There Will be no Confiscation, You Will Hand Them Over

[TheDan]

Rather than doing so on an individual basis, in the face of such a situation it'd require organizing a mass event and documenting what is happening, why it's happening, and why what's happening is right as it is the truth of the matter.

For example: Multiple individuals at a rifle range, videotape why they are there, why it is lawful, ie: the truth of the law as IDENTIFIED by our bonafide civil rights. Then engage in the excercise of our civil rights. Assuming LE shows up and says "you're under arrest" Then it is time to engage in the use of force for the purpose of protecting our civil rights if things come to that point at that situation. And that is the language which should be used to properly describe what is being done and why.

I like it! So who's down for an illegal machine gun shoot?

The hypothetical scenario is an adaptation of something that happened to me in real life... One day I was shooting my AK on my own property and I had two deputies roll up because they heard me. They said they had heard "automatic fire" and needed to check it out. I told them that what they heard was a fast trigger finger on a semi-auto, but they insisted on inspecting the gun. The funniest part of the whole interaction was that they obviously had no idea how to discern a semi-auto AK form a full auto one, but they still wanted to look at the gun. We BS'ed for a bit, and they went on their way.

I was obliviously rather annoyed at them coming onto my property and "investigating" something they don't even have a clue about, but I maintained my friendly demeanor throughout the interaction. I'd bet if I had told them to pound sand I would have been arrested, and the gun sent to "the lab" where they would have dicked with it until they got it to double fire or something. Then lots of people on here would see the news story and say I won my stupid prize.

 

[Younggun]

There are already examples of what he submits. BLM standoff followed by the park takeover come to mind...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Maverick44]

I wouldn't choose to handle the situation in this fashion, that'd be the first mistake. It places an individual there by himself and makes it easier to "make an example" of him and serves only to wrongly reinforce the idea that "the law" is ostensibly right.
If the idea of demonstrating the law is unconstitutional and therefore null and void (which is specified in the constitution itself) and therefore has no legal authority and no individual is required to abide by it. Then the idea is to make a political statement to illustrate that point. Setting yourself up to be "made an example of" doesn't accomplish this.

Rather than doing so on an individual basis, in the face of such a situation it'd require organizing a mass event and documenting what is happening, why it's happening, and why what's happening is right as it is the truth of the matter.

For example: Multiple individuals at a rifle range, videotape why they are there, why it is lawful, ie: the truth of the law as IDENTIFIED by our bonafide civil rights. Then engage in the excercise of our civil rights. Assuming LE shows up and says "you're under arrest" Then it is time to engage in the use of force for the purpose of protecting our civil rights if things come to that point at that situation. And that is the language which should be used to properly describe what is being done and why.

That'd be the wiser way to do it, rather than foolishly standing out in the front yard essentially shouting "shoot me" via one's actions, which LE would likely do and it'd accomplish only one thing.
Grist for others to consider you a foolish troublemaker, maybe a brave one but a troublemaker nonetheless and give the public reason to believe the lie of what the law genuinely consists of.

Well said.

 

[ScorpionHunter]

Though it's less exciting than going toe to toe with the FBI, one thing we can do now is pressure our representatives to allow the ATF to use its funds to handle appeals by prohibited persons. The GCA allows prohibited persons to appeal their status with the ATF. But since 1992, Congress has specified that none of ATF's budget can be used for those appeals. It's probably the pet line item of some blue state representative.

This video talks about it at the 4:25 mark.

https://www.full30.com/video/e471d029c40fb45c4c2d27916f39b33c

Progressives have been chipping away at our rights for the past 100+ years. We need to start chopping back.

 

[Bithabus]

Hold on guys, I'm gonna go to Wal-Mart to buy a machine gun and grenade launcher.

Exactly.

 

[Mike1234567]

My point is that it's easy for many to say they would fight for their rights, but when it comes to giving up a way of life for that, can they?

Many so called free people are chained to their way of life, it's not an easy decision to give it all up.

No matter what most 'freedom lovers' claim, this is absolutely correct. What percentage of the peoples of the American Colonies claimed they wanted/needed freedom... and what percentage of them actually fought for it?

 

[benenglish]

All semi-auto rifles are reclassified as Title II firearms and must be registered. You refuse to comply and also refuse to let it just collect dust in the attic. You're out shooting it on private property, and up rolls Deputy Stephens (who likes to arrest people for federal violations; real or imaginary) because he heard "semi-auto fire and needs to check it out."

That really shouldn't happen. If all semi-auto rifles become illegal and I decide to hold on to mine, they will all be immediately fitted with suppressors. In this case, what's the difference between one felony or two?

In my book, discretion is not cowardice.

What if Deputy Stephens goes to church with you, or he coaches your kid's little league, or his wife and yours are friends, etc...

It depends on my level of commitment, something that will change over time. Personally, as long as I have immediate family members I love, I won't endanger them unnecessarily. Once I'm alone in the world, with only my property and my integrity to defend, then the fact that I know the family of Deputy Stephens means that after he arrests or kills my neighbor, I'll know where to <TGT rules-violating text snipped>.

 

[AustinN4]

In this case, what's the difference between one felony or two?

The length of your jail sentence.

 

[TheDan]

In my book, discretion is not cowardice.

I certainly agree with that.

 

[benenglish]

The length of your jail sentence.

That's one of those personal things. At my age, any serious federal felony would be a life sentence.

 

[AustinN4]

That's one of those personal things. At my age, any serious federal felony would be a life sentence.

Might as well stack 'em up then.

 

[locke_n_load]

Connecticut showed the .gov what the people will do.
They will refuse to register and hide their guns, never to bring them out into the public eye again. Because if they did, they would be checked for compliance and arrested.

Which is definitely not Freedom. I was hoping for some tarring and feathering, but alas, I was disappointed. Incrementalism won the war, at least in the NE and Commiefornia.

 

[oldag]

How do you keep missing this... There will be no confiscation or mass ban of all guns. If that is what you're waiting on it will never come. They know that would trigger a shitstorm so they push their agenda slowly. The last time certain guns were banned nationally was 1994. No one did anything other than hope it didn't get extended. Your governments (both local and federal) are already infringing on your life, liberty and property in many forms. What are you waiting for?

I 100% agree with your motives. I'm concerned you're delusional about some of the aspects of what you're advocating and expecting other people to do. The fact that you keep bringing up the American Revolution like it's a historical trend shows you aren't thinking rationally. It was a once in 2,000 year event. The overwhelming majority of revolutions don't go that way.


The speed and ease of communication is most certainly a positive difference today. The exchange of ideas is where the real war is fought. The infrastructure that facilitates that communication is under attack in the same way our ability to defend ourselves is. Fighting that directly isn't even possible. Best thing we can do is figure out ways to circumvent the restrictions.



There are no martyrs; only dead outlaws. Anyone who dies in a shootout with law enforcement for any reason will get far more "play stupid games, win stupid prizes" comments than support. Even on this forum. I really hate the whole blame the dead guy thing that goes on.

I would much rather someone live and keep speaking the truth, than be silenced forever in an unlikely hope their death will "spark" something.

And the fact that you are saying the same thing about the American Revolution that everyone else said at the time shows your ignorance of history. It happened, it succeeded. It could again if it had to do so.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Go argue with Thomas Jefferson, will you?

 

[oldag]

Perhaps, but we won't know until we know, will we? Now it all is just speculation.



And I submit that they had just come from Britain for a better life, were already pissed off, and didn't have as much to lose as most of us do today.

Dead wrong on that last point. Dead wrong. Go back and study. Some patriots lost great holdings. Some lost their families - do you have anything more precious to lose than that? Don't think so.

 

[oldag]

I wouldn't choose to handle the situation in this fashion, that'd be the first mistake. It places an individual there by himself and makes it easier to "make an example" of him and serves only to wrongly reinforce the idea that "the law" is ostensibly right.
If the idea of demonstrating the law is unconstitutional and therefore null and void (which is specified in the constitution itself) and therefore has no legal authority and no individual is required to abide by it. Then the idea is to make a political statement to illustrate that point. Setting yourself up to be "made an example of" doesn't accomplish this.

Rather than doing so on an individual basis, in the face of such a situation it'd require organizing a mass event and documenting what is happening, why it's happening, and why what's happening is right as it is the truth of the matter.

For example: Multiple individuals at a rifle range, videotape why they are there, why it is lawful, ie: the truth of the law as IDENTIFIED by our bonafide civil rights. Then engage in the excercise of our civil rights. Assuming LE shows up and says "you're under arrest" Then it is time to engage in the use of force for the purpose of protecting our civil rights if things come to that point at that situation. And that is the language which should be used to properly describe what is being done and why.

That'd be the wiser way to do it, rather than foolishly standing out in the front yard essentially shouting "shoot me" via one's actions, which LE would likely do and it'd accomplish only one thing.
Grist for others to consider you a foolish troublemaker, maybe a brave one but a troublemaker nonetheless and give the public reason to believe the lie of what the law genuinely consists of.

IF you think the Feds would show up at a range to make an arrest, well... I have a bridge to sell you.

If confiscation starts, it will come at 2:00 a.m. at your house. Won't be much of a video opportunity for you.

 

[oldag]

No matter what most 'freedom lovers' claim, this is absolutely correct. What percentage of the peoples of the American Colonies claimed they wanted/needed freedom... and what percentage of them actually fought for it?

Enough.

'nuff said.

 

[Younggun]

IF you think the Feds would show up at a range to make an arrest, well... I have a bridge to sell you.

If confiscation starts, it will come at 2:00 a.m. at your house. Won't be much of a video opportunity for you.

I believe there was a thread sometime back about the ATF checking NFA paperwork at a Texas range. Not on the range owners firearms, but checking those who were on site with SBRs, suppressors, etc.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TX69]

I envision hundreds of thousands of burned out homes all across the United States of America.

 

[atticus finch]

IF you think the Feds would show up at a range to make an arrest, well... I have a bridge to sell you.

If confiscation starts, it will come at 2:00 a.m. at your house. Won't be much of a video opportunity for you.

2am at someone's front door is the optimum situation as it's the first step towards the option we have that I laid out.
I havn't written the rest of the situation & the how and why as it would have been a fair bit of writing.
Rather than a lot of writing, there is a procession from the front door to the rifle range and there's a damn good reason for it being the far better option.

 

[Jack Ryan]

Dead wrong on that last point. Dead wrong. Go back and study. Some patriots lost great holdings. Some lost their families - do you have anything more precious to lose than that? Don't think so.

Farmers and large land owners in the colonies operated the same way a large number of farmers operate today, on credit. At the time of the 13 colonies that credit came from England. MOST of the "richest" colonist were nearly slaves themselves to English banks and creditors. The only hope they had of ever being "free" was to be free of their debt, by revolution, and stiffing the people they borrowed the money from.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_in_the_Thirteen_Colonies

Not everything is the way it is "sold" or at least rarely is it the whole story.

You don't get much support, even from the rabble, by inciting them to revolution with the rally cry, "Risk your life to free me from the money I borrowed to buy up all the land before you got here!"

Not to mention Washington among others was holding worthless land claims against the "new land" west of the mountains. Land England promised to remain in the hands of the Indians and prohibited the colonies from expanding in to. At least they were worthless so long as we remained colonies under English rule.