• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

The British called...They want their guns back.

Frizz said:
Wasn't this country born from a citizen rebellion? or rather a "subject' rebellion.

Frizz
Click to expand...

Frizz and others who replied to my comment:

No this country was not born from a citizen rebellion.

There are many ways that our situation is different than in the 1700s. I could write a quite lengthy essay on it but I will only briefly explain a few of the differences here in this forum.

Wars are fought over land. The Atlantic Ocean separated America from England so there was a clear territory that the Americans wanted to free from the English Parliament and King. Today we have no territory that we like minded individuals occupy. We are sprinkled all over America among the sheeple.

This made the American Revolution very different than most other citizen rebellions. Most revolutions are instigated by an outside source with something to gain by a revolt. They conspire to get the masses to violently revolt to overthrow their government. It usually results in more loss of freedom to the people after those who caused the revolt from the sidelines put a new government in place. This is what would happen in America today.

The American Revolution was more along the lines of the Civil War. The American Colonies wanted to secede from the British Commonwealth. They had no desire to overthrow the English government as in most revolutions. They did not want to set up an American government in England where the seat of the government was. They just wanted to separate a clearly defined section of land that was already organized into separate colonial governments. They supported their governments.

Not technically, but in reality America was already a separate state. Since the first European settlements in the early 1600s, America evolved its own culture, ways, beliefs, systems etc. For all practical purposes they were a separate country long before any fighting broke out. There was definitely an "us vs. them" mentality. When violence broke out they did not feel that they were fighting against "their own people".

Wealthy leaders instigated revolution. Today there are no modern counterparts to the Founders we all like to talk about. The common people who wanted to protect their rights did not start the American Revolution. It was started by wealthy businessmen who wanted to protect their money.

The common stories you read in the textbooks about the people rising up against the King are pure myth. The English Parliament and King had been tightening up on regulations and increasing taxes. England was also going to restrict and regulate westward expansion into the new territory created after the French Indian wars. These wealthy business owners, lawyers and land speculators such as George Washington decided not to stand for it. They were all looking forward to making a lot of profit on buying and leasing land or reselling land to those whom they could convince to move westward. They were not about to let the King make all of that money especially since they felt that they were responsible for winning the war and thus the land from France. There is a lot more to this but it would take too much space for this format.

The equivalent today would be if there were a falling out between the US Government and big business. Our Founder's counterparts would be people such as Ross Perot, Bill Gates and Ted Turner; people who could finance a revolt. Did you realize that John Hancock almost single handedly financed the revolution until they could convince France to loan them the money?

Who is going to finance a revolt today? It seems that those who are advocating a violent revolt today simply do not think it through. Supplies, food and many other needs have to be provided for. Do you think that a foreign country would loan you money? Your aren't even organized and you have no territory.

So as I said a citizen revolt at the present time under the present circumstances would probably result in a reformed government with less freedom.

I would much prefer a succession movement as discussed in another thread.
 
Last edited:
Erebus said:
Apparently they have forgotten yet again.

Taken from The Independence Institute website.


Here's an image of the ad.

ukad.gif


I wonder how many of the guns Americans sent to defend British homes were destroyed by this ban. Think about it, we sent them guns to use to defend themselves from invasion and their own government took them away and destroyed them.
Click to expand...

My grandfather told me about the US sending rifles over to the UK. He said a lot of people did send them over, they were supposed to get them back. But the British melted them after the war ended.
 
Cato said:
Frizz and others who replied to my comment:

No this country was not born from a citizen rebellion.

There are many ways that our situation is different than in the 1700s. I could write a quite lengthy essay on it but I will only briefly explain a few of the differences here in this forum.

Wars are fought over land. The Atlantic Ocean separated America from England so there was a clear territory that the Americans wanted to free from the English Parliament and King. Today we have no territory that we like minded individuals occupy. We are sprinkled all over America among the sheeple.

This made the American Revolution very different than most other citizen rebellions. Most revolutions are instigated by an outside source with something to gain by a revolt. They conspire to get the masses to violently revolt to overthrow their government. It usually results in more loss of freedom to the people after those who caused the revolt from the sidelines put a new government in place. This is what would happen in America today.

The American Revolution was more along the lines of the Civil War. The American Colonies wanted to secede from the British Commonwealth. They had no desire to overthrow the English government as in most revolutions. They did not want to set up an American government in England where the seat of the government was. They just wanted to separate a clearly defined section of land that was already organized into separate colonial governments. They supported their governments.

Not technically, but in reality America was already a separate state. Since the first European settlements in the early 1600s, America evolved its own culture, ways, beliefs, systems etc. For all practical purposes they were a separate country long before any fighting broke out. There was definitely an "us vs. them" mentality. When violence broke out they did not feel that they were fighting against "their own people".

Wealthy leaders instigated revolution. Today there are no modern counterparts to the Founders we all like to talk about. The common people who wanted to protect their rights did not start the American Revolution. It was started by wealthy businessmen who wanted to protect their money.

The common stories you read in the textbooks about the people rising up against the King are pure myth. The English Parliament and King had been tightening up on regulations and increasing taxes. England was also going to restrict and regulate westward expansion into the new territory created after the French Indian wars. These wealthy business owners, lawyers and land speculators such as George Washington decided not to stand for it. They were all looking forward to making a lot of profit on buying and leasing land or reselling land to those whom they could convince to move westward. They were not about to let the King make all of that money especially since they felt that they were responsible for winning the war and thus the land from France. There is a lot more to this but it would take too much space for this format.

The equivalent today would be if there were a falling out between the US Government and big business. Our Founder's counterparts would be people such as Ross Perot, Bill Gates and Ted Turner; people who could finance a revolt. Did you realize that John Hancock almost single handedly financed the revolution until they could convince France to loan them the money?

Who is going to finance a revolt today? It seems that those who are advocating a violent revolt today simply do not think it through. Supplies, food and many other needs have to be provided for. Do you think that a foreign country would loan you money? Your aren't even organized and you have no territory.

So as I said a citizen revolt at the present time under the present circumstances would probably result in a reformed government with less freedom.

I would much prefer a succession movement as discussed in another thread.
Click to expand...

You saved me the chore of having to type nearly same thing.

As RockRivr pointed out in another thread, bravado on a forum sounds cool but if acted upon would mere suicide and detrimental to the cause. War, in whatever manner, is run and won on logistics. It's not like you're going to take a week off from work, stage a revolution, set up a completely new government, clean your weapons, rinse the blood of your boots, take a day to drink with your fellow warriors telling lies about your heroism and then go back to work on Monday and collect your paycheck.

There wouldn't be any mass exodus from the military or law enforcement to "join the cause". I'll hazard a guess, and it's just my opinion, that 95+% already believe they're on the correct side and would carry out whatever orders they were given - hey, time to actually prove what a badass I am and how much power I can weild over the peons. Hell, look at Katrina for cripes sake. Where were all forum commando's when they were taking those folks guns away? How many from here ran down there to make an armed stand? How many from there made an armed stand?

Yeah, it's great to stroke our ego's and puff out our chest and scream "Hell no" over the internet but it's time grow up and get a grip.
 
codenamepaul said:
Cato/Mikey

Don't be so quick to get on your knees. To comtemplate that an armed rebellion in the US has no chance for success is folly to believe. It has enough chance that the military believes that this would not be a winnable war. You think- our military is stalemated by a bunch of undisciplined, non-shooting, one-step from the stone age Iraqis/Iranians. In a pretty small geographic area to boot. Think about how well they would fare against a homegrown, at least 10% veteran, well armed, with home field advantage guerrilla army.

There are an estimated 80 million gunowners in Amerika, in posession of an estimated 230million firearms. During the first revolution, it was estimated that only 3% of the population actually took part in the war-including support roles. Given that, that would put a 2,400,000 men at arms in the field. Guerrilla counter warfare/counter insurgency operations dictate (generally) a 10 to 1 advantage needed for success against a guerrilla force. Our current military strength is less than 4 million and that does not include deserters. Not counting the fact that units would have to be divided by geographic origin and deployed away from those areas-because not doing so would raise the desertion rate exponentially. The military is well aware that the desertion rate would be high-sometimes entire units. They will not leave empty-handed either.

You may want to evaluate your comments. The Loyalists were not well treated upon conclusion of the last revolution. I would suggest we have not advanced as a civilization enough to believe it would be any different, or likely, even worse the next time.
Click to expand...


You guys need to read more about the real history of warfare and pay more attention to what is really happening in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. Why are we still over there fighting? Why did we end up leaving Vietnam? Why did the Russians get their butts handed to them in Afghanistan? Why is this country all screwed up and going down the crapper from huge amounts of debt and more and more govt. rules and regulations?

Because citizen uprisings DO WORK. They just don't work in the simplistic "hey lets all fight a Red Dawn battle" way you think they do.

The American Revolution was DECADES in the making. There was significant political and moral backing for it among a high enough percentage of the population that once the actual fighting started the Minutemen could rely on significant backing from their friends, families - and their communities. Plus there were many men of political power and wealth supporting them. This is the same as what is happening in Iraq, the same as what is happening in Afghanistan now and what happened to the Russians - and the same as what happened in Vietnam.

If you think you are going to run into the woods of New Hampshire and fight the entirety of the US military to a standstill and win - well then yes: you have your head up your ass.

If you think that a significant amount of people can be persuaded that the US Govt. is screwing them, and that they need to start thinking of ways to change the govt. politically, and economically, and thru force finally if all of those other roads do not work - then you have a chance. It is just not as simplistic as it gets made out to be in the pages of this forum - or a lot of the "patriot" books you might have read.

I would go check out some of the writings at this website: http://www.d-n-i.net/dni/ - and see what these guys have to say about "4th generation warfare". Also pay attention to the news - the US has significant financial problems. It is times just like these that can be used to effect significant change - either good or bad.

The best thing to do is work on your friends, neighbors and coworkers. They are the ones you can educate. Don't put up with crap - let people know when they support somebody who advocates big govt. - that they are being un-American, that they don't understand what this country was supposed to be - and last but not least: that by advocating socialism they are directly SCREWING their fellow citizens and that you don't appreciate it.

Yeah - it will get socially ugly, but go read some of the history of the times before the actual fighting started during the Revolution - getting tarred and feathered wasn't exactly a college prank. Hot tar burns.

Either you let people know how you feel - and make them understand that their support of big govt. and socialism is not appreciated, or you will suffer the consequences of not speaking out.

My grandmother while she was alive - did the family history, my relatives from around the time of the Revolution - left and went to Canada because they were Tories. So what Codenamepaul says is true - it wasn't all wine and roses. But then again: being nice hasn't exactly gotten us anywhere either.
 
Good video, thanks for posting. That story of Tony Martin, imprisoned for defending himself against two criminal invaders, makes my blood boil.

I don't understand the mentality of Obama supporters who say this can't happen here.
 
So, hypothetically speaking of course.... should the Imperial Stormtroopers come knocking at your door, what will you do? [thinking]

So many things to plan for... [rolleyes]
 
Jaxon said:
So, hypothetically speaking of course.... should the Imperial Stormtroopers come knocking at your door, what will you do? [thinking]

So many things to plan for... [rolleyes]
Click to expand...

I'm curious how this actually went down in England. It would appear British subjects merely turned in their handguns when commanded by the government. How did this work? Did they have a "grace period" during which to turn them in? Were firearms confiscated by force? Did Britain have licensing and gun registration like we have here, to facilitate disarmament?
 
zzrider said:
I'm curious how this actually went down in England. It would appear British subjects merely turned in their handguns when commanded by the government. How did this work? Did they have a "grace period" during which to turn them in? Were firearms confiscated by force? Did Britain have licensing and gun registration like we have here, to facilitate disarmament?
Click to expand...

They have registration,licensing, police inspections, AWB. pretty much there only allowed to own single shot rifles and double shotguns. Getting a rifle in the U.K. is like getting a machine gun here. All people were ordered to surrender there handguns and "assault weapons" and have them destroyed or go to jail. so much for Britons never being slaves.[thinking]
 
evan9201 said:
All people were ordered to surrender there handguns and "assault weapons" and have them destroyed or go to jail. so much for Britons never being slaves.
Click to expand...

And none resisted? Wonder how many were jailed for refusing to surrender.

I wonder if it would really be any different in this country. We'll probably get to find out, I guess. [thinking]
 
>>And none resisted? Wonder how many were jailed for refusing to surrender.<<

Looks like they merely drank the "koolaid" as many in this country are. [sad]
 
They had registration for a long, long time, IIRC, which is why roundup was so easy when the time came.

For the US, I think there would be massive noncompliance- similar to what I've heard happened in Cali when their AWB/registration happened... just tons of people not registering anything.
 
zzrider said:
I'm curious how this actually went down in England. It would appear British subjects merely turned in their handguns when commanded by the government. How did this work? Did they have a "grace period" during which to turn them in? Were firearms confiscated by force? Did Britain have licensing and gun registration like we have here, to facilitate disarmament?
Click to expand...

Here you go. I found this a few weeks ago.
 
Raoul Duke said:
If they're real Imperial Storm Troopers I'll crap my pants or ask to see what's under the helmet. I can't rightly say which.
Click to expand...

We've all seen the Star Wars movies, those guys couldn't hit a barn with a cannon. We will be able to overpower them and steal their armor. Then we'll intercept the flight with MassMark on it, free him, then blow up the Deathstar...or my Dodge. Either one I'm cool with.
 
An inspirational video on gun control in England.

This explains why we must at every step fight for and defend our gun rights. I am also angry at the injustice dished out to Tony Martin who is imprisoned for shooting at TWO burglars who broke into his house. How is it that these moonbat ultra liberals get into public office and pass these laws. How is it that the police chief in Tony Martin's town says that Martin should have called for help to his remote farm.

There are parallels between GB and here. This is a good watch, give it a minute or so to get into it. You'll watch it to the end.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGVAQOUi6ec
 
they should have grown some balls years ago, it's too late now.

Wait till the recent immigrants to their shores take over the country and they all have to face Mecca to pray or else
 

Similar threads

Nevada Supreme Court Upholds Ban on So-Called ‘Ghost Guns’
Replies
4
Views
187
Dennis in MA
Dennis in MA
Worcester PD - Going after the guns but how about the perps…
Replies
14
Views
535
houdini
houdini
Smart gun will put fingerprint, facial recognition technology to work: Biofire has called it the 'first and only biometric firearm on the market'
2
Replies
39
Views
545
Reefkeeper1791
Reefkeeper1791
Amazing how they find money
Replies
9
Views
517
Animal357
A
If you want more proof that we need good guys with guns, go ask the Fort Worth highway driver who—along with his children—is alive today
Replies
3
Views
238
Dennis in MA
Dennis in MA
Back
Top Bottom