A Declaration of Civil Disobedience

[LostOneToo]

I'm with you!!! I know the day will eventually come when "they" decide to come door-to-door and I only hope that I am still alive and functioning when that day comes. I'd really hate to miss a good fight.

[tyme]

btt

[bronco61]

Lensdringer,

I'll stand next to you!

[rolf]

Two years ago Michigan finally got Shall Issue CCW. It was very restrictive (many disqualifications, many places off-limits, fingerprinting and registration) but a step in the right direction, right?

Last week the legislature passed (overwhelmingly) the first amendments to that law. The changes were basically written by the police and included authorization for gun boards to access applicants' medical records.

It wasn't just a step in the WRONG direction; it was the last straw.

I won't be renewing my "permit" in this state.

[TallPine]

For all you moral holier-than-thou's out there:


Remember that signing the Declaration of Independence was a crime punishable by hanging.

When the shooting starts, catch a boat back to England.

[Navy joe]

Sniff? I smell some hypocrites here. Everybody wants to agree with Lendsringer's original and quite excellent post, but with a few exceptions push and shove would shake most posters into compliance. My evidence? Suppose I were to start a thread "Why I carry without a permit". I've seen a few posts like that around here and I could surmise that I would be summarily jumped by all kinds of posts about how I was irresponsible, illegal, jeopardizing others rights, etc. The prevailing opinion would be "Why not get the permit, it's shall issue?" "I would never do that, I might go to jail".

Well, so be it. I've carried for several years, some places it's a misdemeanor, some places a big F felony. I've got the permit application sitting on my desk and I'll have one just as soon as I have throughly indoctrinated myself that having a permit does not make me one of the good guys. I already was one of the good guys in my heart. The permit just gives me less trouble when I deal with "them". Carrying without is also an important training exercise for me, so I will be able to do it without guilt, hesitation, or detection when I HAVE to, not want too. It reinforces in my head that those that would arrest me now for carrying and not harming anyone are not to be trusted in the less certain future. My permit will not put me on their side. And further, carrying without a permit just makes me feel good. It's like giving the finger to surveillance cameras, helps me keep perspective.

-Just because a gesture is ineffectual does not mean it is meaningless-

That's my declaration (and random act) of civil disobedience for the day, I think Lendsringer has future actions pretty well covered.

[Edward429451]

Moi?

carrying without a permit just makes me feel good. It's like giving the finger to surveillance cameras, helps me keep perspective

[Jbar4Ranch]

"...it's not necessarily the equipment that determines the victor in a war, but the spirit of those fighting."

William Wallace and his rag-tag band of Scotsmen were outnumbered by a margin of about 4 to 1 when the battle of Stirling bridge took place in 1297. No one knows the actual numbers, but by most accounts, an estimated 13,000 professional, highly trained, and extremely well-armed English soldiers were pitted against less than 3500 of Wallace's group who were armed with nothing but the most basic and improvised weaponry. Thirteen thousand members of what could possibly have been the most powerful army on the face of the earth at the time. Thirteen thousand of the finest soldiers in the world at the time. Thirteen thousand soldiers of an army that hadn't known a significant defeat in over 200 years. When the dust settled and the screaming stopped, an estimated 5000 English soldiers lay dead on the battlefield. Total English casualties were near 100%.

Yes, 'tis indeed the spirit of the of the fighter that wins the battle. It's truly amazing what a determined and genuinely pissed off man can accomplish.

I don't think there will ever come a time when US soldiers will follow orders to kill American citizens en-masse. I think this was Comrade Klintoons plan for a New World Order and trying to place America under control of the United Nations. Hell, then you could have someone elses army come in and kill us and he could have sent ours to kill for them. Kind of a lend-lease program.

Freedom isn't free and it isn't going to be restored without bloodshed. The Constitution was not written by the government to give rights to the people, we already had those rights (Inalienable, remember?). It merely re-stated them and then established boundaries and limits for government. It was written by the people to give the government certain limited rights and powers of government and they have grossly overstepped those lines. The Second Amendment was written expressly to prevent this, so why aren't we invoking it and doing something about it? NO ORGANIZATION is why. So what can we do about it?

[Kaylee]

...it's not necessarily the equipment that determines the victor in a war, but the spirit of those fighting."

As I recall, the Japanese thought the same thing until round about 1945.


Just a little counterexample.

-K

[MatthewM]

Note from "The Peoples State of Calif":

Give me 30 minutes & I could execute a rendevous with a handfull of guys with over 100 weapons & 200,000 rounds of ammo. Private airplanes, mountain and out of state homes, etc.

I don't even get around much, don't live in the country & live near San Francisco. I'm not alone. No need for formal militia's, just a list of phone numbers and a few serious conversations over drinks & some handshakes.

[Oleg Volk]

Let's say that we lose. When the other side wins, they will forever worry about all those who forgot to surrender. For the rest of their lives, the culprits of any escalation will be walking about as targets. Jaruselski (Polish general who declared martial law in 1980) may still draw breath but not for lack of attempts to correct that...and most US antis don't rate the kind of protection he gets.

Carry permits are payoffs to keep cops from bothering those who have them, danegeld of sorts. What keeps them from being the exact equivalent of a tribute is that many view them as a bribe -- easier to do that than to go to war, but if the state and its agents don't stay bought...bad things will happen.

Equipment and training will decide a lot -- so it is our job to win over those who have access to both. Fighting armor with an 06 won't work...but having some units stand idle and some turn 180 degrees would...as would wetworking the soft squishy humans inside the hostile tanks when they go home or grocery shopping. The reason why we still have the imperfect but mild political process instead of an all-out internal cleansing is that enough people on all sides wish to avoid a civil war. Those things tend to persist for a while, once started...not good for anyone.

[braindead0]

re: Wallace

nothing but the most basic and improvised weaponry.

There were many more reasons that they prevailed, the 'basic improvised weapons' were fully capable weapons. A big factor in that battle was that the 'dirty Scots' didn't play by the rules.... and I don't think anybody here would either ;-)

[Marko Kloos]

Thirteen thousand soldiers of an army that hadn't known a significant defeat in over 200 years. When the dust settled and the screaming stopped, an estimated 5000 English soldiers lay dead on the battlefield. Total English casualties were near 100%.

Yes, 'tis indeed the spirit of the of the fighter that wins the battle. It's truly amazing what a determined and genuinely pissed off man can accomplish.

Stirling Bridge was a victory for the Scots because they ambushed the English while they were crossing a narrow bridge which only allowed two-abreast cavalry crossing. The Scots attacked when half the English army was still on the far side of the bridge, effectively dividing the English force. They also had the advantage of terrain against the superior English heavy cavalry, which couldn't deploy properly in the soggy marshland right off the bridge. The Scots compressed the English formation with pikemen and then routed them, a tactic repeated at the Battle of Bannockburn 17 years later.

The Scots exhibited sound tactics in minimizing their own vulnerabilities and exploiting the English ones. Determination and pissed-offedness are good, but they'll only take you so far in battle. In the end, battles are won by training, unit cohesion, communication, and capable leadership. Those are the attributes that separate true soldiers from mere warriors.

[TallPine]

Where is William today? Sigh...

[tyme]

Equipment vs Spirit:

The U.S. could win a war against its own citizens, but could it do so without using WoMD, blowing up entire city blocks, and using other technologies banned or restricted for civilian use? That would not be productive. The U.S. gains nothing if it destroys its economic and industrial potential fighting a war against its own citizens.

I'd say the U.S. could more easily afford to let politicians be assassinated, even, than to start a war that would relegate it to a pre-coldwar industrial complex.

[braindead0]

road warrier....weee!

[Sam Adams]

Many years ago I knew a Vietnam vet who had "only" a .303 Enfield and a couple of boxes of ammo for it. He claimed to be very anti-government, and regularly commented about fighting "the JBTs" in the event of a gun confiscation. Since he was a little strange (or maybe more than a little ), I (still in my early 20's and not knowing very much about guns then) figured that I'd have a bit of fun by razzing him about it

I said to him "how are you going to fight trained soldiers armed with full-auto rifles and protected with body armor for a period of years, armed with an old bolt action rifle and a few dozen rounds?"

The response I got floored me with its simplicity, and earned him a bunch more respect in my eyes. He said "You know, I was in Vietnam, and not as a paperpusher or a cook. I was in the boonies, fighting both VC and NVA regulars. My unit was victimized by lots of ambushes, but we learned quickly to return the favor. I may be old and fat now, with bad knees that won't let me run or carry a heavy field pack, but I don't need to be in the shape I was in then, or that some dumbass 18 year old PFC is in now. I'm smart enough and have enough experience to put myself in a position to shoot some guy with this rifle without myself being detected. Then I'll pick up his rifle, ammo, grenades, maybe a radio if he's got one, his helmet and body armor, his uniform, his boots, etc. In short, I'll just go shopping for what I need." He also said that just because the rifle was old didn't mean that it couldn't be effective. And he especially liked the .303 British round - he said that it was more or less a .30-06 equivalent, and that the bullet had a tendency to tumble. He said that it would penetrate most body armor, and that as a former deer hunter (before the bad knees) he could easily put one in the neck at under 100 yards, so the helmet and armor were meaningless.

He laughed - he said that for about $150 he had a rifle with a cheapo (Tasco, I think) scope and a bit of ammo that would allow him to do what he thought might someday be necessary. He contrasted that with someone spending thousands on new, high-tech guns and all kinds of gunsmithing, and asked who was smarter.

As I said, my respect for him rose considerably. I learned a bunch from just that 5 minute conversation, not the least of which was to challenge all of my "knowledge" and to think more before coming to conclusions. And, as related to this thread, it shows that no matter how poorly armed 1 person or a small group is, if they have some weapon (even a rock) and some smarts and some guts, then they'll eventually have the most sophisticated and modern weapons that they can use.

It ain't the hardware that matters in the end - its the wetware. The grey mass between your ears is your most powerful weapon.

[Any .45]

I believe this was already stated !!!Molon Labe!!!, if they want them come and get'em. I belive beemerb said it right in 2001, this would be unconstitutional and anyone coming to break the constitution that I swear to up hold as a citizen of this great country, will feel my presence and be treated as an invader. After that I have no more comments. Marko you got my blood pumping and mind raging, good thread brother, really good thread.

[jefnvk]

I doubt a war against gun owners on US soil will never happen. If it does, it will be short lived at best.

Why?
What happens to the non-gun owning civilians? Do you honestly think that they will show any suport for a war, when the fighting could end up in their own streets? I would imagine even some of the most anti-gun people would never resort to such a tactic. And, as already stated, who would be doing the confiscation? Even if they ship police officers around, so they aren;t confiscating from familiar faces, when they return, the community will still know that somewhere a gun was confiscated because of them. Non-gun owners will begin to complain about their rights being violated when soldiers have to go door to door. The economy would collapse. In short, no one could justify a case where a war against gun owners is more beneficial to the community that letting them keep their guns.

And to the people that say that posting your plans on a public bulletin board is dumb, if a list were to exist, simply being a member of this board would probably put you on it, anyways.

[Double Naught Spy]

Declaration of Civil Disobedience or a Declaration of Stupidity? It sure as hell is not the same as signing the Declaration of Independence and the sentiment about being locked up in jail [without guns] is better than being out on the street without guns is just downright stupid. I don't know anybody who has ever been to jail that would agree to that statement.

[jailbait]

"Why I carry without a permit"
I believe there have been many of these threads, they've just been hidden in titles such as "Open carry in my state" Screw ccw's. If your going to go balls to the wall defiance with a pistol, wear it out in plane view....

i do.

"I can assure you that any attempt to confiscated firearms in the South would result in talk of secession"

pfffftttt.... it wouldn't even take that. I don't know about the flatlands down there, but here in alabama, we've been hinting at it for some time.

[Supertac]

Bump for an INCREDIBLE thread...

[Bowtier]

You picked a heck of a thread to bring back. And I thank you for doing so. I have been browsing old threads for sometime now, but had not come accross this one yet.

Some people start threads that just make me . Then there are others who put thoughts into words that are an inspiration to us.

They make me realize that there are people like me left, who still have their own beliefs and morals, and do not blindly follow every law that is put on the books simply because the shepherd says its so.

Again thank you, welcome, and a big THANKS to original poster

[alpineman]

There should be no bringing this thread back. This thread should never be allowed to die.

+1

I'm not going to sit here on my soft couch with a warm fire the day before I enjoy Thanksgiving and way too much turkey and rail about how, if guns were to be banned, the "JBT"s better come with it etc. etc. etc. I honestly can't say for certain what I'd do. In many ways, I hate and have reason to fear my own comfort. I hate to think that a good job and a roof over my head would woo me into surrendering my liberties. I hate the very thought.

I will say, however, that we should all aspire to have such an undying resolve to protect our liberties - all of them. Personally, the pistol on my hip and the eeeevil black rifle by the bed are the things that, on a day-to-day basis, protect the things for which I'll give thanks tomorrow (and every day, for that matter). The guns help me protect myself and the ones I love - every day. Not the government. Not laws. Not the cursed cameras. Guns. Period.

Laws - and the very idea, for that matter - that so much as suggest that we as individuals should be deprived of the ability to protect ourselves by keeping and bearing arms deserve all the disobedience - civil or criminal or whatever you want to call it - that we can muster.

+ another 1 one for good measure.

[Supertac]

bump