PotashRLS Posted February 27, 2009 Report Share Posted February 27, 2009 As we all know our fight for our right to keep and bear arms is ongoing and continually at risk. It is becoming more apparent that very serious legislation could be coming in the next 4 years (probably sooner) which will further threaten that right. I and many believe that if "they" could come and get our guns right now "they" would. I know a lot of folks roll their eyes at that thought and consider it fear mongering. I believe complacency is also a threat to our 2nd Amendment Rights. With history set to repeat itself please ponder and/or pass on this question to our Law Enforcement Officers........................ If/when such legislation is being put in place to threaten our right to keep and bear arms and threaten our right against wrongful search and seizure, where will our Law Enforcement Officers stand when they are called upon by the powers that be to come and take our firearms. I know it is a deep question that will get a lot of "rolling of the eyes" from some, but the confiscation will have to be done by someone or some department (special public policing agency). The statement that that would never happen is not relevant because look around. It is happening all around us. Please take this thread seriously and look to get as honest of an answer as possible. I feel that if that very sad day does come, law abiding gun owners will face a decision like no other. Thanks for reading my Thread. I and many look forward to your answers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cinch314 Posted February 27, 2009 Report Share Posted February 27, 2009 (edited) I am not sure that the law enforcers in my area will confiscate the weapons. They feel the way that me, my family and my friends in law enforcement feel. They feel that if you take the weapons from law abiding citizens that the crime on all accounts will sky rocket. They feel that citizens should have the right to bear arms so they can protect themselves. It's not like the criminals will give up their guns, they would just have an easier opportunity for crimes. I believe that they would prefer to target the gangs and frequent offenders of carrying the guns. They are the ones that break the law. We the citizens actually help prevent crime if a criminal knows that we are packing then they are less likely to try to commit a crime around us or to us. If it does come down to someone taking our guns, I believe it will be a special government controlled and approved group that will do it. Im not even sure that I believe that Dycorp or Blackwater will do it. Just my opinion. Edited February 27, 2009 by cinch314 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
okiedog Posted February 27, 2009 Report Share Posted February 27, 2009 So will the police officers still be allowed to carry and own firearms? I may change jobs! I see high resistance in rural areas if it ever comes to this. I think it could turn some now law abidding gun owners into criminals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pendog Posted February 27, 2009 Report Share Posted February 27, 2009 Wasn't there rumors that the new Gov wanted to make a special police force.......something to wonder about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wtnhunt Posted February 27, 2009 Report Share Posted February 27, 2009 I do not really foresee this happening this way, but for conversation sake my understanding Tracy is that it would not be local law enforcement agencies that would be coming and taking guns in the event that this type of thing ever happened, but would instead be a national level agency. And yes, Andy is correct that there was mention somewhere along the lines of a special "police force". Obama said today in his speech at Fort LeJune that he intends to increase our number of soldiers, kind of goes against what Clinton did with downsizing our military and also has to raise some questions as to why this is a consideration with the troops from Iraq all slated to be out of Iraq by late 2010. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m gardner Posted February 27, 2009 Report Share Posted February 27, 2009 The troops coming back have training in going door to door and urban warfare. Pretty scary huh?:eek: Better hope they won't go against the constitution. Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rookieee Posted February 27, 2009 Report Share Posted February 27, 2009 It will be a cold day in "****"when anyone tries to take any of my weapons away from me or my family Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocMort Posted February 28, 2009 Report Share Posted February 28, 2009 The troops coming back won't be used against their own country, they like myself who just got back understand the meaning of the constitution after defending it for so many months. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RackBlaster Posted February 28, 2009 Report Share Posted February 28, 2009 If that did happen , does this sound familiar '' The red coats are coming , the red coats are coming":) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nativetexan Posted February 28, 2009 Report Share Posted February 28, 2009 It would be hard to say what would happen. We all know it can happen because it has already on a state level once after Hurricane Katrina. Should it happen on a national level, the undertaking would be so massive, and no doubt the level of casualties on both sides, that it really would not be feasible to do a door to door. What we are really facing is an all out ban, on paper. Those with registered weapons not turning them in within the time allotted will face the legal ramifications and be subject to warrants, with search and seizure following when the government had the time and resources. There are already people in this country who are exercising their right to militia, and you could expect these militia's to grow quickly should something of this nature ever happen. On the original question (or request), if I was a cop and the government did something of this nature, my badge would be turned in. From a military standpoint, if I was ever called upon to turn against my own country and it's constitution, I would go AWOL. I swore to defend the constitution, not those who choose to ignore it, and surround myself with those who acknowledge the constitution. Which honestly, as active duty, it is becoming harder and harder to do each day that passes with this new administration. Watching our rights be chipped away is a serious moral dilemma for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldksnarc Posted February 28, 2009 Report Share Posted February 28, 2009 (edited) You pose a question I have been struggling with for a couple months now - ever since it became potential given the election and congress' current make-up and direction. I have been in the military and/or law enforcement since I was 17. I have a high regard for the rule of law and believe that laws are necessary for an orderly society. Whenever two or more people live in close proximity to each other there can be no such thing as absolute freedom. Each has to leash some of their personal freedom to peacefully co-exist with the other. However, as a conservative and a Republican, I believe those laws and limits on freedom have to be reasonable and should not be solely to control my life of the lives of others. I believe America has evolved from a Republic based on the rule of law as envisioned by our Founders and as set forth in our Constitution -- to a Democracy which is based on the rule of people and which is unconstitutional. If you haven't seen it, this is a good representation of what I mean - http://www.wimp.com/thegovernment/ I have the highest respect for our military and law enforcement officers. But, I fear when the day comes I will be pitted against one or the other who will be only doing their job while I try and protect my right. I cannot see myself engaging against either. I believe most of them will not agree with the law themselves and they will only be doing what they are told to by their commanders and leaders. However, I will not subjugate myself to what I consider to be unconstitutional laws or limits on a constitutional right. I have no problem with background checks - these help to insure those who shouldn't have guns don't have. However, this does not keep guns out of their hands - they will get them some how/some way. I believe some criminals are not intimidated by the thought of prison - it's just part of life and the cost of their lifestyle. However, mandatory minimum sentencing of those who use guns in crime should be the way to control gun crimes. What would I do if told to seize someone's guns or arrest them for failing to have the required photo ID or failing to register their guns and they were not prohibited from owning or possessing them - i.e. otherwise a law-abiding citizen? Law enforcement officers practice the primary judiciary authority - discretion. People are required to register their vehicles and have driver licenses to drive. But, the difference between that and gun ownership is the difference between a right and a privilege. Government has a duty and can control certain things "but the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Law enforcement officers are also the primary protectors of the Constitution and are not supposed to enforce laws they believe to be unconstitutional. Therefore, I would exercise discretion and refuse to enforce a law that appears to be unconstitutional. The problem is that liberals enact laws against using guns in crime but too often allow the criminal to avoid the sanctions required by the law. I was once asked the difference between a liberal and a conservative. My take on it is: a liberal wants more laws to control our lives but if you don't obey them that's OK because they want you to feel good about yourself, while a conservative wants fewer laws and control over your life but by damn you better obey the laws that are there. What will I do when it comes to me complying with HR 45 or any other restrictions? I guess if it all comes about I will become a criminal myself for not complying with the law - which means that I can no longer be a law enforcement officer. Then, my decision will be what do I do when someone comes to get my guns...... I'm still struggling with that one. Edited February 28, 2009 by oldksnarc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swamphunter Posted February 28, 2009 Report Share Posted February 28, 2009 where will our Law Enforcement Officers stand when they are called upon by the powers that be to come and take our firearms. I will be retired by then. It would not be a local or a state agency to come take them, it would be the ATF, and yes LEO's would still be carrying firearms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texan_Til_I_Die Posted February 28, 2009 Report Share Posted February 28, 2009 From a personal standpoint, I can't imagine a worse case scenario. Having to face a choice of actually firing on, and probably killing (7 mag vs body armor at close range - 7 mag wins) a law enforcement officer or surrendering my God given and Constitutionally protected right, what a nightmare. And compound that with the realization that I would likely end up dead or a fugitive, well I just don't know what I'd do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldksnarc Posted February 28, 2009 Report Share Posted February 28, 2009 Problem is they realize most people today wouldn't fire on officers but rather will capitulate and turn over their guns. They count on this. At one point in our history we fought, killed and died for our Republic. Difference between then and now is: then it was against a repressive yet still somewhat foreign government (albeit England wasn't considered a foreign government and most of us then were English or allied Europeans). now it will be against a repressive government, but it's our own government made up of our own people and it will be enforced by our own people. It would be a whole lot different if it was a foreign government or a foreign people doing it to us. Oh, wait! He is a foreigner. He's yet to produce his birth certificate, has had the governor of Hawaii seal it to inspection and has had the courts thwart lawsuits demanding it be open for inspection. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocMort Posted February 28, 2009 Report Share Posted February 28, 2009 There is a difference from defending the constitution and standing for it. I can promise you this that they come to my house to get my guns someone is going to get hurt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoosierbuck Posted March 1, 2009 Report Share Posted March 1, 2009 My oath was to uphold and protect the Constitutions of the United States and the State of Indiana, and the laws of the State, but I believe there is a reason the Constitutions came first. I have a pretty good idea what they say, and I will uphold them and protect them. HB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PotashRLS Posted March 1, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 1, 2009 My oath was to uphold and protect the Constitutions of the United States and the State of Indiana, and the laws of the State, but I believe there is a reason the Constitutions came first. I have a pretty good idea what they say, and I will uphold them and protect them. HB And you may be prosecuting us law abiding gun owners as fellons:( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m gardner Posted March 1, 2009 Report Share Posted March 1, 2009 I am begining to believe that the small majority of the popular vote should have been an indication to this idiot of a president of ours that not everyone wanted radical sweeping changes. There are still too many people that don't want socialism or want the constitution changed or ignored. If he got a vast majority things would be much different but he seems to be ignoring these facts and pressing ahead. This is going to get nasty. As for waiting for "them" to go door to door,don't do it. "They"will be trained to do it and be quite good at it. You will lose. Any soldier knows that. Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adjam5 Posted March 1, 2009 Report Share Posted March 1, 2009 This is an interesting topic. I remember during the end of the H.Bush and beginning Clinton administration,(remember the jack booted thug comment? this was during that time). This came out during the 1st AW ban, that banned imports. Fear was building about weapon confiscation. A survey was taken with some of the military personnel/Fed Law enforcement on active duty. They were asked, "if given to order to fire on domestic civilians, would you follow that order?" The results were surprising if I remember correctly. I have thought about this stat often and worried to an extent. The majority of: 18-25 year olds said yes, 25-30 year olds said most likely, 30-35 year olds were undecided, and the 35 + age group said definitely NOT. If these stats are correct. I see a younger generation that really has no appreciation for the Constitution and what these rights mean. Just following orders was the mantra. Yeah, but so were the Nazi's at Auschwitz:rolleyes:. I feel many Americans have gotten soft and really have no idea of what it is to fight for anything worth fighting for. We here in America live, for the most part; a very peaceful easy life with no fear of invasion or civil unrest. So people get complacent and get soft. Sheepish I believe is the word. There are some of the younger generation that DO get it. They are not the concern. The robots are. The older generation( I said older not OLD!) seems to have more of a appreciation for what it took to get where we are and will defend what rights we have. Does anyone else remember this survey? I hope I am not alone here. Will I resist if THEY come for my guns? I'd like to think yes, but I will not know, until it happens. But I will rather have my guns and not need them , than need them and not have them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wtnhunt Posted March 1, 2009 Report Share Posted March 1, 2009 This is an interesting topic. I remember during the end of the H.Bush and beginning Clinton administration,(remember the jack booted thug comment? this was during that time). This came out during the 1st AW ban, that banned imports. Fear was building about weapon confiscation. A survey was taken with some of the military personnel/Fed Law enforcement on active duty. They were asked, "if given to order to fire on domestic civilians, would you follow that order?" The results were surprising if I remember correctly. I have thought about this stat often and worried to an extent. The majority of: 18-25 year olds said yes, 25-30 year olds said most likely, 30-35 year olds were undecided, and the 35 + age group said definitely NOT. If these stats are correct. I see a younger generation that really has no appreciation for the Constitution and what these rights mean. Just following orders was the mantra. Yeah, but so were the Nazi's at Auschwitz:rolleyes:. I feel many Americans have gotten soft and really have no idea of what it is to fight for anything worth fighting for. We here in America live, for the most part; a very peaceful easy life with no fear of invasion or civil unrest. So people get complacent and get soft. Sheepish I believe is the word. There are some of the younger generation that DO get it. They are not the concern. The robots are. The older generation( I said older not OLD!) seems to have more of a appreciation for what it took to get where we are and will defend what rights we have. Does anyone else remember this survey? I hope I am not alone here. Will I resist if THEY come for my guns? I'd like to think yes, but I will not know, until it happens. But I will rather have my guns and not need them , than need them and not have them. I do seem to remember something about that survey Anthony or at least remember hearing or reading about the stats. On the topic of resisting, families safety no doubt comes first and I would never allow my children to be harmed. My small number of arms is no match for a group of soldiers with full auto weapons, would be stupid to think it is. Could very well be that with the potential for gun bans that crime will rise and homes will be burglarized, do not see any possibility of any special police or military force removing those weapons from the thugs. Criminals would be well armed leaving homeowners defenseless, that is unless those homeowners were proactive and prepared. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m gardner Posted March 1, 2009 Report Share Posted March 1, 2009 (edited) I remember the survey. I also remember that New Jersey banned assault rifles around 1990. They figured there were 135,000 in the state. Some honest law abiding types turned theirs in. They got about 150 and decided to let it alone after that. As for resisting. Study your opponent. Study yourself. Knowing your enemy and knowing yourself will prove invaluable. There's alot you can do by avoidance. Most tactics of this sort rely on you resisting. I remember when I learned to box that it was more important to be missed than to land a good punch. And a fraction of an inch is as good as a mile. Be good at what you do and pick your battles. The two groups in power in America right now are so far apart that lots of us see no compromise is possible. Bad situation. Mark Edited March 1, 2009 by m gardner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevebeilgard Posted March 1, 2009 Report Share Posted March 1, 2009 My oath was to uphold and protect the Constitutions of the United States and the State of Indiana, and the laws of the State, but I believe there is a reason the Constitutions came first. I have a pretty good idea what they say, and I will uphold them and protect them. HB the second amendment gives us the right to have guns to protect us from enemies from outside and from within. that means the "confiscation police". let's face it, almost all our cops know full well that guns are a part of our heritage and our constitution. not many want to take away our guns. and ALL the cops know what a problem it will be to go up to a house and get their guns. lots of good folks will die there. frankly, not many anti gun folks are cops. also, how many anti gun folks are in the military??? very few. we have an all volunteer military and they know the constitution they swore to protect. the anti gunners may have a loud bark, but the bullets are on the pro gun side. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldksnarc Posted March 1, 2009 Report Share Posted March 1, 2009 ... the small majority of the popular vote should have been an indication to this idiot of a president of ours that not everyone wanted radical sweeping changes ... If he got a vast majority things would be much different but he seems to be ignoring these facts and pressing ahead. Mark Exactly. He's ignored the fact he just barely won. But, is charging forward because he not - not by a lot but simply because he won. And, it wasn't a total majority. Only about 60% of the people voted - so he won 51% of 60%. Those that didn't vote didn't let their voices be heard. Well, actually they did - they voted that they didn't care. In the video link I posted earlier a Democracy charges forward simply because the majority wins, regardless by what margin, and forces their will on everyone else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swamphunter Posted March 1, 2009 Report Share Posted March 1, 2009 and the 35 + age group said definitely NOT I am 40... frankly, not many anti gun folks are cops. also, how many anti gun folks are in the military??? very few. we have an all volunteer military and they know the constitution they swore to protect. the anti gunners may have a loud bark, but the bullets are on the pro gun side. I rely on the gun and the bullet to bring me home at night.. to keep my wife having a husband, and my children having a father. When I get home, I rely on the gun and the bullet to protect my family from the same scumbags who I deal with while I am at work. I will not hesitate to defend myself, my family, or my home... no matter what the cost with my gun and my bullet. Would I however shoot a member of law enforcement, or the military if they came to take my guns? Absolutely not... it is about providing for my family and always being there, whether or not I am armed. That is a battle that I would lose even on the homefront, whether or not I was shot and killed, or just hauled away. Kids and a wife without a father... the same situation I use the gun and the bullet to protect us from. The battle is only a small part of the war....fighting legally through legislation to have my firearms returned is the overall goal, not dying on my front porch in a hail of bullets from marksmen and military members with far more shooting experience and ability than I....just to keep them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldksnarc Posted March 1, 2009 Report Share Posted March 1, 2009 My oath was to uphold and protect the Constitutions of the United States and the State of Indiana, and the laws of the State, but I believe there is a reason the Constitutions came first. I have a pretty good idea what they say, and I will uphold them and protect them. HB I took the same oaths and believe, because of that oath, it is my duty and responsibility to not enforce those laws that are not constitutional. Who decides what's constitutional? Under the "three seperate branches" theory the Judicial branch. However, they have shown a propensity to believe the Constitution is a "living, breathing document" and subject to interpretation and not the defining document it was intended to be. I believe it is every American's duty to uphold and defend the constitution and to ignore and overthrow those who would go beyond it and those laws that violate it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.