Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Add me to the list of those who have had tragic boating accidents. Why so many guns on a boat? Why not? It's where I prefer to store/clean them as I sing sea chanteys! Yo-ho-ho!
As for any which I might maybe somehow acquire between now and when the roundup starts... add me to the 'cold dead hands' list.
LMAO, true, quite, for the most part. But, you can stop a tank with a shovel and a pick. If ya know what I mean. Then, when the crew has to get out of the thing because they can't drive it anymore, well, there ya go. Small arms, though obviously useful tools, are not the end all be all, and nobody is saying they are. However, I would rather have them than not. Aside from the fact that I enjoy shooting, the 'just in case' aspects matters as well. I find it odd how many people lend some kind of magical power to the military when it comes to the idea of ...pacification...of the citizenry. They would actually be at a disadvantage going in, especially with 'boots on the ground' and yes, even armor, artillery etc. Oh sure, they can use sttelites for intell , thermal and all those goddies, but there are myriad ways to defeat this techno stuff with brutally simple tactics. Do you know what a simple dollar store laser pointer does to a guy with night vision? I do, you can take the guy right out of the fight, handily , with one. There are literally thousnads of ways to carry on a fight that don't involve firearms , at least not as a primary tool.
Exactly. Most infantry know that going into a guerrilla warfare/house to house type incident is the most dangerous and negates tactical advantages.
Do you know what extremely bright lights flashed on or flash bangs do to a NVG wearer? Or for $40/each the deer camera's that can flash to take a pic or just be linked hardwired to a monitor using your own NV. Just enough of a distraction and blinds a NVG soldier. Tree's, small buildings and landscaping or not cover and tactical rally points just for the tactician, or are they always what they seem to be.
In a word, NO. No I would not surrender my property. Nor do I think would most gun owners.
Moreover I doubt that many who wear the Uniform of the armed forces of the United States would follow the unlawful order of trying to force people to surrender their guns.
Exactly. Most infantry know that going into a guerrilla warfare/house to house type incident is the most dangerous and negates tactical advantages.
Do you know what extremely bright lights flashed on or flash bangs do to a NVG wearer? Or for $40/each the deer camera's that can flash to take a pic or just be linked hardwired to a monitor using your own NV. Just enough of a distraction and blinds a NVG soldier. Tree's, small buildings and landscaping or not cover and tactical rally points just for the tactician, or are they always what they seem to be.
That's why you use either chemical, biological, or nuclear warfare against your "enemy". Saves you the trouble of having to shoot them, and the former two keep the real estate intact.
While I appreciate your patriotism, you should consider a different tact.
If it actually comes to armed military confiscating weapons, the America you love would already be lost. The US and UN forces are not to be taken lightly. Unless you happen to have tactical nukes and some seriously high end weaponry in your bunker, you and your 50 acres will either fall under siege and be starved out or under direct attack in which case your life expectancy will be less than 30 minutes best case. A dead hero ain't good for nothing. Should you find yourself under siege and you fire off a couple shots, your position will be compromised and within seconds you'll be a memory. Should you be in a position that a sniper can't get you, they have considerably more capable weapons at their disposal. If they happen to bring a M1A1, any LAWs or RPGs you may have stashed will be completely useless. On the off chance you did have something really big and nasty, they have air support. Ultimately you lose.
In such a nightmare scenario your best bet to remain free would be to run and hide. At that point any fortified base would be a liability and strength would lie in stealth and mobility. Even if you were hoping your valiant fight would make you a martyr, it wouldn't. By that time, the press would be under full military control and you'd be completely alone and no one would ever know of your valiant last stand. In fact your biggest limitation would be your isolation. It would be an excellent opportunity to turn your situation into a training exercise. Don't count on your cell phone or radio or land line to call for help because the first act any military unit will take would be to cut off communication. You'd already be isolated before you were even aware they'd come for your guns.
Again I fully support your patriotism and would curse the day our second amendment rights were taken but the tactic you've proposed would be suicide. You might be able to hold off a small band of looters off for a short time in the event of complete social collapse but your are no match for even a small military unit. I too would fight to get my country back but dying alone on some ranch in the middle of nowhere would make my death (or yours) particularly pointless.
Hmmm A UN /US armed force? Do you really think US soldiers would side with a UN assault force against our own citizens whose only crime is to want to keep their own property? You do understand that a good many soldiers are also gun owners? You do understand that their is no trust no bond of loyalty between UN and US forces? US forces assigned to the UN will always take the side of their countrymen. No politician can change this.
Your scenario is just about useless.
Hmmm A UN /US armed force? Do you really think US soldiers would side with a UN assault force against our own citizens whose only crime is to want to keep their own property? You do understand that a good many soldiers are also gun owners? You do understand that their is no trust no bond of loyalty between UN and US forces? US forces assigned to the UN will always take the side of their countrymen. No politician can change this.
Your scenario is just about useless.
It's not my scenario. I was only pointing out the flaws of someone else's scenario. I seriously doubt many, if any US military would go along but the theoretical situation I responded to made the assumption that joint US/UN forces would be confiscating our weapons. I can only work within the given parameters after all.
Remember, this is only a theoretical discussion. Be sure to note the context of any comments made.
that is an M88 armored vehicle, not a actual tank.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
