Would you turn them in?

[beevul]

Another poster suggested that in order for guns to be eliminated from American society, Foreign troops...from armies from two countries...would have to run the confiscation program.

That poster then claimed that "Very few civilians would actually put up any significant resistance. Simply the sight of foreign armies in the streets will frighten most into voluntarily surrendering their weaponry."


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=293831&mesg_id=293946



So the question for DU gun owners is this:

If the soldiers of two foreign armies were roaming the streets in an attempt to confiscate the firearms of ALL American citizens, would you turn them in?

Fairly strait forward.


Note to the mods:

The poster I refer to suggested this I start this poll.

[havocmom]

1. Turn in the guns, or turn the foreign troops into meatloaf?

I'd be in the latter column

[RC]

5. You would be one of the dead Rambos.

See post #4

[havocmom]

11. LOL You assume much too much. I am not foolish enough for head on with an army

:rofl:

Hit and run guerrilla warfare is what a small group does to a larger force. Notice what is happening lately in small nations dealing with invasion of the world's greatest military power? It is the lesson of a Gen George Washington. I liked the guy's methods.

[SteveM]

33. Not I. Think: Deep Lake. Boat accident. Guns gone. Sorry. Goodbye. nt

[proteus_lives]

25. You and me both.

Fuck Hessians.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[virgogal]

3. I voted "No" and am not a gun owner but two foreign armies in my country

trying to confiscate guns would make me try to buy one.

[Hoopla Phil]

10. Hell, if you'd USE it I'd give you one under those circumstances. And

I think you'll find that many have rifles to spare in such a situation.

[virgogal]

14. I'd gladly take it and would certainly use it.

[spin]

20. Hell, if you lived near me I would give you a firearm and ammo...

the more hands on board the better.

[RC]

4. The first thing that would happen would be a lot of dead would be Rambo's laying around.

Then the "Cooperate to Survive" would turn in their guns and their neighbors.

Then the real resistance would manifest itself. Along the lines of the Underground of Europe during WWII.

[MercutioATC]

6. I think you underestimate the average person's sense of nationalism.

There will always be a few people who would surrender their guns at the slightest provocation.

However, confiscation by foreign nationals would (I believe) galvanize the populace. I don't think it'd work the way you plan.

[RC]

7. It's not my plan. It is history.

[MercutioATC]

8. Do tell. When has this ever happened, historically?

[lepus]

16. not sure about it being history

The last time we had an army on US soil trying to take the peoples weapons, it did not turn out too well.

[SteveM]

35. Ahh, history. Older than the Sphinx, deeper than the Pacific, fatter than a Brontosaurus. nt

[Hoopla Phil]

13. I understand what you are saying but I give our citizens more credit

than that. I don't know anyone in my circle of friends that would want to make any kind of "grand stand" or commit to a major offensive when reinforcements are only minutes away.

There would be a different reaction I believe. Consider a five man team that all take one shot and only one shot from a distance of 500 yards on "political" targets and then disappear.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

17. I really don't think so...

Number of speculative movies and books that have riffs on that concept. Then there is the real life events in Lebanon and the Balkans. An armed populace is very hard on an army attempting to occupy it land.

A while back I commented about the difficulty the police would have with an sniper in an urban environment that he knew well. Its one of the things the police truly fear.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

19. The Canadians are going to come down here and kill a bunch of people? LOL.

[spin]

22. The Canadians are about to kill their gun regisration program...

The first step in getting rid of the boondoggle known as the long gun registry was taken in the House of Commons on Wednesday.

MPs voted to scrap the requirement to register individual rifles and shotguns — a registry that has consumed more than $1 billion, been condemned for its wasteful and reckless spending by the Auditor-General, and pitted urban residents against those who actually use guns as tools for hunting, sport shooting and predator control.

All Conservative MPs and a handful from the NDP and Liberal parties voted to scrap the registry, getting behind a private member’s bill sponsored by Conservative MP Candace Hoeppner. The bill will now go to committee, and it will be interesting to see what emerges.
http://www.bclocalnews.com/opinion/69310397.html

[SteveM]

36. And the Mexican army is a little occupied right now. nt

[Euromutt]

30. Why would the first two steps happen?

Why not go straight to the clandestine activity? There are enough people of Irish descent in the US to remind us that Michael Collins' clandestine guerrilla war succeeded where the overt Easter Rising of 1916 failed. There are plenty of ex-Yugoslavs who know that the first thing you do is hide your guns (e.g. wrap them in oil-soaked cloth, seal them in PVC pipe, and bury them in the forest), and only bring them out when you have a use for them, after the house-to-house searches have been completed.

And unlike the resistance movements of western Europe, the American citizenry wouldn't have to steal their weapons from police armories and the like.

[DonP]

43. "Cooperate to survive" = Quisling not really - think Warsaw Ghetto, but with better arms.

Wow, you really need to lay off the Nyquil this early in the day.

The people that did what you propose in WWII usually wound up hanging by piano wire from the lampost in their neighborhood a day or two after turning in their neighbors. Are you assuming that American's are somehow more "gentle and understanding" about betrayal of their neighbors and country than the Dutch or Belgians?

It's a silly idea for a number of reasons, the least of which include:

First, assuming any US government would ever allow foreign troops on US soil.

Second, assuming that our own military would stay on base while others kicked in their families doors.

Third, assuming that all the military veterans would sit idly by and cooperate with the actions of a foreign army.

Fourth, thinking that a bunch of trained and experienced combat veterans would assault an enemy force in a pitched battle.

Let me guess, you have no military service experience and never took the oath?

[cowman]

45. I know

I would put my Vietnam experience to use

[-..__...]

44. It would be a real shame...

if retaliation took place in the form of terrorist activities in the home countries of the invaders. :smoke:

Maybe it isn't such a bad idea if average citizens were allowed to posses WMD's after all?

[derby378]

46. That "real" resistance is going to need some firearms of its own

And that is history.

[Hoopla Phil]

9. Foreign troops here to confiscate guns is a de facto declaration of war on

citizens by the government. There are already states passing laws that say if such happens it will result in the dissolution of the union. There WILL be a civil war in the country. Not like conventional war or gorilla war far. It will be a sniper war.

Any person that actually advocates what you are saying is doing nothing but becoming the poster child of the NRA, GOA, etc.

[Endangered Specie]

12. One slight problem... most of our military servicemen and women...

are pro-gun. And I think its safe to say alot of them wouldn't go along with it... (that all enemies foreign and domestic thing) and they have BIG guns.

Plus, what foreign army would be stupid enough to try such a thing? Look at how much trouble insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan have been giving us... armed with small arms. A bunch of trained gun owners would certainly stand a better chance versus whatever second rate military would get talked into doing this.

[rrneck]

15. I hope

they have lotsa "natural fighting skills" cuz they're gonna need 'em.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

18. It seems I would be duty bound to defend the Constitution.

[spin]

23. Our country spent a lot of money training combat soldiers...

and sent them off to do battle in a number of hell holes all over the world. Of all the major countries we probably have the most ex-soldiers that have combat experience.

Many of these men are patriotic and own firearms. If our country was invaded by a foreign army intent on disarming our citizens, I can say for sure that many of them would resist.

This time they would get to play the guerrilla role. I bet they would be damn good at it.

[aliendroid]

63. not to mention that this time they would be fully passionate about killing the enemy.

They wouldn't be wondering why? What for? Is it right? They'd just be shooting for their lives and their way of life.

[Biker13]

71. Man...

Shortly after my 17th birthday in 1973, I joined the Army and took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

I do not recall ever being released from that oath.

[spin]

21. Rec to cancel unrec. (n/t)

[beevul]

27. Yeah...

Whats with all the unrecs...of a poll asking that a question be responded to, pertaining to a scenario which was posed by the "anti" side?


Perhaps its the answer, not the question...which is attracting the unrecs.

[spin]

24. Remember this poll is on a very liberal progressive site ...

early results show that most posters here would not turn in their weapons and many would actively resist.

It would be interesting to run the same poll on a conservative site and compare the results.

I would do it, but I didn't last long on the Freeper site. They took quick offense when I criticized Bush the Junior.

[proteus_lives]

26. I wouldn't.

And there would be a lot of necktie parties for those who do.

Collaborators don't fare well once the foreign armies leave.

[spin]

28. I wonder if this poll would show different results in the General Discussion forum?

[beevul]

29. I was tempted to post the poll there instead...

But it would just end up here sooner or later - probably sooner - anyway.


I too would be curious to see what the results might be.


Somehow, I don't think the results thus far are what the creator of the premise was hoping for.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

38. You should post it there with two more options:

c) I do not have guns but would give up manes of other people.
d) I do not have guns and would not give up any names of people who do.

[AtheistCrusader]

53. e) Would accept guns and material support from neighbors that do

[Euromutt]

31. They can have my .22s

Though I'd better see some just compensation for 'em.

My fighting guns are going into the ground, rust-proofed and sealed in PVC pipe, in some nice secluded spot.

[jeepnstein]

42. When it's time to bury them...

it's already too late. What other rights and freedoms would you bury with them?

[GreenStormCloud]

58. Keep the .22s, at least keep the rifles.

A homemade silence can be made for a .22 that is really effective. I did that back around 1972. One shot to see if it would work, then destroyed it. All you hear is a click as if the rifle had been dry fired. Basically no flash signature. One, and only one, sniper shot at 150 meters, and hide the rifle. The target soldier may not even know he has been hit, right away. Specialize in shooting rear echelon soldiers, so that there aren't any behind-the-lines secure-areas. A few dozen such snipers in a city can give occupiers the fits.

I would suspect that our illegal Mexican immigrant would be ready to shoot Mexican Army troops. They came her to get away from the Mexican government, not to have it follow them.

As another poster noted, the US has more combat veterans than any other country.

[S_B_Jackson]

32. I'm so sorry Feldwebel Schmidt....

but I was involved in a tragic boating accident out on the bay 2 months before your troops arrived and all of my firearms were lost. See? Here is a copy of the Coast Guard's incident report, as well as my copy of the police report that was filed the following day.

Why do I have all the PVC pipe and axle grease you ask? I'm building a habitat for my pet prairie dog, and later I'm going to repack my axle bearings after driving through high water during the last flood.

You and the rest of your Hessians stay safe now, I hear there are snipers that are hiding in the woods........

[slackmaster]

34. I'd tell Colonel Pedro McKenzie that I lost them all in a tragic boating accident

And shoot anyone who entered my home unlawfully.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

37. No. HELL NO, They don't know I have them and I have 4th and 5th Ammendent rights.

If somehow they do know I have some, I might give up a few old shotguns or something
But I have 5th ammendment rights to not bear witness against myself - "The FIF... F-I-F... the FIF!"
I would also not turn anyone else in to some jack-boot bean-breath, beady eyed motherfuckers.

I would not "fight" them, that's just retarded.

[jeepnstein]

39. Are you kidding?

A foreign army setting itself up as an occupying force? That's a good one. Really funny, I mean it. Which idiot poster proposed that one? Or should I bother asking? That is the most un-American proposal I think I've heard from anyone, ever. What moron wants to invite foreign troops to occupy the country?

Oh, nevermind, I checked the other thread. I should have known who it would be. That's what the poster offers as a serious suggestion on REDUCING gun violence in American society? That's what I love about free speech. It allows people such as this to expose themselves for what they truly are.

[cowman]

48. Well your

right about the idiot pollster, Don Caballero

[one-eyed fat man]

40. Question 46, again................

Back in 1994, while conducting research for his Master's Thesis, a Naval officer conducted a survey of combat Marines, in ranks from private to major, stationed at Twenty-Nine Palms. While all of the questions in this survey should have stimulated concern, the survey's final question generated an enormous amount of attention:

46. The U.S. government declares a ban on the possession, sale, transportation, and transfer of all firearms. A thirty (30) day amnesty period is permitted for these firearms to be turned over to the local authorities. At the end of this period, a number of citizen groups refuse to turn over their firearms. Consider the following statement: I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the U.S. government.

The survey results: 42.3 percent strongly disagreed with this statement; 19.3 percent disagreed; 18.6 percent agreed; 7.6 percent strongly agreed; and 12.0 percent had no opinion.

In one of the footnotes appearing in the thesis, comments placed by some of the Marines next to their answers to this question are quoted:

"What about the damn Second Amendment? .... I feel this is a first in communism! .... Read the book None Dare Call It Conspiracy by Gary Allen." "I would not even consider it. The reason we have guns is so that the people can overthrow the gov't when or if the people think the gov't is too powerful." "Freedom to bear arms is our Second Amendment. If you take our Amendments away then you can take this job and stick it where the sun don't shine! .... It is a right to own firearms for defense (2nd Amendment); I would fight for that right!"

Based on the disagreement expressed by 61 percent of the Marines, the author concluded that "a complete unit breakdown would occur in a unit tasked to execute this mission."

In other words, there would be mutiny!

Now here is another question. What kind of mindset does it take to for a gun control proponent to repeatedly and publicly advocate foreign armies impose his will and vision of a gun-free Utopia not only on the population but to overcome resistance in the US military?

[jeepnstein]

41. When the rubber hit the road...

I'm betting it would be more than 62 percent. Especially if foreign troops were coming to occupy the country. Marines obey orders. They will do it to the point of death. That's what makes them what they are. I'm not surprised that some of them would at least on paper say they were willing to obey a "lawful" order. Ask one to spit on his flag or a copy of the Constitution some time and see what kind of response you get.

How many troops would it take to invade a heavily armed nation of 305,000,000 people?

[one-eyed fat man]

49. Some more clarification

The basic inquiry of the thesis had to do with the general understanding of the Posse Commitatus. When the responses were broken down by rank and experience, it was mostly the junior personnel who were more likely to obey orders unquestioningly.

Senior NCO's were the most likely to question the legality of orders. Officers were more likely to hold their own counsel and decline to voice an opinion.

All of us, upon enlistment, took an oath:

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

At the same time, during basic training, and during periodic training on the Law of Land Warfare soldiers will also see something like this (extract from a Lesson Plan, US Army Armor School)

Handling Doubts

If given a questionable order, a soldier must proceed carefully. Because some orders are issued with the expectation that they will be obeyed immediately, the act of questioning could be a violation. While no formal process exists, several possible approaches can be taken:

a. In a respectful tone and manner, request clarification of the order.

b. Request the officer reissue the order in the presence of a third party.

c. Request confirmation of the order by a superior officer. If still unsure, advise your superior that you believe the order is unlawful.

d. Request confirmation of the order by the commanding officer.

e. Refuse to obey the order if you still believe that it is unlawful. Remember that you are morally and legally obligated to obey all orders that are presumed to be lawful just as you are obligated to disobey any order that is "patently unlawful."

Before you act, think carefully about the consequences. Military courts have consistently held individuals responsible for their actions. They will hold you liable for disobeying lawful orders as well as for obeying orders that are obviously illegal.

Such a dilemma as posed by ordering the Army to go house to house and seize guns can not be glibly tossed off by either side of the debate. And that debate and soul searching will not only be at the bottom of the Chain of Command.

One general famously refused a President's offer of command of all Federal forces as a matter of conscience. Today we are using his front lawn for a graveyard.



That a group of people who hate guns openly advocate civil war against those who have guns seems like the epitome of lunacy. How many of them would jump up to join the Gun Gestapo to go kicking in doors? Or do they figure on outsourcing for jack-booted thugs?

[GreenStormCloud]

64. I think Lee would be greatly pleased and honored at the use. N/T

[GreenStormCloud]

60. "No Opinion" in this case means: Smart enough to keep my mouth shut.

I would tend to add almost all of that 12% to the 61%. And since the OP is about foriegn troops, you would see entire divisions, entire air wings, entire ships, joining the rebels, from the first day.

[cowman]

47. I guess

I would turn them in, one bullet at a time at high velocity

[Katya Mullethov]

50. Why yes sir...... Here it is .......Nice Unimog .........Is that a G3 up there ?

Big assed used car salesman grin , papered keltec in one hand ,hot pot of coffee in the other .

[AtheistCrusader]

51. I've always wanted a unimog.

collect the whole set.

[slackmaster]

54. I've been looking at Pinzgauers for a while

[AtheistCrusader]

55. Those are awesome but

the unimogs have the same portal axles for better ground clearance, but it seems the suspension of the unimog has better articulation.

Not sure if it's universal among all models, but I found the Pinzgauer excessively loud, with the engine partially between the front seats, and no soundproofing at all.

[slackmaster]

56. Yes, they are air-cooled

Pinzis are pretty Spartan and cost a lot less than Unimogs.

[PavePusher]

57. Forward Control.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_Rover_101_Forward_Control

Just sayin'. :evilgrin:

Also quite rare here in the U.S. Damn, I should have bought one while I was in the U.K...... :cry:

[AtheistCrusader]

61. Doesn't have the ground clearance.

Also, probably Lucas Wiring. :nuke:

Look at the axles on that land rover, then look at the axles on the unimog and the pinzgauer. The pumpkin on the Forward Control is probably only 6-7 inches off the ground. On the 'mog and the pinz' the bottom of the pumpkin is pretty much at the invisible centerline where the axle would normally be.

If you can't have complete independent suspension, and have to have a live axle, portal axles are fantastic.

[PavePusher]

65. Picky, picky...

:7 Yeah, I looked at Moggies and Pincers too while I was over there.

Awesome vehicles.

And the Prince of Darkness is merely an extra layer of challange, it's a design feature, not a bug. :evilgrin:

[Katya Mullethov]

67. Gonna have to ditch it anyway

Do you take cream or sugar ?

[AtheistCrusader]

68. I hear it's why the europeans like warm beer.

Because Lucas Electric gave them no choice.

[Euromutt]

70. That's just the British

On the continent, they like their pilsner cold.

[Euromutt]

66. Land Rovers are okay if you have rear echelon to perform maintenance

Or you have to be damn good at carrying out the maintenance yourself, but even then, it helps to have the Ministry of Defence supplying you with all the spare parts you ask for. During the Gulf War, the SAS used the long-wheelbase 110s pretty extensively, but each troop (i.e. platoon) also had a Unimog as a supply vehicle.

[AtheistCrusader]

52. Foreign armies brought in to collect american civilian's firearms?

This pretty much tops the list of THINGS THAT WILL NOT END WELL.

Simultaneously rocketing to the top of the list of WHAT THE FUCK WERE WE THINKING OH GOD

[PavePusher]

59. Oh, John Ringo, NO!! n/t

[bvar22]

62. If army from foreign nations were in the streets here?

I would buy MORE ammo and guns, and material to make IEDs.

If American Troops were patrolling the streets here?
I would likely do the same.

[petronius]

69. I think the big difficulty would be finding a foreign country that was so eager to lose its army

I might buy those poor unappreciated foreign soldiers a cup of coffee so long as they were behaving themselves - but I'm keeping my guns.