# Age Old Prepper / Gun Rights Question with a Twist



## Ripon (Dec 22, 2012)

As one who clicks on a few forums I'm use to seeing the questions about what you would do if they come for your guns, or demand they be turned in, or registered, or taxed, or whatever. Its a question that seems to get under the skin of a lot of people and I'm use to responses like "it will never happen" or "I had a boating" accident. But my wife asked me the question the other day with a twist and I don't recall seeing it on a forum.

The politicians betray us to the extreme and adopt a confiscation measure requiring you to turn in your guns, and you don't. The courts approve of their measure and there is no legal recourse, and you have your boating accident report in hand just in case. But now.....they don't come for you.

They come for your neighbor. You know neighbor Bob is a gun rights guy, you know he's a good guy, you know he's a responsible guy, and the authorities are at his house and want his guns. How are you going to help Bob? Or are you just going to watch his house go down after flash bombs ignite it and burn it to the ground?


----------



## James m (Mar 11, 2014)

People will go down one by one and everyone else will just stand idly by. It's been going on for decades.


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

It will take a large catalyst to cause folks to band together. I would think a few raids gone horribly wrong in which folks (including women and children) are hurt to spark the flame. It would happen, but would take some time.


----------



## MisterMills357 (Apr 15, 2015)

What would Bob do, if they came after me? Would he stand idly by, or come to my aid? I am thinking that there is a 99% chance that he would stand by and watch.
So, from that context, I might stand by and watch as Bob got his, knowing that I might be next in line. Or, that I might be ratted out by Bob.
I may sound cynical, but I have seen too many scenarios, where people saved themselves and to Hell with anyone else.
There may be a few who stand and shoot it out, and I may be one of them, if it happens to me.

BTW: the time will come when confiscation happens. So, all of us here may get the chance to find out what we are made of. Some of us have built our character upon a rock and some have built it upon sand. There is only one way to tell what anyone is made of, and that is to go through it.

Do you know anyone who is very brave, because I do not. I can only hope that when the time comes, I can have the brave kind of love/boldness. 
In sum: Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. John 15:13
So, if I can do that, I will win in the end, and there ain't a single thing that can be done to stop me. So, that is what I will try to do if it is needed.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

When thugs roll into a neighborhood, the neighborhood has two options. Let them do what they want, or run them out.
We've seen evidence of both possibilities in the past. The question will be, what will we do when those thugs are wearing the colors of authority?

A phone tree to the locals could help with this. If all of Bob's neighbors headed out to their front lawns to watch the drama, and brought their weapons with them, that could send an impressive message. A bull horn could express the sentiment a bit more clearly. It would be a showdown, like at the Bundy Ranch, to see who fires first.
Getting the local news on site ASAP would be a primary goal.
The Feds didn't fire on the armed resistance at the Bundy Ranch, even while they rode horses in and just took the cattle right out from under them.
Without overwhelming support, a few officers and the SWAT team are never going to square off against an entire street full of armed citizens, especially with cameras rolling.

So, it comes down to communication with your neighbors. If you're all of like mind, and willing, then Bob could be saved.
If you're not, Bob will be the first victim of many until the riots start.
Stepping out as Bob's sole savior will earn you a free ride to a cold cell... or grave.


----------



## Camel923 (Aug 13, 2014)

If the press is controlled as much or more than today we will never have the pressure of a Ruby Ridge or Branch Davidian disaster to bring public opinion and pressure to bear on those at government house. Once the second amendment is gone, the rest are sitting ducks. Demonic rats and RINOs are communists who deep down feel the ends justify the means.


----------



## Axeman (Sep 30, 2015)

the closest the US has come to rising up occurred in 1993....in Waco Tx
a LOT of good people died
and those whom tried to help were....disappeared
that is the event that finally opened my eyes


----------



## Deebo (Oct 27, 2012)

Ummm, Jeep, Inor, Slippy, rigged for quiet, just off the top of my head, would quickly help.


----------



## Billy Roper (Oct 5, 2015)

A lot of people did show up around Ruby Ridge, too, but none of them got physically involved, whatever their intentions may have been.


----------



## Deebo (Oct 27, 2012)

In the scenerio described, my neighbors would all be banded together. Right now, not so much. There would be time, in a large scale. 
Plus, my local sheriff says he will NOT TOLERATE any acts in his county.


----------



## Urinal Cake (Oct 19, 2013)

They can't take what they can't find....


----------



## Maine-Marine (Mar 7, 2014)

1. I have talked to Bob before and know he has some other guns hidden.... 
I do nothing

2. I have talked to Bob before and WE will fight
We Fight

3. Bob and I never talk, I do not know if he has guns
I do nothing
--------------------
rest assured I will be hiding a few and leave some so they get a few


----------



## tinkerhell (Oct 8, 2014)

This is exactly the kind of situation where the Oath Keepers movement needs to be kept strong and reinforced by the locals. You don't want to have a shoot out with a bunch of scared police that will definitely shoot back merely to save their own hides. Instead, you need a prominant figure that can step forward and lead half the police force to your side of the street. Then pray like hell that cooler heads will prevale and a stand off is reached instead of a show down.

I personally don't think an us vs them approach will be as effective.


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

The Bundy Ranch was a wake up call to an over-reaching government. I cheered the friends of the Bundy's and vow to stand for my 2A rights.


----------



## beach23bum (Jan 27, 2015)

if it's my buddy, we're going out in style together.



Ripon said:


> As one who clicks on a few forums I'm use to seeing the questions about what you would do if they come for your guns, or demand they be turned in, or registered, or taxed, or whatever. Its a question that seems to get under the skin of a lot of people and I'm use to responses like "it will never happen" or "I had a boating" accident. But my wife asked me the question the other day with a twist and I don't recall seeing it on a forum.
> 
> The politicians betray us to the extreme and adopt a confiscation measure requiring you to turn in your guns, and you don't. The courts approve of their measure and there is no legal recourse, and you have your boating accident report in hand just in case. But now.....they don't come for you.
> 
> They come for your neighbor. You know neighbor Bob is a gun rights guy, you know he's a good guy, you know he's a responsible guy, and the authorities are at his house and want his guns. How are you going to help Bob? Or are you just going to watch his house go down after flash bombs ignite it and burn it to the ground?


----------



## Jakthesoldier (Feb 1, 2015)

Given my track record, I'd probably be mixed up in the middle of it before it even got started. I have a habit of "getting involved" 

I even wear a shirt that says "it's not that I can and others can't" on the front, and "it's that I WILL and others won't"


----------



## Gimble (Aug 14, 2015)

Slippy said:


> The Bundy Ranch was a wake up call to an over-reaching government. I cheered the friends of the Bundy's and vow to stand for my 2A rights.


Was it a practice run so they know what they are up against? The feds haven't been back to nevada since.


----------



## GasholeWillie (Jul 4, 2014)

Urinal Cake said:


> They can't take what they can't find....


you're kidding yourself, if you think burying your guns in the back yard and they KNOW you have them (and they do) will keep them safe from the Feds, again you're kidding yourself.


----------



## Arklatex (May 24, 2014)

GasholeWillie said:


> you're kidding yourself, if you think burying your guns in the back yard and they KNOW you have them (and they do) will keep them safe from the Feds, again you're kidding yourself.


Wrong answer in my neck of the woods. I sold all my guns to Bubba. He sold half of them to Jimmy and the other half to Fred Garvin so he could kill off all the Daves. They kept some and sold some and traded the rest. Where o where art thou guns o mine? Not in my possession... Registration and confiscation will never fly in these United States.


----------



## Ripon (Dec 22, 2012)

Hmm...

Well if there was a fee charged by my govt that I paid for 17 years, and Mr. bundy didn't bother paying it, and they came to collect? I'd help them collect. That wasn't the issue for Bob. Sorry but Mr. bundy is just a dead beat tax dodger who makes plenty off his cattle but refuses to pay his range fees for them. I'll be glad to discuss off line but I look forward to the Feds auctioning off his property....I could use a southern location.



Slippy said:


> The Bundy Ranch was a wake up call to an over-reaching government. I cheered the friends of the Bundy's and vow to stand for my 2A rights.


----------



## Chipper (Dec 22, 2012)

How many people own guns but yet won't join the NRA?? Around my area it's 15 to one, maybe 20. I can think of 10 neighbors that think it's dumb to join " that stupid organization". Yet own numerous guns and are avid hunters. You know darn well they won't stand up for their rights let alone fight.


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

Ripon said:


> Hmm...
> 
> Well if there was a fee charged by my govt that I paid for 17 years, and Mr. bundy didn't bother paying it, and they came to collect? I'd help them collect. That wasn't the issue for Bob. Sorry but Mr. bundy is just a dead beat tax dodger who makes plenty off his cattle but refuses to pay his range fees for them. I'll be glad to discuss off line but I look forward to the Feds auctioning off his property....I could use a southern location.


The BLM is unconstitutional and just another example of bloated government. Constitutionally, "Federal Land" should not exist in any State. This should be a "State Issue" not a Federal Issue.

How can ANYONE support the Federal Government showing up with armed personnel to collect "their" precious money?!?!

The whole thing is FUBAR.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Slippy said:


> The BLM is unconstitutional and just another example of bloated government. Constitutionally, "Federal Land" should not exist in any State. This should be a "State Issue" not a Federal Issue.
> 
> How can ANYONE support the Federal Government showing up with armed personnel to collect "their" precious money?!?!
> 
> The whole thing is FUBAR.


That's basically it.
However, such an argument doesn't fly for some folks. Too many fall into the trap of "it's been that way forever, that must be what's right".
Not only that, when the Feds moved in on Mr. Bundy, they seized his property(cattle), and purposefully destroyed water supply systems along the way, just to add insult to injury.

I was glad to see the support Mr. Bundy got. Citizens stood up to a strong-arm attempt by the federal government, and won without a shot fired.


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

Slippy said:


> The BLM is unconstitutional and just another example of bloated government. Constitutionally, "Federal Land" should not exist in any State. This should be a "State Issue" not a Federal Issue.
> 
> How can ANYONE support the Federal Government showing up with armed personnel to collect "their" precious money?!?!
> 
> The whole thing is FUBAR.


Well said. I know that many do not believe in UN Agenda 21 being a plan to implement a one world order, but the federal land grab is part of UN Agenda 21. The Wild Lands project that came up for a vote in the early 90's, but was put down the last minute. Land ownership is power.


----------



## Billy Roper (Oct 5, 2015)

I think that Glenn Beck's book on Agenda 21 is worth reading, just like 'The Overton Window' was, albeit with a somewhat jaundiced eye and a grain of salt.


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

Billy Roper said:


> I think that Glenn Beck's book on Agenda 21 is worth reading, just like 'The Overton Window' was, albeit with a somewhat jaundiced eye and a grain of salt.


I still look for the original and complete UN Agenda 21 document, but can not find it. I wonder why I am only able to find the 700 page document when the original was a 1,000 pages? Quite curious why 300 pages went missing?


----------



## A Watchman (Sep 14, 2015)

Ripon said:


> Hmm...
> 
> Well if there was a fee charged by my govt that I paid for 17 years, and Mr. bundy didn't bother paying it, and they came to collect? I'd help them collect. That wasn't the issue for Bob. Sorry but Mr. bundy is just a dead beat tax dodger who makes plenty off his cattle but refuses to pay his range fees for them. I'll be glad to discuss off line but I look forward to the Feds auctioning off his property....I could use a southern location.


The Feds do not need to own property OR BE INVOLVED IN STATE AFFAIRS. We have already had a civil war in this country over State Rights. We all know how that turned out......Do we need another one?


----------



## Ripon (Dec 22, 2012)

Got news for you gentlemen. The Federal Government and BLM have owned and controlled land for well over a 100 + years. Now its not that its happened since 1812 that matters, but it does matter than the people elected representatives, those representatives adopted rules, and the courts have upheld those rules. YOU LOST. I'm sorry that does not appeal to you, but YOU LOST. Mr. Bundy doesn't get to live by his own rules. 

Like I said, I may bid on his land at auction and hope its soon.


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

Ripon said:


> Got news for you gentlemen. The Federal Government and BLM have owned and controlled land for well over a 100 + years. Now its not that its happened since 1812 that matters, but it does matter than the people elected representatives, those representatives adopted rules, and the courts have upheld those rules. YOU LOST. I'm sorry that does not appeal to you, but YOU LOST. Mr. Bundy doesn't get to live by his own rules.
> 
> Like I said, I may bid on his land at auction and hope its soon.


I agree with you, just because the government has been doing something wrong since 1812 doesn't make it right.

But I need to correct one thing that you said twice, "YOU LOST".

The correct statement is..., WE ALL LOST.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Slippy said:


> I agree with you, just because the government has been doing something wrong since 1812 doesn't make it right.
> 
> But I need to correct one thing that you said twice, "YOU LOST".
> 
> The correct statement is..., WE ALL LOST.


I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong, but he doesn't see it that way. Any encroachment of rights that could end up benefiting him is deemed acceptable, and you shouldn't worry with ever correcting the situation.


----------



## Ripon (Dec 22, 2012)

Yes I would agree we all lost, just like we lost on obumblers care, just like we lose when Paul Ryan is elected speaker of the house and compromises with the democrats - but its still the rule of law and the way we live. I don't get not accepting that.

By the way here is the act that corrects Bundy's failure; Bundy claimed a right since his family arrive in 1880 on the land. My family didn't arrive on the land until the 1970's and we didn't buy grazing rights until the 1990's. (when we learned neighbors could use them and would pay us for them).

_Sec: 2.  Purpose of government; paramount allegiance to United States.  All political power is inherent in the people[.] Government is instituted for the protection, security and benefit of the people; and they have the right to alter or reform the same whenever the public good may require it. But the Paramount Allegiance of every citizen is due to the Federal Government in the exercise of all its Constitutional powers as the same have been or may be defined by the Supreme Court of the United States; and no power exists in the people of this or any other State of the Federal Union to dissolve their connection therewith or perform any act tending to impair[,] subvert, or resist the Supreme Authority of the government of the United States. The Constitution of the United States confers full power on the Federal Government to maintain and Perpetuate its existance [existence], and whensoever any portion of the States, or people thereof attempt to secede from the Federal Union, or forcibly resist the Execution of its laws, the Federal Government may, by warrant of the Constitution, employ armed force in compelling obedience to its Authority._



Slippy said:


> I agree with you, just because the government has been doing something wrong since 1812 doesn't make it right.
> 
> But I need to correct one thing that you said twice, "YOU LOST".
> 
> The correct statement is..., WE ALL LOST.


----------



## Ripon (Dec 22, 2012)

When a law is adopted by the elected leaders, challenged in court and not over turned it becomes the rule of law. I like some, and have great disdain for others.

Routinely on this forum I hear or see articles about people not being free to do what they want with their land. I have, probably, more land then most so you might think that I'd oppose land restrictions but I don't. Generally land restrictions protect my property, protect my properties values and insure that no one opens up a chemical waste dump next door without me getting to comment on it and try to oppose it. I'm sure you'd prefer to have some say if someone wanted to open a chemical waste dump next to your house? That say comes through RULES and not all of them are bad.



Kauboy said:


> I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong, but he doesn't see it that way. Any encroachment of rights that could end up benefiting him is deemed acceptable, and you shouldn't worry with ever correcting the situation.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Ripon said:


> When a law is adopted by the elected leaders, challenged in court and not over turned it becomes the rule of law. I like some, and have great disdain for others.
> 
> Routinely on this forum I hear or see articles about people not being free to do what they want with their land. I have, probably, more land then most so you might think that I'd oppose land restrictions but I don't. Generally land restrictions protect my property, protect my properties values and insure that no one opens up a chemical waste dump next door without me getting to comment on it and try to oppose it. I'm sure you'd prefer to have some say if someone wanted to open a chemical waste dump next to your house? That say comes through RULES and not all of them are bad.


According to the Supreme Court, an unconstitutional law is so, even if undeclared as such.
Kindly note the last emboldened line. (emphasis added from the source I copied from, not my own)


> _The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:__The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it._
> _An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted._
> _Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . ._
> _A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one._
> ...


If the constitution enumerates no such powers to the federal government where "land management" is concerned, then their restrictions with regard to it are unconstitutional, hence null and void.
Mr. Bundy does not need permission to use that land. They owned it before the government ever made a claim.
If you're truly a landowner, and allow the government to run over you with unconstitutional authority, and you just pass it off as "that's the law", you're losing your sovereignty as a free man.
Why do that?


----------



## Ripon (Dec 22, 2012)

Why do that?

Because in a nation of people we elect leaders. They create rules for the good of all. I abide by those rules. I do not have the capacity to claim something adopted by the legal process as unconstitutional and neither do you or any other individuals. I can challenge the rules but and that does make me free. 

The bold quotes you provide are telling. Who gives Bundy or you the right to say a law is unconstitutional? He had his day in court. He lost.


----------



## A Watchman (Sep 14, 2015)

Ripon said:


> Why do that?
> 
> Because in a nation of people we elect leaders. They create rules for the good of all. I abide by those rules. I do not have the capacity to claim something adopted by the legal process as unconstitutional and neither do you or any other individuals. I can challenge the rules but and that does make me free.
> 
> The bold quotes you provide are telling. Who gives Bundy or you the right to say a law is unconstitutional? He had his day in court. He lost.


Lately, we are all having our day in court and are losing. Sometimes we don't even get the due process of court before we lose. Are you sure you want to remain that passive?


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Ripon said:


> Why do that?
> 
> Because in a nation of people we elect leaders. They create rules for the good of all. I abide by those rules. I do not have the capacity to claim something adopted by the legal process as unconstitutional and neither do you or any other individuals. I can challenge the rules but and that does make me free.
> 
> The bold quotes you provide are telling. Who gives Bundy or you the right to say a law is unconstitutional? He had his day in court. He lost.


Those words were from a Supreme Court judge, so there's your answer.
You do not have to follow a law that is unconstitutional, and it need not be declared so beforehand.
If the thugs that wish it so take you to court, you'll be expected to present your case. A simple man won't be able to, and can be taken advantage of. An intelligent man will be ready, and win.
Simple men seek to avoid the confrontation altogether, and just play along with the broken rules.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

Billy Roper said:


> A lot of people did show up around Ruby Ridge, too, but none of them got physically involved, whatever their intentions may have been.


 Randy was doing pretty good on his own by that time.
Best not to really answer a question like that it is something you must think about and make up your mind. Sit in private with others close to you and decide.


----------



## Ripon (Dec 22, 2012)

So who declares a law unconstitutional?



Kauboy said:


> Those words were from a Supreme Court judge, so there's your answer.
> You do not have to follow a law that is unconstitutional, and it need not be declared so beforehand.
> If the thugs that wish it so take you to court, you'll be expected to present your case. A simple man won't be able to, and can be taken advantage of. An intelligent man will be ready, and win.
> Simple men seek to avoid the confrontation altogether, and just play along with the broken rules.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Ripon said:


> So who declares a law unconstitutional?


As stated twice, it doesn't require declaration to be so. You get to decide what is and is not, and be prepared to defend it in court when "they" try to press their lie.
People have been successful at it before. You just need to know your stuff.
Then, of course, there's the final option when wrong has overtaken right, but I won't offend your delicate sensibilities again by mentioning it.


----------



## Ripon (Dec 22, 2012)

"it doesn't require a declaration" so we have no rules? I can do whatever I want? So I can plop a chemical waste dump on my land and the neighbors down stream can suck on it? After all its my land right? But then you reason with defend it in court? I'm curious since most notions I feel you disagree with have in fact been decided by courts - obamacare for example? Courts reviewed it and accepted so if you just disagree you don't have to follow it as a law? I really don't understand this anarchism and how you feel that would make anything better in life? Where as I don't like obamacare and will not vote for anyone that will defend it or support it, but that is the limit I have.

By the way did you know that overwhelmingly most "laws" are actually just court decisions? Its called precedent and once a court rules - if a higher court doesn't over turn it - its the rule of the land. Or do you just want to make your own rules and everyone else can just suck on it?



Kauboy said:


> As stated twice, it doesn't require declaration to be so. You get to decide what is and is not, and be prepared to defend it in court when "they" try to press their lie.
> People have been successful at it before. You just need to know your stuff.
> Then, of course, there's the final option when wrong has overtaken right, but I won't offend your delicate sensibilities again by mentioning it.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Jun 25, 2014)

In the last few years we have gained a lot of ground, but there is a disturbing trend that will kill us: the NRA's smug confidence.

Lemme explain. See i listen to a lot of different news sources so i can get a more rounded view of the world (they all have bias of some type). And one place where the gun grabbers are gaining ground is liberal media forums. The reason is that we gun owners are not represented in these discussions. NPR, democracy now, and these other popular forums always mention that the NRA would not return their calls, so listeners only hear one side of the debate. The NRA does this because they feel confident in their political clout, but that wont last forever...just ask the tobacco lobby. 

These media sources are educating the next generation while the last generation sits back confidently. Every year there will be less of us supporters if we dont get our word out to the next generation. Right now all they have to do is wait for us to die off.


----------

