree with them openly. "You are right. They will pry your gun from your cold dead hands," which I often follow with the question, "And where will that leave you except face down in a pool of your own blood the middle of the street, just another dead fool resisting the State?"

This is not a question they are comfortable with, if only because the intent of their saber-rattling was to imply they would fight to keep their weapons, and win.

Nice fantasy. It’s not happening.

http://www.dollarvigilante.com/blog/2012/7/30/when-they-come...



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

We could test your hypothesis

OP go ahead and go to DP member's houses and try and take away their guns and see what happens. No worries - you'll probably just collect alot of nice guns, right?

Bravo Sierra!

Bravo Sierra!

Larry in North Carolina
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men and women to not support Ron Paul!

history

Reading though the comments, any modern revolutionary movement if it were to occur would not likely take the form some here seem to imagine.

For an example of a modern method of resistance aginst an overwhelming martial force, the example of the modern IRA of recent past decades provides one posssible example. The modern IRA vs. the entire combined forces of British military, MI6, Special Forces, political might, propaganda operations and covert operations. The modern IRA was essentially a rag tag operation whose active fighting membership numbered only the hundreds at any given time. They did not come from a deeply seated firearms culture filled with gun clubs, shooting ranges, hunting and firearm experience with a vast disbursement of private ownership of firearms. Rather they were in an environment very hostile to weapons where private ownership was all but forbidden and private use of firearms was confined to heavily regulated government sanctioned clubs requiring permits to join and where both firearms and ammo must be kept locked up on site and no one was permitted to have such in their homes.

All training, such as it was, had to be done by sending an active recruit to a foreign locale. Even the clumsiest of shooters in the US would stand head and shoulder above the bulk of what the IRA had to recruit from.

And even with the Federal government’s newly claimed powers under the Patriot Act et al., the British government operated with almost no restrictions, having virtual plenary power when it came to the IRA for wiretapping, opening mail, surveillance, disinformation, bribery, use of informants, under cover plants, provocateurs, etc.

In addition, the IRA did not have a vast continent of varying terrain and cities and environments and neighborhoods and ethnicities and cultures and gangs and underworld enterprises within which to operate as there exists in the USA. Rather they were confined to a small Island less than 2 percent the size of the US where the British controlled all normal means of entry and exit.

The IRA vas vastly outgunned by the British. They could not come close to matching even a tiny fraction of the weapon power and resources and technology and even manpower of the British government. They had only a limited quantity of small arm weapons that had to be constantly moved and shared amongst the active members.

Nevertheless, with all these factors stacked against them, this small force with limited weapons confined to a tiny island where no one is allowed private ownership of firearms still managed to hold off for decades one of the finest fighting forces on the planet with all the latest technological resources and police state measures at its disposal. How was this possible?

If such were to happen, any modern revolutionary resistance would not take the form of pitched battles and armed engagements. Rather it would be a Mafioso style shadow war. It would take the form of shadowy assassination hits, and sniper tags, kidnapping, car bombs, or arson, targeting specific individuals or supporters or their homes, offices or families; maybe tiny unexpected hit and run tactics against off duty individuals; The use of extortion, and bribery. The luring of politicians or others into vulnerable locales through the use of women, drugs, bribery, extortion. You would see the use of anonymous style measures like IEDs, poisonings, and booby trap methods. It would place a risk and cost on being a government enforcer - particularly at higher levels. It would take the form of myriad vandalism and disruptive type activities like disclosure of secrets and embarrassing information, sabotage of government used communications, power lines, equipment, even to the most mundane and simple methods like sugar in gas tanks of government vehicles, loosening of lug nuts, superglue in locks – anything to cause disruption, cost and slow down.

Let it not be said that we did nothing.-Ron Paul
Stand up for what you believe in, even if you stand alone.-Sophia Magdalena Scholl

How did it happen?

The british intelligence agencies funded and armed the IRA.
There were sincere freedom fighting Irish no doubt. However, the british infiltration of the IRA was on par with the FBIs "PATCON" operation here in the states. If there was a room with three Patriots here in the 90's two were CIs for the FBI.

That is how it happened.

This is how the state works. It is truly the most dangerous and violent organization on the planet. Always has been - that is why its power must be expressly limited.

peAce

Liberty = Responsibility

Resisting

I'm afraid I agree with the writer. History has shown time and time again that people cave in & surrender while things aren't too bad. They begin to resist when it is too late.

They will come for the unsurrendered guns in the dark of night when we are in bed asleep. The surprise Communist will be total thereby eliminating any chance of resistance. Read your Russian and Nazi Germany state police histories.

The BATFE knows how the Gestapo and NKVD operated and are already using quasi-legal tactics to prosecute gun sellers. Their favorite is entrapment through straw sales at gun shows and gun shops. The Supreme Court said its okay.

They have already been practicing. Remember the Branch Davidians and Randy Weaver's wife and son. No one in the federal government was held responsible for their deaths at the hands of the FBI and BATFE because the Republicans were complicit with the Democrats in the Congressional hearing cover ups.

It only takes one to KEEP AMERICANS FREE. Know your duties & rights as a juror. Stop the unconstitutional conviction of innocents in federal custody. The Fully Informed Jury CALL 1-800-TEL-JURY www.fija.org IMMEDIATELY if not sooner. It's that important.

YOu just touched a sore spot

YOu just touched a sore spot for me. My local sheriff is Ruby Ridge Gore. Yes, the same William D. Gore, ex FBI, who issued the hit order at Ruby Ridge and Waco. He is still working and is my local sheriff.

Time to move!

If my need to be RIGHT is greater than my desire for TRUTH, then I will not recognize it when it arrives ~ Libertybelle

Anyone here ever read the

Anyone here ever read the novel "Unintended Consequences", by John Ross? It does a fine job of addressing this issue! Truly epic novel, I highly recommend it. It is out of print and supressed, but try to find someone who has one and borrow it...yes, it's that good!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_Consequences_(novel)

If my need to be RIGHT is greater than my desire for TRUTH, then I will not recognize it when it arrives ~ Libertybelle

PDF of the book:

PDF of the book: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/941683/John%20Ross%20-%20Unintended...

Let it not be said that we did nothing.-Ron Paul
Stand up for what you believe in, even if you stand alone.-Sophia Magdalena Scholl

Very cool,thanks! I bet will

Very cool,thanks! I bet will take a lot of paper! That book is a tome.

If my need to be RIGHT is greater than my desire for TRUTH, then I will not recognize it when it arrives ~ Libertybelle

John Ross has a website:

http://john-ross.net/

From his home page:

This is also where you can find info on purchasing my book, Unintended Consequences. There is also a section at the top of the site that goes over some of the most recently asked questions concerning the book and its conception.

And here's where to buy the book: http://www.john-ross.net/store.php

The law cannot make a wicked person virtuous…God’s grace alone can accomplish such a thing.
Ron Paul - The Revolution

Setting a good example is a far better way to spread ideals than through force of arms. Ron Paul

I've read it and also bought a copy for my Dad

but that was when it was in print and before they started asking $100+ on Amazon for a copy. Borrowing a copy is a great idea - wish there was a cheaper ebook version available.

More info on the topic can be found by researching asymmetrical warfare (American Revolution, Vietnam War, and the current Adventures in Afghanistan).

.

When they kick out your front door
How you gonna come?
With your hands on your head
Or on the trigger of your gun?

When the law break in
How you gonna go?
Shot down on the pavement
Or waiting in death row?

http://youtu.be/hiQoq-wqZxg

When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign: that the dunces are all in confederacy against him. ~J. Swift

Hey, EVERYONE!

From some of the comments, it's obvious that many of you are confusing NeoTheOne, who merely posted this article, by Jim Karger, to be the same author.

They are not!

"When They Come For Your Guns . . . You Will Turn Them Over Monday, July 30, 2012 at 11:41AM [Editor's note: the following post is by Jim Karger, TDV Legal Correspondent] "

So, for those of you who obviously didn't take the time to actually click on the article to find out that it WASN'T NeoTheOne from DailyPaul, NOR Jeff Berwick, the proprietor of the Dollar Vigilante, but Jim Karger, will ya all do the right thing: IF you do want to direct your replies, direct it AT Jim Karger, and NOT NeoTheOne?

Thanks, I'm sure NeoTheOne would appreciate it, too.o)

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

Thank you for pointing that out.

:-)

LOL, you're welcome. It is seriously F'ng SHOCKING,

how many are completely oblivious of WHO actually wrote the above article that you're merely citing.

oh vey.

perhaps you should give your personal commentary for an opener, doubly clarifying that you do, or do not agree with the author of the article that you DID NOT write.

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

haven't read all the posts but...

I have thought about this scenario many times. I consider myself very reasonable...then again crazy people don't know they are crazy...and I have decided that I will fulfill your prophecy. I will be one of those face down dead in the street. Saying that, I'm reminded of a quote that I heard a while back that explains my stance: "There are things that gnaw on a man worse than death." Some cannot understand this but it is true. If you leave someone nothing to lose that's exactly what you have to deal with...and it is a very powerful thing. Some, not all, would rather fight and die than to be slaves...that's how this country was conceived. What you are talking about is the 21st century version. The founders' spirit still lives...we just have cell phones cases next to our pistol holsters...

I'll give them my guns, then

I'll give them my guns, then ill get some more.

"Believe half of what you see, and none of what you hear." - Benjamin Franklin

NCMarc's picture

+1

I'll give them the ones they know about.. all 2 of them lol

-----
A great empire, like a great cake, is most easily diminished at the edges. - Ben Franklin

Republicae's picture

There are some who will deny

There are some who will deny both history and human nature, but we should never underestimate the fact that changes in attitude and actions can happen rapidly during a period when this government which, by the way, is not viewed favorably already, might take such an utterly foolish step. We naturally assume that just because we tend to view the masses of the American people as completely complacent and compliant that they have an infinite level of such complacency and thus, will always tend toward compliance to such a government edict, I do not believe that is the case judging from other periods in history when an increasingly oppressed people changed their complacency into active resistance.

Additionally, in consideration of the shear logistical problems associated with such a move, this government has proven, time and again in third-world countries that it is simply not well prepared for such an operation on such a scale. It also must be considered that if such a move were made, there would be enough resistance arise to create not only military problems, but almost more importantly, PR problems for the government. It would rapidly lose what moral high ground it assumed it had in the eyes of the masses of the people, once that occurs it becomes almost impossible for such a government to maintain a high level of control.

I would also think that this government would be extremely hesitant to bring in troops from either foreign countries or even the UN, the reasoning is that unlike domestic troops, any foreign troops would be instantly viewed as invaders and nothing moves a people as having their country invaded by foreign troops. Even under conditions where domestic troops are employed against their own people, there will arise a revolutionary resistance and guerrilla movement that is extremely difficult to defend against. While there is a substantial difference between a resistance movement arising due to an invasion of foreign troops and that of a type of civil war arising by the use of domestic troops, an effective resistance will arise and grow from the ranks of the population as the oppression of the offending government increases. It is also essential to understand that as government oppression grows, so too does resistance and support for that resistance from the people; as such, the oppressive government loses both the support and compliance of the people.

Thus, any action by this government on these grounds would pose an understandable danger, one that, as history has shown, usually does not bode well for those who wield such power. There is nothing as dangerous to an established government than the possibility of internal conflict, defection tends to become rampant and the opposition increases its strength as the harsh force of oppression presses upon the people and the threat to that government is manifoldly increased. It is also vitally important to understand, even in this present time, that the principles upon which this country was founded are still pretty embedded within this people. If this were some other country I dare say that the government might not face the same issues that it would have to face here...the Idea of America, even if they don't understand it, is still very much a part of the psyche of this People...that would prove to be the greatest hurdle this government faced if if assumed it could easily take such actions and to do so without consequences!

With such measures, this government can be assured that there will be resistance and the fact of the matter is that it does not take that many resistance fighters to wage a guerrilla war of insurgency. This government continues to view the military in terms that were standardized during WWII, just look at the type of weapons it develops. It has believed that technology can be decisive in a war and indeed, it can be relatively decisive against another formalized government force, but it has not proved very effective under the conditions of guerrilla insurgency since Vietnam. This government, as most other governments, are organized under the assumption that the technological advantage gives an actual military advantage, that is not always the case, especially under conditions where there is a revolutionary insurgent movement arising from the midst of the people themselves.

The problem this government would face is the fact that even the most basic unit of guerrilla insurgency can be highly effective against what is considered a highly optimized organization of military might. Insurgents blend in, their weapons are usually hidden until needed, they can arise at a moment, strike and then disappear back into the anonymity of the population; for the most part there will arise individual invisible insurgents, who will operate independently of any organization of resistance, this is perhaps the most dangerous to any government military force, for there are so many unknown variables to contend with that it is hard to find out where or who the resistance actually is, what it will do next and what countermeasures would be effective against such resistance.

It is those early stages of such conflict that guerrilla fighters are most effective, in the latter stages, when more organization arises in their ranks, the government has a little more ability to defend against such resistance. It would not matter if the government forces actually exterminated mass populations or contained mass populations, all it takes is one single, independent insurgent and the entire guerrilla movement can be revitalized from the population. The government also realizes that while fighting such an insurgency there are few targets actually available however, the government forces themselves prove to be a very target-rich source for the insurgents. The imbalance of offensive measures therefore, is a proven weakness of a highly organized government military force, while strength to the insurgency.

The government always faces an additionally problem when it comes to a guerrilla insurgency, that being the members of its own military or those joining the government forces. Since the government must rely upon the indigenous population for its troops, it can never be sure of the loyalty of such troops, this is especially true if it recruits after such a conflict begins. There is no doubt that it is absolutely impossible for the government to then guarantee that its troops will not also include members of the insurgency, who, given the opportunity will, at the very least provide the resistance with vital info on troop movements and operations.

I could easily go on with this line of thought, but you get the picture and that picture shows that such moves by this government would not only be difficult, but very, very unwise.

http://militantjeffersonian.com

"We are not a nation, but a union, a confederacy of equal and sovereign States" John C. Calhoun

Very well said.

I bet that during a revolution, many of the rebels easily figure out where government employees live. Look at Iraq, or Mexico for that matter for the examples that government workers and supporters become targets.

I point out that in times of civil war or revolution, it is as much rebels against supporters of government as it is rebels against government troops, bureaucrats, and politicians. There are many other improvised weapons besides guns that come into play once the carnage begins.

I have repeatedly posted on this site that there is a revolution point that is reached when the pain and suffering from going along with a system of plunder and control exceeds the pain that people perceive will come from revolting. A trigger event occurs; in 1775 it was the Massachusetts Militia standing their ground at Lexington Green against the British Army that was marching to Concord to confiscate arms stored in a Militia warehouse; in 1861 it was the refusal of the federal troops at Fort Sumter to leave the State which was no longer part of the Union.

Once the trigger event occurs, it spurs into action those who have previously just waited, watched and complained. It all cascades into guerrilla warfare and it then becomes a matter of numbers, courage, and effectiveness. The more government repression, the greater the numbers who join the revolt. When the rebels are loosely organized with many independent actors mixed in with the general population, targets for the government are difficult for the government to find.

"Bend over and grab your ankles" should be etched in stone at the entrance to every government building and every government office.

Republicae's picture

Exactly!

Exactly!

http://militantjeffersonian.com

"We are not a nation, but a union, a confederacy of equal and sovereign States" John C. Calhoun

Sounds like your shitting your pants

Guess your one of those guys who never heard of Guerilla Warfare.
Superior Technology won't get you far, Shouldn't we be done Afghanistan and Iraq by now with all the high tech sophisticated weaponry, you are too eager too surrender yourself, I'd rather fight an insecure army of troops supported by a soon to implode government in my own homeland who will join our ranks soon anyway then face a pissed off mother and father whose children I have killed or shot and leave them with a terrible resolve, you obviously never witnessed revenge. Why don't they finish the job if were so feeble and lacking in high tech weaponry, Ill tell you why, because the loyalty of the military isn't with Obombya, or Mitt-Twit, it's with Ron Paul, he made sure he would have their support before even stepping into the race, thats why obama wants his own paramilitary gestapoopoo.

fireant's picture

I can't get New Orleans (Katrina) out of my mind when I see

this thread. They gave 'em up with hardly a whimper.

Undo what Wilson did

You didn't hear the stories about those who refused to hand them

over.

Or the stories about the officers who advised residents they came across to hold on to their guns because they were going to need them, or about the unit that stood down the orders.

But those stories happened.

The MSM just didn't want you to find out.

The only way to know would have been to hear it from those involved.

Now you know too.

Republicae's picture

Yep, they were successful

Yep, they were successful alright....I think the figure they ended up with were a little over 700 firearms being confiscated. That cannot be considered a complete gun grab or even remotely close to one.

http://militantjeffersonian.com

"We are not a nation, but a union, a confederacy of equal and sovereign States" John C. Calhoun

I don't know how the stats stack up, but there were about 10k or

so people left in the city during that time.

I'd say odds are better than not, most of them had guns or they would not have stayed.

I think the grabs they made were the exception rather than the rule. The MSM sure made it seem otherwise though.

Well Maybe One Of The Few Or Many Who Came To Confiscate

The Firearms Will Be Left Alive To Pry It From "Cold, Dead Hands", But They Will Also Realize That Since Their Buddies Just Got Shot Or Killed In The Process, That Maybe They Might Want To Rethink Continuing To Carry Out Such Unlawful Orders Since They Might Be The Next Fatality On The Job...

There are more people who own firearms in the United States than all military personnel combined worldwide. I'll say, disarming the American population would be an impossible task unless they somehow convince the American people to turn in their guns, just like the MSM is trying right now but it's blowing up in their face.

Disarming Americans won't happen considering what everyone sees happening all over the world due to disarming of populations. We know that once a population is disarmed, those people are just sitting ducks no matter which way you look at it since they have no way to defend themselves against others (like tyrannical governments) who have guns. The 2nd Amendment is the reason that the United States hasn't been invaded by foreign entities like many other countries we've seen lately especially in Africa and the Middle East.

They can rig our elections and try to take away our voting rights and other civil liberties, but they won't be able to take away our guns when we say enough is enough, sorry... Let them take over the government and act like dictators and make their own self serving corrupt laws. See if they are able to enforce their bullsh*t and still collect taxes.

-LibertyG ... 2 Corinthians 2:16-17 "To some we are a scent of death leading to death, but to others, a scent of life leading to life. And who is competent for this? For we are not like the many who make a trade(for profit) but as those with sincerity...

Okay..

Alot of people have been taught to turn a cheek. Their are alot afraid of violence..I think once people see that their is no going back to the way it was..Also you have to factor what government personel would honor their oath..it is one thing firing on your brother entirely another dealing with a UN soldier

"Turning the other cheek" is not an act of submission.

It is not the same either as "turning a blind eye."

It is not an act of being passive and non-aggressive.

Too many people get this messed up. The story comes from the Bible.

It is an act of defiance.

To paraphrase Jesus, when asked what to do when a Roman soldier strikes your cheek, he advises his followers to "offer him the other one to strike as well."

The point was that the Roman Centurion could do you no harm. Yes, in this life he could, but not in the next.

It would be what an unarmed man would be left with in protest.

But Jesus also said, "he who has no sword, sell his cloak and buy one." (again, paraphrasing)

The point is what people think of and refer to as being passive and submissive is not at all the point of the story or the Man who related it.

I have challenged many who make the erroneous claim of "turning the other cheek" to be "turn the other way and submit" to prove that if Jesus was here to teach us to "go along and get along, to obey any command given by any tyrant, why did he not cease agitating the Pharisees? Why did he not confess to Pilate? Why not save his own skin?

His example is NOT to submit to the tyranny of Men.

They can have the lead.

.