-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.


Comment viewing options

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

Just look at Mexico...

And see what prohibition turns into. Then multiply that by 50. There's a lot of angry old men out there just waiting for this who are old enough to take a last stand.

You are mistaken about ole Mexico.

They have similar gun rules as here. But they are a whole lot more free. As far as guns, my friend is from a small town in Puebla where EVERYONE has is carrying an arm. When a bunny is so unfortunate to hop by it sounds like the the WWII Ostfront. And another friend is from a town in Chiapas where law enforcement will not dare go because EVERYONE is carrying. We are lied to about everything.

The reality of this will be vastly different. This cannot by

simple logistics be accomplished all at once.

For sure, there will be attempts to "make an example" of someone or a certain "area" of the country.

But unless or until that example is successful, there will be massive resistance.

And the example alone will most likely collapse popular support and encourage resistance if not outright warfare in retaliation.

This will not unfold in a weekend. It will be long and protracted, and time is not on a tyrant's side.

People will learn from the mistakes of others.

Some will be caught sleeping.

Others will resist at their front doors.

Some will learn to shoot first.

Others will begin sniping as they see them coming down the street.

Neighbors will begin taking up flanking positions in assistance.

"Fallujah" will NOT happen in America. If it is attempted, whoever attempts it will not only be slaughtered, they will be responsible for sparking a full blown war that will result in this government's complete and utter annihilation.

Any local politicians and state legislatures and governors who do not immediately side with the People and take action to defend their citizens against such tyranny and barbarism will be some of the first targets.

Remember, we are also unique in that respect - while we may not act like it now, we ARE a union of 50 separate sovereign states, and if the need arises like if such action is taken by the Feds, then many if not all of the States will side against Washington D.C. They would be fools not to.

I'd say most will hide/bury

I'd say most will hide/bury their weapons and ammo. for later...when the time is right. I doubt many would go out "HEAT" style from the front door.

When will the time be right? When the people are hungry. You'd be surprised how courageous people are when food is no longer affordable/available.

“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.”
― Ron Paul


People will pay $200 for a loaf of bread and bitch about it but they won't freak out until they are standing in the bread isle at wal-mart looking at empty shelves...then the SHTF! It won't happen until there's no more bread.

The blog author is also missing a very important point:

All those "toys" in the hands of police, and even military, may very well wind up being used against anyone trying to wage war against the American People via gun confiscation or other means.

The militarization of police will cut both ways.

Make no mistake, if confiscation is attempted, it will spark war.

And make no mistake, when that war starts, government will lose many of their troops. But they won't just lose warm bodies, they will lose the "toys" along with them.

In some cases, entire departments and units will side with the people, in others, there will be splits.

But the result will be a more even balance of power than the author presumes.

This blog is cointelpro. Clearly.

It is a blatant attempt to convince you against what is in your own rational self interest to do - self-defense and self-preservation.

The blog attempts to put these two goals at odds, but they are not mutually exclusive - they are one and the same.

I don't think many of our

I don't think many of our military would fire on us citizens but the police certainly would. They have proven that often enough.

And for every thug in a municipal uniform that does so, I'll bet

there is another on that force that will turn and blow his head off.

There may be a few rogue departments here and there, but by and large, police know they are out manned and out gunned. Even if they initially tried to implement the confiscation, they would lose morale very quickly, through attrition and through loss of popular support.

They will only be able to hold civil order if they side with the People. They know this, or will die learning the lesson and their replacements will not forget the prior mistakes.


How many soldiers will go along with this while they know grandma is getting pistol whipped back in Peoria? Not too damn many, I'll bet. Martial law against the people will not be like the fiasco in New Orleans. At the time, those National Guard and Reserve troops thought they were there to help (even though they were stepping on people's rights) but if they knew they were at war with the American people outright, then there would be massive desertion. The article link below is about a military coup d'etat but discusses the civilian political involvement and how the military itself would react to unconstitutional orders. It starts with the unrealistic task of wrangling the public. Great read!

When push comes to shove

Most will hand over their guns.


Because while there are 80 million gun owners, the powers that be will come with overwhelming force to break each stubborn gun owner separately. Snipers, armored vehicles, drones, battle armor, etc. Show your head to shoot, or pop a round off, and you will be shredded. Most likely, they will come in the night, or when you are not home, ransack your house, and that will be that.

I mean seriously, how many have the will to turn their house into a battleground, and have your kids and spouse maimed killed in a gun battle?

I also think its bold talk to declare that one is willing to kill.
So will you shoot first? Wait till they cordon off your house and set up sniper teams? C'mon, get real.

The only way to resist is to get off the grid and play Rambo in the woods. And 90% of us are not in a position to live that way, especially towing kids and grandma along.

I'm not advocating surrender. I cherish my right to own a gun. I'm just trying to keep it real, and disabuse those who think resisting will be like replaying "Red Dawn". It will not be.

Conscience does not exist if not exercised

"No matter how cynical you get, it's impossible to keep up!
---Lily Tomlin

They won't be able to do it fast enough. This fact will mean

word will spread of the events and this will spark a drawing of lines if not the actual war.

At that point, the likelihood of people turning over their guns will be nil, not because they would fear being killed by government goons coming to take them, but because they will realize they need them for civil unrest that would be spreading like wildfire and threatening everyone's daily safety.

Once that happens, confiscation attempts will effectively end, and instead, there will be a transition to open warfare.

At that point, anyone turning anything over is either dead or a fool who soon will be.

I am willing

to turn my house into a battleground.
I am willing to see my children maimed and killed in gun battle. Have you thought of the alternative? It is rape, starvation and servitude by the state agents. I have 3 daughters and would rather see them die fighting than locked up, raped and beaten for the rest of their short lives in a camp.

We know there will be major casualties but any thinking person understands that the alternative will be much, much worse.

Not everyone has the 21st century suburban attitude. Some of us know that eventually we will win by sheer numbers but it will take alot of dead citizens before everyone awakens.

We will win.

Republicae's picture

Well, your estimate of gun

Well, your estimate of gun ownership is low, very low according to many estimates, although the low end is estimated around 90 Million and the high estimate is around 240 Million, with the number of actual arms in private hands at over 300 Million.

The government itself has stated in many reports concerning the government continuation that it would be virtually impossible for the government to either fully control, i.e. martial law, all but the major cities and even at that it would be difficult for them to do that; additionally, I think you under-estimate the resolve of gun owners in this country. While it is certain that some would comply, most actual gun owners would not. Besides, I sorta think it is almost a moot point because once it gets so bad that the global supply chain breaks down, the ability of this government to adequately function will decrease 100 fold. As I said, the storm last month closed the government down, and it would not take much to do this under certain conditions. Suspicious empty boxes left through out D.C. would be enough to paralyze the city because of ultra-paranoid nature that politicians and law-enforcement agencies have nurtured through the last decade.

Hell, this government can't even wage war against a few third world countries, look at Afghanistan...we have no control over that country and the forces aligned against us are not some overwhelming army, they are guerrilla fighters, insurgents...something that all governments hate to face during war. An invisible resistance would immediately arise in this country, they know that; additionally, as with all government actions that seek to oppress its own people, there are those in the military who will naturally defect creating an even greater challenge for the government.

Aside from that, if it ever came down to the government going on a gun grab, they would first have to find me and then find my guns...


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

there's just no way... they'd

there's just no way... they'd never even try it... this is another distraction to try to get you to "fall in line" and support Romney as if the GOP would actually defend your right to bear arms.

they will NEVER actually try to come for the guns all at once. They'll do it incrementally. They'll call for all assault rifles.... once those are gone, a couple years later they'll come for handguns... then a few years after that they'll come for rifles and eventually shotguns. But they're not stupid. they've slowly pushed their agenda to rule earth over several generations. they won't try to take it all at once and spark a war when they know we're all a bunch of pushovers and the overwhelming majority will willingly give 'em up when fed the right propaganda.

At their inceptions, the #Liberty, #OccupyWallStreet and #TeaParty movements all had the same basic goal... What happened?

you do

realize there's no such thing as an assault rifle right? They are all assault rifles. I'm just pointing out that the language has been manipulated. We should try to call things what they are...rifles...pistols...shotguns...i have an assault computer right here in front of me...just waiting on the chance to bash someone over the head with it...then we can ban all computers...

Now that is something I can generally agree with, but I don't

think they can do much more than the 1990 AWB or the 1968 GCA. That's about it. Bad enough though, but not worse. Anything more than that, the banning of NEW sales of such arms, or their manufacture, is all they can accomplish without sparking a war. Any attempt to TAKE or make illegal the possession of already owned guns purchased before the ban will bring on armed conflict.

This will only serve to create a black market, which we all know will be more dangerous the more restrictive it is, than not.

It won't last long even if they make such attempts.

I don't think anyone with a brain thinks this won't be ugly

beyond all comprehension.

But that doesn't mean it won't happen and no one will or should resist.

So, you don't advocate surrender, but you don't advocate resistance either.

What 3rd choice do you think you will have the opportunity to make?

What if you don't have any other choices?

What if it's die fighting or die complying? This will be your choice, because being unarmed, there is nothing to stop them from killing your entire family and make you watch just because they feel like it. No one will have any way to stop them. Would you rather die fighting, or would you rather be forced to watch them rape your children and your wife and then butcher them before they butcher you?

You really think that if everyone just "doesn't resist" (which IS surrender) then somehow we'll all be left alone after that?

How will you "live to fight another day?" Fight with WHAT?

How will you expect government to NOT simply do whatever it pleases to you whenever it desires to do so?

They have only a sliver of respect for due process now, what makes you think they'll have even that left when everyone is disarmed?

Please, enlighten us, if you aren't advocating surrender, and you aren't advocating resistance, what ARE you advocating?

When those who say they will shoot to kill to keep their guns

Refuse to be manhandled by the TSA,
Be questioned at road checkpoints,
And stop paying their taxes.

THEN I'll believe their claim they will fight to the last round when the uniforms come for their guns.

It will take the same kind of courage displayed by Martin Luther King's followers who boycotted buses to go to work, refused to sit at the back of the bus, sat at "whites only" lunch counters, and so on to change the system.

I'm not brave enough yet to do those things. Are you? If you and I are not, what makes you think we'll fight and offer up ourselves and loved ones to die in a shoot-out when they come for our guns after we allowed them to take everything else already?

Conscience does not exist if not exercised

"No matter how cynical you get, it's impossible to keep up!
---Lily Tomlin

I refuse to be molested by the TSA.

So I choose not to fly.

If I ever have to, I will fly a private charter. I'm fortunate so far to not have to, and have been able to travel by car wherever I needed to go. It sometimes is less convenient in terms of travel time, but the cost is usually cheaper, and you get the benefit of seeing parts of the country you never saw before.

I've never been stopped at a road checkpoint.

I only pay the taxes I owe. So far, this includes property taxes, sales taxes, and other incidental taxes linked to my car title and utility purchases.

If you are allowing the government to take everything else from you, and you're having hangups about it, then I recommend you self-evaluate and take corrective action in that regard.

If on the other hand, you can't find it within yourself not to be a slave to their dictates, then deal with it. But your lack of ability to resist tyranny does not translate into the same for anyone else necessarily, much less a majority.

There are two interesting errors people make in their perception of others:

#1 - I'm alone and special and different, if not "better" than everyone else in some manner, or in every way. The majority of others are nuts.

#2 - Everyone else is just like me down deep inside.

These two errors are mutually exclusive, yet I see them committed all the time.

This thread is FULL of both.

I only give credence to the examples backed up with logic and or statistics.


Are you also refusing to pay your taxes?

That's the point I'm making. It seems easier for people to say, they will fight when they come to take their guns, than to actually stop paying taxes and refuse to obey other current infringements now.

Think about it--The worse that can happen to you is be arrested and jailed, compared to a firefight that leads to certain death. If enough people did the former, it could cause a less violent change than waiting for the extreme case of when they come for your guns--and believe me, if we wait that long, things will be so bad that such bravado gestures will mean nothing, because everything will have absolutely fallen to pieces.

This is the mentality I am trying to question, because all the government has to do is not push for a total gun ban to spark resistance, while still destroying the rest of our liberties. This results in a false sense of security among gun owners saying, "Well, as long as I have my guns, I still have a final option for preserving my freedom."

In short, its seems easier to promise to stand-up in a final extremity that may or may not happen, than to actually commit to a peaceful revolt now like refusing to pay taxes. And I was being honest in my self-examination to admit I'm not on both those counts.

Conscience does not exist if not exercised

"No matter how cynical you get, it's impossible to keep up!
---Lily Tomlin

They won't take guns

They won't take guns anyway..... They will stop ammo sells..... Most folks don't own enough ammo to fight for a day....

Ammo sales figures would suggest otherwise.

Not sure what you're basing that assumption on.

It is based on the assumption

It is based on the assumption that as soon as something happens (martial law, ect...) ammo sells will be banned. Most gun owners have a few trips to the gun range worth of ammo on hand. I did say most not all.... some go to the other extreme and have case after case of ammo stacked.... Most don't....

A typical single gun owner buys a gun, cleaning kit, along with a hundred dollars worth of ammo. A few trips to the range later they are comfortable with the gun... toss it under the bed... with little ammo left on hand...

It can't be stressed enough that when you purchase your gun this is the chance to deal with the shop. Spread the profit over all the supply you need. You will use a hundred or two rounds each time you go to the range. You will need or may want... a safe, case, clips, ammo and storage case(s), cleaning kit, glasses, ear protection, and more.... make it a package deal.

This Counter-Might Makes Corrective-Right philosophy

is Industrial age thinking -- in fact it is Pre-Industrial age really.

Name one civil war (happening in a 1st world country -- with modern military HALF as devastating as the US) where guns turn the tide of power elitism?

You CAN'T -- so don't try it's never happened.

The Commoners and Elite banded together
---So there were fewer "sell-outs"

The American Revolutionary War was (I think) the last great example of said outcome.

During the A-R the farmers had better weapons then the british soldiers.

They do not control via guns

Mechanism of Control

1) Fewer open-spaces to run too
2) They have airplanes and satalites now
3) They control water and electricity
4) They can shut down the major highways (effortlessly)
---No they do not have to have lots of boots on the ground for this as civilians have no "speed" during civil war (what horse travel?)
5) They control the fuel (gasoline)
---There are no ready-crops of fuel making produce
6) Civil War has a level of rape and opportunism historians often times leave out (it's un-imagineable)

That's just a few ways "guns" can't save you if the "evil-they" wants to control you physically.

But they don't need to do that -- because your one area of power is the one you do not discuss let-alone plan from.

Consumptive and Participatory Power

Those six reasons will not serve to control people fighting for


They will in fact, as history has proven, only serve to embolden the will to fight and resist.

You underestimate the desire of people to be free, and you overestimate the power of the elite.

Once the elite use each one of those centers of power, they lose it. Once electricity is cut off, people adapt and will survive without it.

Once water is turned off, people will adapt and find natural sources.

and so on.

Each attempt to control the people by withholding or cutting off creature comforts and even necessities will only serve to toughen the resolve to defeat them.

Show me one example of a modern gun-won civil war

in a 1st World "modern military" Setting.

Just one.

You would have to go back 60 or more years and Cuba does not count (was not a 1st world country anyway).

Famers had better weaponry and better survival skills.

The American Civil War was not civilians vs big gov't -- It was big gov't vs big gov't. The south was not representing poor people while the north representing rich.

Most in the US will agree to surrender weapons -- most weapon holders (in fact) will relinquish. The Liberals and Democrats will.

I'm just saying "guns" are not what keeps the gov't from attacking us -- at all; nor does it stop them from making dollar and consumptive destroying decisions.

Guns wont "save" the people.

"We" (the consumer) are 2/3rds (probably more) of the "evil they" revenue stream -- not war but through "trade" (according to Ron Paul) is how you beget a free-society. Also, non-participation.

If the Dems all turn in their guns - which I doubt - good, less

of them for us to deal with after the war.

They'll get their own collective Darwin Award.

A modern civil war will not be farmers against big government. I don't know where you got that notion.

It will be fought initially as a citizen rebellion but quickly escalate to a war between the States again. It will not be limited to civilians with small arms for long. See the other comments above on why such an assumption is erroneous.

Your restrictions on the demand for examples are absurd, there have been no uprisings in 1st world countries at all. While gun banning has been attempted and in some cases implemented in some semi-1st and definitely 2nd world countries, the U.S. is really the only 1st world country and it is unique as to why it has not yet been attempted.

If it is, it will be the first test case you are looking for.

The rest of this thread explains how it will most likely go down, at least from our current perspective.


Sam. Your statement, "the U.S. is really the only 1st world country and it is unique as to why it (revolution) has not yet been attempted."

Makes me laugh.

You don't fly.

Maybe take a boat ride someplace to help you know what you're talking about.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty" TJ

Come on Sam -- the question is not absurd

Having ONE EXAMPLE would be more than enough to counter-argue my main point: "that guns in he hands of mostly non-survival-skill havin' 5th generation non-farmer fantasy football / tail gate partying couch potatoes (mostly)" IS NOT going to stop a tech-driven (highly skilled) mech-driven -- just plain driven -- Modern Military.

As I said they will not shoot American's they are "controlling us" now *looks out side to watch the revolution* "doh! there is no revolution"

All's people talk about on DP (everywhere RP-fans are) is how the "evil they" control the currency (the valuation mechanism for all assets).

If they wanted to turn the screws it would not begin with boots on the ground -- they'd do via price setting or manipulation. Forcing us to sell assets or go deeper in debt.

The "boom bust cycle" RP talks about is how they control us.

I just don't know how this conversation turned from Mises "consumer-sovereignty" (RP's mentor) into "gun-sovereignty" (as a means to keep gov't at bay?).

Has "our guns" kept gov't from destroying the dollar? destroying the worth of our assets? off-shoring jobs? starting foreign wars?


I'm not arguing for gun control either (of any sort). I'm just saying guns don't solve shizat.

RP said: "Nothing promotes peace better than free trade. Countries that trade [people that trade] with each other generally do not make war on each other, as both countries gain economic benefits they do not want to jeopardize. ... Trade is much more profitable. Also, trade and friendship apply much more effective persuasion to encourage better behavior, as does leading by example."

Once we see "voting and lobbying" as the predecessor to gun-policy, to war-policy, to pricing-policy, to foreign-policy -- and that voting-lobbying is abdication-bribery then and ONLY then will we understand how to keep a gov't at bey.

Now if I'm wrong here then RP is wrong and Mises is wrong because I'm making their argument with minor extrapolations/expansions in basic free-market theory.

Your first paragraph there is a false assumption.

Do you know for a fact that the majority of gun owners fit that description? That not enough of them don't fit it at all?

I'd counter that it's more likely for ex military and their families to own guns, for hunters (of generations) to own guns, and know damned good and well how to use them.

Of COURSE there are some clueless gun owners who are fat happy and lazy and couldn't survive two seconds in a fire fight.

They won't be remembered in the history books anyway. But that doesn't mean those who do know how to fight, and are properly armed and trained, won't be what turns things from a tyrannical turkey shoot into a full blown war.

On everything else you wrote - I agree with you.

I just don't see that if the shooting starts, it will be a cake walk for the government - quite the opposite.