On Civilian Disarmament
I have posted my thoughts on Civilian Disarmament several times. But I have revised it recently, so I will post it again.
With the newest changes in the US power structure, the likelihood of the subject of Civilian Disarmament is likely to come up time and time again in the near future. Here are some of the ways I address the issue when it comes up and I am in a position to respond and give my thoughts on the subject.
1) I never, ever, refer to any discussion, comment, or other situation where weapons are referenced by any term other than Civilian Disarmament. For I believe wholeheartedly that the goal of people that tend to bring it up is just that. Civilian Disarmament.
No matter what term they use, I use Civilian Disarmament in every reply, all through any discussion that might take place. I DO NOT use any of ‘their’ terms. Because that allows them to disseminate information and ideas that are misleading, do not actually pertain to the subject, are often outright lies, and tend to have very strong emotional links to the word, words, or phrases that distract from the actual discussion of what they want to do.
Not ‘gun control’. Not ‘reasonable efforts’. Not ‘for the children’. Not ‘crime control’. Not ‘reducing gun deaths’. Not ‘gun safety efforts’. Not ‘simply …’ anything. Not ‘only …’ anything. Not ‘reducing gun violence’. Not ‘militia …’ anything. Not ‘regulation’. Not ‘homicide reduction’. Not ‘suicide reduction’. Not ‘limited …’ anything. Not ‘The second amendment no longer applies’.
Well, I could go on and on and on and… But I will stop here. The point is that I will not use their terms. Terms for which they have applied definitions that often have literally no connection or similarity to classic dictionary definitions of the words.
So, basically, if I am in the discussion it is a discussion about Civilian Disarmament whether it started as such or not. And though it is very difficult at times, I always try to use the word weapons, as opposed to guns. Because Civilian Disarmament does include taking effective weapons of all types from civilians, not just modern firearms. Black powder weapons, swords, spears, all the way down to even kitchen knives in places.
2) Any discussion, to be a discussion, whether it be verbal, written, or visual, should be conducted with courtesy, with respect for the other person’s opinion, without interrupting the other person (no matter how large the temptation), and two-way. No preaching, no demands, no ‘I am right and you are wrong’, no angry gestures, with each person being allowed to speak, in turn, and then allowed to speak again, in turn, to address what was said each time.
I will not argue, especially a yelling match. It solves nothing and puts me in a bad light even for those that support my opinion. I intend to lead the way, provided the example, and be that person that others will actually listen to and take away something rather than just shutting it all out, which means I will have accomplished nothing.
3) I make it personal. No, NOT calling a person names, not denigrating their intelligence or ancestors. Not using derogatory versions of political party names, group names, organization names, other peoples’ names, or anything with which they identify.
All that does is get them angry, causes them to rant and rave in return, and totally destroys any chance of exchanging actual information and providing them with information that they might just look at, and think about. They definitely will not consider anything you might suggest if it is accompanied with vitriolic accusations and derogatory comments.
What I am talking about is make the subject, and especially individual points of the discussion personal to the person with whom you are talking. Use their first name if you know it, and that is not already an objectionable thing to do for them, and if not, simply use the word ‘you’, or ‘your’, with slight emphasis on it each time.
This will hopefully allow them to see that Civilian Disarmament IS NOT about ‘the other guy’, the bad person, the person with ‘too many’ weapons, ‘the wrong kind’ of weapons, or some other ‘person’ only. It is about them as well. Everything that they want others to do and rules to abide by, they will, as well. And they often do not think about that. Not even consider it. Since they are not a gun owner, nor want to be.
The list below is the core of what I do. I ask the questions, as I said, always using the slightly emphasized ‘you’ word or variation as needed. This will cause them to think about things in ways they probably have not considered. Often the person is scared, or worried, or even just concerned, and has listened to the rhetoric put out by those attempting to disarm all civilians. Civilians. As in everyone that is not one of their own elite group, and usually police, military, and certain other ‘special’ people that they believe should have the advantages that having effective weapons available give them.
They believe that they are one of ‘them’ and not one of ‘us’, until many of these things are pointed out.
So, on with the list and additional comments at the end:
With emotions running high because of recent events, and many snap decisions being made by people in positions of power, I thought I might pass along some information and some of my thoughts on the subject at hand, so people that might not have been exposed to some of the included information will now have a chance to make decisions based on a more complete base of knowledge.
I would ask that anyone reading this not take my word for any of it, but do their own due diligence research into the thoughts that I will be expressing. To learn, on your own, if what I am asking and suggesting is true, or is not true.
This first part is a set of ‘Gun Control’ poll questions, more appropriately called Civilian Disarmament poll questions, that I think should be included in any and all polls relating in any way to the restriction of US Citizens from exercising their God given moral and legal right to acquire, own, possess, keep, bear, and use arms, as expressed in the US Constitution’s Second Amendment.
I have found that many polls presented to the public are asking for results that are essentially about ‘the other person’, not really indicating that the disarmament would apply to the person taking the poll, as well as ‘the other person’. Take this poll with yourself and your family in mind. See if you are or are not in one of the groups that will be exempt from being forcibly disarmed.
1) In a gun-free zone, where there is no one around to return fire, and an active shooter with a semi-auto rifle fires all 210 rounds of his/her ammunition: Are 210 rounds in 7 30-round magazines more dangerous than 210 rounds in 14 15-round magazines or 210 rounds in 21 10-round magazines? Yes/No
2) In that scenario, do YOU think is it better for the shooter to A) fire off those 210 rounds rapidly and wildly, because they are in 30-round magazines and they feel they have plenty? Or B) much more slowly, taking careful aim, because they only have 10 rounds at a time before they have to reload? A/B
3) Considering the number of shootings that have taken place in areas labeled “Gun Free Zone” do YOU feel safer in Gun Free Zones than in areas where regular people licensed to carry concealed weapons, or people that open carry weapons where legal are or may be armed? Yes/No
4) Are YOU willing to be unarmed in a society where only ‘official’ people can have firearms? Yes/No
5) Will YOU feel safer if a new Assault Weapons Ban is enacted? Yes/No
6) Do YOU think YOUR family will be safer if YOU are denied gun ownership? Yes/No
7) Are YOU capable of defending YOURSELF and YOUR family without the use of a firearm when confronted by criminals using guns illegally? Yes/No
8) Should YOU be considered a danger to YOUR family or other people if YOU own a gun? Yes/No
9) Are YOU willing to have your home and property searched at will by armed officials searching for illegal firearms? Yes/No
10) Are YOU willing to give up your right to have effective weapons when only ‘official’ people can have them? Yes/No
11) Should public officials be exempt from gun control measures and be allowed to have them when YOU cannot? Yes/No
12) Are a public official’s children more entitled to be protected than YOUR children and have armed security in their schools when YOU cannot have the same? Yes/No
13) Should ‘celebrities and important people’ be exempt from gun control measures and be allowed to have them when YOU cannot? Yes/No
14) Should public officials, ‘celebrities’, and ‘important people’ have personal guards that are exempt from gun control measures YOU must follow? Yes/No
15) Is the safety of public officials, ‘celebrities’, and ‘important people’ and their families more important than YOUR safety and YOUR family’s safety? Yes/No
16) Do YOU know someone ‘special’ that should be exempt from the gun laws that YOU are required to follow? Yes/No
17) Are YOU one of the ‘special people’ that should be exempt from the gun laws that others must follow? Yes/No
18) Should those that advocate gun control for YOU be exempt from the law that YOU must follow? Yes/No
19) Should those that advocate gun control for YOU be allowed to have firearms until everyone else is disarmed? Yes/No
20) Do YOU think that most of those in public office are ‘special’ and therefore more qualified than YOU to make decisions about YOUR safety and the safety of YOUR family? Yes/No
21) Do YOU think that people wishing to use firearms in crimes will give up their guns during a gun ban? Yes/No
22) Do YOU think that criminals WILL NOT be able to get firearms by theft or illegal sale when some people are exempt from gun laws, but YOU are required to give up YOURS? Yes/No
23) Are those that support rigid gun control laws and advocate the gunning down or burning alive NRA members and other gun owners hypocritical in their thinking? Yes/No
24) Should YOU have a firearm, because YOU are not a danger with one and everyone else not have one because only YOU are not a danger with one? Yes/No
25) Are YOU mentally incompetent to own and legally use a firearm because you seek help for SOME mental issues such as depression and take the prescribed medication as directed? Yes/No
26) If YOU are being treated for depression and taking the medication, if any, as directed, and therefore more mentally sound with the correct chemical balance, are YOU a bigger risk than those not taking anything or seeking help that leaves them with an untreated chemical imbalance? Yes/No
27) Are YOU incompetent to own and use a firearm because you have minor mental issues that do not involve violence against other people? Yes/No
28) Are YOU competent to decide whether or not YOUR children are introduced to the safe handling of firearms? Yes/No
29) Do YOU think government enforcement agencies should have armed agents? Yes/No
30) Do YOU think administrative and bureaucratic agencies personnel should be armed? Yes/No
31) Do YOU think administrative and bureaucratic agencies should have armed agents as part of the agency? Yes/No
32) If YOU do not own a gun, it was an option YOU chose. Do YOU believe you are better off if that option is taken away from YOU, so YOU no longer have the option to or to not to own a weapon because others believe that YOU are not capable of making the ‘correct’ decision about that option? Yes/No
33) Do YOU think terrorists or people known to be dangerous should have firearms? Yes/No
34) Do YOU consider YOURSELF a terrorist or a danger to others because of your basic beliefs? Yes/No
35) Are YOU a member of one of the following groups, have one of the following beliefs, or engage in one of the following activities that DHS has stated that indicate that YOU are a potential terrorist and a danger to the safety of the nation and should be subject to the no recourse/unlimited incarceration/no contact/no trial/no habeas corpus arrest under the US Patriot Act? Yes/No
39) Anyone that is opposed to Agenda 21/Agenda 2030
41) Christians that have ever discussed the anti-Christ
42) Christians that have ever discussed the apocalypse
43) Christians that have ever discussed the book of Revelation?
45) Constitution party members
47) Fundamental Christians
48) Gun owners
49) Libertarian party members
56) People advocating a decentralized government
- 57) People distrustful of the DHS See Something, Say Something campaign
- 58) People driving vans
59) People involved in the Patriot Movement
60) People or groups that seek to smite the purported enemies of God and other evildoers
- 61) People showing an interest in web privacy when using the Internet in a public place
- 62) People talking to police officers
63) People that are involved with alternative media
64) People that believe in a New World Order and/or Agenda 21/2030 conspiracy
65) People that believe in civil liberties
66) People that believe in homeschooling
67) People that believe in their Constitutional rights
68) People that express an interest in self-sufficiency
69) People that express libertarian philosophies
70) People that express second Amendment-oriented views
71) People that fear economic collapse
72) People that have ever expressed concerns of Big Brother
73) People that have expressed agreement with Constitutional rights and civil liberties
74) People that have expressed fears of Big Brother or big government
75) People that have religious views concerning the book of Revelation
76) People that listen to, watch, or read alternative media
77) People that oppose abortion
78) People that oppose illegal immigration
79) People that possess survivalist literature
80) People that reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority
- 81) People using a cell phone recording application
- 82) People using a video camera in public places
- 83) People wearing hoodies
- 84) People who “believe in conspiracy theories that involve grave threats to national sovereignty and/or personal liberty.”
- 85) People who buy food in bulk
- 86) People who consider themselves “anti-global”
87) People who disagree with the mass media’s version of events
88) People who display bumper stickers
89) People who fly a U.S. flag
90) People who oppose giving drivers licenses to illegal immigrants
91) People who own gold
- 92) People who pay cash for a cup of coffee
- 93) People writing on a piece of paper in public
94) Ron Paul supporters
115) Those that support Libertarian concepts
- 120) Those who are “fiercely nationalistic (rather than universal and international in orientation)”
- 121) Those who are “reverent of individual liberty”
- 122) Those who are “suspicious of centralized federal authority”
- 123) Those who believe their “way of life” is under attack
Another ‘poll question’ came to me last night just as I was falling asleep. It should have a long time ago. It is one of the main points, a key to possibly changing peoples’ minds.
Applies if the person does not own a gun or is getting rid of their guns.
If YOU do not own a gun, it was an option YOU chose. Do YOU believe you are better off if that option is taken away from YOU, so YOU no longer have the option to or to not to own a weapon because others believe that YOU are not capable of making the ‘correct’ decision about that option? Yes/No
It makes the point, I think, that those that oppose people having weapons, and have chosen to not own them, have always had that option, and exercised that option freely. If Civilian Disarmament comes about, they will have no choice in the matter. An option will be taken from them, in the form of losing one of the primary aspects of being free, the right to keep and bear arms.
Remember, every totalitarian regime that has ever existed, has disarmed it citizens, so they become subjects, and are unable to defend themselves effectively when that regime began to control them more and more tightly, leading, ultimately, to killing everyone that did not fit their ideal of a perfect subject under their elite leadership.
Whether you believe it will happen or not, how would you defend YOURSELF, YOUR family, and YOUR beliefs if our government DID become totalitarian, and YOU had given up YOUR right to own an effective weapon to combat the abuses of such a government, whether YOU own one now or not?
Could you? Would you take up farming tools to fight tanks and attack helicopters and heavily armed troops to protect what you believe in?
On to some other, related subjects:
Does anyone really expect the federal government to “control” millions of guns, AND protect 350,000,000 unarmed ‘subjects’ (and I say subjects because we will no longer be citizens), and themselves at the same time, without the support and assistance of 50,000,000 or more former gun owners that are trying to find ways to defend their families against both the real terrorist, as well as our own government agents doing no-knock warrants, because they know there will be people that will not turn in their guns?
And you know just how many times they have hit the wrong house and killed the wrong dog, not to mention its owner. Multiply that percentage to 10s of millions of no-knocks. And gun control will lessen gun deaths AND other crime related deaths? I do not think so.
Remember, when they are talking about civilian disarmament, they are talking about you. Not just me and another guy, but YOU AND YOUR FAMILY. Believe me, if you are not part of the few thousand elite, you will be disarmed as well, at gun point, your person, your vehicle, and your house, storage room, gym locker, and back yard thoroughly searched. Possibly at 3 in the morning with a no-knock warrant.
But you do not even have a gun, you say? When the rewards start going up for turning in your neighbors, and you have even one person that dislikes you, you will get that no-knock visit, because you lied about having a weapon, and therefore are a ‘domestic terrorist’ and LEO’S cannot risk not doing it that way because it just MIGHT be true, since no one would lie about their neighbor over something petty.
So be ready to start looking over your shoulder all the time, because they will be coming after YOU AND YOUR FAMILY for something, at some point, that you do, that the elite does not want happening. Like going to a Christian or Jewish church in more than groups of 2 or 3. Or grow a garden. Or complain about the inappropriate handling of your 13-year-old daughter when searched for concealed weapons. And of course, it has to be a full body cavity strip search, just to keep EVERYONE safe.
And since it will be way too late before Main Stream Media realizes that not only are you being targeted, and they have been ordered not to report it, but that since they are no longer needed for disinformation, they are now being targeted, so cannot warn you, you will never see it coming, except for warnings like this.
And if I am still around (not likely, of course, after this), I will gladly remind everyone that I TOLD YOU SO.
Some additional thoughts since my last revision of this article, in light of events that have occurred during the second half of 2017 into the time frame of February 2018.
There have been several shootings these last few months, accounting for quite a few deaths. Most of the deaths have been attributed to single shooters using semi-automatic weapons, and at least one case of a semi-automatic weapon with aftermarket accessories that can, if used correctly, change the rate of fire. (And, if not used correctly, actually impede the rate of fire, and cause any of a few different malfunctions.)
But the information that is being presented after the fact in several of these incidents are calling into some doubt the ‘facts’ that were originally disseminated about the crimes. Not only about how many shooters, but about the actual identity of one or more of the shooters; and the numbers of weapons used, the make(s) and model(s) of those weapons, where they were obtained, and if legally obtained and owned.
(A special note about the recent Florida school shooting. An AR-15 semi-automatic rifle is the purported weapon used. I do believe this to be the case. However, I have yet to see any of the Main Stream Media report the fact that none of the magazines that were used in that AR-15 could hold more than 10-rounds.
They were NOT 20-round or 30-round magazines that are often used with AR-15 weapons. Just 10-round magazines that are legal almost everywhere, even in already highly gun-rights restricted areas. And it is not so much the number of rounds in the magazines, it is the fact that Main Stream Media is not reporting all of the facts of the matter so people can make informed decisions.)
Questions about the mental state of some of the people involved, whether or not they had been diagnosed with a mental health issue, whether or not they had been prescribed medications, and whether or not they were taking the medications if they had been prescribed.
Documented cases of mis-information being presented by various media organizations, as well as a significant lack of cooperation between law enforcement jurisdictions and the sharing of information.
Bias has been pointed out and admitted to by several of the different ‘sides’. (There are definitely more than two sides to the subject of Civilian Disarmament.)
It has been admitted by several people that are advocating Civilian Disarmament that it would not really affect either the crime rate in general, nor, probably, even the rate of deaths involving a gun, many of which are not criminal acts, but accidental in nature. Many do not expect it to affect very much the number of deaths by firearms wielded by law enforcement. Especially those termed ‘suicide by cop’.
What has been said is that private individuals would not be able to effectively defend themselves from criminals who would still be able to get deadly weapons, and the incidences of murders during the commissions of other crimes will probably go up.
The point is, even if the number of gun deaths was reduced, by any means, it would have very little effect on the total number of deaths in the same categories, as other weapons would be used. I see no difference between a crime that results in a death, no matter what is used. Often times the death is caused by something that is not even considered a weapon, until it is used as such. From a rock to a push in front of a moving truck. Dead is dead. The weapon has nothing to do with it. If a person is intent on killing, they will find a way, gun or no gun. And those that kill in the heat of the moment, in the absence of a handy gun, are just as likely to grab a heavy ashtray, or nowadays, some piece of wardrobe that will become deadly when wielded with intent.
Any possible reduction of ‘gun deaths’ due to their use by ordinary citizens that have them for self-defense, hunting, target shooting, or any other legal use, and NOT because they intend to use them in a crime of some sort, or as protection while committing a crime, will be far over shadowed, and the number actually rise significantly, due to use of illegal weapons now being used in greater numbers because criminals will feel less likely to be injured or killed by legal gun owners, since the population will not be armed with effective weapons, thus encouraging potential criminals to become active criminals.
Civilian Disarmament simply does not work the way those that want it for ‘safety’ reasons think it will. Civilian Disarmament only makes it easier for a person or group to control others, since the lack of effective weapons reduces not only the ability, but the likelihood of resistance against others that wish to control them.
The Second Amendment is there in order to provide the means for US Citizens to protect themselves from those that have been elected into office in our Federal Government from abusing the powers granted to them, and in so doing, becoming a tyrannical government in the same vein as the one the Colonists took it upon themselves to declare independence from, fight against, and establish their own form of government that would limit the possibility of it happening again.
The fact that the Second Amendment also makes it possible for people to defend themselves from other dangers, to hunt, to target shoot, and do the myriad of other things that legal owners of guns do, is simply a bonus.
The best way to learn these facts is to read the Federalist Papers. They contain, among other things, the various letters and debates between those working on the pending Constitution discussing the Right To Keep And Bear Arms. There was discussion for and against, by several of the eventual signers of the final draft of the Constitution. The reason it is included as part of the Constitution is explained in those discussions.
(You might want an “Olde English” dictionary to look up some of the words. Some just because of the spelling, others to get the meaning of words at the time.)
Many may not realize it, but the Revolutionary War was not fought by Americans against the British. At the time, and until we did win the war, the overwhelming majority of the Colonists were still British citizens, and in declaring independence and fighting against the British Authorities, were considered to be committing treason, and would have been hung for High Treason against the British Empire if we had lost, and those not killed captured and returned to England in chains.
All this information is available if you look for it, and do not dismiss it out of hand. One does have to do due diligence research, in depth, because many of the statements that are made, once realized that they can negatively affect a given person’s or organization’s agenda, are quietly buried, and other stories presented to overshadow and counteract the previous statements.
Always remember, you, the person reading this, is the one that will be disarmed, and the ones that are making it happen will not be disarmed, giving them total life and death power over you and your loved ones.
And be aware that, since pretty much all laws enacted and enforced, for whatever crime, (and that would be the same in each and every Civilian Disarmament situation), are enforced by threat of death.
It does not matter if a death penalty is or is not part of the usual punishment for any crime. If a person resists the enforcement of that crime, from jaywalking to murder, law enforcement, which I am sure will continue to be armed no matter what Civilian Disarmament laws might be enacted, can, do, and will, use deadly force to ensure the person accused (and at that point, it probably will only be an accusation) is taken into custody for investigation and possible trial, or to prevent their escape.
Law enforcement has a mandate to take criminals off the street and get them into the court system for adjudication of their accused crime. They have to take them in if they find them. Preferably, of course, alive, if they cooperate.
But most assuredly dead, if they resist being taken into custody for a crime that is, in their eyes, unconstitutional, and in the eyes of many more, unconstitutional, and as the originators of the Constitution intended, unconstitutional.
So if a person has been accused, and the agency tasked with bringing in ‘believed to be armed and dangerous’ suspects, and protests that they do not have a gun, because they truly do not, and the suspect (which could be you) does the least little thing that the officer(s) do not like, and guns will be drawn, and the next movement of the suspect, that can in any way be interpreted by the officers as a threat to them, (as has probably happened many times by then), will result in one, and probably four or five triggers being pulled, ending that particular situation. Of course, you will be dead. And possibly many of your family when they crowd around ‘in a threatening manner’.
When it comes to the plans in place for Civilian Disarmament, I will para-phrase the Borg’s mandate: “Resistance is futile, you will submit to Disarmament, or you will die.”
Just a personal aside. To me, the modern English translation of the original words, and their meanings at the time, of the Second Amendment are as follows (Those people knew how to pack a lot into a few words. And those of the time fully understood those meanings.):
“As Sovereign Citizens of this Nation have the God given moral and legal right to acquire, own, possess, keep, bear, and use arms of any type now in existence or in the future, to provide for the means to protect themselves and all Sovereign Citizens of this Nation from abuses by, acts committed by, and unconstitutional laws passed by any jurisdiction in the Nation, whether jurisdiction was created by election, appointment, hiring, or in any other method giving powers of any kind over any Sovereign Citizen, shall not now, or ever, be infringed, restricted, or removed, by any person, jurisdiction or court, except as might be required to protect individuals, society, and the Nation from any additional harm by a citizen convicted of crimes adjudicated to be such that any reasonable Sovereign Citizen would consider the risk to be high enough to take such action.”
I also believe, that at the time, and in the way what criminal actions were listed as Federal crimes, that it was intended that the various states adopt their own criminal code with crimes and punishments set up thusly:
“That any criminal act using force or coercion, by any means, will be tried for guilt without regard to the means of such force or coercion, but sentencing may be influenced by such means used, if such means and circumstances would be considered abhorrent or heinous by any reasonable Sovereign Citizen of this Nation.”
Or the short version: “Any crime worth punishment, is crime enough to be tried and punished on its own.”
While all the above is my personal opinion, based on my research, and personal observations, the following is strictly an opinion separate and apart from the above.
I believe that “We, as a nation, need only one single gun law. The national right to acquire, own, possess, keep, bear, and use any type of arm or weapon, until and unless a Sovereign Citizen is legally convicted of a crime which, due its nature, calls for the removal of such right for a limited time, or permanently, as confirmed by an independent jury.
Because, the presence and use of arms by reasonable Sovereign Citizens, with the support, backing, and assistance of a policing force and judicial system will keep the level of criminal actions down to a level that will not present much of an excuse for unreasonable people to call for any type of Civilian Disarmament.
Only misinterpretation, intentional or through lack of knowledge, is the Second Amendment considered anything other than an absolute right of individuals to own and use arms of any type.
And please remember why the Second Amendment is not only in the Constitution, but the second one, after only the Rights expressed in the first. It is not there so people can protect themselves from animals, or robbers; or to hunt with; or for ‘sporting purposes; or for target shooting; or for any of the reasons that often muddy up the discussion and understanding of the Amendment.
The newest twist to the Civilian Disarmament discussion is about the role of Militias in both state and federal government that I ran across recently.
The following is a set of quotes from a forum of which I am a member. There are three parts. The post of someone replying to a previous post, the previous post plus the current poster’s remarks, and then my post.
I am seeing this argument over and over again about the 2A:
The purpose of the Second Amendment was to prevent the new Federal Government established in 1789 from disarming the state militias and replacing them with a Federal standing army.
Second poster’s reply:
It was a concern that was relevant perhaps for a few years around the birth of the country. It is irrelevant today. Americans do not rely on state militias in 2018 for our freedom from the federal government thusly the people do not need guns any longer.
One of my arguments against this is; if this is true, then why didn’t the government outlaw private ownership of guns some time after the founding of the nation. Why didn’t they ban them in 1795 or 1810 or 1830 or 1880 etc?
Any other points?
I was not up to reading every post. Sorry. But here are my thoughts based on the OP:
1) Concerning the statement in red that the opposition tends to make simply is not true. The militias, with or without State National Guard assistance, as they may be Federalized and not available, are still the means that the States have to resist Federal tyranny.
2) Do the research on the different agencies that now have armed departments to assist in their enforcement of various laws, but also armed enforcement of procedures, guidelines, rules, and other instructions that ARE NOT LAWs, but written and implemented by various bureaucracies, that carry the weight of law in the minds of those in those bureaucracies.
3) Have the person look up those facts on their own, after you give them leads to follow. (Otherwise they never will.)
4) Ask them what happens when a person violates one of these non-Laws, and when approached to be taken in for arraignment and then trial, and the person says they will not go?
5) Then ask them what happens if the person resists being taken in, in the firm belief that they have not violated a law, and therefore do not have to comply, and resists further, verbally, and physically (but not with a gun).
6) Then ask them what happens if the person barricades themselves in their home or other place, in peaceful protest. If they hesitate, you might mention Waco, Wounded Knee, Kent State, the MOVE shootout, Ruby Ridge, and various attacks on individuals, families, and organizations by the Federal Government.
7) Do the research on the militarization of police departments around the country by the Federal Government, and what strings are attached.
8) Then ask the person to do that research and tell you what they found.
9) Do the research on just which agencies the President, and/or Congress, and/or various intelligence agencies can call upon to enforce anything those people or agencies tell them to enforce. Such as the military when they attacked the World War I veterans AND their families in Washington D.C.
And then give them a copy, or talk to them about my article on Civilian Disarmament, below. Especially ask them whether or not they are on ANY of the lists of people that the Federal Government, or some agency therein, believes are potential Domestic Terrorist. I suspect just about anyone you talk to will be on one or more. Ask them what they will do if the authorities come for them, because they are a Domestic Terrorist.
A couple more questions to ask:
1) Do YOU think YOU are capable of making up YOUR own mind about any subject, not just Civilian Disarmament? Yes/No
2) Do YOU think YOU should only read, watch, and listen to Main Stream Media sources to get information about what is happening around you? Yes/No
3) Do YOU think other sources of information and news should be controlled by the government? Yes/No
4) Do YOU think that online services should have the power to arbitrarily restrict, demonetize, or otherwise keep alternative news and information sources from providing their services and opinions while allowing other sources to continue, when the only difference being the different social, political, or other beliefs being expressed, with no criminal or other rule violations taking place? Yes/No
And a final request:
Ask, do not demand, that anyone with whom you are discussing Civilian Disarmament to “Please do your own due diligence research on this subject, using not only Main Stream Medias’ and Civilian Disarmament groups’ provided sources but other sources of information. Please seek out your own sources from all types of places that might have relevant information.”
So says the Devil’s Advocate