Setting a "LEO" Straight

[Grasshopper]

http://www.jpfo.org/smith/smith-leo-straight.htm
Pretty good retort!

[robocop10mm]

I did not see the letter that spurred the retort but it was a great response to all of the Anti's arguements.

As a 24 year veteran LEO and NRA Life Member, I am disgusted with the outright stupidity of some LEO's and (especially) admin pogues. I agree whole heartedly with the JFPO stance on the 2nd Ammendment and it's meaning.

I do however believe the NFA of 1934 was a reasonable response to a very real problem. Should "everyone" have unlimited acess to machine guns, "sawed off shotguns" and explosives? No. Background checks are reasonable prior to the transfer of such items.

The real gig is that our rights are taken away incrementally. NFA is reasonable. GCA '68 may be reasonable (arguable). May '86 was (IMHO) unreasonable. AWB- a travesty. That is how it goes. Whittle away at the rights one step at a time until we have no 2nd Ammendment at all. Once 2A is gone, the rest will fall in short order.

We must draw a line somewhere or they will be drawing a (chalk) line around our bodies.

[mistersquiggles]

the NFA of 1934 reasonable? that poses a question then: since the gubmint has for the most part outlawed the private posession of such things as automatic weapons and destructive devices by that act (NFA) and the 2nd amendment is at least in spirit designed to give a man the right to a means with which to overthrow said government (if need be) and defend himself also, then what happens when the time comes that the government indeed needs to be overthrown? do you think itll happen when theyve got tanks, shoulder launched rockets, mortars, howitzers, heavy machine guns, and airpower as compared to John Q. Public's chinsey-assed AR-15 or CETME? regulations like that are the very reason we have become the sheep that so many of us view the rest of America as........... the better solution would be to impose sentencing at the federal level for abuse of such tools..... like no possibility of parole even on a nickel tour of the penn....... and along with enforcement, make the penalties that much harsher, like mandatory 15 year minimums for clear violators.... background checks do nothing more than provide another means of tracking someone....

[SteelCore]

...you underestimate the skill and resilience of your fellow citizens, and how successful a prolonged guerillla war can topple big armies. Remember the Afghans vs. the Russian army?

How about how the Dutch kicked the Brits asses in the first Boer war? That was regular brit army vs. Hunters. Hunters shoot once, to kill, and have skills beyond what the avg soldier gets. the Avg soldier learns how to march, make a bed, salute, dress, and oh, a bit of rifle training.

On the tanks vs infantry front, no tanker lives in the tank. When he's not in it, he is a target. Thus, small arms are used to kill soldiers, then take their arms (much like was done by US-made liberator pistols...you walk up to fritz with his MP44, concealing a .45 Liberator. you put it to his head, and fire, then take the MP44. Rinse, repeat, until you have the munitions you need, equipment you need, the vehicles you need.) This worked in WWII and was used by the Resistance in all occupied countries (France, Norway, Holland, etc). Hel, a sympatheic german guard assisted the jews and US soldiers in a revolt in a German concentration camp by leaving a munitions locker unlocked...they did the rest, and burnt the place.

Civvie femals snipers using battlefield pick-up mosins and K98s to snipe german brass...

Now, there are students of history among the ranks of those who would disarm us, and this is WHY they would disarm us. They KNOW they could never impose their will on the armed populace.

The ownership and application of small arms leads to the ownership and application of bigger arms.

[turbothis]

they will try....to disarm

[mistersquiggles]

the problem with that kind of resistance is that it was damn near a national movement so to speak.... nowadays, you couldnt get 100 men in a room to agree on whether we should resist, much less how to..... the days of "resistance" in the context you describe, at least as it pertains to Amerikans, has long been over.... the beauracrats saw to that beginning in the 60's


for that matter, wheres the resilience of the chinese? i have lots of chinese friends and only one of them that i know of likes their government.... dont get me wrong, they all love their homeland, with a fervor that i wish most americans have, but they hate their government.... why havent they been overthrown? how about the zapatistas in mexico? theyve been resisting the corrupt mexican government for years, and havent gotten anywhere.... how about the Kosovars? as far as i know, the russians still own em. and what about the Kurds? it took the US dropping Hussein to liberate them..... the Junta in Myanmar? do you really think that the Burmese LIKE the way their government treats them? why havent they resisted and overthrown? because they lack the same technology that their government has..... all of them...

Maybe i got the wrong idea, but thats just the way i see things.... in no way am i flaming anyone or anything of the sort... just furthering a discussion topic.......

[hunter_la5]

that was a damn good article! I'll be emailing this to many people...

[Schmitty]

... the Avg soldier learns how to march, make a bed, salute, dress, and oh, a bit of rifle training.

So, SO true...
(I have field training in August)

[Bulletboy]

On the NFA..

Prohibition officially ended on Dec. 5, 1933, the NFA was enacted June 26, 1934. It was passed with the help of hysteria, what with the gangsters shooting everything up with their automatics, which raised this point of view at the time

I do however believe the NFA of 1934 was a reasonable response to a very real problem. Should "everyone" have unlimited acess to machine guns, "sawed off shotguns" and explosives? No. Background checks are reasonable prior to the transfer of such items.

Gangsters were not going to register their weapons, even though they were just about the only ones who could afford the 200 bucks back then. As with most gun laws, (I say most, not all. Some of them are common sense) they only affect law abiding citizens. The only difference was that they could make arrests based on possession, rather than actually committing a crime. I wouldn't say that is a good thing. On top of that, the gangsters' violence declined a great deal after prohibition was repealed, almost 7 months earlier than the NFA was passed. To say the decrease in violence was due to the NFA restrictions is fairly ludicrous.

Just my opinion on the matter, from history as I understand it. I obviously wasn't actually there...

Excellent article too!

[SteelCore]

" the days of "resistance" in the context you describe, at least as it pertains to Amerikans, has long been over.... the beauracrats saw to that beginning in the 60's"
-->The occupation of euro countries in WWII effectively ended the euro 'reistance' of the germans by standing army, but there were many undergound movements that caused all sorts problems.

Also, I think most amercans use this test to determin their action:

Q: Are they coming for your guns? Yes/No.

If no, then A: Not time to use them
If yes then A: Time to use them.

[mistersquiggles]

[quote=SteelCore;84103
Also, I think most amercans use this test to determin their action:

Q: Are they coming for your guns? Yes/No.

If no, then A: Not time to use them
If yes then A: Time to use them.[/quote]

ahh... but havent they already started to do so? is that the way that the revolution is to start? like Waco or Ruby Ridge? i mean, thats what they were coming for, was the guns..... I agree with the test that you describe, but i think a lot of americans have thus failed, because with every gun legislation passed, theyre taking them (guns) away from us, by telling us which ones we are allowed to have.....

[brewskzilla]

How many American troops would be willing to fire on their own people? Waco was a small incident. Something large, however, would probably get the attention of the government, or at least the troops. Remember that when the French Revolution began, the troops were loyal to King Louis, but when they realized that they would be forced to kill their own kind, they looked more carefully at the problem, and decided that the people, not the King, were in the right and turned in favor of the people. This left the government completely helpless and vulnerable, and soon thereafter their heads rolled in the streets. Things only need to get bad enough for the military to realize who they swore their oath to protect and defend. Not the president. No, not any person. The Constitution. Against all enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC. What is an enemy? someone out to harm or destroy you. Enemies of the Constitution are all of those who try to destroy it, harm it, or deny us the rights put forth therein.
That means that their ultimate duty is to protect our rights and freedoms. Not to do what Uncle Sam tells them to.

[Bulletboy]

How many American troops would be willing to fire on their own people?

Good question. I would say the idea is more in line with not needing to fire on us, if we are all already disarmed. In New Orleans, the National Guard went door to door confiscating weapons. They had no qualms about doing that. I'd venture a guess that if any citizen had fired on them for coming to take their firearms, they would have returned fire and set an example.

Comes down to who follows their hearts and minds, and who follows orders. I wouldn't stake anything on who would do what when the time came.

[hunter_la5]

Also, I think most amercans use this test to determin their action:

Q: Are they coming for your guns? Yes/No.

If no, then A: Not time to use them
If yes then A: Time to use them.

well, I think this is part of the problem. if the government tried to ban/confiscate all guns in one fell swoop, they would likely incite a revolution or civil war of some sort. in this case, the test works.

however, the gun grabbers know this and instead have elected to do things gradually. First the NFA,then the '68 GCA, the '86 ban, then various handgun bans and AWB's that we are still struggling against. so far. there has been no "significant" uprising against any of it, apart from non-violent protests and the like. At this rate, they very well may effectively take our guns, just a little bit at a time. As the phrase goes, "it's a slippery slope". At what point do we deem that "they are coming for our guns"? In this sort of a situation we face, when is it "time to use them," as you say?

Therein lies the problem....

unless a politician gets greedy and tries to do a universal ban, I forsee no "revolution", only a gradual degradation of liberty.

[Woodman in MO]

Look at all the places trying and succeeding banning 50 Cal rifles. They use the same tired old argument that a lot of Hunter's fall for, that being that nobody 'needs' a 50 cal, and if you hunt with one, you are less of a man. So lots of people go along with it and compromise. Hey, they can ban 50's I still have my .45 Pistol and .30 cal rifle.

Well, guess what's next on the list....?

[redleg17]

Hunters shoot once, to kill, and have skills beyond what the avg soldier gets. the Avg soldier learns how to march, make a bed, salute, dress, and oh, a bit of rifle training.



You obviously have a lot of experience as a soldier.
(previous statement reeks of sarcasm)

[tomoshenko]

Personally I feel SHTF hypothesizing a juvenile waste of time.
Join GOA,NRA,GO of <fill in your state> ,write your congressmen and be heard.

[Red Grizzly]

Good article and a good DISCUSSION

[ctdemolay0405]

good article, and good discussion, but most of all, we need to keep organizing, more than just the NRA and State orgs, how about very open, vocal local groups? we need them too. change on the local level, then the state, then regional then national. basicly how concealed carry changed from none, to one states, to a few, now to most of the country

[jfowl31]

You obviously have a lot of experience as a soldier.
(previous statement reeks of sarcasm)

I, too, think a lot of people underestimate the deadliness of each and every soldier out there.

For this very reason, I agree whole-heartedly with the article in question. We need every advantage we can get as civilians who don't get million/billion dollar combat training.

Besides, if we don't ask and beg and scream and yell for it ALL back, we won't ever get anything! Goes along with the whole "squeaky wheel gets the grease thing." and its the entire reason why we are being defeated on this. The other side of the argument argues that we should abolish ALL guns and control EVERYTHING. So they get appeased and one more thing gets taken away, then they complain more that EVERYTHING be taken away, while we all just sit back and complain about the last thing that happened. We have to start fighting to get ALL our freedoms back before anyone will ever give us ANYTHING back. This guy has the right standpoint on it. If you excuse any of the wrong-doings that have happened, you have to excuse them all..... its all absolutes, its all wrong, or its all right. There's no "gray" area in the 2nd amendment.

I can't wait til Texas secedes.

[jettag]

and I agree this discussion MAY be absurd but...

I must add:

If law exhibits distrust of citizens, citizens distrust law.
Let me defend myself!
Homeschool for combat training has been effective since the dawn of time.
Spend our money on education and infrastucture instead.
I just want to brew my own and shoot the best damned guns ever made, no crime.

And for the love of all that's good GIVE ME BACK MY RIGHTS!
I don't want to fight but I might...don't hide in the dark, reach for the light.:America:

[Nazgul]

I'm a Texan living in Wisconsin. The vast majority of folks here still think this is 1970-something. So as long as they get there booze and union jobs, there's not much they worry about. Sure they've taken notice that gas costs a lot, but as to the change in the nation in the south west and California, they don't care. I get the "well why do you need an assault rifle for ?" crap at the range and work all the time. I usually tell them "Your not going to assault anything with a semi-auto rifle, which both of mine are".

I lived in Australia for a few years, and the guys there would give their left nut for a .357 hand gun or a 9mm semi any day....and yes I'm being serious about the nut part.

[Cavalryman]

You obviously have a lot of experience as a soldier.
(previous statement reeks of sarcasm)

Well, Redleg, I do have a lot of experience as a soldier, and it's my considered opinion that marksmanship training in the Army leaves a lot to be desired. And yes, most commanders consider it less important than marching and saluting.

[jfowl31]

Well, Redleg, I do have a lot of experience as a soldier, and it's my considered opinion that marksmanship training in the Army leaves a lot to be desired. And yes, most commanders consider it less important than marching and saluting.

Marksmanship training is one thing.... and a lifelong Hunter MAAAAAY be a better shot than a typical soldier, but marksmanship and combat are 2 entirely different things. Especially with the training and experience our combat vets are getting with CQB and the likes.

My hope is that our armed forces would stick to their oath and defend the public from BOTH foreign AND domestic enemies who are infringing on our rights if it ever came to it.

There's also the whole bit where Redlegs could rain a Howitzer shell on my ass while I'm trying to pop him with my Cetme......... not a fair fight.

[jettag]

I'm a Texan living in Wisconsin. The vast majority of folks here still think this is 1970-something. So as long as they get there booze and union jobs, there's not much they worry about. Sure they've taken notice that gas costs a lot, but as to the change in the nation in the south west and California, they don't care. I get the "well why do you need an assault rifle for ?" crap at the range and work all the time. I usually tell them "Your not going to assault anything with a semi-auto rifle, which both of mine are".

I lived in Australia for a few years, and the guys there would give their left nut for a .357 hand gun or a 9mm semi any day....and yes I'm being serious about the nut part.

There is no union for Arborists and I DO drink but only when I can't afford to buy more guns!
I've heard that why do you need that assault machine gun thing from co-workers too.
My usual reply goes somthing like:
So I can protect you from yourself you nincumpoop!:kookaid:

[Cavalryman]

Marksmanship training is one thing.... and a lifelong Hunter MAAAAAY be a better shot than a typical soldier, but marksmanship and combat are 2 entirely different things. Especially with the training and experience our combat vets are getting with CQB and the likes.


You're absolutely right, and I don't mean to imply that our soldiers don't get combat training...but in my opinion, that training would be more effective if coupled with more and better training and practice in actually shooting. I certainly don't want to be on the receiving end of a U.S. military attack, but if something could be done to make that attack more effective, we should do it. I don't think it would be unreasonable for an infantryman to be on the range once a week. What does he have to do that is more important? How much ammo could you buy by not building one fighter aircraft?

[jfowl31]

I can definitely agree with that Cavman. The better trained our soldiers are, the happier I am.