In response to:

Expect Civil Disobedience if Politicians Try to Undermine the Second Amendment

Pistol Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 6:43 AM
IF the corruptocrats in DC make certain popular firearms illegal, and IF some federal agency like BATF starts to invade homes to confiscate guns, sooner or later, some one will resist. Remember those no-knock drug searches? They were discontinued because the no-knockers kept running into gunfire, and juries wouldn't convict the shooters. We had a tragic case right here. A team invaded the wrong address, the owner killed a deputy, a jury took 23 minutes to acquit. The idiotic policy was abandoned, but it was too late for the deputy, a decent well-liked fellow. Home invasions lead to bloodshed. At some point, the invaders must decide if they support the policy. There are 2 dangers to government. The invaders might decide to refuse,
Jay Wye Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 8:53 AM
we DO NOT want to fight our own military. they are not the proper targets,nor the police if avoidable.
We want them on OUR side,and shooting or killing some of theirs will make them enemies.
Pick the PROPER targets;
the ones to shoot are the US legislators who ratified such a law,the putz who SIGNED the law,the judges who upheld it.

if you wait until they are at your door,it's already too late. They WILL bring overwhelming force to bear on individuals and small groups. You'll end up like the Branch Davidians at Waco.

the time to act is right after the oppressive laws are enacted.
Fooling Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 8:24 AM
Yes. The War on Drugs is an utter failure. No. Doubt. About It.
It is a war on people, who are often stupid, self destructive, etc. But who, unless they are driving or selling to kids, should generally be allowed to live their lives. Of course in a welfare state, they really DO become destructive to others as they often become unable to support themselves . . . . in a free society, they would fail, others would see them fail, and avoid the behavior more than they do so at the present time.
The real winners are the cops who make the seizures of property. RICHY RICH!
Anglo Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 7:41 AM
Home invasions, either court ordered or through a hostile intruder do in fact lead to bloodshed. Court order, as in a no knock warrant can and should result in a defensive posture of the inhabitant/occupant.
My reasoning for this: I was involved, legally, in a double homicide where a 33 year old man and his 10 year old daughter were summarily executed by people posing as border patrol looking supposedly looking for an escapee. Although the wife/mother was able to fake death, and survive after being seriously wounded, and also able to deliver gunfire wounding the killer/shooter who reentered the home to retrieve a gun that the intruders left behind in their anxiety.
Who is to say that any no-knock raid is or is not fair game?
Fooling Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 8:26 AM
Agreed. I thought of this myself recently, as with affirmative action and other "new" hiring procedures people join the police who could not have received a job years ago. Scary stuff.
Pistol Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 6:50 AM
or the invadees might decide the government indeed has gone too far, and solidify and amplify resistance. A third possibility, craven submission, is what the government would want. They didn't get it at Concord Bridge, and they didn't get it at Bull Run. Maybe they'd get it at 2015 Elm Street. Maybe not.
Shoestring47 Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 9:34 AM
THIS IS THE SAME TERRORIST THREAT AS THEY HAD AT WACO, TX. REMEMBER CLINTON'S TAKEOVER OF THE PEOPLE THERE, HE KILLED BABIES, WOMEN AND THE MEN WHO STOOD THEIR GROUND

I periodically share public opinion data, either because I’m encouraged by the results or because I think that the research helps show how to frame issues.

Examples include polling data on personal retirement accounts, the dangers of big government, support for spending caps, and viability of class warfare tax policy.

But I’ve been very narrowly focused. Just about all the polls I’ve shared have been about some...

Related Tags: Politicians