What's new

Welcome to Japan Reference (JREF) - the community for all Things Japanese.

Join Today! It is fast, simple, and FREE!

Let me introduce a real US gun nut

Joined
7 Jun 2008
Messages
1,024
Reaction score
110
Sane or insane, plenty of US gun-owners feel this way; and this type of rhetoric finds precedent in the writings of some of our country's founding fathers.

What youツ’ll see in the rebellion
WRITTEN BY: BOB - DEC• 28•12

Let me explain, gun grabbers, how your confiscatory fantasy plays out. Let us imagine for a moment that a sweeping gun control bill similar to the one currently suggested is passed by the House and Senate, and signed into law by a contemptuous President.

Perhaps 50-100 million firearms currently owned by law-abiding citizens will become contraband with the stroke of a pen. Citizens will either register their firearms, or turn them in to agents of the federal government, or risk becoming criminals themselves. Faced with this choice, millions will indeed register their arms. Perhaps as many will claim theyツ’ve sold their arms, or had them stolen. Suppose that as many as 200-250 million weapons of other types will go unregistered.

Tens of millions of Americans will refuse to comply with an order that is clearly a violation of the explicit intent of the Second Amendment. Among the most ardent opposing these measures will be military veterans, active duty servicemen, and local law enforcement officers. Many of these individuals will refuse to carry out what they view as Constitutionally illegal orders. Perhaps 40-50 million citizens will view such a law as treason. Perhaps ten percent of those, 4-5 million, would support a rebellion in some way, and maybe 40,000-100,000 Americans will form small independently-functioning active resistance cells, or become lone-wolves.

They will be leaderless, stateless, difficult to track, and considering the number of military veterans that would likely be among their number, extremely skilled at sabotage, assassination, and ambush.

After a number of carefully-planned, highly-publicized, and successful raids by the government, one or more will invariably end ツ“badly.ツ” Whether innocents are gunned down, a city block is burned to ash, or especially fierce resistance leads to a disastrously failed raid doesn’t particularly matter. What matters is that when illusion of the governmentツ’s invincibility and infallibility is broken, the hunters will become the hunted.

Unnamed citizens and federal agents will be the first to die, and they will die by the dozens and maybe hundreds, but famous politicians will soon join them in a spate of revenge killings, many of which will go unsolved.

Ironically, while the gun grab was intended to keep citizens from preserving their liberties with medium-powered weapons, it completely ignored the longer-ranged rifles perfect for shooting at ranges far beyond what a security detail can protect, and suppressed .22LR weapons proven deadly in urban sniping in Europe and Asia.

While the Secret Service will be able to protect the President in the White House, he will not dare leave his gilded cage except in carefully controlled circumstances. Even then he will be forced to move like a criminal. He will never be seen outdoors in public again. Not in this country.

The 535 members of the House and Senate in both parties that allowed such a law to pass would largely be on their own; the Secret Service is too small to protect all of them and their families, the Capitol Police too unskilled, and competent private security not particularly interested in working against their own best interests at any price. The elites will be steadily whittled down, and if they can not be reached directly, the targets will become their staffers, spouses, children, and grandchildren. Grandstanding media figures loyal to the regime would die in droves, executed as enemies of the Republic.

You can expect congressional staffs to disintegrate with just a few shootings, and expect elected officials themselves to resign well before a quarter of their number are eliminated, leaving us with a boxed-in executive, his cabinet loyalists trapped in the same win, die, or flee the country circumstance, military regime loyalists, and whatever State Governors who desire to risk their necks as well.

Here, the President will doubtlessly order the activation of National Guard units and the regular military to impose martial law, setting the largest and most powerful military in the world against its own people. Unfortunately, the tighter the President clinches his tyrannical fist, the more rebels he makes.

Military commands and federal agencies will be whittled down as servicemen and agents will desert or defect. Some may leave as individuals, others may join the Rebellion in squad and larger-sized units with all their weapons, tactics, skills, and insider intelligence. The regime will be unable to trust its own people, and because they cannot trust them, they will lose more in a vicious cycle of collapse.

Some of these defectors will be true ツ“operators,ツ” with the skills and background to turn ragtag militia cells into the kind of forces that decimate loyalist troops, allowing them no rest and no respite, striking them when they are away from their most potent weapons. Military vehicles are formidable, but they are thirsty beasts, in terms of fuel, ammo, time, and maintenance. Tanks and bombers are formidable only when they have gas, guns, and can be maintained. In a war without a front, logistics are incredibly easy to destroy, and mechanics and supply clerks are not particularly adept at defending themselves.

Eventually, the government will turn upon itself. The President will be captured or perhaps killed by his own protectors. A dictatorship will form in the vacuum.

If weツ’re lucky, the United States of America, or whatever amalgam results, will again try to rebuild. If weツ’re very lucky, the victors will reinstate the Constitution as the law of the land. Just as likely though, weツ’ll face fractious civil wars fought over issues weツ’ve not begun to fathom, and a much diminished state or states will result, perhaps guided by foreign interests.

It will not be pretty. There will be no ツ“winners,ツ” and perhaps hundreds of thousands to millions of dead.

Yet, this is the future we face if the power-mad among us are not soundly defeated at the ballot box before they affect more ツ“changeツ” than we, the People, are willing to surrender to would-be tyrants.

What you’ll see in the rebellion ツォ Bob Owens
 

Mark of Zorro

先輩
Joined
4 Oct 2012
Messages
2,427
Reaction score
315
and this type of rhetoric finds precedent in the writings of some of our country's founding fathers.

I think that to compare what some of our Founding Fathers wrote with this paranoid, fear mongering delusion is the height of exaggerated absurdity. But go ahead and slander some of them anyway. Name them and quote them and still try to equate them with Bob. Make our day.

I will just add two important things for now: One is that just because a gun control measure goes into effect does not mean raids are going to happen, and certainly not on a massive scale. Small time violators are not going to get raided, any more than a guy with one or two joints in house is going to get raided. Only the dealers are going to get raided.

Next, the Constitution in general and the Second Amendment too have been pretty well violated left, right, and center already. We have already had bans and restrictions on handguns, other classes of firearms and other arms in general. But the rebellion did not come. Neither did the raids or the dictators. So I don't know why registering firearms is such a problem with anyone claiming to be a law abiding citizen. I mean geez, what is a piece of paper verifying your ownership and valid purchase? Anyone comes to try and take your guns away you can shoot them right? All those angry citizens will rise up in rebellion right? Police and politicians will be executed right? So just register your damned gun already!

---------- Post added at 15:00 ---------- Previous post was at 14:58 ----------

Oh, and for the record, would you please define "gun nut"? I don't think we will agree, but at least it will show our positions. It would be nice if you, you know, actually try to define the term rather than try to make it into something to point more fingers at gun control advocates. I mean no silly exaggerations. You know? Actually try to put a fair definition to the term, considering what people who use the term are actually trying to say.

I don't think I ever heard anyone describe any American Founding Father as a gun nut, or even insinuate. There may be some, but they are not mainstream.
 
Joined
7 Jun 2008
Messages
1,024
Reaction score
110
A refresher lesson for those Americans who snoozed through history class:

"Any people that would give up liberty for a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

"... God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." - Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950)

"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government." - Patrick Henry

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves." William Pitt in the House of Commons November 18, 1783

"Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God." Thomas Jefferson

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787)

"Americans [have] the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust their people with arms." - James Madison

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms . . ." - Samual Adams

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." - Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms..." - Richard Henry Lee - Senator, First Congress

"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" - Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed and that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of press." Thomas Jefferson

"We, the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution." Abraham Lincoln
 

BrianLewis

先輩
Joined
27 Nov 2012
Messages
317
Reaction score
33
There is a historical parallel that did not destroy the country. Consider how it became illegal to own gold as a commodity. I can't believe people are so afraid of change that they will solidify their fears into paranoid delusions of their own country self destructing. Progress has never been made through cowering in fear.
 

Gee337

Neutral Good
Joined
19 Oct 2012
Messages
51
Reaction score
9
I'm not from the USA, but this just seems extreme paranoia to me... a civil war because of gun control laws? To me, registering your guns sounds like common sense. I would be scared as hell if I knew that people in my country could just buy a weapon. Even my father, who goes hunting sometimes, had to get a certificate proving that he's eligible for having a weapon (mentally), a permit, and had to show the rifle he bought to the police.

Relying on stuff people said 200 years ago is not going to get you anywhere in this case, no disrespect to anyone. The "tyrant Europe they referred to has long since disappeared, so that comparison is invalid now. There is gun control in Europe but it's still a democratic place. (Or just kind of democratic, in case of Eastern Europe.) Back then they thought arming the people was a good solution against tyranny. Perhaps they were right. But you can't prove that in the USA democracy exist because of that, you can't prove that gun control will destroy the country, and you definitely can't prove that no guns means no democracy
 
Joined
7 Jun 2008
Messages
1,024
Reaction score
110
"I think that to compare what some of our Founding Fathers wrote with this paranoid, fear mongering delusion is the height of exaggerated absurdity. But go ahead and slander some of them anyway. Name them and quote them and still try to equate them with Bob. Make our day."

I provided the quotes in response to the excited request above. The term "gun nut" was introduced to this forum by Zorro, so people should ask him what it means.

I think Bob is an extremist -- and yes, a paranoid one -- but a lot of people do agree with him. They do rely on quotes from our nation's founding fathers to support their position. At the extreme end of these extremists we find people like Timothy McVeigh.
 

Mark of Zorro

先輩
Joined
4 Oct 2012
Messages
2,427
Reaction score
315
At the extreme end of these extremists we find people like Timothy McVeigh.

People like to forget that he and his group were attacked by the ATF and the FBI and subsequently many murdered with few survivors. Not to support how he got revenge for that, but the raid of the Branch Davidians is a prime example of how not to try and carry out gun control. That said, it is an isolated example and I think the lesson has been learned. For all the gun control laws, precious few raids have ever been carried out over them.


I provided the quotes in response to the excited request above.

Yep. And the only way to equate them with what Bob wrote is to extrapolate and exaggerate wildly. In other words, to interpret as a nut; a gun nut.



The term "gun nut" was introduced to this forum by Zorro, so people should ask him what it means.

I asked you first. I may have introduced it to the forum, but I did not introduce it to the world. You seem to take great offense at the term. Seems I struck a nerve.

What it means to me is someone who is addicted to guns and is locked in a cycle of guns both soothing their paranoia (the ones they own) and contributing to their paranoia (the guns owned by others). The result of this addiction and cycle is a pattern of exaggeration, (seemingly) intentional misinterpretation of the words of others, avoidance of key facts and data, construction of a host of strawman arguments and red herrings, and patently irrational argumentation. All this to ward off any attempt at restrictions on gun ownership (of course falsely interpreted as a ban on guns).

I did not label you a gun nut off the cuff. In fact, I am surprised at how sane you are in other threads on other topics. But when it comes to this one, you have done everything I said in my definition of gun nut. Every...single...thing. Plus it has not helped at all that you have avoided me and my posts so much and never admitted even the sleightest change of heart or of being thankful for data you did not have before (I especially remember the correlation of the crack cocaine epidemic and the murder rate). In fact, in all the gun control debates, it seems you have either been mostly ignoring others or to a lesser degree, hostile. And its all a shame really, because as gun control advocates go, I could be a gun advocates best friend. I cannot think of anyone who has considered more compromise than I have, nor, as a gun control advocate, offered more support for the second amendment.

If I am excitable, I am not nearly so much as you on this topic. Seriously.

I think Bob is an extremist -- and yes, a paranoid one -- but a lot of people do agree with him.

Well I am glad to hear you think so, and I agree that a lot of people agree with him (in America). Its a serious problem.

They do rely on quotes from our nation's founding fathers to support their position.

Yes, and they interpret words like "defend" and "protect" as meaning violence only, when those writers were not chiefly speaking of violence, but rather of legal and psychological issues. But gun nuts are trapped in the hyperbole of Age of Reason writers and can only see literal, physical interpretations. I guess that also explains their interpretations of the Bible.

Another core problem is that the word "liberty" is being directly correlated with the right to own guns. Only a gun nut could be so narrow in their interpretation to be so quick to call up such a quote as a counter to gun control suggestions. Its very much like those who claim not be free since they cannot discriminate against minorities, or heck, just go out and kill anyone they please. Liberty and freedom are not synonymous with "pirate ship". All places of enduring freedom have rules. Places with no rules are chaos and no one is really free.

Everything gun nuts want would make America into another Somalia. In fact, you could say it already is the Somalia of the developed world, which is not nearly as bad as Somalia itself, but still, pretty fricken bad.
 

alecgraham

先輩
Joined
29 Nov 2012
Messages
285
Reaction score
59
People like to forget that he and his group were attacked by the ATF and the FBI and subsequently many murdered with few survivors. Not to support how he got revenge for that, but the raid of the Branch Davidians is a prime example of how not to try and carry out gun control. That said, it is an isolated example and I think the lesson has been learned. For all the gun control laws, precious few raids have ever been carried out over them.

What do you mean by "his group?" Wiki says McVeigh cited revenge for Waco as part of the motivation for his terrorism, but he was a Catholic and then an agnostic, never a Branch Dravidian. I mean, he didn't have anything to do with them prior to the standoff, did he?
 

Mark of Zorro

先輩
Joined
4 Oct 2012
Messages
2,427
Reaction score
315
What do you mean by "his group?" Wiki says McVeigh cited revenge for Waco as part of the motivation for his terrorism, but he was a Catholic and then an agnostic, never a Branch Dravidian. I mean, he didn't have anything to do with them prior to the standoff, did he?

Thanks for pointing out my error. You are right. He went to Waco during the siege to show his support for the Branch Davidians. Then he decided to avenge them.

As much as I give him credit for seeking vengeance, he was an idiot for attacking and killing the wrong people. End result is that I don't support him at all in aggregate.

McVeigh might have been one kind of extremist, but it seems the rest of America is another kind; extremely slack. Who did anything about the murders at Waco but McVeigh, even if he did the wrong thing?

McVeigh's actions got the Waco case re-examined. Unfortunately, that was as much a sham as the original investigation because, again, America is full of slacker extremists.

What McVeigh should have done was use his right to bear arms to take some shots at those who perpetrated the Waco Massacre, from Janet Reno on down.

Maybe next time there is a group of paranoid cultists taking their second amendment rights to the extreme, the FBI and ATF won't freak them out by trying to serve search warrants via chopper? That was like trying to put out a fire with gasoline! Then they "accidentally" use flammable tear gas and smoke bombs together. Yeah, right!

As far as I am concerned Janet Reno and all the involved FBI and ATF agents = one Timothy McVeigh. They murdered just as many innocent children.
 
Top Bottom