Guest Post: Feinstein's Gun Control Bill Will Trigger The Next American Revolution

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by Brandon Smith of Alt-Market blog,

All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party - Mao Tse Tung

After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it. I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in a society where the only people allowed guns are the police and the military - William Burroughs

Revolution?  Yes, it all sounds rather “extreme”, but the cold hard reality of our era is not going to comfort us with diplomacies and niceties, so honestly, why should I have to sugar coat anything?  We live in extreme times and there is no longer room for prancing around the ultimate consequences of that which is taking place in America today.  This country is increasingly sliding towards the edge of internal conflict.  The Liberty Movement and true Constitutionalists see it, subsections of Republicans and Democrats see it, and most of all, the federal government sees it.  In fact, they may even be counting on it. 

Over the past two years alone, multiple draconian policies have been enacted through executive order by the Obama Administration which build upon the civil liberty crushing actions of George W. Bush and press far beyond.  The Patriot Acts, the FISA domestic spy bill, the bailouts of corrupt international banks, attempts at CISPA and SOPA, actions like the NDAA authorizing the treatment of U.S. citizens as “enemy combatants” without rights to due process; all paint a picture so clear only a one-celled amoeba (or your average suburban yuppie) would not see it.  You and I, and everyone else for that matter, have been designated potential targets of the state.  Our rights have been made forfeit.

There is no ambiguous or muddled separation between the citizenry and the government anymore.  The separation is absolute.  It is undeniable.  It is vast.  It is only a matter of time and momentum, and eventually there will be unbridled oppression, dissent, and conflict.  All that is required is a trigger, and I believe that trigger has arrived…       

Though made to appear “complex”, the gun control debate is actually an incredibly simple issue.  It all boils down to a couple of questions which gun grabbers rarely ask:  How does the 2nd Amendment affect the future?  That is to say, what was the original intent, and should we still value that intent as it applies to tomorrow?  And, what will really happen if it is forcibly removed?  Gun opponents act as though they are unaware of these questions, or maybe they don’t care.  However, it is vital to their safety and the safety of our culture in general that they do finally consider the bigger picture. 

We’ve all heard the prefabricated gun control talking points before.  Some of them so old they predate us.  They are numerous and most of them incredibly thin.  The gist of the anti-gun position, though, could be boiled down to these three points...

Common Anti-Gun Arguments:

1) The 2nd Amendment is “outdated” and no longer relevant in today’s modern society.

2) We do not want to stop you from “defending yourself”, or interfere with the American tradition of hunting, but people do not need “military assault weapons” for either.

3) Your claimed freedom to own guns should not supersede my freedom to live without fear of guns.  We exist in a society, and our society requires us to give up certain freedoms so that it can function.

Again, in response to these arguments, I have to ask, what does the 2nd Amendment mean for the future?  What was its original intent?  Gun control advocates would like to ignore the fact that the Constitution specifically protects a broad application of gun ownership, but when they cannot deny the legality of it, they instead turn to more abstract and existential methods of attack.  They try to twist the original intent of the 2nd Amendment to further their goals.  To respond briefly to each of the above fallacies:   

1) The right to self defense from ANY threat, whether it be an individual, or a criminal government, does not “outdate”.  It is a universal and eternal freedom.  It is a foundational pillar of natural law.  Even if the 2nd Amendment did not exist, I would still have the inborn right to arm and protect myself and those I love, and the best way to do that is to own firearms.  The men who drafted the Constitution were far more intelligent than any pithy gun grabber today, yet, these socialist errand boys seem to believe that they have “surpassed” the wisdom of the Founders.  The amount of ego required to fuel such an attitude boggles the mind…

Gun violence and violence in general will not end simply by banning firearms.  The very idea that any society can remove all weapons from their sight is naïve to begin with.  Criminals always find a way.  Murder, rape, and mayhem will continue until you confront the root problem, which is the human mind, and the human heart.  Only when these two things are balanced in all people will violence end.  Disarming good men and women has never made a society “safer”.  When the power of defense is removed from the people, someone, somewhere, will seek to abuse their weakness.  The most armed entity of the time invariably becomes the subjugator, and usually this is the government.  Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, Mao’s China, Pol Pot’s Cambodia, etc, all contained disarmed populations.  The guns were gone, and still millions upon millions died.  Modern day Mexico is a perfect example of a disarmed population that is now living in terror because of criminal organizations (which, of course, still have guns).  Disarmament does NOT end gun violence, it only changes the dynamic of who uses that violence, and it makes innocent victims easier to attack.

2) Because the legal argument over the “interpretation” of the 2nd Amendment is essentially over, and the Supreme Court has ruled that gun rights do indeed apply to individuals, and not just collective bodies like the National Guard, gun grabbers are now reverting to the argument that we ARE allowed to defend ourselves with firearms, but the kinds of firearms we are able to use can still be limited.  The goal of this argument is to fool gun owners who only possess conventional firearms (hunting rifles) into believing that they will not be personally affected if they support a ban on military style weapons.  These wishy-washy hunting enthusiasts are often referred to as “Elmer Fudds” because of their gullibility.

All gun confiscation programs start by chipping away at the outer barriers of gun ownership.  Like termites slowly chewing away at the wooden skeleton of a home, anti-gun proponents start small and end by destroying the entire edifice.  Anyone who believes Feinstein’s legislation will begin and end with AR-15’s and AK-47’s is living in fantasy land.  That said, the 2nd Amendment was not established for hunting purposes.  Nowhere in the writings of the Founding Fathers do they mention “hunting” as their primary concern.  Instead, gun rights are protected in order to ensure that the citizenry remains dominant over any centralized government that turns to corruption.  We are supposed to police our own political leaders, and without military style arms, this becomes increasingly difficult. 

Gun grabbers will argue that our government is not the enemy because it is derived through democratic elections.  They will say that we can change it anytime we like in the voting box.  I would point out that regardless of which party is placed in power through elections, nothing in terms of our direction as a country has been changed, and, that both parties support almost identical policies.  For instance, Obama has come out in favor of nearly identical policy initiatives to Bush, and I can almost guarantee that many Republicans will sign onto the gun control efforts of Democrats despite their supposed pro-gun rhetoric.  When the two party system becomes a one party system, voting becomes irrelevant. 

Finally, they will admonish the idea of an armed citizenry keeping the government in check as a “fairy tale”.  They will claim that in the face of modern military might, constitutionalists would be crushed.  For what can an AK-47 do to an F-15?  Apparently, they have never heard of Afghanistan, which has used AK-47’s and 30 year old armaments to repel two technologically advanced armies; the Soviet Union and the U.S.  Of course, the Afghanis did not allow themselves to be disarmed…   

3) Here is where we get into the nonsense of intellectual idiocy.  The only real skill which academics seem to have is jumbling piles of logical fallacies together to make a single argument that sounds “rational”, but, in fact, isn’t.  The third debate point is an extremely collectivist one, and collectivist arguments generally exploit the idea that individuals must sacrifice their personal freedoms in order for the group to function. 

The truth is, the group does not matter.  The perceived collective concerns and fears of a mass of people are not relevant.  All that matters are the concerns of the singular man or woman, and whether or not those concerns are legitimate.  If a person “fears” guns and gun violence, then that is their private problem, not the problem of our entire society.  We as gun owners should not have to relinquish our rights because others are afraid of what MIGHT happen to them.  We should demand that they control THEIR fear, instead of being allowed to control OUR guns.  Just because a portion of our country shares this individual fear does not make that fear any more credible, or any more our problem.      

Do They Know What They Are In For...?

Feinstein’s campaign for gun control is not hers alone; it has been the overall establishment’s work in progress for decades.  I covered the broad based arguments of gun control advocates above because I wanted to illustrate the tangibility of gun ownership.  I want to show you where we stand as constitutionalists, and I can say confidently that our moral and intellectual footing is strong.  To be clear, when defenders of a particular idea are right in their position, they are much more likely to fight and die for that position, and they are much more likely to win.  

In the beginning I asked what the 2nd Amendment means for the future of this country.  Not only if it continues, but if it disappears.  If I was a gun control proponent, I would weigh the aftereffects of my actions carefully, because the penalties will likely be dire…

I have heard it argued that Americans are passive.  We didn’t rise up against the last Assault Weapons Ban. We didn’t rise up against the Patriot Act.  We didn’t rise up against TSA molestation.  We didn’t rise up against warrantless wiretapping, the assassination of U.S. citizens, or even the NDAA.  The people who make this point, though, are not looking at the larger issue.  It is one thing for our government to pass legislation; the wider application of that legislation on our streets and at our doorsteps is another matter. 

Feinstein’s bill is unprecedented in the history of this country, and requires widespread enforcement in every town and hamlet in order to be effective.  The way in which it is designed makes a violent response from the public inevitable.  It reaches far beyond the Assault Weapons Ban of the 1990’s, calling for the creation of a massive database of almost all gun owners in the United States.  This database will require citizens to submit their EXISTING firearms to cataloging, and the owners to be filed and fingerprinted like criminals. 

The bill will ban the outright the sale, manufacture, and transfer of at least 120 models of firearms (which have not yet been named).  It will ban the manufacture and sale of most if not all semi-automatic rifles and the bill specifically targets handguns as well.  Large capacity mags and mag fed weapons will essentially disappear from gun stores.  Though, those guns designated as “hunting rifles” will be exempt (for now).

Feinstein has also openly agreed with NY Governor Andrew Cuomo that government buy back programs (forced selling of firearms at a reduced price) and even physical confiscations are on the table:

To put this bluntly, there are approximately 50 million gun owners (according to official estimates) in the United States.  If only 2% of those gun owners refuse to submit to the Feinstein Database, and the feds attempt confiscation, they will have a massive revolution on their hands.

Many Americans, including myself, will not be strolling into the local Fusion Center to register our weapons.  Why?  Because gun registration reeks of fascism!  Some might call this “cliche”, but let’s just examine the guidelines of the Nazi Gun Registration Program of 1938:

- Classified guns for "sporting purposes"

- All citizens who wished to purchase firearms had to register with the Nazi officials and have a background check.

- Presumed German citizens were hostile and thereby exempted Nazis from the gun control law (meaning officials could have guns, citizens could not).

- Gave Nazis unrestricted power to decide what kinds of firearms could, or could not be owned by private persons.

- The types of ammunition that were legal were subject to control by bureaucrats.

- Juveniles under 18 years could not buy firearms and ammunition.

You see, we’ve witnessed the Feinstein gun bill before, many times through history.  We know how it ends, so, there is very little incentive for us to go along quietly.

The database itself is truly the crux of it all.  It basically begs to be defied.  When a government has become openly hostile to common people, destructive of their economy, and oppressive of their individual rights, it only follows that gun registration will lead to outright confiscation later down the road or imprisonment for the owner.  Many Americans are simply not going to fall into the same trap that past societies have fallen into.  The eventual refusal of millions of citizens to voluntarily register will lead to a definite federal response. 

The Department Of Homeland Security has obviously taken this into account, at least partly, by stockpiling over 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition in the span of a year, most of which are used in weapons distributed by the government for domestic enforcement.  Their projected scenario, I believe, involves limited resistance from people like myself; “gun nuts” and “liberty freaks” who are on the “fringe” of the populous.  At least, that’s what the headlines will say.  In the end, who will care if a few “conspiracy theorists” take a bullet in the quest to end gun violence, right?  But then again…

What I see in America is a much harder stance against gun confiscation than at any time in recent memory, and far less compromising than in the 1990’s.  Gun grabbers are, in my view, walking into a hornets nest.  Most average firearms enthusiast may be less aware of the deeper problems at hand, but they know when they are about to be raped, and will react in kind.  We in the Liberty Movement are often accused of “radicalizing” people against government authority, but I have to say, if that is the case, then the Feds are doing a much better job than we ever could.

Simultaneously, the UN (which most gun owners despise) is helping matters along by using the recent Sandy Hook shooting as a springboard for a reintroduction of their failed international Small Arms Treaty:

"European and other U.N. delegates who support the arms trade treaty told Reuters on condition of anonymity they hoped Newtown would boost support for the convention in the United States, where gun control is an explosive political issue."

"Newtown has opened the debate within the United States on weapons controls in ways that it has not been opened in the past," Abramson said, adding that "the conversation within the U.S. will give the (Obama) administration more leeway."

The UN has always claimed that their small arms treaty would NOT restrict private gun ownership in the U.S., and that it only deals with the international trade of illicit arms.  Yet, they try to use gun control actions in the face of Sandy Hook as a rationale for reopening negotiations?  They can't have it both ways.  Either they are trying to tie the treaty to domestic gun ownership in the U.S, or they aren't.  Will our government sign on to an international agreement to restrict private gun ownership on top of Feinstein's gun grab bill?  

To put this in the most basic terms: registration and restriction equals revolution.  Count on it.  It is not a matter of what we "want", it is a matter of what is necessary.  Without a citizenry armed with weapons of military application, we lose our last deterrent to tyranny, and thus, we lose everything.  When backed into a corner, a victim has two options: he can lie down and die, or, he can fight regardless of the odds.  Sadly, this is where we are in America; fear, servitude, subservience, or civil war.

Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws - Edward Abbey

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Cathartes Aura's picture

check this out DapperD,

Prince of Blackwater heads to Africa


Erik Prince, who made a fortune in Iraq thanks to his politically connected and controversial Blackwater military contractor, is leading a group of Chinese investors on a hunt for natural resources and investment opportunities in Africa.


Erik Prince, the man who founded Blackwater, the private military contractor that became synonymous with mercenary excess during the Iraq war, has apparently begun a bold new business venture: He's going to be investing with a group of unnamed Chinese government-linked companies in resource extraction and infrastructure in sub-Saharan Africa.

he's always been one to watch. . .

zerotohero's picture

The peasants are revolting - no really they are revolting

Treeplanter's picture

Bollocks?  Another idiot from the UK.  Even Canadians aren't dumb enough to use "bollocks."  How's that sharia creep working out for you guys?  Land of No Hope and No Glory.

ShrNfr's picture

And Feinstein who carried because it let her "feel safe" is a total idiot too. Oddly I have not seen Bloomberg on the subway lately. Got to watch out for those attack subways and all you know.

Titus Flavius Caesar Vespasianus Augustus's picture

Junked or not - thou art correct.

Most of America will cheer as militarized local police start busting down doors {no warrants needed} to get the "right wingers" and "tea partiers" who want to take away their free medical care and obama phones.


I could give a shit about guns because the military and DHS have so much firepower, the 'defend against tyranny' ship has absosmurfly sailed. 


We are more able to defend against the coming information wall-off by the likes of the Joe Liebermans of the world...  but probably, we won't.


In fact, as we're debating guns I suspect the gubmit will begin to move on curtailing your right to go to alternative media sites.  I could be wrong - but I'm more worried about not being able to get accurate news out of Iran and Syria than I am about being able to "resist" an army with an assault rifle.


The government is already at war with the American people - the front line is everywhere.

Bloodstock's picture

Me thinks that you are the idiot, still listening to the daily news with no street smarts. 

HardAssets's picture

Harlequinee001 said:  "What a load of bollocks. Do you really think that Americans are any different than anyone else on this planet?"

You may be right, but at one time over 200 years ago, Americans were different. We formed a Republic and recognized God given rights. An upstart nation of commoners took on the greatest empire on the globe and won. And there were those in the world who deeply resented this. It was an example for their subjects/serfs which they wanted to erase. That nation of commoners and those who fled to America later built a prosperous nation.

For more than 100 years there has been a concerted effort to erase American citizens memory of their history and foundational principles. Is there enough of a memory still left ?  Who knows. That memory seems very dim at times. Hopefully there's still some left.

Its a battle of ideas now, a battle for peoples hearts and minds. This includes the guys with the guns - - - - the troops and police who are as much victims of these criminal parasites, as are all of us.

chubbar's picture

Let the cocksuckers in Congress pass a gun free zone in D.C. and then send all their armed guards home. Same with all the bankers and other elites that travel with multitudes of armed guards.

They know this doesn't work and only want us 99%ers disarmed and helpless. Fuck that.

The shooter in Newtown didn't use the "assault" rifle as has been bantered about for the past couple of weeks. Now what is that cunt Feinstein going to use as an excuse?

This gun grab won't work. I personally won't be turning in nor registering any of my guns. That being said, why do I have to become a criminal when my possession of arms is enshrined in our constitution? I know that the Supreme Court is bought off (review last minute Obamacare ruling change) so I guess I can't count on them to overturn any gun ban. I hope it does bring revolution, it is certainly what the congress seems to be looking for what with all the laws they've been passing lately.

ShrNfr's picture

As we know, the definition of an assault rifle is based on a fully automatic firearm that can shoot controlled bursts. Conversion of an AR-15 to an AR-16 with AR-16 parts is possible, but in violation of the 1968 act. Fine, I do not need a full auto. It is possible that I might be able to get one legally, but I have no desire to chew through money that fast firing it. Reloaded 38 wadcutter works fine at the range. The 358 Magnum frangible is reserved for when I need it for keeps.

Oquities's picture

i grew up near Flint, Michigan like Michael Moore.  i am proud to say my good friend from high school punched Moore when they were teens.  he could not travel safely in North Flint, and he knows it.  but he doesn't have to go back to Flint, the city whose rep he helped to diminish.  others must live there however, and self defense is mandatory there.

Freddie's picture

Fat scum Moore lives in Traverse City in North north MI with about 98% white people and many have a good amount of money.

Carbine's picture

They also have a big bunch of guns Freddie and they are not going to give them up to the likes of Mooreon.  He's got a few liberal buddies up that way, but he's surrounded by NRA members.

HardAssets's picture

Oquities said:  "i grew up near Flint, Michigan like Michael Moore. i am proud to say my good friend from high school punched Moore when they were teens."

Hopefully, he kicked him in the nuts . . . if he has any, that is

Zap Powerz's picture


You mean a crisis like a "lone gunman" going into an elemetary school and killing 6 year olds?  Expect more of that to happen.  They cant let a crisis go to waste and if there is no real crisis, why not just make one?

Gun control should start with the government.  The goverment should STOP giving guns to mexican drug cartels.  That would be a good place to start.  They should also stop giving guns to Al Quieda and the muslim brotherhood.

The US government is the worst offender at using guns illegally.

Chupacabra-322's picture

Dear Criminal Elected Officials, please read the following:


On 29 April 1945, the bodies of Mussolini, Petacci, and the other executed Fascists were loaded into a moving van and trucked south to Milan. There, at 3:00 am, they were dumped on the ground in the old Piazzale Loreto. The piazza had been renamed "Piazza Quindici Martiri" in honor of 15 anti-Fascists recently executed there.[122]

After being shot, kicked, and spat upon, the bodies were hung upside down on meathooks from the roof of an Esso gas station. The bodies were then stoned by civilians from below. This was done both to discourage any Fascists from continuing the fight and as an act of revenge for the hanging of many partisans in the same place by Axis authorities. The corpse of the deposed leader became subject to ridicule and abuse. Fascist loyalist Achille Starace was captured and sentenced to death and then taken to the Piazzale Loreto and shown the body of Mussolini. Starace, who once said of Mussolini "He is a god,"[123] saluted what was left of his leader just before he was shot. The body of Starace was subsequently strung up next to the body of Mussolini.


 The Fatherland- Socialist/Nazi Germany

 The Motherland - Communist Russia

 The Homeland? – An Unspeakable Bastard crossbreed of the two above!


rotagen's picture

Fighting Organized crime requires intelligence, don't waste bullets on the tools like policemen, riot squads.  The only way this would work is precision hits on the creature from Jekyll Island.  You'd have to hit the Rothschilds and Rockefellers with sniper rifles and send a clear message to the CFR and bilderbergers.

Muddy1's picture

If you're not willing to give up everything, you've already lost.

irie1029's picture

Didn't you say Obama was not going to get reelected? Obamacare never upheld.. LOL  Do not bet on anything from this f'd up government.  

Karlus's picture

I am the last one here, the last one, to trust the government. I truly hate and despise it. I love our country...the people, still undecided.

Bottom line is this is the red line. Yeah, they will try and pass the assault weapon ban because the people took it in 1994 and will most likely take it again.

But I am in the cold dead hands camp,

Treeplanter's picture

We're going to need more ammo.

The Gooch's picture

and swim.

and... keep the powder dry.

SheepDog-One's picture

Exactly...people say 'Aw this will never pass!' they said the same about a whole lot of other stuff that just sailed right thru....whats stopping them? Nothing...well 'yet' anyway.

Agent P's picture

Larry the Cable Guy on the Constitution:

"They keep talking about drafting a Constitution for Iraq...why don't we just give them ours?  It was written by a lot of really smart guys, it has worked for over 200 years, and we're not using it anymore."

Ookspay's picture

Return to States rights and limited federal powers as intended, problem solved.

Stoploss's picture

Better pray to whatever god of your choice it doesn't..

N57Mike's picture

... and we also thought the Supreme Court would strike down parts of Obamacare, that group too are spoiling for this fight now & attack Ammendment II.

Titus Flavius Caesar Vespasianus Augustus's picture

It will pass, and if it doesn't, I believe there's a UN treaty which, somehow, now days people believes comes into effect and trumps the Constitution even if it's just signed by the Prez.


I know treaties ratified by the Senate trump conflicting law, but I believe {correct me??} that it's still unclear if an international treaty could actually trump the Constitution...


I think the smart notion would be, no, you need to *amend* the Constitution to change it - an international treaty shouldn't be able to effectively amend the Constitution...   but since right and left love to conflate social policy goals with legal analysis, anything like a smart or common sense approach to it is basically DOA.


I do think they'll soft show it for a while... voluntary turn ins, buy backs, fines... but presumably DHS *could* be a last resort in a couple years.


I don't care - I think the real warfare is going to be electronic.  I'm much, much more worried about what they're planning to do to the internet and DNS servers.   You can have a dozen AR-15s and a suitcase of hand grenades and you aren't going to hold off the tax man, let alone DHS.


But some sort fo electromagnetic pulse weapon at just the right spot?


mmm, mmm, mmm - that's sexy.



seek's picture

It's actually considered a settled question that treaties do not override the constitution. There were some twisted legal constructs arguing otherwise around the 1950s, but they were turned to ash.

Titus Flavius Caesar Vespasianus Augustus's picture

Ah - good to know, I stand corrected. Danke.

Citxmech's picture

"I don't care - I think the real warfare is going to be electronic. I'm much, much more worried about what they're planning to do to the internet and DNS servers. You can have a dozen AR-15s and a suitcase of hand grenades and you aren't going to hold off the tax man, let alone DHS."

If we go to alternate currancies/barter - the taxman's going to to have a pretty tough time.

The front lines on this fight will be our local police, etc. tasked with supporting the federal goon-squads.  If our local enforcement entities aid any resistance - the goons are going to have a very tough time.

Ghordius's picture

+1 a treaty has the force of law. constitutions are above common laws and treaties

this UN "thing" is about international trade

rwe2late's picture


Thomas Jefferson was clear on this point: "If the treaty power is unlimited, then we don't have a Constitution. Surely the President and the Senate cannot do by treaty what the whole government is interdicted from doing in any way."

Alexander Hamilton agreed: "a treaty cannot be made which alters the Constitution of the country or which infringes any express exceptions to the power of the Constitution of the United States." 

However, does that matter?

Constitutional rights have evidently already been “infringed” in many areas:
undeclared warfare and so-called Homeland police laws.
government secrecy and disinformation, freedom of speech, and of the press;
the right of the people peaceably to assemble
against unreasonable searches and seizures
cruel and unusual punishments inflicted
due process
speedy trial
oversight of war powers by the People, through Congress.
regulation of money/finance by Congress.
and corporations, no longer being limited legal constructs of the state, but lately invested with legally inviolable “citizen rights” solidifying corporate dominance of the legislative process.

Athenian's picture

No, an international treaty cannot trump the US constitution. Thank goodness for that.

SheepDog-One's picture

U.S. Constitution gets trumped and trampled on every day! Did the constitution stop them from bailing out foreign banks at taxpayer expense? Patriot Act? NDAA? Warrantless wiretaps? 


Anyone still with some delusion that theres a piece of paper stopping these lunatics from doing whatever they feel like is just delusional.

northerngirl's picture

Maybe this will be the straw that broke the Camel's back? 



klockwerks's picture

Titus, you are correct when you say you will not hold off a large group, but, it's about 1 at a time and are you prepared to die for your liberty. As 1 or maybe a group of 3 or 4 with that attitude you could do serious damage to a number of whoever. The question is, are they ready to give up their life for their "job". It's all about your belief in keeping your freedom and not living under a dictator or under tyranny. I have prepared myself that this might become a reality and at 68 I have little to lose and being younger, they have everything to lose.

F. Bastiat's picture

Tend to agree with you.  It has, however, provided an opportunity for us to smoke out the tyrants and totalitarians in our midst.

Ultimately - we either have a Constitutional Republic, or we don't. It's that simple.

Renewable Life's picture

The problem with this whole premise of "a well armed citizenry" that could face down the tyranny of the government, is we gave that up years ago, with the patriot act(s), homeland security dept, military weapons buildup of state and local police forces, TSA, etc!!!

I was just in a sheriffs facility in the Southwest, and they had an "armory" with thousands of semi-automatic and confiscated automatic weapons, hand guns, tens of thousands of rounds of ammo, a sniper training range, several armored personel carriers for SWAT, helicopters, etc! It was shocking to see that a local county sheriffs dept was armed like this!!!

I'm absolutely against any new gun registration and fingerprinting laws, but I think it's also time for each American to realize, that no where has the Constituation been made more irrelevant from its intentions in 1776, then the post World War II realities of the 2nd Amendment!!!

L_Conquistador's picture

You're assuming that all of the members of the military and the police would remain loyal to the regime.

Toxicosis's picture

And you're assuming they wouldn't off people for the fuck of it.  When things become that desperate most of them will protect their own, both their families and most probably their colleagues.  Those with weapons such as these will just kill/murder a ton more a ton faster.  But hey what the hell, Americans love a good action flick.

SheepDog-One's picture

Most all will remain loyal, when shown a few other dissenters getting shot in the head.

They're good at this shit...been practicing it for centuries.

Raymond K Hessel's picture

Yes!  I agree.

There will be rewards for oppressing and severe penalties for dissenting... for the LEOs out there who have been fed a steady diet of "thin blue line" and how they're the nation's heroes keeping "back the night".

Raymond K Hessel's picture

There are oathkeepers but if things get to that point, these GED/HS grads are going to make sure that they and their families are safe and in a superior position socially, politically, and economically, before they begin looking out for our civil rights.

I believe in the generational cycle theories of history and in every crisis, Americans have become less free and more dependent on government.  

It's inevitable.  


Mike in GA's picture

You're right about the trend, but history is also filled with the occasional 'reset'

ElvisDog's picture

Exactly. I can almost guarentee that local and even statewide law enforcement in many of the red states would actively refuse to enforce an Obama- and Democrat-inspired gun ban.

rwe2late's picture

 True, even in Revolutionary times, armed militia were not well able to stand up to regular armies in pitched battles.

Hence, there has been the oft-stated belief that LARGE STANDING ARMIES POSE A GREAT THREAT TO FREEDOM.

Until lately, when standing armies and militarized police are widely championed and feted as "keepers" of freedom.

Having after allowed the threat to freedom of a standing army to exist, as well as the many other Constitutional compromises made, only then does the protection of an armed citizenry seem most weak.    

But make no mistake, this "compromise", as the others before, will not make one "safer", only even more defenseless. The safety promised by compromising liberties to the "war on terror", the "war on drugs", and now the "war on guns" is illusory.

A Middle Child of History's picture

Those well-stocked armories will become the arsenals of freedom once the revolution is well and truly underway. No way they can avoid that hardware falling into determined civilian hands just like in Iraq, Libya, and Syria. Let em' stock up on hardware. We will be using it on them someday soon.

Peter Pan's picture

I do not live in the States, but it appears to me that what Americans are most fearful of is not crazy gunmen but crazy government. Given that Americans suffer from both categories it is hard to see how this issue will be resolved.