A Declaration of Civil Disobedience

[mnealtx]

Well said!

[Damnathius]

"If it ever comes to armed resistance, we will lose. Any such fight will be a fight for defiance, not for victory."

With that kind of attitude, I'm sure glad you're not on MY team.

It seems to me that those that signed on to the Declaration of Independence were "outnumbered" and "less equipped" than their British enemy, but they still kicked their butts back out into the water. To tell the truth, it's not necessarily the equipment that determines the victor in a war, but the spirit of those fighting.

But that's cool... Give up already.

[Kaylee]

... but they still kicked their butts back out into the water. To tell the truth, it's not necessarily the equipment that determines the victor in a war, but the spirit of those fighting.

Of course, Colonial tactics consisted almost entirely of running away for most of the early part of the war... and bringing in our arch-enemies of some twenty years previous to help fight off the Brits....

... feel like inviting the Russians and Chinese over to help? I'm sure some would like the chance to get a few kicks in on ol' Uncle Sam themselves.

-K

(I get your point though, and it's a good one. Just... not nearly so easy as it sounds, I think. A good cause alone does not carry the day.)

[Damnathius]

In the interest of brevity, Kaylee, I never suggested that such a feat would be easy.

However, I am of the opinion that when all of the gun owners see which way the wind is blowing via the evening news, (Such as house to house search/confiscation) they will view it as an attack on their homes and country. This will indeed create a formidible foe, perhaps numbering in the millions, for the "confiscators" to deal with.

Also, I doubt that in such a scenario there will be any "outside help" necessary. In fact, should things progress to the point of general civil war, it will be the Fed that enlists the "outside help".

[Quakemaster]

I think some of you have failed to comprehend the difference between civil and criminal disobedience. The declarations are not talking about civil anything. Change the name to a "Declaration of Criminal Disobedience" and I think you will have it nailed.

[Tamara]

Sorry, but assault, murder, et al are criminal.

Peacefully owning a firearm and not shooting anyone with it is plenty civil.

Don't let your mind be corrupted by misuse of terms, no matter how common.

[OF]

However, I've always thought that it was not prudent judgement to let the "other side" know your thoughts or intentions ...

At this stage, the 2nd Amendment is in it's proper mode: intimidation. The private ownership of firearms and the problems it presents to the oppressor, should weigh heavily on the minds of all those who would disarm a people. The fact that we are armed, and discussing drastic action openly, is a deterrent in itself. To be silent is to invite the worst.

The sentiment that the 2nd Amendment is not needed until they try to take it away is not entirely true. The simple fact that it exists passively discourages all but the most determined tyrant.

If the school teachers were armed, you could not guarantee that there will not be another school shooting. But it will serve to prevent all but the most determined sociopaths from the attempt. The same is true with the 2nd.

The nuclear deterrent only works if your finger is on the button and they know it.

- Gabe

[SIC TRANSIT GLORIA MUNDI]

Quote: "I think some of you have failed to comprehend the difference between civil and criminal disobedience. The declarations are not talking about civil anything. Change the name to a "Declaration of Criminal Disobedience" and I think you will have it nailed."

Baa.....Baaaaa....Baaaaa...Baaaaaa....Baaaaaa...

[Damnathius]

"Sorry, but assault, murder, et al are criminal.

Peacefully owning a firearm and not shooting anyone with it is plenty civil.

Don't let your mind be corrupted by misuse of terms, no matter how common."

Perhaps I am misunderstanding your words, Tamara, correct me if I am wrong. Are you suggesting that the 2nd Amendment protects our right to "peacefully own firearms" but does not extend to actually defending the right with said firearms if such defense involves "assault" or "shooting someone"?

[Tamara]

Perhaps I am misunderstanding your words, Tamara, correct me if I am wrong. Are you suggesting that the 2nd Amendment protects our right to "peacefully own firearms" but does not extend to actually defending the right with said firearms if such defense involves "assault" or "shooting someone"?

I believe the concept is pretty simple.

"Assault" and "murder" are criminal behaviors under any circumstances. They are punishable offenses even in wartime armies.

Mere ownership of a weapon, no matter what any malum prohibitum law may say, is not an inherently criminal behavior. Any real criminality derives from what is done with that weapon.

[Damnathius]

"I believe the concept is pretty simple.

"Assault" and "murder" are criminal behaviors under any circumstances. They are punishable offenses even in wartime armies.

Mere ownership of a weapon, no matter what any malum prohibitum law may say, is not an inherently criminal behavior. Any real criminality derives from what is done with that weapon."

I guess I'm not much of a dancer, even with semantics. But thanks for your time.

[Sodbuster]

I miss a lot of threads. In fact, I missed this one the first two times it appeared on TFL. I consider this one of the most important posts on this forum. I'm glad it was resurrected.

Das ist gut gemacht, lendringser. Meine besten Gruesse.

It seems Sun Tzu had a similar thought.

[Steve Smith]

I wish I'd caught this one earlier, too. guerilla1138, I stand with my fellow Coloradan, Mr. Teesdale. "They" are welcome to put my name in front of his, in fact. It doesn't matter. I will not hide, and I will not fail to stand for what I believe in. Hiding now will do nothing for you but delay your fate or allow you to slip away as a deserter. There will be no "regrouping" as many hope for in vain. The time to stand is now.

I use my real name for a reason. I am not ashamed of what I believe in.

[Paul K]

Thats what I'm talking about! One of the best posts ever.
Thanks. Good writing. you get a smiley

[bronco61]

Perfectly written!!!! Add my name to this.

One thing I'd like to add; I will NEVER get a national drivers' license, ID, or anything of the sort. I don't care what it is called, I will not register myself and my family. We will not be carrying our "papers" for validation.

[Malone LaVeigh]

Thanks for bringing this one back.

The powers that be can consider me a signer of this declaration. I will nonviolently resist this tyrany as long as there remains a civil society in which to be civilly disobedient. After that, all bets are off.

[Rebeldon]

I can assure you that any attempt to confiscated firearms in the South would result in talk of secession. Don't laugh! When it comes to guns, the South is one hornets nest the Federal Government better not poke a stick at.

And lets just ask who would make up these commando squads that would enter into homes and arrest people and take their guns, and possibly shoot the gun/home owners. Don't count on the local police in Alabama to do it. Don't even count on them cooperating with the Feds. They know they have to live with these people after their guns are taken. The fear of reprisals against the families of those who partake in the gun confiscation will cause the Feds to use 'commandos' from other regions to do their dirty work. Oh, yeah! That would sit well.

[Damnathius]

"The fear of reprisals against the families of those who partake in the gun confiscation..."

Against their families? What kind of "tactic" is that? It sounds very much like one of the "tactics" employed by the wacko environmentalists from A.L.F. and E.L.F. when someone goes against their tree/animal hugging ways.

Very poor tactic speaking from a moral standpoint.

[Rebeldon]

I'm not saying I would do it or even approve of it, because I don't, but it would happen.

Gangs also attack the family members of rival gangs. This is nothing new.

[Rebeldon]

Oh, and it is a poor moral tactic. I believe in only using honorable means to accomplish an end. But such feudal tactics are not uncommon among the dregs of society. Certainly, anyone organizing a gun comfiscation campaign has to consider this element. The Feds would almost certainly use strangers to the land to impose such tyranny.

Do you member in 1989, in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square, how the Chinese government used troops from another region, who didn't even speak the same Chinese dialect, to put down the pro-democracy demonstrations.

[Damnathius]

Rebeldon, it was just a thought, an image that popped out at me. Of course, I realize that even some of the "good guys" will play that game, but in my book that makes them as bad as the "bad guys".

Of course there are those that can't grasp the ideal, but if they resort to such methods, it will hardly help our cause. Such incidents are downplayed (and often ignored) by the media when committed by those that have a politically correct cause, such as animal rights activists, but let a gun rights activist pull that kind of lowdown crap and the media will be all over it.

[Rebeldon]

I'm affraid these same people would also attack the media. We are talking about really rough people. They'd give the Crips and the Bloods the screamin' willies.

[Rebeldon]

repeat. so sorry!

[Damnathius]

Well, I for one am all for a media takeover in such an instance as a revolution. They've been lying to the American people for way too long now, and it's just one of the things that must stop in order to correct the ills done to our society.

[RobW]

As far as I know there are 15 million gun owners in the country. Only 4 millions are "organized" in the NRA and ??? in the GOA and other gun-rights organizations.

The only thing you can impress politicians with is to have a lot of votes AND a loud voice to be heard everywhere. It is very easy to deprive the "citizenery" of their "inalienable" rights, guaranteed by the Constitution, if they silently accept "laws" that are obviously unconstitutional.

The goal of politicians is to establish a new aristocracy (and they are quite far at it already). They find a lot of the necessary helpers to do so by convincing some groups that they are an exquisite part of this new aristocracy.

I don't have any hope that this will change; to see, hear and read about the good Klinton nearly every day just makes me wonder if he will be the next king.

Just look how far the oath of "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution" of the presidents have come!