Would New Gun Laws Spark Widespread Civil Disobedience?
Once such unenforceable laws are on the books, there are serious negative consequences, including:
1) Selective enforcement
The federal authorities may try to make an example of a few high-profile cases, but that will probably anger the other gun owners more, rather than cow them. (For more on the problems of proliferation of laws which prosecutors can then selectively enforce, see this paper by law professor Glenn Reynolds.)
2) Diversion of limited police resources from real crimes
This is just another example of Charles de Montesquieu’s adage: “Useless laws weaken necessary laws.”
3) Increasing contempt by otherwise honest citizens for the central government
As Reynolds noted in a separate USA Today piece, Americans are increasingly mistrustful of the government. New gun laws would worsen this problem.
No one can know exactly how this will play out. This will depend on how strongly the central authorities wish to enforce the law in the teeth of the defiance, and how committed gun-rights supporters are to sustained civil disobedience. If history is any guide, violence is not out of the question, even if cooler heads on both sides do not wish it. New gun laws could be the political equivalent of a spark thrown onto dry tinder.
According to Politico, gun control is the most divisive issue separating the two major political parties. Passing the law would accelerate the already growing polarization of America.
During Obama’s first term, many on the Left who were frustrated by their inability to fully impose their political agendas repeatedly invoked the mantra that America was “ungovernable.” If the president’s gun-control proposals become law, they haven’t seen anything yet.
Also read:
The Constitution affirms that we have a pre-existing right to bear arms in no way dependent upon government.
Citizens have a right to at least such weaponry as the State is prepared to use against them.
You have a choice: either stand now, or kneel forever.
CONSERVATIVE Language Institute of America………Citizens have the right to own weapons GOVERNMENT might use against them?????????????? You mean like rocket launchers and fully auto belt fed machine guns,and why not FLAME THROWERS??????????????/ This is why most Americans LAUGH OUT LOUD at TEA PARTY NUT CASES……Just face it,if you just staid with fighting TAXES people would love you….But you have been HIJACKED by conspiracy morons,self serving blowhards(Sarah NOT EVEN ONE TERM GOV Palin comes to mind),and people who care more about being seen on TV then they care for our country.HAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAa
Boy, you brought a lot of intelligent and thoughtful insight to the conversation.
Insight from a socialist is a rare thing!
It’s called assight, not insight
I wonder if it realizes that’s not what they mean by “hindsight”?
Now that’s some pretty good lollage there.
Here is another way in which this drama may soon play out.
New gun laws will also spark some innovation among America’s DIYers.
Such as this.
Typical insight from a liberal….lash out, belittle others, show no facts… What else would we expect?
Numbnuts can’t spell correctly either !
Simo Hayha…Just sayin’, come to my neck of the woods and find out libs.
Right you are,until i looked at my pay stub,my fed bite from jaws,state taxes Top Heavy ship of state the “U.S.S. Hack” ,City taxes(so glad they never farmed it out,they like doing things by hand 19th century style). So many fingers on the scale i thought they were grabbing it! Buy lots of houses when prices were in the toilet then sold them high,my silent partners skimmed $80,000 FOR DRINKING COFFEE if the hadn’t already called in sick!
Private citizens will go after federal lawmakers and make the DC sniper look like a Sesame Street episode.
The troll liberals on this article and blabber on all they want, but I encourage to view the movie Red Dawn. Gorilla warfare is very effective indeed against whatever the size force it is fighting, in this case it would be citizens versus government.
Moreover, groups like Anonymous are already starting cyber attacks against government agencies- look for this to intensity, specifically as we see liberties eroded with the use of drones over this country.
WE LEGAL CITIZENS OWN THIS COUNTRY, not the hacks in DC or the slugs in government agencies pushing paper. We’ll be happy to show them how and why in very short order.
Also the Australian book (and movie) “Tomorrow, When the War Began” and its sequels.
The people to go after are the bureaucrats who make the gears turn. And by the nature of the job, those who work at them self-select for aversion to risk. That is to say, it won’t take much pressure before they will stop coming to work.
But we are a long way from this, and we have a few peaceful options left which we are obligated to exhaust. I am amazed at how many people are so willing to consider going molon labe and yet will not even discuss a Constitutional Convention lest it take away their RKBA. Yet the present gun control madness is but a symptom of a broader tyranny, and the threat to RKBA is almost eclipsed in my mind by debt-serfdom.
So, play this out- suppose the supporters of RKBA get government to back off of its gun grabbing. And yet we don’t care if government piles on debt, inflates our currency and destroys the economy by suppressing interest rates? Then there is the world of EPA and enviro tyranny. In the near future, while we may still have our firearms, the EPA will force us to buy cars so light that they will be coffins on four wheels. But they will get great gas mileage, and we’ll still have our guns.
The tyranny must stop and the only way to change the trajectory of government is to redefine it. Of the several ways to do that, of the peaceful ways, one is holding a Constitutional Convention. Think of the fun of seeing the left become frantic over the thought of losing power.
You wrote, “Gorilla warfare is very effective indeed against whatever the size force it is fighting, in this case it would be citizens versus government.”
To prevent ‘Planet of the Apes’ flashbacks among people reading your post, it’s spelled ‘guerrilla’, and if you study military history at all, you’ll find that guerrilla warfare is effective when certain conditions are present, such as a supportive populace; strong, capable leadership within the insurgency; and (ideally) a corrupt, inefficient, and poorly led governmental and military opposition. There are other factors, to be sure, but those seem to be the constants. Those conditions are not present in the here and now.
You also wrote, “Moreover, groups like Anonymous are already starting cyber attacks against government agencies- look for this to intensity, specifically as we see liberties eroded with the use of drones over this country.”
Anonymous is in it for the lulz. If the success of any scheme depends upon Anonymous then that scheme will fail, guaranteed. Members of Anonymous mount cyber-attacks against government agencies because of simple projection. All of that collective pent-up frustration and anger aimed at their parents, who keep insisting that they move out of the basement and get a real job, has to go somewhere.
Lastly, you wrote, “WE LEGAL CITIZENS OWN THIS COUNTRY, not the hacks in DC or the slugs in government agencies pushing paper. We’ll be happy to show them how and why in very short order.”
You’ll be happy to show them, really? Do you happen to have any combat experience, by any chance? I do. It’s an ugly, scary, horrible-but-sometimes-necessary business. You’re talking about shooting fellow Americans, many or most of whom love this country just as much as you do and some of whom took the same oath I did when I enlisted all those years ago. The word ‘happy’ shouldn’t appear anywhere in there.
The American Civil War showed us that we Americans are never so ruthless, bloodthirsty and cruel as when we’re fighting each other. If it happens, it happens, but you should never wish for such a thing.
You are correct Troy. It isn’t Happy or pretty but it has happened before. The results suck and we will destroy more then we want but it could happen. My fear is that the congress will blather until it’s too late and a tiny spark will set off a firestorm. Mao never envisioned the numbers of people that would be destroyed in the revolution, but once the killing started, there was no stopping it until it burned its self out. I took the same oath you did and if it comes to it I have to defend the constitution from all enemies. Doesn’t mean it won’t suck.
I don’t think the federal government is going to be passing much in new law. The Democrat strategy is to make the laws at the state level…Biden went to CO for a reason.
In places like CA and NY, Democrats can do what they want. Resistance in the courts starts there, then winds along for years through that system, then gets into the federal circuits, then maybe to SCOTUS. Lots of people spending a lot of money. Federal law could be taken on more easily.
Bad law will have significant impacts in how people interact around each other, gun ranges will disappear because one cannot take a banned weapon there. Knowing you are a criminal will change behaviors, not for the good. And sooner or later some blood will be shed.
It’s a very bad idea, this course, but necessary in the eyes of some pols as a step toward a one party state, and establishment of the state as the ne plus ultra force in citizens’ lives.
I’m retired military, Vietnam Vet, disabled. Yet if Government continues to try to change the Constitution by unlawful means, the last sentence of the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence MUST be invoked.
The biggest question I have when that happens is, will the military stand true to the Constitution, or to the government? If they stand true to the Constitution, as they have sworn to do, the government will collapse.
A second way the government will collapse is if the people simply stop supporting it. “Going Galt” may seem a bit ridiculous, but Government needs us more than we need it. Government cannot survive without taxpayers. Quit paying taxes, at any level, and that level of government will eventually run out of money. Printing more does nothing. Only money that comes from actual productivity has any worth.
We live in interesting times. I just hope it doesn’t get so interesting I have to put this old, damaged body of mine on the front lines. I’ll do it if necessary, though, and so will a number of my fellow vets.
Another brilliant revelation from a member of today’s potential ‘leaders’. Such witty and thoughtful statements.
Hint: learn grammar, spelling, and punctuation. Your post looks like some of the papers my wife’s 8th grade produces in her English classes.
People already have access to those things but they have to pay lots of money and cut through a whole bunch of red tape to acquire them “legally”.
If you wanted to interpret the amendment as the founders originally wrote then yes he CLIA is correct.
Flame throwers are not, and never have been, illegal. If you so desire, you can order one through mail order, or pick up a similar device for removing snow and weeds. They’re available at hardware stores, and yet you don’t see criminals using them. Why?
Flamethrowers were originally invented in Texas to burn off cactus. They’re agricultural implements.
Go back to your room, grownups are talking here.
Another gutless troll posting anonymously.
Every citizen should be able to be equipped, if he so desires, with at least as much firepower as typical infantryman. That alone would make the government think twice about trampling on the Constitution and our unalienable rights. The other stuff can be easily acquired once things go kinetic.
The military and many police forces are not mindless automatons. Most would refuse to engage their fellow citizens and many would come over with their equipment.
Settle down, you’re hyterical. No matter what you think, we have a right to bear arms, period. If you don’t want a flame thrower, don’t buy one or stay away from someone who has one aimed at you. You leftys can laugh out loud as long as you want, we the people who believe in the rights granted by our constituion are laughing at you too, and we’re armed.
He Wizbat… I am from Alaska. Sarah Palin could probably kick you butt in the first place and wouldn’t to resort to a firearm. The entire train of artillery possesd by the colonies at the time of the Revolution were four pieces. Two were owned by the Massachusetts Government and two were owned by several citizens of Boston. One is in Minute Man Park in Concord with an inscription by the government to that effect. The government ordered the piece returned to the Citizens of Boston.
There were over 2000 privatly owned ships operating as privateers during the revolution. The Continental Navy only possessed 64. The total guns, swevel and mounted cannon, on the Navy vessels numbered about 1200, while the number of guns on PRIVATLY OWNED ARMED Vessels were in excess fo 14,000, simple math, who were the most armed the army or the people… He but don’t let facts get in the way of logical fallacies, appeals to emotions, popular sentiment and appeals to authority get in the way of perpetrating propaganda. By the way I think your speech rights should be infringed because you don’t know or won’t tell the truth. I think all of us here would vote that way so here is Democracy in action. How you like me now?????
Here is what you wrote:
“Citizens have the right to own weapons GOVERNMENT might use against them?????????????? You mean like rocket launchers and fully auto belt fed machine guns,and why not FLAME THROWERS??????????????/”
Straw-man argument. Nevertheless…So…you think that’s the kind of weaponry that the US government would use against the citizenry? You have an interesting point of view if you do. Where has it been suggested by that those you ridicule believe this? Certainly there’s no suggestion of it in the comment to which you have responded.
Ya, I’m pretty sure the local national Guard depot does NOT maintain a stock of RPG launchers and grenades. I have asked my fellow ex NG citizens and the answer is ,Huh? We barely had enough fake guns to go around for practice drills.
No offense intended toward the NG, but they really have very little need for rifles, let alone full auto on up. In fact, what I’ve observed the NG might be a public hazard if they were armed. If they want to handle that kind of firepower they can enlist in the regular American military. Heck, Afghanistan is safer than Chicago.
These guys remind me of the people in Washington that brought their families and a picnic lunch to watch the Federals whip the rable Confederates at the first battle of Bull Run. The panic that insued when their boys in blue got their asses handed to them gave the Southern papers much to write about.
Flamethrowers are legal to own. They are used to clear land.
And clear snow.
Sure. We should be limited to rocks and clubs, while the tyrants can mow us down with tanks and predators, not to mention fully automatic assault weapons with hundreds of rounds on an ammo belt.
And if you think for one minute that Barack Obama would hesitate to do it, you are a mindless fool.
Anny, you said:
“Citizens have the right to own weapons GOVERNMENT might use against them?????????????? You mean like rocket launchers and fully auto belt fed machine guns,and why not FLAME THROWERS??????????????/”
So, here you openly suggest that the US Government might use rocket launchers and flame throwers against US citizens. You didn’t think that through, did you? Because if the government resorts to turning the US military upon US citizens then those citizens are going to need equal weapons to defend themselves.
But let’s get back to your original hypothesis. You are actually entertaining the idea of the US government making war on American citizens. You need your head examined.
“You need to have your head examined.”
Regular medical checkups are always sound advice.
And while we’re have our heads examined, you might examine the controversy surrounding drone strikes. The administration is already assassinating American citizens on foreign soil, and refuses to say plainly that it would never do such a thing on American soil.
While you’re at it, consider that the Homeland Security secretary has said she worries about returning veterans, Tea Partiers, libertarians and gun owners. And her department has just bought 1.6 billion-with-a-B rounds of ammunition. That’s 8,000 rounds for every janitor, baggage inspector and diversity compliance facilitator in the department.
It’s not proof that the federal government is going on war footing, but I’d like to hold onto my firearms for a while, nonetheless.
As a matter of fact, if you get a federal firearms license and can afford to buy them.. then YES, you can own those weapons. There are even civilians who own TANKS.
First, you are an idiot. But putting that aside for a second, if you believe that the GOVERNMENT (actually not the government, that’s US by the way, but rather this ADMINISTRATION,) has the legal authority to use arms against the citizens then the government (administration) has no validity and MUST be replaced by the citizens.
This country is founded on a very simple principle; that any government derives its authority from the CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.
If you have something to say, put your name on it. Otherwise you are merely a troll, coward and a cad.
If Obama does manage to pass confiscatory anti-gun ownership laws that will be the spark that starts the 2nd American Civil war…
And yes, we have the right to own exactly the same weapons that the government owns, and would use to tyranize the citizenry, should the mass of the population be disarmed.
Hate to break it to you, but we already can own those things. And we can own tanks and fighter jets as well, as long as we can pay for the care and feeding of them. Flame throwers are completely unregulated at the Federal level.
Actually it is legal to own a flamethrower, no paper work involved. Moron.
Couple of points.
First, belt-fed machine guns and flame throwers are already legal. They’re just hard to find. Rocket launchers are a grayer area: Consensus seems to be that the launchers themselves are probably legal, but the rockets are illegal as explosive/incendiary devices. None of these weapons show up at crime scenes.
As for the Tea Party, I don’t know where you get the idea that “most Americans LAUGH OUT LOUD” [sic]. Last polls I saw give the Tea Party a 30 percent approval rating, against 49 percent disapproval. That’s nearly twice the approval for the federal government 30 percent v. 17 percent), and slightly higher than the disapproval rating for the Obama administration (49 percent v. 45).
Those facts are not in dispute.
Actually, both both rockets and launchers fall under the 1934 NFA as destructive devices, along with grenades and any non-smoothbore firearm with a caliber above 50. With exceptions for expended single-use launcher tubes and non-explosive practice rounds. Of course, that’s only on the federal level, states may have their own laws regarding destructive devices.
You are a totall retard whom will not even sign their name to their statement.
As a matter of fact US citizens do have the right to own any weapon whatsoever. US citizens do own tanks, fighter planes, flame throwers, heavy machine guns, recoilless rifles, howitzers and most every other weapon you can name, with the exception of nuclear weapons. These weapons are all very expensive, require extensive backround checks and are taxed by the BATF. They are also very expensive to shoot and maintain. Moreover the BATF has been known to kill people, destroy their homes and pets and cause miscarriages while making tax inquiries. Consequently few can afford to exercise their right to own such weapons. But that right does exist.
Let’s play a little game, Anonymous, OK? I’m going to break into your house, kill you, rape your wife and daughter, and steal all your valuables. I’m going to be armed with whatever firearms I choose to bring. You on the other hand are allowed to defend yourself with a sharpened spoon. Fair? nope. You want the odds to be a little more in your favor, right? Exactly. I’m glad to see you understand now.
1) a rocket launcher is not a gun, it is a rocket launcher.
2) well, yes, some think the NFA of 1934 is actually unconstitutional and it really hasn’t prevented any gangs from bringing Fully Automatic weapons from across the border or in though shipments of farm equipment.
3) Flame throwers, really, flame throwers? they were a response to pill boxes and other hard forms of defense, not many of them these days…
You are the typical Henny Penny Liberal that gives the 1% of normal ones a bad name.
You, I perceive, are another member of oblammo’s Cybercorpse. . . .
You *FORGOT* some of the “usual” punctuation and CaPiTaLiZaTiOn deranged people often use when writing their gibberish. Do better #next# time.
And large parts of the country, including many people with both college degrees and well-paying jobs, agree with CLIoA.
B-b-b-but…. WE’RE ALL CHRIS DORNER NOW!!!
Did the caps get my point across intelligently, readers?
Sheep laugh? I always thought they bleated.
“Flamethrower” are readily available for purchase without any special permits. Just google it. “Belt fed machine guns” are available to anyone with an extra $20,000 laying around who can pass a background check. Stop being such a clueless ass.
There is no argument about gun control, I have them, liberals don’t, and when the revolution starts, there will be less liberals.
That’s when left/liberal Democrats want guns only in the hands of gov’t forces that’ll blindly follow rules for fat pensions, benefits and job security they supply… why do you think progressive liberal public school educators are they way they are with “zero tolerance” stuff? Imagine the police being that way– shut up citizen, gimme your guns, where’s my doughnut? Who needs Orwell, we’ve got stuff like that. Happened in New Orleans after Katrina. Liberal Democrat city governments have been turning down police applicants who score too high on IQ tests for years– what does that tell you?
In fact the screening-out of higher-IQ recruits and increasingly lavish public-service benefits, job security and pay on left/liberal Democrat cities’ police forces in the last decade or two encourages qualities progressives may desire in their “strong arm” but not our founders:
“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you.
May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.” –Samuel Adams
Hopefully, we shall not find out if this is so– un-Constitutional gun confiscation and “Rodney King”-ing or “detention” of dissenting conservatives would not be good.
Exactly correct, Redwing. As liberals detest guns it follows that far fewer of them will own then, let alone know how to effectively use them. Certainly far fewer will own them than people who do like firearms, and there is no comparison where skill in the use of them is concerned. This is a fight that liberals may well want to rethink, because as one of their own communist idols said.. “Power comes from the barrel of a gun”. Sucks to be them. Damned glad I am a conservative veteran who earned my EXPERT riflemans badge.
I have a liberal friend (who has a post-grad degree in a very difficult field) who went out and bought some guns last week. Even some of them know…
We cannot trust any government that would pass laws which will make life easier for criminals and tyrants and more difficult for ordinary law-abiding citizens. Any government that wants to do that is not legitimate. It leaves its citizens with the awful choice of living under tyranny or resisting their government. The Declaration of Independence is the greatest document to which a people ever pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor.
Potential civil war: Between Molan Labe vs. “gun safety,” intent of the founders vs. progressivism, folk who follow the Constitution vs. those who feel they’re “racist” and extremist.
If you advocate this, you advocate sanctuary cities. Law or conscience? Overriding principle or particulars detached from a binding philosophy? Be careful what you wish for and advocate – you may be sandbagging yourself.
You have set up a false choice, in addition to a category error… try again, or better yet quit while you’re ahead.
Principle is not a false choice but a single one, one for you and the same for me. Unless you think each baseball team should have a different strike zone, you must abide by a single principle and a single set of rules. Would you make a citizen’s arrest on an illegal alien with an illegal firearm? We have agreed that in the end right and wrong is to be parsed through law. No one said it would be easy.
The Constitution (Section 9) allows the Federal Government to set the rules for “migration” into states after 1808. Sanctuary cities assert a right the Constitution does not grant them.
The second amendment guarantees the right to bear arms.
The two issues are diametrically opposed.
Of course the “issues” are opposed. I’m saying the thoughts behind which laws to obey and which ones not to is a problem. Because someone else is going to be on the other side of the fence and decide to disobey the laws you want enforced.
De jure is not philosophy but a system of specific laws written down and with the force of the entire system behind it. Sanctuary politicians violate their oath of office. They should be sent to jail. Napolitano should be sent to jail. They are enacting their own personal versions of civil disobedience and it shouldn’t be allowed. If their was an illegal alien at the State of the Union someone should’ve made a citizen’s arrest. It would’ve failed but brought into focus how our gov’t ignores law for their own agenda.
Self defense is a natural right. The constitution doesn’t guarantee anything it merely codifies it into the common law. It would still exist whether or not is was written on parchment or not, you as an individual would choose to ignore the fact that it is there.
@FailBurton,
So, if the federal government passes a law starting that you must report anyone in possession of a firearm or who practices religion in their own home is obligated to do so regardless of whether they believe the law is legitimate or constitutional?
Better be careful what kind of precedent you are arguing for. ….
What’s more, keep in mind that the colonists quite literally violated British law with their actions at Lexington and Concord.
That’s not the point I’m trying to make Scotch, not at all. The point I’m making would be one where that happened while those same revolutionaries decried a slave revolution, which they would have.
“We’re throwing off this king’s yoke but you’re not throwing off ours.”
Exactly what principle is invoked there but one of particulars and self-interest, which is to say, none.
@FailBurton: Now who is conflating arguments? The pre-requisite for fighting for a cause is to incorporate all other causes, ever, for all time? Women didn’t vote during the Revolution either (unless they owned property, which was the standard), so does that make the Revolution illegitimate?
Remember (unless you’re a victim of public education) that the reason for the Battles of Lexington & Concord (“the shot heard ’round the world”) was that British troops were trying to take the citizens’ firearms from them.
The “principle being invoked” here is that there are certain things in the US Constitution that are crystal clear – in spite of over two centuries of the political class arguing otherwise.
Right now, we are at what I am concerned is a dangerous crossroads. The government has grown so powerful and all encompassing in its reach that the bureaucrats running things no longer feel the need to hide the double standards of their behavior. They rationalize everything to an extent as to lose touch with reality.
Citizen “A” unknowingly and unintentionally violates a federal edict and gets sent to prison, while citizen “B” knowingly and intentionally violates that same law and the prosecutor exercises “discretion” in not prosecuting because it does not serve their political interests to do so and the deliberate violator is a protected class of political animal.
‘One law for thee, but not for me’, seems to be the approach here.
How can a society continue to give lip service to the rule of law when the government so blatantly abuses that rule of law?
The SCOTUS?
Forget ‘em. John Roberts betrayed all of us in that abominable Obamacare case, and there are really no limits to government at this point. They see us only as serfs at this point.
Unruly serfs, but serfs nevertheless – and I hope Roberts lives to regret the day he chose to betray us all the way he did.
What would you suggest the people do should Obama decide, in clear violation of the Constitution, to run for a 3rd term and win?
Would that not be a violation of the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution? You can’t get much clearer than that, and yet there are forces formulating arguments that he legally can do such a thing.
I am not saying he will do that – only using it as an example.
What happens should they prevail, and then the great ignorant majority vote this idjit into a 3rd term?
At what point does the blatant violation of the compact between the states and the federal government break down the system, and at what point does a free people reassert its rights in the face of a blatant disregard for the rule of law on the part of the federal government?
The people are under no obligation to obey an unjust and blatantly unconstitutional law.
So tell us, Fail, do you feel that American revolutionaries like George Washington and all the others should have obeyed the unreasonable orders of their British masters on all occasions?
While I agree reasonable laws in a Republic should be obeyed, are we required to obey a law that is forbidden by our Constitution for the government to make, a law that prevents us from effectively defending ourselves but arms only those who have a habit of disobeying laws reasonable and unreasonable?
Well, saying they would no longer obey the suzerainty of King George while asking a slave to make sure the turnip patch is well covered for the night is a little weird.
Charming but irrelevant answer, if I may say so, because slavery as it was is no more. But what about laws today that the government is specifically instructed by the Constitution not to enact. Must we obey these unlawful laws, or is it wrong to obey such unlawful laws?
And if a Supreme Court should say the word “infringe’ means a kind of cupcake and making unconstitutional laws is perfectly OK because the word constitution actually means a suggestion for running things and in reality allows the government to do any damn thing it pleases them to do?? Should we accept a 5 to 4 on that one?
How in the world is it an irrelevant answer when it is to a question you asked me?
False dilemma. We want guns. We do not want sanctuary cities. We are willing to engage in civil disobedience to protect our 2nd Amendment rights. We are not willing to lift a finger on behalf of illegal immigrants, nor are we obliged to accept anyone else’s actions on their behalf. In short we can do whatever we want and we don’t have to be consistent. When the law stops threatening our rights, we’ll go back to obeying the law.
A civil war happens when two segments of the population can’t agree on some issue. You and I might be on opposite sides in a war about guns. We might also be on opposite sides in a war over sanctuary cities. In the latter, I might be pro-government while you choose to disobey the government. In the former, you might be all for law and order while I choose to break the law. The issues have nothing to do with each other.
Nobody is asking anybody to “recognize” our “right” to break the law. We’re just doing it.
And the other side is saying we don’t want guns, we want sanctuary policies, and they’re just doing it too. The only possible argument and tool that would’ve combated illegal immigration is now down the toilet. That tool would’ve been the lawful use of America’s bureaucracy to to find and deport illegals.
The concept of an umpire and a strike zone is not complicated or convoluted. When it becomes so one has essentially taken up a liberal argument that detail trumps principle. Using that as a guide, what is legal on Tues. is illegal on Wed. and everything is a weather vane and the wind blows it where it will.
Order follows Law. Justice is blind because it doesn’t see details, but the principle, which resides in the mind.
So sure, do what you want and they’ll do what they want and I’ll do what I want.
There, happy now? You no longer have the right to complain about anything but at least you’re happy.
You’re talking about rules, principles. I’m talking about what happens when rules and principles no longer work. You are right – civil disobedience is when people no longer follow rules and princliples and simply go after what they want. Sometimes people have to do that. Sometimes it’s rules and principles that have gotten them into the untenable position they’re in. It’s best to be a law-abiding citizen, but when the laws become unjust or unconstitutional, law-abiding citizens become suckers.
There’s a BIG difference between civil disobedience and nullification.
Sanctuary cities are created by edicts of local governments. It’s a form of nullification. And I’m just as opposed to nullification (cities and states openly defying the Federal Government) as you are. I stand by the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.
But civil disobedience is supposed to consist of nonviolent acts of ordinary citizens. It’s not nullification, nor is it rebellion or insurrection.
During the civil rights movement, many black Americans just refused to go along with state laws requiring segregation. Rosa Parks refused to ride in the back of that bus, that’s all. She never advocated violence.
Suppose, for example, a law got passed requiring confiscation of high-capacity magazines. Civil disobedience would simply be a refusal to cooperate with that law: Molon labe.
And those who engage in civil disobedience are aware that the law they are not cooperating with has penalties–and they’re prepared to suffer those penalties if necessary.
State and local officials should NOT be engaged in any organized demonstrations against new Federal gun control laws. That would look more like nullification than civil disobedience.
Let the citizenry handle this one.
This is semantic pedantry – they are one in the same.
The actions of a *state or local government* are NOT at all the same as actions of a private citizen.
State and local governments are subject to the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.
A private citizen is not.
AFAIK, sanctuary citizens could not, and were not, created by acts of individual citizens.
Swinging a hammer to fix a leaky roof and swinging a hammer to murder an innocent person are the same thing too, if you don’t understand the difference between right and wrong.
I of course do understand this difference. If I had my way, gun owners, legal or not, would use those guns to show every illegal alien in America to the border and out. Right and wrong is not the same as illegal and legal. Would that this were so. Too many Americans are treating the subject of illegal aliens as if it is prohibition or slavery. No official in this country has the right to declare the entire world de facto American citizens, but that is what is happening, right up to the Presidency.
The number of Hispanics in Minneapolis has gone up by 80% in the last 10 years and 65% of all children there are non-white. If a city that far from Mexico has been demographically turned into the Third World what is happening in the rest of America and what will the next 10 years bring and the 10 after that?
What use are guns or a Constitution if the people who have the knowledge to create high tech metallurgy and that Constitution no longer exist? We are drawing the wrong line in the sand. We may very well never see unemployment go below where it is now thanks to an influx of people from the Third World who have outstripped our ability to create jobs.
The old immigrants came from countries that had cultures on a long and steady climb from the enlightenment. The new immigrants are from cultures that have stagnated for literally hundreds of years.
Civil disobedience with moral purpose behind it is one thing, simply ignoring law is another. The latter is the entirety of the Third World. It is a dog eat dog mentality that never has concerned itself with the greater good and long plane rides and relocation won’t change that. That’s why entitlements have outstripped job growth 10 to 1 under Obama. We have allowed ourselves to be chumped and conned.
So, anything other than your own hobby horse is unworthy. I understand.
Odd, how some people get hung up on such things. Fail isn’t even entirely wrong, though that’s only through pure luck really. When you start to view everything through one particular lens, you risk – guarantee really, if you give it enough time – that you lose perspective and end up wrong.
So, just for the sake of things, suppose you’re right Fail, and we figure it out five years from now. Will we be better off with or without guns?
sinze54: Civil disobedience against a tyranny ,which shapes or ignores the 2nd Amendment, is definently justified. All civil disobedience is not non-violent though- (see the US Civil War). Soldiers in our military are also told that they are not duty bound to obey an ‘Unlawful Order’. These state and local governing officials,God Bless them, realize that any Federal Gun Control laws which ban certain types of (semi-automatic) weapons and high capacity magazines , are going against our Bill of Rights . The 2nd(Guns) and 5th Amendments(Property).— You say: “Let the citizenry handle this.”Well , the state and local officials are part of the ‘Citizenry’ too. They know an unjust and unconstitutional law when they see it! The citizenry didn’t want ‘Obamacare’-but they shoved it down our throats,overnite,anyway.—What makes you think our lawmakers care one wit about what the ‘Citizenry’ care or do? Did the unconstitutional gun laws enacted in NY state take into account the “Citizens’ rights? NO. The Bill of Rights shall not be infringed!
“Soldiers in our military are also told that they are not duty bound to obey an ‘Unlawful Order’.”
Very good point, Buldge. I was instructed thus in my first week of Army basic and it defines my thinking to this day regarding “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. However, I carry it one step further. I feel that I AM duty bound, as a patriotic American, to NOT obey an unlawful order. To do otherwise would be cowardice and a gross insult to the sacrifice of our Founders and fallen heroes including the likes of MLK.
In army basic training was also instructed not to obey an unlawful order. When we asked the drill sergeant how we would know whether an order was unlawful, he replied, “Easy. You’ll never be given an unlawful order.”
Good point Yooper. I can see you are a Patriot! Yes we all must band together, call our represenatives and let them know we will not give up our rights. This administration is ruining our country.
The entirety of the Dem Party sees shipping out illegal aliens as a form of tyranny. What is there about that people here don’t get? You have people in this country who disagree with you. Law is the tie-breaker. Ignoring law puts you on the side of the Dem Party, OWS, and 15 million illegal aliens. Making the other side’s argument for them is a great way to spit in the wind. You have just undercut the argument against illegal immigration and resorted to semantic gibberish illegals will continue to ignore with their feet. In effect, we have allowed the Third World to dictate our immigration policy by the mass disobedience of them and the Dem Party. Now you essentially argue they are right in principle, but wrong on the specifics, and try and reverse the two in the same breath. If all we have are specifics and no principles, then every man is an island and essentially everyone is right about everything.
So go ahead and give up your weapons and keep your sense of moral superiority. The rest of us will live in reality, understanding we have a government that has a keen desire to control its citizens and is willing to use whatever means it can to “transform” the country to get there, be it illegals for their political advantage or the removal of guns from the hands of their opponents. Yet you prefer to yammer out some philosophy blah blah and think you show how much more learned and reasonable you are compared to those who are willing to quietly but firmly resist the tyranny of a government that backs anything that will break their opposition. All you have shown is that your willing to side with the tryants who believe that, like you stated, it was weird for slave owners to fight against the tyranny of the English system and thus somehow everything that came after is illegitimate and so must be transformed and fixed. Of course this thought process totally negates the fact that about 620,000 died fighting the Civil War while in all of American foreign wars about 644,000 died, clearly there were hundreds of thousands who were willing to die for other peoples freedom within our own country. I wonder if you would care to use your deductive powers as to why those slave owners would have wanted to keep their guns while denying them to their slaves? Surely if Thomas Jefferson was a hypocritical bastard than so is Barack Obama. Gun control worked wonderfully for Hitler, Stalin and Mao. Not to mention many lessor totalitarian leaders. If you can’t appreciate the true need for civil disobedience regarding gun control than you are willing to be the slave and are willing to ensure no one will have the ability to fight your enslavers. I have no intention of being in that position.
15 million, plus spouses, plus children –no limit on the number, entire villages could be one couple’s children. Bright side, no more exhausting elections will be needed –we can just declare Democrats winners in perpetuity. Then, we call all register as Democrats, and become Muslims, too. Peace at last, serfin’ USA! And we’ll fun fun fun ’til daddy takes the foodstuffs away!
I can understand the need for civil disobedience as regards guns, and many other things, Mere. Can you understand the liberal position to do the same to enable millions from the Third World to take over America?
While you people agonize over stupid fantasies about the gov’t turning weapons on its own citizens en masse, you are literally being taken out by peasants.
The gov’t wouldn’t stand up to ragamuffins from OWS. What makes you think they’d stand up to protests from the middle class? What did the gov’t do when protesters took over the capitol in Wisc?
Obama doesn’t have to turn weapons on the middle class, he has Hollywood, the ACLU, and half the country actively advocating for the Third World to come here in droves. Try preaching about Jesus in an American city, Dearborn. You’ll find you can’t – Muslims. You’re already toast on one side. The other side is getting warm.
“The gov’t wouldn’t stand up to ragamuffins from OWS. What makes you think they’d stand up to protests from the middle class? What did the gov’t do when protesters took over the capitol in Wisc?”
The Soros Junta supports the OWSers and the union protests. Why would they do anything to them? You might have noticed that lefties tend to protest only in safely Democrat controlled places where if the cops do “arrest” them, they only take them out of camera shot and let them go and any incidents of “police violence” are carefully pre-arranged so the cameras will be rolling.
I have two nightmares regarding the present political climate. The first is that some crazy readily identifiable with the right will commit some act of violence against the government or a Democrat constituency. A subset of that is that some Democrat contituency will riot and a Republican governor or mayor will act to suppress the riot or worst case, a Democrat constituency riots in a Democrat controlled city in a Republican controlled state, the Republican governor acts to suppress the riot and the Democrat mayor asks for federal assistance to suppress the state ordered violence. The second is that we remain well-disciplined enough that we don’t give them their “Kent State Moment” that the OWSer leadership so badly wanted and the Left astro-turfs an act of violence that gives the federal government the excuse it wants to act. We grossly escalated the Vietnam war based on the Tonkin Gulf incident which largely didn’t happen at all and certainly didn’t happen the way the Democrat government of the time said it did. In the ’60s the Democrat leadership were still largely people who were patriotic Americans, even if some were hopelessly corrupt, e.g., LBJ. It should be remembered that the ’68 Chicago Convention riots were directed against the Democrats’ Vietnam War policies. The people who form the leadership cohort of the Democrats today are the people and their progeny who were out in the streets in Chicago in ’68 and they hate to traditional America. It is OK with them for one of their pet minorities or one of their front groups to be violent. It is not OK with them for traditional Americans to be violent.
Any act of violence by traditional Americans in defense of traditional American values and lifestyle would be met with violent repression by the Soros Junta and it isn’t the lank-haired lefty wannabe Strelnikovs all the macho men advocating civil disobedience have to worry about, it is well trained, heavily armed federal law enforcement; they ain’t buying all that anti-personnel ammunition for nothing. The objects will be vilified, marginalized, and the rest of the Country will applaud the heroic first responders. Those applauding will include altogether too many conservatives who still haven’t met a cop they don’t like.
These people are deadly serious and they intend to “fundamentally” transform America and they know that at some point they’ll be unable to proceed and still maintain the illusion of functioning democratic processes. At that point, there is going to be a bloodbath and I don’t like the odds for ordinary armed citizens against the Junta’s myrmidons. The traditional America no longer exists, what will succeed it remains to be seen, but I don’t think many here other than the trolls will like it, and even the trolls won’t like it long because they’ll soon learn that they only thought they were a part of the new ruling class.
@Art Chance – exactly
You apparently don’t understand the Supremacy Clause if you think that any law passed by Congress overrules the states.
The Supremacy Clause, like ALL of the Constitution’s clauses only applies to the federal government’s enumerated powers. In other words the federal government is only supreme with respect to laws deriving from the enumerated powers. That is what the states agreed to when they ratified the Constitution. Nothing more.
Where the Constitution is silent the federal government may not legislate and if they do, as with Obamacare, the states have the right and duty to ignore, nullify, defy, and refuse to implement such laws.
“If you advocate this, you advocate sanctuary cities.”
BS.
Civil disobedience in defense of a Constitutionally protected right is nothing like preferential (non-)enforcement of laws which are SPECIFICALLY ENABLED by the Constitution. Cities which refuse to enforce immigration laws are no different than cities which enforce laws differently based on skin color.
Liberals are invoking the Constitution to protect illegal aliens. And Asians are using it to set up anchor baby hotels.
The citizens own this country? I think the foreign note-holders on our impossible nat’l debt do, and when they’re convinced that this nation has well and truly jumped the shark? That breaking glass sound you hear is all our precious entitlement programmes imploding……..
I’m not gonna add another cogent comment to this forty-car derailment. I’m simply gonna say I smell Angola with -10°C wind chill……….
Fail, there is a difference, though subtle, between sanctuary for a Constitutional Right vs. Sanctuary for someone in another sovereign Nation illegally.
I’ve thought about that: we do not as individuals live under a simple Constitution but one that is parsed through our Supreme Court, Fed., state and municipal laws. Unless you think each individual should be a miniature supreme court, we are not at liberty to interpret law as we see fit without according those we disagree with the same right.
The result would be chaos. Best to obey laws or change them. You can’t attack people for marching illegal aliens into our seats of gov’t if you wish to march an illegal weapon into your own home.
Actually, you are entitled to use civil disobedience to protest unjust laws.
A law which violates the Bill of Rights is an unjust law.
The government deliberately refusing to remove illegal aliens (non-citizens) from this country, in the hope that they may be used to swing elections and ensure one party a permanent lock on power (which is what it is all about), is a violation of the voting rights guaranteed under the Constitution, and thus of the concept of equal protection under the law. Which was intended from the outset to apply to citizens, as a right. Its extension to “guests” is a courtesy, in the same sense that we do not arrest ambassadors for parking violations.
The one is the enforcement of a law violating the Constitution. The other is a violation of the demands the Constitution places upon those in government; they fail to fulfill their obligations to the citizenry, in the pursuit of personal and political power. Which, in all likelihood, will be used to further violate the rights of the actual citizenry, under the Constitution.
Both fall under St. Augustine’s rule;
This is beginning to resemble the runup to the Peloponnesian War. Which ended badly for the self-anointed “best and brightest” of Greece.
clear ether
eon
I agree, but one man’s civil disobedience is another man’s lawbreaking, and vice-versa. Being obtuse will not help us out of this hypocrisy. You can’t insist some people obey the law and others don’t.
Sounds like the best-case scenario here is that sanctuary politicians be charged with a crime and gun advocates who give their illegal weapons sanctuary not be. One must argue from a position of strength or else you’re a liberal, arguing particulars and not principle. It’s the equivalent of identity supplying morality, not a strike zone for one and all.
The point you seem determined to missis this: the Constitution grants no rights. The first ten amendments grant no rights. What the Constitution does do is list those rights that no legitimate government may infringe upon. It doesn’t matter what Congress, the USSC or the President say, if they attempt to disarm the populace they are illegitimate and their laws carry no more legal or moral weight than a mob family demanding protection money.
That’s what makes this different from sanctuary cities. This isn’t about thumbing one’s nose at a properly enacted law. This is about protecting the understanding of human rights that goes back to the founding of our republic.
Was the Constitution made for the entire world or does it admit we have a country and that that country has borders? If it is valid to ignore gun laws it is valid to ignore immigration laws.
Fail;
Since it is the government which is ignoring the immigration laws (failing to properly deal with those who violate them), while simultaneously seeking to abridge the rights of actual citizens (attempting to deprive them of one or more Constitutional rights), your statement is a non sequitor.
Or in plain, non-Vulcan English, you are comparing apples and oranges.
In each case, it is the government which is either attempting, or succeeding, in violating the restrictions and responsibilities that are laid upon it by its own laws, up to and including the Constitution.
By your logic, not only was the Continental Congress illegal (which, I admit, it technically was, at the time), but the Colonies had no grounds to petition the Crown regarding taxation or representation, because the decision had already been made for them, by their “betters”.
Sorry. It won’t wash.
clear ether
eon
Eon, when you get pulled over and given a traffic ticket, is the Constitution cited to you, or local law?
Has or has not our Constitution been interpreted that illegal aliens have rights? Did or did not an AZ rancher get sued by illegal aliens, a trial presided over by Judge John Roll, who was shot dead when Giffords was shot. Did or did not that rancher lose?
I am not comparing apples and oranges, you are using semantic pedantry, details and particulars, to mimic an overriding principle and then saying I’m the one doing what you’re doing.
You won’t acknowledge that other people have opinions that run contrary to your own, or their right to exercise civil disobedience, just because the details are different. You won’t acknowledge the Supreme Court disagrees with you because they are wrong I guess.
You are the one comparing apples and oranges: comparing established law to “we hold these truths to be self-evident.” That doesn’t even rise to the level of the Magna Carta. That “right” is not established law, that is a statement of a philosophy. Courts decide how “rights” are parsed into law, not you.
One man’s “right” is another man’s injustice. In the end, law is for all and if that is true, so is civil disobedience. You can’t say this civil disobedience is okay and this has not merit. Well, you can, but the other guy is saying the exact same thing.
Tie-breaker? Surprise, law. Obey it or not, but don’t pretend only one side is right. Other people have ideas too and the only thing we agree to abide by is law. We do not agree to abide by broad rules of civil disobedience that vary from person to person.
We will never all agree on what is right or wrong but we can agree to not pretend specific statutes and broadly interpreted provisions in the Constitution amount to the same thing – they don’t. Not until the courts say so. Then it’s law.
FB;
Not to get into a p***ing match, but you can’t equate government breaking its own laws with citizens saying to government, “that law violates our rights under the Constitution”. As we used to say in Constitutional Law class, it doesn’t pass the smell test.
Two things that are not equal to each other… are not equal to each other. If A is equal to B, and B is not equal to C, then A isn’t equal to C. That’s not pendantry, it’s fact.
As to how the citizens make the point, that’s up to the conscience of the individual, as long as no violence is involved. If the government chooses violence, that’s its mistake. Never mind Lexington and Concord in 1775; it didn’t work out too well at Chicago in 1968, or at Kent State in 1970.
Statistically, nonviolent movements get what they want more often than violent ones do. It may just take longer.
cheers
eon
It’s not a question of a match nor is this a complex argument. It is being shaded in pedantry here precisely because it is so obvious and conservatives understand they now stand on the same philosophical ground as sanctuary policy. They rail here against what I say precisely because they know they are kicking the underpinnings of their own argument from under their own feet.
The article itself states “3) Local law enforcement officials and state governments have also vowed civil disobedience” and you ignore that and invoke the use of the word “citizen,” as if that is the deal breaker when there is no such division.
In a perfect world where everyone agrees with me, I think people should have their guns and illegals kicked out. Unfortunately the other side feels the exact opposite and so we’re again thrown back on law to sort things out, but law both sides seem determined to ignore at will.
In the end we’re then left with who can get away with what, and farther, not closer to, the Constitution, according to the way we’ve agreed to let the Supreme Court be the ultimate authority. Empower this with guns and you empower this with illegal aliens. This is not an argument you can have both ways in the larger public arena because you are not arguing from a position of strength but from your opponents position.
It’s a strike zone. You’re saying who’s pitching matters and who’s on first to confuse the issue until it resembles logic.
If you believe in natural, individual rights, you are entitled to disobey any law that you choose not to obey. The question is what the government is entitled to do to you as the result of your civil disobedience. I submit that if a government passes a law mandating surrender of all weapons of a certain class and you fail or refuse to surrender your weapon of that class, the government is entitled to seek a warrant to seach your premises for such weapon and confiscate it and arrest you for your failure or refusal to comply with the law if the law so provides. Then hte question is for the courts where if we’re right about the 2nd Am., we should prevail, at least until Comrade Obama gets to appoint another justice.
If you are foolish enough to resist with deadly force the LEO serving the warrant and searching your house, they are entitled to shoot you and you need to understand that even if you don’t brandish or threaten, but simply refuse to open the door, they’re probably going to shoot you because you are thought to be armed, and even if they don’t do that, well, it is getting dark, the cops want to go home, so they need to end this. They throw in a few tear gas grenades and we all know those things are bad to cause houses to burn down.
The only hope for success against the disarmament attempt is through the political and judicial processes. Civil disobedience to the point of very visibly offering yourself for arrest so that you can pursue judicial remedy might, just might, work with this crowd but it should be remembered that a significant minority, if not the outright majority, of Southerners were every bit as opposed to de-segregation and just as convinced that segregation was and of rights ought to be Constitutional as any gun-owners are today convinced of the rightness and Constitutionality of their gun ownership. They melted before the onslaught of federal law enforcement and federal law enforcement in the ’60s was MUCH less robust than it is today.
I was just reading some of the old Greek histories of the Peloponnesian Wars and was thinking the same thing. Polybius, a Greek held hostage at Rome, had some insights that seem every bit as relevant today as they were two thousand years ago.
NEWS FLASH! Mr. Fail Burton was arrested today for driving his vehicle at the rate of 56 MPH in a posted 55 MPH speed zone. His insurance company representative advised him that his rates will likely rise. Additionally, points will be charged against his drivers license, and he has agreed to forfeit a bond of $100 plus $60 court costs so as to not to miss work.
Mr. Burton, a self-described intellectual and philosopher, told authorizes that he was embarrassed by his willful act of civil disobedience and that he feels authorities were justified in making his arrest. “Otherwise”, he stated, “the result would be chaos. Best to obey laws or change them”. Mr. Burton vowed to never drive more than the exact posted speed limit again.
I’ve got to admit, that whatever point he is trying to make is lost in the chaos of his convoluted logic.
Natural rights. Any law that limits any human beings natural rights is a law that is destined to be disobeyed. It’s a concept that seems to escape ‘Fail Burton’. In a perfect world, there would be no need to defend yourself against violence, for there would be no violence to begin with.
This is not a perfect world. There is a need for individual human beings ro defend themselves, not only against other human beings but against the the very nature of the world and of the universe. We must defend ourselves against everything from viruses and bacterium to poisonous spiders and snakes to disease carrying insects and rodents to rocks falling out of the sky. We must also prepare (defend ourselves) against the vagaries of weather (hurricanes, blizzards, tornados, etc.) and against the results of plate tectonics (earthquakes, tsunamis, vulcanism, etc.).
When the laws of men seek to destroy us, or to limit our ability to defend ourselves against harm, we must defend ourselves against such laws and against the men who enact and enforce such laws. The law of nature demands no less, or else we die.
Anyone who seeks to limit our ability to defend ourselves seeks our deaths. They’ve become no less an instrument of harm than a disease carrying rodent or a natural catastrophe. The are no less and no more than a murderder. We must use whatever means necessary in order to defend ourselves against such men. If we do not, they will seek our destruction.
There is nothing convoluted about the difference between right and wrong, which will vary between individuals, and right and wrong as defined by law. One is conscience and one is a fixed set of rules laid down by institutions we have committed ourselves to obey. If you pick and choose which laws to obey, you give equal strength to your philosophical opponent.
So, keep your guns, lose your country. This is a liberal argument: one strike zone for you, and other for me. Brave law enforcement is guarding the horses that are long gone from the barn. Where have they been for years when they have sheepishly obeyed orders, illegal orders, to stand down when it comes to illegal immigrants and prosecute legal citizens?
“So, keep your guns, lose your country.”
If the “country” tries to ban guns, then the country is dead anyway. As well impose a religious test for office (oops! Democrats already do that!) or mandate a national religion.
The government of the United States derives its authority from the Constitution. If they abandon it, they have lost their authority. They may have their power, but I suspect they will find the scope of its applicability greatly diminished.
Why is the country dead if certain types of guns are banned? When’s the last time American citizens needed guns as a community to defend themselves? Pancho Villa?
Arizona ranchers have guns – they can’t use them. If they shoot drug smugglers who have AK-47s the ranchers will most likely go to jail and the ACLU will help put them there.
The gov’t is never going to come at us with violence. They can pick and choose and sue people right into the ground and that’s what they do. Or they isolate and arrest a few very specific people – remember Waco? Ruby Ridge? They had guns. What good did it do. It only enraged gov’t all the more. Who you gonna shoot?
This idea the only thing that keeps us safe from gov’t are guns is insanity. They don’t need guns – they have lawyers.
The NCAA isn’t gov’t, yet by using scare tactics and bullying, they in fact exerted de jure jurisdiction over a crime at Penn St. and held the entire school at fault, for millions of dollars. They did the same thing to the U of N. Dak over an Indian logo.
If the frickin’ NCAA can do that stuff, what do you think the gov’t can do?
@failburton –
Governments come at the people w/violence all the friggerty time. Just because ours hasn’t yet – arguable, at best – doesn’t mean it won’t.
So universal truths found in the Declaration of Independence and later codified in the Bill of Rights are the equal to some borough’s petty ordinance on spitting or whatever? Okay, Fail Burton. Makes perfect sense.
That’s a bit of a “slippery slope” argument: FB speeds and commits a minor misdemeanor so he therefore may not oppose the commission of a felony and remain philosophically consistent?
Just wondering….
Do you think that there might be justification for some reticence on my part to obey an unjust, or plainly non-constitutional law, that is imposed upon me by a government that conducts the clearly illegal operation known as “Fast and Furious”, just as one example?
Fail Burton’s “logic” falls apart when he fails to address the reality of our laws being imposed and enforced by those for whom we have appropriately lost all respect. We have as our president one who comes out of the most corrupt political machines in the nation and has given spawn to numerous acts of deceit and corruption throughout his administration. And we are supposed to respect the dictates of that administration since to do otherwise might produce “chaos” ? And Burton wonders why some folks might prefer to say “screw ‘em”?
I have more respect for myself than to obey those laws and individuals for whom I legitimately have no respect. To Burton I say, if you abhor legitimately based chaos then move to North Korea.
You already have legitimately based chaos, led by the President of the United States, unions, churches, YWCAs, race-based immigrant groups, the ACLU, the entirety of the media, authors, artists and too many others to list. What will you do with your guns? Make a last stand in Montana in the year 2084? You live in a United Nations pie-chart dedicated to your destruction and that process is well underway. Now you give it credibility by saying the basis for it all, ignoring the law, is legitimate. Let’s each of us just do what we want. We are outnumbered by the Third World 10 or 15 to 1 so we’ve lost that fight already. Congratulations.
Yooper,
“ unjust”, “plainly non-constitutional law” and a law which has been passed by Congress, signed by the President and upheld by the courts are three different animals calling for three different types of responses.
“Unjust” can have a wide range of interpretations. A law can be legal and stupid without being significantly “unjust”. I would say that a law restricting magazines to 10 rounds doesn’t qualify as “unjust”even though it is stupid. Would you say that the laws regulating ownership of sawed-off shotguns and automatic rifles are “unjust”?
“Plainly non-constitutional” – where does one draw the line? Fortunately, the USSC has drawn some lines. It seems to me that DC v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago interpret the 2A to permit a range of firearms regulations while guaranteeing some basic rights.
Obviously there is some point at which ethics calls for opposition to clearly unjust and evil laws (i.e., Pharaoh ordering the midwives of the Hebrews to drown male newborns) but if these ethical decisions are frivolous it can undermine law, democracy and society. Even Lincoln supported enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act (http://lincolnstudies.blogspot.com/2007/09/fugitive-slave-act-of-1850.html).
Well, we all know where Fail got his name. Don’t feel too bad, Fail. Even if you had a legimate point that might have legs, you showed up to the argument way too late. Progs had their core principles set in stone for decades before normals figured out what the progs were up to. Well, normals have had their core principles set in stone for a few centuries. Because they’ve been pretty quiet (mostly because they were busy living their lives and working at jobs for a paycheck) progs have mistaken them for being intellectually disinterested and lacking in practical courage.
They have seriously mistaken their restraint for unwillingness to fight for all the rights given to us. (No permits required)
My best friend is named “Success” so that evens me out. Dorner’s supporters also focused on his politics rather than law. In their minds Dorner was committing an act of legitimate and moral civil disobedience. What’s it like to take up that argument and not know it?
Principle: get one, and hold on to it. I don’t care which one it is, just don’t split it into 12 arguments.
Attended a gun show yesterday; the line waiting to enter was 100 yards long and the wait time was one hour. Didn’t see many Obama supporters on line. buyers outnumbered sellers 100:1. attempts to disarm the public will be equivalent to grabbing a tiger by it’s tail. Woe betide the poor schmuck left holding that tail.
The gov’t only has to go after that one seller. Do you think the 100 will gather at his house to protect him? When has the Conservative movement shown any balls to do anything on the street?
You really don’t know anything about us, do you?
Well then inform me with actual facts. Where were conservatives when illegals marched in American cities holding Mexican flags some years ago? If I had compadres, we would’ve turned a frickin’ hose on them and wrangled them to the border.
Instead we sat with our hands folded for lack of resolve and numbers. Where are disobedient armies of conservatives massed on ranches in AZ denying that ground to drug smugglers and daring the gov’t that can’t exert sovereignty over it’s own territory to intervene?
You’re living in a fantasy world. In fact I’ve been left at the altar by conservatives scared off by the words “profiling” and “racist” by depraved race pimps and women who marry other women and call it macaroni.
Again I say, what use guns without even the resolve to stand up in the public arena and make a citizen’s arrest on an illegal alien brought to testify in a courtroom or a state capital? Were I at the State of the Union I would have done exactly that.
You talk like a leftist, illogically. Do you know exactly what a “citizen’s arrest” entails? It differs from state to state, and there are generally specific requirements for it to be valid. You’re just talking about street theater, a leftist concept. Yeah, making little scenes might make you histrionic types feel good, but they have no effect. We’re quiet, absorbing things until they finally reach the “line in the sand” at which point we stand up and say, “this ends now.” And we then act on that statement, no great screaming or remonstrations, just action.
Left/liberals yearn to be the tyranny we refused from King George III and want to take our guns for the same reason his did: unruly peasants (us) needn’t be armed.
The tavern keeper in Concord had cannons. It wasn’t just a few muskets that they were keeping and bearing.
The control nuts deploy blizzards of statistics in support of their gun control measures, but never a digit on the numbers of police, arrests, trials, and imprisonments they anticipate for enforcement. On April 15, 2014 there will be numbers. How many of the estimated 1,000,000 “assault rifles” will be registered in New York, and how many otherwise law-abiding citizens will be subjected to the one-year jails sentences provided by the Class-A misdemeanors invoked by failure to register. This was the point I emphasized in my speech at the Augusta, Maine 2nd Amendment rally and the point of a guest column submitted to the liberal Portland Press Herald. They did not care to have the question aired but it will soon become unavoidable.
Exactly! There will be mass non-compliance in NY state. If the law is upheld (and I have doubts) who will be the first test case for enforcement? I can tell you this, it will only take one.
If New Yorkers won’t comply, why on God’s green earth would anyone expect people in Missouri,Texas, Oklahoma, etc to do so?
According to what I’ve read, when California passed an AWB, barely 1 in 3 of those who owned such weapons turned them in . Canada showed at least as great a level of defiance when they imposed a gun registry on them. If people in California and Canada will not submit, who thinks people in Wyoming, Alaska, Louisiana , etc, will do so?
Consider the mass defiance created by Prohibition. Has the USA *ever* recovered, truly, from that idiocy, that tyranny “for our own good” imposed on us by meddling busybodies, and the resulting mass creation of scofflaws? The contempt inspired by both the obvious corruption of the “bad” cops on the take , and that inspired by the interference with people’s daily lives by the “good” cops, who tried to enforce an unpopular, pointless law? And that was just for the right to get a buzz or get drunk.
Our weapons , for many of us, are for self defense first and foremost : Those of us who are older remember what it was like to be female , small, and to feel our heart race when we realized we seemed to be being followed, walking to our car late at night when there was no one else in sight. We remember that icy chill at 3 AM, when we heard what sounded like a footstep outside our bedroom door, when we knew we were alone in the apartment.
WE WILL NOT GO BACK!
Guns in Alaska? There are no guns in Alaska; they’ve all been lost or stolen in the last four years.
What a strange coincidence. The same thing happened in Idaho.
Lake Michigan will be the new “Ironbottom Sound”.
I remember that horrible canoe sinking on the Delaware in ’09.
We were terribly overweighted with hunting weapons; AK47′s, M16′s and such.
The water was so cold…it was so dark…makes me shiver in fear.
III
Except for these few old, broken guns and old ammo, all my guns fell in the lake on a fishing trip. Oh, but I caught a 20 pound bass…
I’ve only been mugged in Chicago.
Hello. Rick in NY. My AR is already with a cousin in another state. I own it but I don’t “possess” it. And that’s the truth. Try finding a rifle in the Adirondacks. Good luck. LE won’t even look in any county north or Westchester or west or Rockland. Period. The only people who will register are people who shoot competitively. Period.
I already filed the bayo lug off my Garand, too. Felt bad about it but I laughed at the stupidity of the geniuses who wrote this piece of offal. And, I am considering buying a Mossberg 590 with a bayonet lug, just to spite those law makers. Bayonet lugs are still legal on anything that’s not semi auto. So I’ll give Mossberg some business, and still be able to bayonet a burglar. I’m so excited!
But seriously, like cocaine, or any other contraband, the actual, physical object has to be found in order for an individual to be charged. It is black letter law. Anyone who does not want to register their gun must by dint of Common Law move it at the very least off their property, and to another state with a foster family, if possible.
And no, this will not be enforced since every cop I know, from NYPD to troopers think the law is a piece of crap.
The only who will get busted is someone who demands it or walks around with the gun openly. Period.
Our prisons are so full of ignoramuses who possessed some drug that there’s no room for old guys who read the Constitution. Imagine what kind of revolution we’d have if we had huge numbers of common criminals mixed with political prisoners who also happened to have arsenals stashed upon their release from prison. Sounds like a volatile mix.
Won’t be enforced? Wasn’t a veteran just arrested in NY for possessing a few 30 rd mags? There’s that darn graveyard again, better start whistlin’…
Really? I hadn’t heard about that. All I know is that permit carriers have a lower crime rate than even cops because one false move and they’ll lose their guns.
Most gun owners I know in NY aren’t interested in registering or any of that nonsense. I think Cuomo has bitten off more than he can chew.
mchairball, The veteran that you speak of was in Washington D.C.
“I already filed the bayo lug off my Garand, too.”
For real? The Garand doesn’t accept a detachable magazine. It isn’t a NY “assault weapon” anyway. Now go feel worse for defacing a weapon once held by better men.
Better men? My dad and father in law both carried the Garand. Somehow that generation didn’t see fit however, to keep guns in civilian life. And yes, the Garand is covered by the NYS SAFE act and indeed, if you go to the SAFE ACT FAQs they tell you removal of any feature makes it unnecessary to register your gun. This was put in THANKS TO the NYS Republicans. It’s a way out. I’m taking it.
Sorry I won’t get imprisoned for your fervor. For God’s sake, some of us are still working at good jobs and can’t spend all day in the basement. I love Bennington, by the way. Love that monument. Is Kelly Stand Road reopened?
You guys took a wallop weather wise. I love the Green Mountains. The minute I enter VT I hand the non shooter in the car with me a gun and tell ‘em, now get your permit.
This sounds like a religious war brewing in USA.
Perhaps it is wise for gun owners to stay away from cities . There seems to be so much human sacrifice going on. Rush hours to and from the cities I believe most of the deaths and maiming takes place from car accidents at rush hours. Human sacrifice pleases Satan the Devil to build his Kingdom. It would be good you worship your god Satan in private not in public places with the slaughter of children and your girlfriend when you get frisky from finding out she cheated on you in private and it becomes public even to your gun under your pilliow
Taking away your gun in the city is not the same as taking away your right to pray. But I do understand your worry if this nation that murders legal 55 million little babies in mommies tender tummy may one day take away your right to pray
Waxwing, there were several coherent responses to this article. Yours was not one of them. You sound quite insane. Please talk to a professional.
footnote
Yesterday, I enter my 2nd heaven forest to deep in the woods to light the fires in the shire to do my prayers. Some wacko in the distance is shooting his gun a it sounds like the bullets are wizzing by my head. I believe in the protection of the army of angels helping me do my mission for God . on the other hand are you aware of how Satan the Devil has the power to possess you to do great evil?
The same thing happened to me!
I’m so sorry to hear that. it is difficult to pray when the bullets are wizzing by your head but I believe this is a small test from the True God for now. there is no reasoning with the demon possessed when they have guns because they could be out of your voice range telling them you are in front of the bullets. I’ll pray for protection for you
I brought snow shoes to get to my sanctuary deep in the woods far away from any electricity and mine were the only snow shoe tracks. My conclusion : The chosen ones from God are being hunted by the greater Sauron.
Did your god pass out a certain number of rings, with one being more powerful than rest, because i think i saw a documentary about that called lord of the somethings, i cant remember.
This is what we used to call “being a couple sex offenders short of an anime convention.”
If anybody here knows about Shay’s rebellion or the Whiskey rebellion they would realize that individuals have NO right to gather up arms and take down a government they on their own decided to be “tyrannical”. You would end up either dead or spending the rest of your life in federal or state prison for rioting. The nonsense you people spread among yourselves is mind boggling and in some cases dangerous
Civil disobedience is supposed to be nonviolent, such as passive resistance.
Tell that to the Founders. Our federal government is rapidly losing its legitimacy.
Yeah, that is EXACTLY what Adams Franklin and Jefferson said. “It’s not up to ME to determine what tyranny is…”. That portrait where they’re all staring studiously at the ground or at the ceiling, that says it all. And that “shot heard round the world”? That was just a big gun buyback gone wrong. Some guy just forgot to unload and triggered an unfortunate diplomatic incident. All those people were ready to hand over their firearms, because it wasn’t up to THEM to recognize or stand up to tyranny.
Not true. That’s how this country was founded, or did you miss that chapter?
I would agree that it’s not a decision to be taken lightly, but the threat to throw the bums out by force if necessary should always be there.
The issue is, you better damn win!
That’s what they’re trying to do in Syria. The problem is you might not survive winning……’>……
Which is, of course, no reason at all not to fight for what’s right.
Don’t you remember that at the time of the battle of Lexington and Concord, some of the Minutemen were imprisoned by the Crown in Boston? Don’t assume no one knows the cost of what they say.
And if you want to go around babbling about “founders’ intent’, you really should read up on what they actually intended
When the US Constitution was written there were no political parties as of yet, but there were two factions in on it- the federalists and the anti-federalists, led by James Madison and James Mason
The anti-federalists wanted armed citizen militias, as opposed to a standing national army to be used against insurrections and rebellions. They based their arguments as a result of Shay’s rebellion, when armed mobs rose up against the state of Massachusetts, forcing the governor to raise a state militia with out of pocket funds. The 2nd gave states the right to raise and fund their own militias. As for a use against government tyranny, they envisioned militias would be used in case a federal army tried to invade a soveriegn “Free state”
As said above, they left the right for self protection up to the individual states to decide that, as Pennsylvania clearly stated in it’s state constitution
Militias were historically state entities. As such, it is the states that have the authority to implement any regulation regarding firearms. Where in the Constitution does it give that authority to the federal government?
Even with state authority concerning firearms, they were, and still are, required to not infringe on 2nd Amendment rights of the people. The 2nd states it’s the right of the people, not the right of the militia, to KEEP and BEAR arms. Those two words are unambiguous. KEEP means in your possession, not locked up in some government armory. BEAR means carry.
SCOTUS has already correctly decided that the 2nd is an individual right, not a collective one.
I would also argue that since the 2nd is about militias, the very weapons it protects are weapons suitable for war. The modern day equivalent of the revolutionary war musket, is the 30 round AR15. The Miller case, has already set this precedent by SCOTUS ruling that weapons in common usage by the militia are those protected weapons. As in many other areas of Constitutional requirements, we have strayed from the militia requirement, and replaced it with the large standing army the Founders rejected. And the Founders viewed the entire body of the people, as the militia. Which is not consistant with how we have modified that in current US Code.
KEEP and BEAR…
It seems to me that lawmakers will now focus on obtaining/acquiring and infringe on that. Possibly also the manufacturing thereof.
Can any historians post the wording of the Second Amendment as originally written ? I have heard that, in the first draft, the order of the clauses was reversed. Does anyone have a source for minutes or notes from the meeting or conference where the change was suggested or voted ?
Many good points above. One good thing from all this mess is that the Constitution is actually being read and studied again. GBUSA
Immanuel Kant was correct……. Constitutions were created by the Devil…….
Douchebag: the Founders did not write the Constitution for THE times, they wrote it for ALL TIMES.
“…blah, blah, blah…technically, the period was darker and the word “the” was …blah, blah, blah…”
Any individual or government who breaks the Constitution is in violation of the social contract to government and therefore ILLEGAL and liable for overthrow. Read the Federalist Papers dummy.
You don’t know what you’re talking about. To understand the meaning of any text written more than a few years ago, we must understand the common meanings of the words in it at the time it was written. “Militia” didn’t refer to an organized army or state National Guard. It refered to the entire male population between the ages of 16 and 55. How do we know this? The writers of the Constitution told us so.
I’ll be convinced that all those people who say the 2nd Amendment was written about muskets have a legitimate argument when I can openly carry a loaded musket down 5th Avenue, The Mall or Cicero Avenue. Otherwise, they’re just babbling.
Legally, if not practically, you probably can openly carry a muzzleloading musket, rifle, or pistol in most places because they aren’t firearms under most laws relating to firearms. That said, even here in Alaska where open carry is legal and very common out of town, I’d be very reticent to openly carry anything in town. That is, if I still owned any modern guns to carry. All I have now that I lost all my modern guns are a couple of muzzleloading rifles, a P1851 .58 cal. Enfield and a .54 cal. Hawken reproduction, and a 1851 Colt Navy, .44 cal. cap and ball revolver, but you can’t hurt anyone with those, can you since they’re not black and scary?
A fat man begins with one piece of pie.If you think hugo-bama’s train of thought is unpredictable you must also believe that regeistered guns are the only ones out there.Come on in,i have a surprise for you!
We are Americans,we are adults,we also enjoy a drink.Had he not already shone his hand it would be different but our bull in the china closet just continues to break things! He will import like minded europeans and consult girly men from the far left,but pay it no mind.
Let him first collect the guns from his own city,and if successful we can watch the murder rate double from a safe distance.
The core consideration here isn’t whether gun owners and enthusiasts will defy the law; it’s whether the law will provoke an armed uprising.
Absent armed rebellion, the law will increase the power of the State over the individual. It will compel him to keep his weapons at home, under lock and key. He dare not risk taking them hunting or target-shooting. He dare not allow agents of the State into his home for any reason, lest they discover his outlawed guns. He’ll even be inhibited against talking about them to other persons supposedly aligned with his convictions, for how can he be sure that the State’s incentives to turn on one another haven’t suborned his conversational partner?
In short, unless an actual armed revolt takes place, the law will have the effect of isolating us further from one another. That would be a clear victory for the forces of evil: an atomized people, each of us unsure who’s “on his side” and who’s looking to profit at his expense, is no threat to a monolith that wields the coercive forces of the State.
I agree with you but would add, having 100 citizens hiding AR15s in their floor boards is less scary to the gun grabbers than having 500 with legal guns openly possessing them. The numbers of plain old guns being purchased is off the charts. The number of CCW applications likewise. If every liberty loving citizen merely owns a 12 gauge or a 30 30 lever, that is good enough. The battle of Athens, Tennessee was not fought with ARs. And after 9/11 thousands of NYC residents were walking around with cased hunting rifles. Yes, the SAFE ACT is nonsense and needs to be appealed and ignored. But activism requires flexibility. Each and every reader needs to get at least one NON GUN OWNER to own A GUN, be it a .22. That is our duty.
Excellent analysis. This was the foundation for the rise to absolute power for both Schicklgruber and Ulyanov.
Washington AWB “Accidentally” Includes House Searches
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/02/robert-farago/washington-awb-accidentally-includes-house-searches/#more-202343
If The President and Congress passes unjust laws and regulations, why should anyone obey them. Politicians,left wing Democrats(is there any other kind), never consider the laws of unintended consequences as they just don’t think. I suppose they think mortality does not apply to political criminals. The unarmed, especially gun grabber politicians and their families, will be prime targets if gun confiscations happens. Sieg Heil Obama Sieg Heil
Gun control vs gun rights is a stalking horse by both sides now forming up for the real battle ahead – when economic collapse leads to rebellion. It’s about the money. The US borrows 50 cents of every dollar and cannot service this debt without depriving the 47% – and that is when widespread civil unrest begins. When the checks don’t get signed by Uncle Sam and the currency has no value, the banks shut down and capital controls come – the suspension of most civil liberties follows. The clash between the feds and the likely alliances of many states means confrontations never seen before. An insurrection played out in many arenas. This is in its nascent stages. The psychological distance from Washington to the average person is measured in light years. Washington represents Washington. It will only get worse. Representative government at the federal level and in many larger states has failed for many reasons.There is a strange unreality to almost all their proceedings, the labels democrat and republican utterly meaningless There are those that align themselves with the repressive forces, with the state, and those that don’t – that is what gun rights and controls is all about. This issue confronts the individual with his survival – does he find the solution with the state or with himself. That Concord bridge looms ahead for us all. The next shot heard round the world has been fired.
I believe it was Ulysses S. Grant who said, “Never give an order you know won’t be obeyed”.
I know for a fact that Gustav II Adolph of Sweden, aka Gustavus Adolphus, said, “Never pass a law that you cannot enforce”.
Unfortunately, tyrants in general, progressives in particular, and the President specifically, are consistently guided by the words of Rameses II, as given in the movie The Ten Commandments; “So let it be written. So let it be done.”
To paraphrase Matthew Quigley, this isn’t ancient Egypt, and they aren’t Rameses.
clear ether
eon
We’re witnesses here to the results of an uneducatable liberal electorate confirming in office a petulant, crass, politically correct, affirmative-actioned, arriviste with a chip on his shoulder…this Obama chameleon.
We know this, of course.
The hard part is organizing the Right to hold the Democrat Party accountable for this electoral disaster when the electorate haven’t got the wit to see that Obama personifies all of the evils of our political correctness. And, the liberal votes seem to outnumber us Conservatives.
So, we need new professional Republican leadership along with a creative public relations campaign. If we permit our Conservative side to be even more fragmented, we’re doomed.
Maybe this gun “control” issue is the very catalyst we need. Polarization can be made useful if, and only if, it is well organized and channeled.
But…where are these sorely needed new leaders?
If I were the liberals in Congress, and thank GOD I am not, I would be very, very, careful when it comes to “selective enforcement” of any new gun control laws. Making an example of somebody who is refusing to obey a really bad law that many Americans don’t agree with could backfire badly. If you arrest a person who has a legitimate right under the Second Amendment to own a weapon, you could be turning that individual into a martyr. Worse, such an action would only convince people already suspicious about an encroaching Federal government that Washington really does plan on disarming the American public.
Folks, this is how revolutions begin and somebody could get hurt. It won’t take much before you could have a Waco-style standoff and gun battle between armed American citizens and ATF agents. Hmmm, and how did that work out the last time that happened? And no major constitutional rights were invovled in that last confrontation at Waco. Could you imagine, just imagine, if you had a similar confrontation and the people under seige thought they were members of a modern-day Alamo standing up for their individual rights? This could all end very, very, badly and it could really start a revolution in this county. Worse, you could actually get local police and military units opting for open conflict against Federal law enforcement officers.
Federal laws are “great,” but what happens when local police refuse to enforce those laws? You have a similar situation like we have now with sanctuary cities and illegal aliens. Illegal immigration laws are on the books, but many big cities simply refuse to enforce them. The exact same thing could start happening with gun laws. And I really doubt the Federal government is willing to put thousands of people in jail who’s only “crime” is owning what used to be a legal weapon.
Obama’s pandering to the far left could actually destroy this country and he could end up getting that civil war he’s been yearning for. After all, he thinks he is Lincoln. Soon he’ll have a very real war to go with that illusion. I really don’t think he, or this nation, wants to go down that road again.
He thinks he is Lincoln, but he consistently behaves like Jefferson Davis. And he doesn’t see the contradiction in that.
“A Great Lawgiver” he isn’t. More like a failed politician with an exaggerated opinion of his own brilliance.
cheers
eon
Not wishing to defend Jeff Davis, but Obama acts more like Robert Mugabe. He’s pissing away and burning down the greatest nation on earth because he’s convinced of his own greatness, evidence be damned Unfortunately for him, his opponents aren’t a few frightened farmers and the size of his mobs are limited ( his dumba** college student supporters will be crying in a corner if it gets sketchy) The urban riffraff don’t have the numbers to start confiscating property.
Obama doesn’t realize that those who cling to their guns, his supposed enemies, aren’t doing the murdering in America. Obama’s supposed friends are. Chicagy style.
I don’t know if Obama or anyone on the Left want a civil war of any kind but if they do they can’t possibly win. Armed Americans are overwhelmingly conservative while unarmed Americans are Liberals.
How would they fight us much less defeat us? The military? Doubtful. Most members of the military are conservative and would more likely join us than fight us. Their oath is to the Constitution, not to any politician.
What Liberals count on is conservatives’ high level of respect for the law.
It would be better for both sides if we simply split the nation in half. I would enjoy watching the Leftist USA rapidly descend into despotism
Enlisted might mostly be conservative. Based on my time at the Pentagon I would say that officers will support whoever is in power, obligations to defend the constitution being secondary to self preservation.
Agreed but who will the enlisted listen to if it came down to it?
And I’m a vet myself.
Officers aren’t trigger-pullers. And don’t think the enlisted men are incapable of thinking for themselves.
In the Philippians, Marcos ordered the officers and the officers ordered their men to fire on civilians. No one fired. And Marcos was overthrown.
Barry wants Americans to roll over and let him be Emperor.
For some time now I have found myself in increasing agreement with your comments. My quibble here is that I feel that his own words and actions demonstrate that 0bama has long been at war with the US, and particularly the philosophical, moral, intellectual, and psychological concepts and relationships which are the basis of our society. It was no accident that his patrons on entering politics were terror bombers. Imagine the MSM carpet chewing if Romney had held his political debut in McVeigh’s visitor’s cell, and worked closely with him for years. GBUSA
“If I were the liberals in Congress, and thank GOD I am not, I would be very, very, careful when it comes to “selective enforcement” of any new gun control laws.”
Except their rhetoric and focus betrays their intent to be very selective on enforcement. Notice their studied silence in regards to Chicago — strict limits on gun ownership that amount to a ban, yet record-setting rates of murder by gun.
Rather than reinforce the CPD with federal agents, rather than cracking down on the gangs that commit 90% of the murders in Chicago, rather than doing something about the culture of pseudo-machismo and “snitches get stitches”, they focus on disarming the people who just want to be able to defend themselves against the rapist/murderer breaking into their apartment.
Rather than try to deal better with the mentally ill, rather than standing up to the nutcases in the ACLU who think the violently psychotic should be allowed to roam the streets, they focus on turning sane, law-abiding citizens into criminals.
I guarantee that the first prosecutions under these new laws will be against white suburbanites who have never harmed anyone. Career criminals with their arms soaked in blood won’t be touched — too dangerous, and the pictures on TV won’t “look good”.
I stayed in Chicago a few weeks once. I was mugged. While there I saw three guns. One may or may not have been legal, but it was shown in a way that would be legal here in Texas. One was brandished in a way that would be a felony in Texas and one, illegally owned, was used to stop a felony. I’m glad their laws work so well.
Actually, some of us (about 3 million)want that conflict to begin in ernest.
We believe it’s the only way to bring the Constitution back to the Republic.
We learned how to defeat the DHS Blueshirts with their .40 cal Glocks.
We learned insurgent tactics in the Sandbox. Those dopes still have to eat, piss and crap; and that’s when they become vulnerable.
Everyone should now have a phone chain..if they show up at your house, you call the next on the list and run away.do not participate in a frontal confrontation..you will die…They round up the troops to attack from their rear.
One last thing…do you know of any Blue state that grows its own food?…or manufactures its own toilet paper? Think 2 day supply.
We won’t start it, but we will finish it.
There was a lot of talk of revolution and rebellion in Texas, but it had been only talk until the Mexican army came to take the cannon owned by the town of Gonzales. That turned out well for Mexico, didn’t it?
If not yet fired, the “shot heard round the world” has certainly been chambered. Those predicting non-violent civil disobedience are less than prescient. Resistance is the correct term for what will follow when home invasion by confiscating thugs becomes widespread. Why assume it will (or should) be passive?
I think I can hold them (coming up the driveway) from the ridge on the back forty. Oh, smack, they sent a drone over…
All I know is that us gun owners in NJ and NY are probably screwed. Both the local PD and the Feds will be thrilled to disarm us. They will also have a cheer leading section of the populace who think that if us lawful gun owners are disarmed.. the inner city thugs will suddenly have no access to firearms.
We are fast approaching the situation wherein ordinary citizens will have to decide whether or not they are personally willing to pay the ultimate price to insure their grandchildren do not live under tyranny.
I’m ready now. If I could organize a Million Armed Man March on DC to restore our Constitutional government I would. I’m beyond sick of the petty tyrants in DC who pass hundreds of laws and thousands of regulations every year.
The Founders started a revolution over much less than we now endure.
It starts when the checks stop.The less you believe that, the less prepared you’ll be.When the remaining few that do the work feel the fool, when this morphs into a parade of full wagons but no horses,it’s time to dig for clams.In nature that’s called low tide.
The anti-gun fanatics admit that it would take 100 years to get these guns out of the hands of their owners. Me, I think that is optimistic. There are so many family guns passed down through generations that will NEVER be identified. We all have a gun permit; it’s called the second amendment. While I don’t own a gun, I would die for the right to do so.
We still have a right to jury trials for criminal offenses.
Some considerations: Prosecutors have been increasingly undermining the jury system by piling on multiple charges for a single offense, in order to motivate defendants to plead guilty to lesser charges and ensure reduced penalties. In jury trials in which defendants are accused of violating widely unpopular laws, the judges will warn juries against “nullification”, i.e., acquitting defendants who violated the law, because the jury believes that law is unjust–but nullification or no, after the fact, the jury’s decision stands. Prosecutors (and also defense counsels) can use the jury selection process to stack the outcome.
So…if prosecution is to be pushed, gun owners will need to be prepared to refuse to plea bargain and assume the personal risks involved, and the public at large will need to be educated about the role–and power–of juries. Trial venues and jury selection will be huge issues.
“Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.”
It would also open a door for class of “political prisoners’ or “prisoners of conscience”.
And then there is this……
11 YR OLD SHOOTS ILLEGALS thanks FOX NEWS for reporting it. BUTTE, MONTANA
Shotgun preteen vs. Illegal alien Home Invaders…
Two illegal aliens, Ralphel Resindez, 23, and Enrico Garza, 26, probably believed they would easily overpower home-alone 11-year-old PatriciaHarrington after her father had left their two-story home. It seems the two crooks never learned two things: they were in Montana and Patricia had been a clay-shooting champion since she was nine.
Patricia was in her upstairs room when the two men broke through the front door of the house. She quickly ran to her father’s room and grabbed his 12-gauge Mossberg 500 shotgun.
Resindez was the first to get up to the second floor only to be the first to catch a near point blank blast of buckshot from the 11-year-old’s knee-crouch aim. He suffered fatal wounds to his abdomen and genitals.
When Garza ran to the foot of the stairs, he took a blast to the left shoulder and staggered out into the street where he bled to death before medical help could arrive. It was found out later that Resindez was armed with a stolen 45-caliber handgun he took from another home invasion robbery. That victim, 50-year-old David 0′Burien, was not so lucky. He died from stab wounds to the chest.
Why doesn’t this kind of gun story make it to NBC, CBS, PBS, MSNBC, CNN, or ABC news……..? An 11 year old girl, properly trained, defended her home, and herself……against two murderous, illegal immigrants…….and she wins. She is still alive. Now THAT is Gun Control!
Snopes, a couple who are liberal but who sure seem to be part of the gun culture (based on several asides and the like in their entries), says this particular story is an urban legend, although they did find 3 legit stories that were close but didn’t quite match it; in brief:
A 17 year old boy in Texas, a 11 year old boy in South Carolina in 1988 using a .22LR (and very well, neither of the perps made it further than 75 feet or so), and and the fairly well known story from last year of 12 year old girl in Oklahoma who shot a Glock .40 S&W for the first time through a closet door (ouch! she lost some hearing) hitting the perp in the shoulder; he survived, probably with some loss of function since he required serious medical treatment.
Heartwarming story; too bad it’s not true.
If so, then I retract it. If so.
I checked it out. You are correct. Apparently I was “had”. Well…..at least I was never gullible enough to vote for Obama. Does that help?
Are you sure? Drones,NDAA “We don’t need no stinking constitution”
Great handle ! I’ve been wondering if someone would grab it.
The most likely outcome will be “special courts”, with three-judge panels instead of juries. And guess which side the judges (all carefully handpicked by the DOJ) will favor?
Yet another reason I’ve opposed the whole “Homeland Security” establishment from the day the second President Bush first proposed it.
We’ve had a “homeland security” force for almost a century. It’s called the FBI, backed up by the U.S. Marshal Service. Both of which were so structured as to prevent them from being used for either overt political purposes, or the furtherance of political agendas under the guise of “social engineering”. Which is precisely what this is, make no mistake about it.
I told people at the time it would inevitably come to the DHS and similar agencies being used to abridge their Constitutional rights, to assuage the needs and lusts for power of those who regard themselves as innately superior. To their disbelieving looks, my response was, “Two words; President Hillary.”
Some of them actually got the point.
The bottom line is a rule politicians, and their supporters, never seem to understand;
What goes around, comes around. And the power you want today will be in the hands of someone you probably wouldn’t trust with it, tomorrow.
Barring a one-party state, that is. That being what nations which ignore this rule tend to end up with. And the party that passes the laws is the one that generally ends up being rendered extinct, when power passes into the hands of their opponents who have fewer scruples about how they fulfill their dreams of power.
clear ether
eon
# 23 – It starts with the jury POOL. Stringent personal appearance based voter I D will solve some of the stolen election problems, as well as removing some of the left loaded bias in jury pools’ actual show-ups.
Just me, I would support raising the jury service renumeration to nearly match each person’s daily wage, or, even better, grant an equivalent tax credit.
We are in this mess because too many have been “too busy” with life to closely track events and participate in all levels of government. GBUSA
Pretty much nobody on this board would be safe before a jury in any urban area and even in many rural areas for the sorts of political crimes that people are looking to jury nullification to thwart the government. If it is a politically motivated arrest, they’ll find a way to try you in some place where you could be tried, found guilty, and sentenced to death for being a white, male, Republican/conservative. See, e.g., they way they brought the politically motivated charges againt the late Senator Ted Stevens in Washington, D.C. where he was found guilty of being a white Republican and the fraudulent conviction lasted just long enough to elect a Democrat to a seat held by the Republicans since ’68.
Anyone who shows the slightest glimmer of objectivity or knowledge of the law and the Constitution will be challenged out of the pool and you’ll be tried by 12 morons with drivers’ licenses. No matter what, these days, a jury is going to be composed mostly of people who are out of work or who work for government. Those out of work have nothing better to do and the meager pay is more than they were making and most governments treat jury duty as work and public employees don’t lose pay for sitting on a jury. Don’t be counting on that jury of twelve men good and true nullifying the action of tyrants.
If they think America has become ungovernable, wait until they try to rule.
Dr, Hsieh declares that “Gun control has long been a controversial issue in American politics … more volatile than other hot topics such as taxes, foreign policy, or abortion” and offers as his first proof his opinion that, “(t)he strongest advocates of each side hold fundamentally irreconcilable positions”.
So the pro-abortion and pro-life camps don’t have “fundamentally irreconcilable positions”. Nonsense.
Just a quick reply to MarcH: Yes, I agree that that the abortion debate meets condition #1 (irreconcilable positions). But we haven’t seen the same degree of opposition along the lines of conditions #2 and #3. That’s why I think the gun issue has more potential volatility.
Dr. Hseih,
Thank you for the courtesy of your response.
I would say that your condition #2 “Ordinary Americans have declared their willingness to disobey the law”, is also not uncommon on the extremes of the abortion and foreign policy debates (and many Americans do cheat on taxes, albeit for selfish reasons). As to your point #3 “Local law enforcement officials and state governments have also vowed civil disobedience”, I find the Utah Sheriff’s letter which you cite to be both vague (will they oppose legislation passed by Congress and upheld by the courts?) and seemingly threatening violence rather than civil disobedience.
While I support the right of ordinary citizens to posses and carry firearms for self-defense, etc., my sense is that BHO is pushing this issue for the same reason that he pushes gay marriage and women and gays in the military and withheld his birth certificate: he knows they are bright shiny hubcaps which stir up and disrupts what’s left of the conservative spectrum and allows him to put his establishment in control of US economy and society for a generation via “Obamacare”.
It will be too bad if conservatives assist BHO by focusing on this issue to the exclusion of Obamacare.
v/r,
MarcH
Dr. Hseih, I think BOTH are potential flash points, and I don’t think it’s an accident that the Obama administration is pushing on both issues. While making noises about disarming the people, they’re pushing a policy that forces people to commit a venal sin by funding what they consider to be infanticide.
I think they really believe that things like civil rights were won DESPITE the majority of the country, not WITH THE SUPPORT OF the majority of the country, and believe that, if they just push hard enough, they can win another “victory”.
I have a strong feeling most of the gun nuts are whiny girlie men. This is why I pray for wacko shooting bullets at my head yesterday. I watch National Geographic on Meet the Preppers on Tv. The Prepper blew his thumb off when the gun backfire. Did he continue to charge his enemy like I see in great heroes in Sparticus on the Star channel? He sat down whining : “Take me to the hospital” I’m shot i’m shot
This is why yesterday in my 2nd heaven visiting the 7 angels and the red head beast saint sanctuary , the Holy Mary Mother of God sanctuary and the veiled woman sanctuary and the sanctuary of the 24 elder fathers I ask the army of angels have mercy on the girlie man shooter and just catch the bullets before they hit my head and do not blow off his trigger finger
Who know? These demon possessed gun nuts may set the woman and children on fire as wall of protection to get to they’re gun stock pile to give them more time. So it could get worse as the demons take over their brain and their heart
Pray for them before this happens and gets worse.
Dude, you are on a roll today, new batch of meds?
National Geographic is doing their very best to portray law abiding Americans that own firearms in the worst possible light by highlighting a fringe group that doesn’t represent even 1% of gun owners. It’s called propaganda. Anyone that watches that tripe on NatGeo and believes it portrays the average gun owner is a complete fool.
You now have my reasons for cancelling my National Geographic subscription of 40+ years and a complete refusal to watch anything on that channel. Their leftist sympathies make me ill.
Us too. Cancelled the magazine about 5 years ago and stopped paying yhe extra on cable to get the channel about three years ago. Such a shame what has happened. Used to use NatGeo as a teaching tool for my kids. Same thing has happened to Smithsonian Magazine, cancelled it at the same time I cancelled National Geographic.
Interesting. We also dropped “The Smithsonian” magazine. Other than occasional sports shows, I do not watch “network” television nor do I watch “reality television”. I would rather read a good book or do yard work.
I saw the thumb-shooting episode of ‘Doomsday Preppers’ and must admit I laughed a little at the prepper guy even though I know his injury was excrutiatingly painful. That said, thinking that poor, paranoid sap is representative of American gun owners is a serious mistake. For one thing, ‘Doomsday Preppers’ is a television show intended to attract viewers. To do that, the characters need to be interesting, the more eccentric the better. It wouldn’t be much fun, for example, watching my family and me practicing marksmanship safely at the range.
I resent the term ‘gun nuts’. I love shooting and do so regularly, every weekend if I can manage it. I grew up in a rural household, where hunting and shooting were just part of the day. As a young man, I served as an airborne infantryman in the US Army, and liked the shooting aspects best of all.
Understand this: the 2nd Amendment is not about hunting or even personal defense. Its purpose is to allow US citizens the means to resist domestic tyranny or foreign invasion. There is nothing radical or irrational for interpreting the 2nd Amendment to mean what it says.
HAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA………Tea party/GOP love fest is OVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!! GOP cannot put up with goofy TP nutcases and now throwing TP under the bus……Heck,they are throwing them under a Abrams Tank……HAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
should not be about guns in my opinion but about hand to hand combat figure of speech
Buses and tanks keep people safe not to kill I believe
Another hysteric, the left and the RINO division of the GOP are outnumbered, 2014 will be their shellacking, the silent majority will see to that.
I think almost everyone is being played on this issue. What is a national registration? It is a list of everyone that currently owns a gun, their name, their address, type and number of weapons. What is a universal background check?
An investigation of your eligibility to buy a firearm upon which you provide your name, address, type of weapon to be purchased so they can clear you to buy the firearm. Were I a ruthless dictator(my apologies to any inferred resemblance to the current administration) and I wanted to disarm the serfs, the very first resource I would utilize would by shiny new handy dandy universal background database, because what does it have? Pretty much the same info that is contained in a gun registration- although not old data, of weapons obtained before or outside of the check. So really, who needs a gun registration, when you have a Universal Background Database? All the talk about AW and magazine capacity is just bargaining chips to get to the real goal, a backdoor national registration..
>>1) The strongest advocates of each side hold fundamentally irreconcilable positions.<<
What matters is what the U.S. Constitution says on the subject, dipstick. That's the "position" that supposedly is the law of the land.
This administration has cooked the booms on rule of law David (perhaps is just evolved into that over time). To our masters, rule of law now means “whatever we say the what the law means, whenever we say what it means.”
Stick a fork in it.
Personally I think the reason for the new emphasis on gun control has nothing to do with Sandy Hook or any other mass-shooting event.
If you remember just before the Presidential election last year a large number of progressives posted threats on Twitter and other social media threatening to riot if Obama wasn’t re-elected. These threats were mostly answered by conservatives to the effect of “Bring it on. We’ve been stockpiling guns and ammo for the past four years and we’re ready for you!”
This scared the “anti-violence progressives” who are used to being able to use the threat of violence to get what they want. Now they need to fix that.
That’s an interesting view…It may very well be true.
I think that theory has quite a bit of merit.
And a number of Progressives were worried between the election and Sandy Hook that we “bitter clingers” would try to reverse the outcome of the election by force of arms.
I guess they don’t realize that trying to grab our guns turns that from an infinitesimal possibility to a certain one (that is, if they were to succeed in a nationwide ban, which looks very unlikely now).
This brings up an interesting conundrum: Is a citizen of this country obligated to obey a law that is clearly unconstitutional? Most if not all constitutionalists believe that the interpretation of “shall not be infringed” is very clear and that the founders meant EXACTLY what they wrote. Various courts have interpreted it differently, but those cases have almost always been driven by partisan politics and rendered by partisan justices who, if they strained hard enough could “find” virtually anything in the constitution. The result of this tyranny has been 20,000 gun regulations that in reality do “infringe” on the rights of law abiding citizens and do virtually nothing to reduce violence perpetrated by psychotic felons who have nothing but contempt for any “laws.”
Whether this will be the tipping point, who knows? Certainly what is being proposed will not stop the next massacre and the liberals will then push for more unconstitutional restrictions, saying that they “didn’t go far enough.” If and when, some Americans believe the time has come to fight back is anyone’s guess. Given the current rhetoric, we are closer to that time than at any period in our history.
Oh, I think we might have been a tad further apart in, say, the fall of 1860.
Good point, Art. I should have prefaced my statement by saying “since the civil war.”
The divisions of 1860 were undoubtedly more obvious, and more conducive to political violence–even before Fort Sumter. Nonetheless, one wonders if today’s divisions aren’t more philosophically fundamental, and even less reconcilable.
Sorry Art, but we weren’t. Don’t liken today to 1860; it’s more like 1855-59.
There is nothing that Comrade Obama would love more than to spark mass disobedience and insurrection. It would give him the pretext he wants to declare martial law or some other state of emergency, suspend the constitution and rule as a dictator.
And of course the Marxist apparatchiks in the MSM would support him 100% even as everyone at FoxNews was rounded up and jailed.
I knew this “public” versus “private” conundrum couldn’t possibly end well given human nature and the willingness of some to Lord-over others. Well, today we have vast armies of such individuals who have ‘the law’ on their side, for now, anyway.
There’s really no difference between a TSA agent groping your 11 year old daughter and an EPA agent declaring a puddle on your property a wet-land, or a bureaucrat declaring a particular gun guilty of intent to assault. The public employee is simply following the law, and you, dear private citizen, need to get your mind right. But, how did we get here?
Somewhere along the way we made public employment vastly superior to private employment by way of pay scales, retirements, benefits, etc. all on the taxpayer’s “dime”. To this day, people will line-up for blocks at the chance of getting a government job- any job. And once in, you’ve really got it made.
A certain Hawaiian landed in Chicago and went from relative unknown to President without having to submit to the rigors of private employment or even something as rudimentary as running a business. And the perks he now enjoys are truly amazing- to include frequent skeet shooting. Imagine that. Polo, anyone? In life’s game of Chutes and Ladders, this guy holds a record that won’t be broken anytime soon.
When somebody gets the better of you, they win. When you place folks on a pedestal they will eventually get used to looking down upon you and develop a sense that they are ‘better’ than you. And from this point on, will make it their business to ‘improve’ your miserable life even if it means changing the rules that used to define what it meant to be an American citizen.
Unlike banning smoking or limiting sodas to 16oz. which are both attempts to improve one’s health, tinkering with the 2nd amendment could have immediate life-and-death consequences. These are all infringements on personal freedoms, and I could easily pass on cigarettes and sugary drinks, but do not want to find myself being pistol-whipped in the kitchen while having to listen to the screams of my wife or child as they are being raped and beaten by thugs who broke into my home, ever.
From my home to my community, my state to my country, I will be prepared to defend them all. If that requires kicking some pedestals out from under those who look down upon me, so be it. And the same goes for their High Horses.
KH–well said. El Presidente is stoking a war he cannot win.
Face the facts. The gun nuts and their gun lobby take a time out because they are shooting themselves in the foot and look like these hoodlums from Brazil see here to a growing number of Americans
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsknFuw859U
My family has the family gun a symbol of self defense that has not been fired for 20 years and I hope is not fired for another 20 years . Listen to Isaiah the prophet in chapter 11 verse 6 The wolf with the lamb , the leopard with the goat, the lion with the yearling and a little child will lead them.
Take a look at the faces of the 20 + children murdered at Newtown. I may ask my family to take the gun off the wall and hide it because it is no longer a symbol of family self defense but the symbol of murdering children and babies and in our violent nation and pray this will change in the future
May the government boot rest lightly upon your neck, waxface. Choosing to blame the tool and not the fool is illogical.
Ohhhhh, its for THE CHILDRENS. In that case its OK! Tyrannify away!
Here’s to hoping you and your comrades fly too close to the sun.
I just walk in from raging blizzard like conditions mcharball and starngernfition
no waxface today but red face , snowbanks are piling up with King solomon’s temple fell from heaven right down the street from me and tsamni after tsamni hitting this and this still remain sch a beauty temple
Psalm 41:9
New International Version (NIV)
9 Even my close friend,
someone I trusted,
one who shared my bread,
has turned[a] against me.
One day when we are friends again perhaps I sow you this great beauty
Not quite all there, are you?
Damn it all, mods, when are you going to do your jobs and ban this waxwing nutball? we have already suffered too much of his idiotic gibberish. GET RID OF HIM!
Would new gun laws spark civil disobedience?
Let’s stop and think for a minute. Obama’s job is to insert himself in every issue for the sole reason of community organizing; causing chaos and division. Raising peoples’ ire and causing pointless divisions is Obama’s stock and trade. ALL OF IT; can be viewed in light of the Cloward-Piven strategy, and it’s the only thing that makes sense. They’re all doing it; from Soros to Pelosi to Reid to Obama … so let’s stroll down to the Cloward-Piven HQ in DC and see for ourselves where all this crap is coming from.
To ask if anything Obama does may cause civil disobedience and division is total ignorance of the left – it’s what they do! Remember Alynski? It’s real and it’s here!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! While we keep talking about Obama; he’s slithered away to go golfing, only to show up again to do some more organizing and moronic campaigning.
When I looked up Saul Alinsky I was amazed to find he was a community organizer and writer from Chicago, Illinois. Sounded eerily familiar. What ‘Rules for Radicals’ has done to keep the left in power is profound. Somebody needs to write ‘Rules for Patriots’ if we’re to counter their grip on power. And drop a copy on Boehner’s desk.
Rule 1 should be ditch the GOP.
What, then, is Rule 2?
He doesn’t expect any of his proposals to be implemented. That’s not their purpose. In fact, he doesn’t even want his proposals to be adopted.
What he is doing is running a scam in which congress and the republicans always thwart his utopian plans. This also works for obamacare, which will never be successful, not because it is a horrendously stupid plan, but because Republicans thwart the implementation of it at every turn.
So, he can eternally run against the obstructionists, even though HE has more power than any human being.
No matter what happens, he wins, because republicans never do what he tells them to do. He doesn’t even have to govern, only campaign, and he can never be blamed for anything. He get to blame others. He did it so successfully for four years that he got reelected. In another four years, he either expects to be appointed king, or to retire in glory…the man who could have saved the world if only his hands weren’t tied by the stupid American system of government.
Rush explained all of this last week. He’s right.
Well O’Dismal sure knows how to rile up people. Every week its like a new subject. First its illegal aliens and amnesty. Then its gun control. Or taxes and spending. And around back to “climate change”. Are they all designed to keep us off balance, so we don’t know what’s going to hit us next? And its hard to defend a constant moving target.
Or will gun control be used as the issue for martial law? I would put nothing past this guy as he’s cold as ice (as are most communists). Witness him letting the embassador and three others die in the consulate, when help could have come.
One thing you can bet is, the checks will always go out to the welfare crowd. And the Republies will never be the ones to cut off the lucre. Eventually bread will cost $50….so the free money just won’t buy much….but it’ll still be free and still go out.
Learn tactics from the terrorists. Never take on the big guy directly. Always attack indirectly, silently, and sneakily. And strike where it puts fear into those who support this tyranny….whereever found and at all levels.
Oh, and lock and load (up).
The newly uncloaked violent left is enacting the political equivalent of the German armored run through France in 1940. http://www.amazon.com/Inside-Nazi-War-Machine-Blitzkrieg/dp/B005B1IYKQ/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1361133883&sr=1-1&keywords=inside+the+nazi+war+machine . The public focus on Alinsky-like pinned targets distracts many from the slash, smash, and grab dash through the few remaining independent parts of our institutions.
The figurehead of the left has vast reaches of power he can bring to bear on any topic. Those bound by no ethical or moral or Constitutional limits have a huge advantage in this current mess. Their only concern is efficiency. 0bama can play whack-a-Right forever. He has the support of hundreds of ( often tax funded ) groups which are completely focused on one issue. There is no similar Conservative ACTIVE plan or organization, though some of Sarah Palin’s later speeches seem to acknowledge this and lean toward hoping for some vague national resistance.
The left locksteps behind ” what’s ours is forever ours, and what’s now yours is eternally negotiable until we win “. There are no limits to left behavior. It is like trying to have a calm, rational attempt at resolution of an issue with an unmedicated bipolar. There is no resolution for the left, since every law or agreement “evolves”, and the debate will be jumped to any one of a hundred other topics if facts don’t support the current left position.
I submit that conservatives CAN NEVER WIN UNDER THESE R O E. Time to use the left’s tactics against them. Make them prove the sun rises in the east in every conversation. In personal discussions, the idea should be to make leftists explain why on any topic they want to hurt people.
In re Boehner : has any opposition party ever hung as many zeroes on the board, under as intense pressure, for as long, as he and McConnell ? Tea party came after the House and Senate Republicans dug in and stood fast. GBUSA
Assuming all this comes to a head someday, who exactly would be Obama’s Gestapo? What groups or organizations would do Obama’s bidding and forcefully take our Constitutional rights from us? Does anyone care to speculate? Just wondering.
“Assuming all this comes to a head someday, who exactly would be Obama’s Gestapo? ”
You must be kidding? Look at all the radical Marxist and Islamist thugs he’s got working for him now, protected by his apparatchiks and hacks in the MSM:
a) The Nation of Islam
b) The Occupy Wall Street Crowd
c) Leftists on or around every college campus, including the faculty.
d) The public sector unions, led by the SEIU.
e) Even minority members of the law enforcement community would likely turn and fire on gun rights people whom they have been led to believe are nothing more than racist KKK neanderthals.
Nope, should all this “hit the fan”, he will use regular army units. He’s got his favored in most all general slots by now. Colonels who show allegiance to the Constitution no longer become generals, if they are even allowed to stay in.
Having some familiarity with the infantry, I have serious doubts that most infantrymen would participate in combat operations on American soil against American citizens.
I agree … … if they are told the truth about what’s going on, but they wouldn’t be. It would be like LBJ’s Gulf of Tonkin, half exaggerations and half lies, or just all lies. If say, Tea Party members were attack, Obama and his lackeys, including Army generals, would say the Tea Party members were the attackers.
Generals don’t pull triggers.
There is a line beyond which even Obama’s political hack generals cannot go because they know they won’t have total obedience. I also know enough current generals to know that Obama can’t be too sure about blind obedience from all generals either.
There is a reason that domestic FEDERAL government agencies have recently purchased enough ammunition to fight a war the size of Afghanistan for 30 years or more. Hint, it’s not to get ammo off the market.
If you want a specific agency, the Department of Homeland Security would be a prime starting point.
How about obama’s “civilian army” (so similar to hitler’s brown shirts that it scares the hell out of me) that he proposed before his first election? It could be FEMA folks…. or maybe the new black panthers. Since holder decided to arm the drug cartels south of the border and obama refuses to close the border… and that’s just a few that pop into my mind.
He’ll just fake up something like LBJ did with the Gulf of Tonkin and use the regular army.
Obama has now appointed his tool generals to pretty much all 3 and 4 star positions.
The regular U.S. Army. Probably not the reserves nor N.G. as they, being closer to The People, would likely refuse. Never forget what’s “hidden” in plain sight.
The NG and reserves might do more than refuse. Over half the combat strength of the Army is in the NG and reserves today.
“Assuming all this comes to a head someday, who exactly would be Obama’s Gestapo?”
Maybe the one named for a racial slur?
Or DHS — the “civilian national security force as well-funded and well-equipped as the military”?
We already have a government committing civil disobedience.
Because I can kill whomever I want whenever I want, I will, and whenever the whim strikes me and none of you can stop me. Nah, nah, nah. I won! I won! I won! Now bow before me and turn in all your weapons and ammo too or I will smite you with one of my drones. I know your name and your address or can find out pretty quickly from one of my faithful servants, uniformed or nonuniformed. And remember even if my drones miss somehow, I’ve still got all those hundreds of millions of hollow points distributed out among my faithful at numerous of my faithful agencies. Maybe if you bow to me and kiss my feet someday I will have a staff member cobble something together where I grant myself official authority to kill whomever I want whenever I want and for whatever reason I want and put it out on the internet for all you peons to fawn over. Or maybe I won’t. It all depends on my mood.
I think people should consider that the struggle for control of this country will actually take place within the government after an Emergency is declared, not on the streets during the chaos that leads to the declaration of Emergency.
The economy has already failed as far as the normal process of capital formation is concerned. We are now operating on the fumes of our wealth as the government is still able to issue “money” that is accepted on international exchanges, but this is supposed to be temporary until the economy returns to “normal”. When it finally dawns on enough people that fiat currency is the new normal a lot of systems will break down, and that will likely bring on a classical “panic” as supposed assets, especially derivative assets, vanish like mist under the risen sun.
The bulk of our population (and the world’s) is concentrated in urban areas, dependent on agribusiness and a complex distribution network for food and shelter. This mandates that the government will assert itself under laws already on the books awaiting a Congressional declaration of Emergency to take effect. There will likely be a period of chaos until the people DEMAND that the Emergency be declared, but it will be declared and the government will change into a Leviathan that few Americans appreciate (“temporarily”, of course).
Therein will be the real struggle. People who take to the streets with weapons will only serve the interests of their opponents as the common purpose of our rulers will be to return order (even though they are fighting among themselves for power). If the urban ghettos erupt they will only give strength to those who would bring force to bear on them, likewise the countryside.
The helpless nature of the population demands that events will flow this way. The only thing that would change this is if something happens, e.g. an EMP attack, that makes it impossible for the government to assert itself (and then millions die).
“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion…Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
- John Adams .
fred-m is so right. The previous Civil War had the Mason-Dixon line. The next will be bedroom to bedroom inside the family homes. It’ll be no time until the (Stalin’s head cop) Lavrentiy Beria Principle asserts –that is, eventually/quickly the misery is too much, and the people come for Order –come to even the enemy party, any party, as long as it is the one creating the misery, and thus the power that has the power to stop it. This model –early to mid 20th century central and eastern Europe’s –is the Obama model and the crux is, he wins without a fight, and he wins with one, as either outcome is the one sought. The silent coup with all the real estate and wealth changing hands intact is the better, but the USA in shambles under a dictator will also do nicely enough.
We’ve already seen the bloodless version of the doctrine –in full journo-list play from 2005 ’til 2008; it was called “BDS” –’Bush Derangement Syndrome’, manufactured until it took ‘truthy’ life, quickly, after Katrina, because the birthing centers were so few in number –a few newspapers, a few broadcasters, and few enterttainment studios, a few NGOs, a few corporations, a few hostile foreign security services, a few bankers and brokers, and Bill Clinton’s quiet enabling legislation starting around 1992. At the core, the Dunbar Number, then and now.
The way for us to win is to win before the shooting starts. Back to politics –but with far greater force and determination than before.
How you been Buddy?
Hey, trangbang –good to hear from you –you back stateside, or still in the zone tending to old Arty?
An interesting theory, and I can think of historical parallels, e.g. the century of misery of the Japanese Sengoku Jidai or Warring States Period, which provided the impetus for the following Shouganate with its extreme stratification and social stasis, disarmament of the people, etc.
Which suggests that if our currently cold civil war becomes hot, the non-Progressive side has a limited window in which to decisively defeat the Progressives, a 3rd option to your 2 that have the Progressives winning.
sinz54 touches the essence. The most important word is left out of this discussion: peaceful.
Peaceful, nonviolent, civil disobedience is an American tradition. It was formulated by Gandhi to confront the British rule of India. But he admitted that it is a limited in effect; it is useless against a Hitler. Lay down in front of a Nazi tank and you become hamburger. America is perhaps the only nation in which the Civil Rights movement, utilizing this tactic, peaceful civil disobedience, won. It succeeded(imperfectly)due to the peaceful acceptance, comity, of the white majority. Most nations fall into civil war.
Our problem is dire. Every gun owner knows another gun owner who is a hot head, and it only takes one to shoot first. Gun control civil disobedience, ” Come and get it” is akin to lighting a match in a explosives magazine.
The essence of the debate centers on what is the problem, the standards of the person whose finger is on the trigger, or the device.
It is fashionable today to cede all power to Washington and regulate basic Constitutional law, and freedoms out of existence. Bureaucrats will tell you what is legal, in their judgment. They will have guns, but not the public’s trust. After the unprosecuted Fast & Furious crimes, there is little trust.
It is my view that the Newtown massacre is being used as a political diversion from our failed economy. Any rational consideration of our disastrous economic policies would have emptied Washington D.C. last November. However the exact same miscreants and idiots were returned to power. They can not discuss their basic responsibility, rational fiscal policy. The gun control people are using this crisis for cynical political purposes. They seek to render guns ineffective, because their social policies have clearly resulted in a criminally dysfunctional society.
We are sliding toward another Syria. God help America.
Peaceful, nonviolent, civil disobedience, only works when both sides abide to the rules of civility. The left always uses civility is a cover for their uncivil behavior. For the left democracy and civility are tools to enable them to acquire power. Once they achieve their goal of enough power there is no more civility or individual right. For the the left is one election one time ala Hamas/Iran/Egypt/Venezuela and many more
Civil disobedience is one thing, civil war another.
They want to kill us all ?
LET THEM START.
There is nothing as horrible as war, an civil war is worse.
Let us pray for our Country, for all our People, and for our enemies too.
Karate ni sente nashi.
There is no attack (lit. : “first hand”) in the way of the warrior (lit.: “karate”).
We need to know whose USA this is. We have no idea at the present time because the right is surrendering votes to the left in wholesale lots (try to catch the video from Ohio this morning, re the ‘multiple votes per voter’ case). We need voter ID and we need to hold elections over a several-day period, so the institutionalized stampede tactics will face some problems.
If it turns out that Obamanism can win an actual contest, can toss the Second on referendum to hold a Constitutional Convention, then that puts a different light on a fifty-state shootout to hold onto the real America.
Not that it would be a bad idea if it’s the only alternative to War Communism, but only that it wouldn’t have been avoidable. We don’t want to straighten pictures while the house burns down, and we don’t want anyone burning down the house because the pictures need straightening. We just need some new pictures, or we need to learn to let ‘em be a little crooked, and how to shut up, or tune out, anyone who won’t or can’t.
None of this can happen until the Columbia School of Journalism walks the plank, arrrrh.
New gun legislation, as with old gun legislation all the way back to 1934, definitely sparks civil disobedience.
Possessing a weapon deemed illegal and not letting the authorities know is civil disobedience. Walking the streets with said weapon and challenging them to take it is insurrection.
The Dorners, Lanzas and gangbanger types want weapons to threaten and intimidate. Good people want them to protect against those threats.
Smart government avoids criminalizing the population.
Smart government avoids insurrection.
We need a smart government.
Paul,
You wrote: “Similarly, several state legislatures are considering laws to stop federal officials from enforcing new gun laws within their jurisdictions, including Missouri, Wyoming, and North Dakota.”
Are you sure that’s what’s happening here? The Supremacy Clause would trump any laws of this kind. What states can do is refuse to be commandeered as that right is affirmed in Printz v US; that is, to refuse to assist the enforcement of federal law through the use of state resources, agencies and officials. This is not nullification, it is a refusal to cooperate and is a recognized right reserved to states within the framework of federalism.
Another person who doesn’t fully understand the Supremacy Clause.
As I wrote earlier in this thread:
“The Supremacy Clause, like ALL of the Constitution’s clauses only applies to the federal government’s enumerated powers. In other words the federal government is only supreme with respect to laws deriving from the enumerated powers. That is what the states agreed to when they ratified the Constitution. Nothing more.
Where the Constitution is silent the federal government may not legislate and if they do, as with Obamacare, the states have the right and duty to ignore, nullify, defy, and refuse to implement such laws.”
You may believe that states, and their legislatures, have the right to nullification. The federal government, and most importantly, I believe, the Supreme Court, disagrees. Cite the Supreme Court decision that recognizes nullification as a right reserved to the states. The constitutionality of federal law is the sole province of the federal court system as recognized from the time of John Marshall. States may challenge the constitutionality of federal law through the usual appellate process leading to the USSC or they may resist by non-cooperation as recognized in Printz.
You’re right that the Marshall court arrogated the power of determining the Constitutionality of federal laws to itself (with no Constitutional justification for that power). You’re wrong in believing that this means that no other party to the Constitution can have any legitimate say about the Constitutionality of federal laws. The states and the people most certainly can. It’s right there in the 9th and 10th Amendments. Look them up.
Feel free to cite the 9th and 10th Amendments all you like. I never wrote that states couldn’t pass legislation explicitly declaring a federal law unconstitutional – they can pass whatever they like; nor did I write that the people can not comment or object to federal law. What I did write is this: If a state passes a law for the express purpose of nullifying an act of Congress that state law will very quickly be subject to challenge in federal court and just as quickly be declared unconstitutional quite apart from the issue of constitutionality of federal law it means to nullify. Nullification is null and void as constitutional principle.
In other words, state legislatures are wasting time by passing laws meant to nullify; time better spent in federal court challenging the constitutionality of the Congressional act they find objectionable. Nullification gets in the way. In the meantime, they can act to frustrate the implementation of federal law with which they disagree: that is the clear meaning of Printz. The point is this: Which are you more interested in doing: being effective or bellowing, beating your breast, and accomplishing not very much?
Forget about the Supremacy Clause if it comes to that, “Ultimately, the Second Amendment means what serious men with guns say it does.“.
Agitate, agitate, agitate…that is the strategy of the Left led by POTUS. The goal is to deliver the House to Nancy in 2014 and drive the Leftist Utopia agenda through the remainder of O’s term. Every issue O is pursuing is designed to hold the Senate and win the House. He knows the fawning media will continue to do their part, the low information voters and no information voters will do their job as sheeple and vote against the interests of the country. The weak GOP with feckless leaders who sit in silence and do nothing to educate voters and go on offense have reached out to Karl Rove for messaging…so we will get more of “he’s a nice guy, just in over his head” instead of speaking the truth. It will take the new media and a few strong senators to educate the masses. Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Mike Lee are strong enough to speak out while Boehner, Cantor take orders from Rove.
The wild card we have is Dr. Ben Carson, are there more out there like him willing to engage? I hope so, we are running out of runway.
Boehner does not use the power he has, the purse strings – he fails to defund anything. Hearings? He lets Holder off the hook and not just with Fast and Furious…why aren’t there hearings on the weak prosecution of those who break exisiting gun laws? why isn’t Janet called to hearings to explain the massive purchases of ammunition? what about other departments with SWAT teams (Education), SSA, IRS also buy weapons / ammo? We need to cut spending, I think DHS has enough ammo, too much…
The House should be holding hearings in every subcommittee going through IG, GAO reports, and Dr. Coburn’s book, point out the wasteful spending everywhere and duplication of programs, show the public nothing is being cut and billions are wasted. Push for a flat tax, we need the debate and leverage Simpson-Bowles who advocated for lowering rates and reducing deductions. Instead O got what he wanted, higher rates and now he will also eliminate deductions because the GOP is too aligned with Rove to play offense and will likely panic to avoid defense cuts and cut another deal with POTUS.
agitate, agitate, agitate…no end in sight.
The subject of gun control laws, after a long and unlamented absence, is emerging into the public arena again. This time it’s different. I get a sense of end-game in the air and I’m not alone in this. There are, however, people on our side, perfectly rational and reasonable people who nevertheless don’t read it that way. I hope they’re right, but I see an element of denial in their understanding of the situation. For example, I posted the following observations on a firearms blog the other day:
“For the last several years the democrats and other proponents of a government monopoly on force have been very reluctant to even bring up the subject of gun control, let alone push for it. It has been a losing proposition politically for them, but given the current political configuration in DC and the country in general, I think that is about to change. I’ve been prowling around in the web, looking at the progressive side of things and my gut is telling me that the gun-control camp has decided that this nightmare in Connecticut is the issue upon which they are going to make their stand. The President has momentum, the Republicans in the House are shell-shocked and dis-oriented by the all-out assault from the left on the economic front and of course the media is doing everything in its very considerable power to assist the left in keeping them off balance and in retreat. Now they are going to enthusiastically load Connecticut on top of all that. They will tell the world that not only do we, the conservative, free-market oriented people of America want to destroy children, the elderly, minorities and the poor by eliminating food stamps, health care, social security and Medicare in order to give all the people’s money to their rich friends, but now we want to facilitate baby-killers by supplying them with automatic weapons. I think Connecticut is the position from which the left is going to mount the all-out final assault on the possession of firearms. The onslaught is coming. There will be no quarter. As the British swept Washington out of New York at the Battle of Brooklyn, we may be swept out of DC in the coming assault on the 2nd Amendment. Our stand will have to be made in the State Legislatures, the Counties and the Sheriff’s Offices. Get ready.”
I received this reply from a blog participant who calls himself, “EM”:
“I wouldn’t worry too much. We had plenty of mass shootings (Virginia Tech for instance) back when both houses and the presidency were held by the Democrats. Plenty of insane gun control bills are introduced every single year, but never make it out of committee. Hell, an actual congress person got shot and nothing happened.”
I thought about that for a while. It seemed to me that there might be a little tunnel-vision involved in EM’s perception of the issue. Gun control isn’t merely a bunch of hoplophobes pathetically trying to assuage their irrational fears through the legislative process. Gun control is a sub-set of several parallel and interconnected threads and If EM has a case of tunnel-vision that isn’t letting him take that into account, then perhaps it was because I hadn’t really made that explicit in my original post. I tried to remedy that in my response:
Hello, EM.
True, ever since the Clinton administration, gun control legislation has failed to gain traction, and if the current crop of House Republicans will stick to their guns then maybe further attempts to erode the 2nd Amendment will continue to die in committee. But there will be far more going on here than just a fight over gun control. A sea change is under way, a ramping up to the next level of combat in the collectivist war on American liberty. For the last sixty years and more in America, and the West in general, there has been an ongoing quiet, slow-motion Bolshevik style revolution. Most of it, until recently, has consisted of silent but effective battlefield preparation and that work is essentially complete. The several different and seemingly unrelated threads of the Gramsciian “long march through the institutions of the west” are coming together. The entrenchment of the current administration marks the perfection of the processes that Lenin referred to as “pressure from above, pressure from below” (“top down, bottom up” for those familiar with Glenn Becks analysis of this subject). The grassroots revolutionaries, over decades, have built up the “mass organizations” necessary for successful revolution (this is what Lenin meant when he stated the need to establish small, highly trained and motivated cadres of professional revolutionaries controlling masses of useful idiots). These organizations are mature and in place, ready to be deployed in “united front” offensives. The revolutionaries have now established control of the Executive Branch and they have constructed arbitrary executive mechanisms under the supervision of “czars” which are operating parallel with, and independent of legitimate Constitutional entities. These revolutionaries have reached down to link with the grassroots revolutionaries. The “top down, bottom up” command and control structures are now integrated and operational. The collectivist social structures that are intended to be the alternative to the collapsing traditional institutions of American society are in place. The educational mechanisms for shaping hearts and minds and the media-based tools for manipulating the public understanding of reality are in place and operating. The order of battle is established. The deployment of assets is complete. All that remains is to pull the trigger. And that will be done in response to a “crisis”. Most likely multiple and coordinated crisis.
It is within this context that Connecticut drops into their laps. The circumstances are qualitatively and quantitatively different than those surrounding any previous attempts at gun control legislation. Any such attempt in the current period will not be a stand-alone project. It will be a tactical move in a broader strategic action, and I expect that action to unfold between now and the 2014 election. Politically, the correlation of forces is optimal. All the metrics are in their favor. As they see it now, we, the defenders of the Founders Republic, and the institutions available for us to work through, are dis-oriented, discouraged, increasingly isolated, separated from a support base and in general mismatched against an enemy that has raised the art of political warfare to an exact science. They are very good at it. We are not. They believe that they have structured the political battlefield so effectively that all that remains for them to do is reduce the enemy in detail, but they know this strategic situation will not remain static. The outcome of the 2014 mid-term elections will, in all probability, be less than desirable from their standpoint. They have every reason to believe that the time to push their revolution to the next level is now. So, in light of all this, what are the odds that the current and upcoming crop of House Republican will “stick to their guns” while standing at the focus of a white hot media spotlight, drenched in the blood of Connecticut’s children?
So, EM, I sure hope you’re right, but I fear that the next push for gun control is going to be orders of magnitude different that any that has come before.
I’m not trying to be discouraging or defeatist here. I speak of the collectivist perception of the situation. I’m not being Pollyanna either. That perception, in too many ways, is dangerously close to the truth and we have to understand, and own that. My discussion is also framed in terms of political combat as opposed to physical conflict. Can this Marxist revolution go hot? Absolutely, but while pushing things to the limit so as to maintain momentum, the revolutionaries need to keep it just short of a shooting war, because that, of course, would change everything.
Which is an entirely different discussion altogether.”
Weigh all of your fears against the fact that so many guns have been selling so long and even more recently. The lefties can count. Obama needs to look as if he has tried to do something. You gave them credit for more power and less common sense than they have. The gun-banners feel threatened, the gun holders feel threatened; not much will happen.
In my opinion the real target of many of the gun banners is criminals in the cities (who are mostly black). They won’t come out and say it, but if you talk to a Blue-state middle-class Obama-voting white person about it you will eventually understand this. The racial aspect makes it very difficult for them to deal with because they cannot deal with their real feelings on the issue.
Due to the demands of cognitive dissonance they will give every other conceivable reason, but disarming black criminals is the bottom line. They really aren’t very interested in us out in flyover country.
That may be true of the average dues-paying member of the Violence Policy Center, but with the leadership it’s an entirely different story.
They have a visceral hatred of what they call the “gun culture”, which they identify as white, male, racist, rural, uneducated, and probably a closet KKK and/or Stormfront member. They don’t merely want it disarmed; they want it destroyed, so their Good, Moral, Upright, Sensitive, Multicultural, Rainbow Connection Culture will rule the Utopian future.
The leaders, furthermore, do not want inner city, “ethnic” gangs disarmed. Far from it. First, they see such criminal activity as a legitimate form of redress of inequalities in society. (“You have more than he does; he therefore has the right to take it from you. You have no right to resist.”)
Second, going back to the days of the anarchists in the pre-World War One period, they have viewed such gangs as the “front line soldiers in our war against a repressive society”. Another word for this is “cannon fodder”. If the gangs can be used to terrorize the people (First Rule of The Empire: Terror Must Be Maintained- Star Trek, “Mirror, Mirror”), it makes it that much easier to pass “agenda-specific” legislation.
Finally, the gangs are excellent recruiting grounds for the “civilian security force as well-funded as the military” they dream of. Another term for same being Sturmabteilung. Ernst Rohm didn’t recruit them from the military academies; he got them from the Freikorps and other gangs that were rampaging through the streets in 1919-20.
Or, as one actual leftist actually put it;
Or in other words, only the leaders need to be “political science” experts with college degrees. The rest just need to be high-school dropouts of no particular skill, or even intelligence. Just as long as they can be taught to kill on command. Or, indeed, at random, to achieve terror.
Whether or not you believe in this view of American “urban youth” is irrelevant. It’s what our progressive “elite’” believes is the true nature of things, and is the basis their behavior of the last four decades and more has been predicated upon. You may think it’s crazy, but as everything from UFO contactees to Feng Shui has proven, just because an idea is crazy doesn’t stop people from believing in it, and acting on those beliefs.
And as H.Beam Piper observed, “A crazy man sometimes has an advantage; he does unexpected things”.
Unless, of course, you’ve studied his form of insanity. At which point he actually becomes quite predictable.
clear ether
eon
I agree with your analysis of the leftist leaders. My point is that a lot of the voters who aligned themselves with Obama are pretty soft when it comes to his hard left agenda (which they really do not comprehend). As this thing moves forward I do not think you will necessarily see these citizens firmly on that side.
I believe that a declaration of emergency is in our future. I believe that whoever tries to run this country under the Emergency Powers is going to have to deal with the established businesses that must function for the people to have food and shelter so that order is maintained. There are some tough cookies in that group, in the military, and in the bureaucracy that forms the bulk of the Federal Government. That makes it more likely that we will not make a radical left turn towards a socialist revolution of the type the extreme left wants. In my opinion something along the lines of fascism is more likely (which is only as socialist as it has to be to maintain power because of necessity, not ideology). There will be some damn tough infighting in DC once the Emergency is declared. If it happens soon enough you could easily see Slick involved.
I’m not saying that will be a lot of fun, just that I don’t think that government by the ilk of Obama/Ayers is our future – those guys are ideologues who could not run a lemonade stand. I also doubt that we will sink into chaos enough to see nutcases like the Nazis take over. That is one of the purposes of the Emergency Powers Act, to provide for continuity of government (originally, after nuclear attack).
The folks in Washington like what they have going. They will connive, compromise, wheel, and deal to maintain their positions. The ideologues will fall by the wayside. All it will cost is our freedom, but that has been in the cards for a long time now. We took the path of universal suffrage, which the founders knew was wrong, then we took the path of government dependence and debt, of continual deficits, and the goose was cooked.
The laws to accomplish this are already on the books, all that remains is for the emergency to be declared (temporarily, of course).
eon, good points. I would just add that the recruiting history of the SLA among criminals in the Cali prison system, and the looser associations with other criminals in the Dohrn-Ayers orbit, and the number of bank robberies, all follow the Djugashvili model. SA, and later some camp guards, often had prison records.
O T : I have often wondered if any of the SLA had read Jack London’s “Iron Heel ” ?
the armies of old men my grandfather faced at the end of WW II didn’t scare him. They would make enough pretense of fighting to show they were loyal to their motherland and brave, then they would surrender, knowing that the war was nearly over anyway. It was the young boys they fought that scared them. The boys were rash and unpredictable.
Yes, it is not hard to understand why folks want to do SOMETHING about the slaughter in the inner-cities, hut the ban in Chicago obviously has not worked. I, like you, think it is more about the left wanting to do SOMETHING, ineffectual as it may be, to help out, whereas so many here concentrate on the jack-booted thugs, taking their guns away.
Like eon, I do not think the “left” is so benign, I just think that the typical white middle-class Obama voter lacks commitment to, or comprehension of Obama’s cause. Obama is a believer in a radical left vision, but I don’t think the path is clear before him or that the odds favor him. He is in over his head.
WTSHTF he and his ilk will be surprised, or I will.
The left is less about “helping out” than “helping themselves”- to everything they believe that they are entitled to by virtue of their (self-perceived) innate superiority. Including money, power, and the ability to hurt anyone they don’t like. Without having to worry about any sort of consequences.
The fact that people who don’t believe in their innate perfection have a voice- even a small one- in how our society is run offends them greatly. And when they are in power, they invariably seek to punish those they regard as heretics of their “true vision”.
Give them enough power for long enough, and the massacres begin. Evey single time. They can’t help themselves. At heart, they are so insecure that the only way they can reassure themselves that they cannot be challenged- is by doing something so violent and outrageous, and getting away with doing it, that it goes down in history. Think Pol Pot, Tienanmen Square, and etc.
Also consider that many leftists are “true believers” in violent worldviews ranging from Ehrlich’s “population bomb” theory to AGW. Worldviews predicated on “There Are Just Too Damned Many Humans On This Planet”. With that sort of mindset, it becomes very easy to justify “culling the herd”.
But they would do it anyway. For the most part, they cover their insecurity with the colossal egotism of a schoolyard bully, who abuses others because it makes him feel powerful. And it takes more and more outrageous behavior to get the same “rush” every time.
In the end, a lot of innocent people die- just to reconfirm the “enlightened ones’” belief in their own perfection.
And that’s not even including those who join the “club” precisely because it offers them an excuse to abuse, or kill, those they see as “inferior” to themselves. They care little for the philosophy; all they care about is that it allows, and even encourages, them to “punish” others. This subset includes those who simply want to destroy for the sake of destruction. They just “want to watch the world burn”.
There is a basic rule of belief systems, religious or otherwise, and it is this;
Human beings choose to follow belief systems, religious, political, or otherwise, which sanctify the sort of actions they would do anyway. The belief system just lets them feel self-righteous about what they want to do to others.
With this in mind, anyone who chooses modern-day “progressivism”, with its yearnings for obliteration of everything up to and including the self, not only shouldn’t be trusted with power, they probably should be kept away from sharp objects, as well.
clear ether
eon
The main problem with your reasoning is that you cherry pick lefty commie history for the worst excesses and boil that down to “this is what happens when you vote for Democrats.” It is extreme and absurd but it is not rare on PJM. Vote for Obama and you will get the Gulag.”
You can trace a statist central government back to James Madison, but who wants to claim that James Madison was the anti-Christ? Pssst, he IS, though, pass it on. There is a direct lineage from James Madison to Woodrow Wilson to Barack Obama; and the anti-Federalists warned us that this would all happen. Being a country, and then a powerful country, has its costs.
Dwight, you seem to want to be balanced, but seem naive.
The left is like a cobra, patiently coiled.
Their objectives have already been determined, and only grow more monstrous as they gain power, and they are probably already thrilled with the obvious gains they have made in eroding American knowledge, power, and ability to respond to this internal threat, all using OPM (Other People’s Money = American tax dollars) to finance their socio-historical venture.
I agree with eon, in that they are sadists with perspectives that support genocide. At some level they will glory in the carnage. It doesn’t matter if a bunch of left-wingers don’t support the mandate; they will get caught in the same broad net too.
Well, you beleeeeve what you beleeve. Did you know that that cobra James Madison voted FOR the establishment of religion in Virginia before he voted against it with the motivation of going against it all the time? That the cobra always took advantage of those paranoid, hick-anti-federalists? If you want to prove malice and treachery in your political opponents, you will never be lacking for evidence. So let your feelings run wild on this; they just don’t happen to correspond with mine.
Dwight, I don’t operate on the basis of my feelings or beliefs about the Left, I operate on the basis of my conclusions formed from direct observation of their behavior over the last thirty-odd years. I remember the liberal Democratic Party of the late ’60s, early ’70s; I was a member of it. I also remember the takeover of that party by the McGovernite/Trotskyite element following the ’68 – ’72 elections. It took them until the ’90s to purge the people like me from leadership positions Nationwide; I was actually one of the earlier ones to go. I voted for my last Democrat in ’82, and even that vote was pure self-interest, and haven’t and wouldn’t vote for another one. They still have a lot of union guys and squishy liberals who’ll vote for them because they can’t bear the thought of voting for one of those “corporatist” or “theocratic” Republicans, but even their squishy voters neither know nor would support what the actual behind the curtain leadership of the current Democrat Party are like.
Well I bring great tidings…perhaps….
Behold, here in Canada we had a decades long domination by the Liberal Party (Canada’s democrats). They finally engaged in over-reach and forced through Bill C68….a comprehension licencing and registration system of ALL firearms and firearms owners.
Immediately after Royal Asset (Equivalent of Presidential endorsement) and the deadline for registration/licensing, Alan Rock, the Justice minister called upon the Police to “aggressively seek out unauthorized owners and firearms”.
The Police (the legistlation was enthusiasticly supported by the Police Chiefs Assn.) balked and used the excuse that they could not dedicate the resources. In reality, privately, they told Rock that they were unwilling to be among the first casualties of a civil war…they blinked.
The net result was the Liberals had stepped upon the 3rd rail of politics and C68 represented the high tide mark of their political power. Resistance to their other cause celebre….climate change…speeded their decent into political obscurity…..3rd party statis….
The finally, majority Conservatives, ended the “long gun registry” by legistlation….a costly boondogle with about 30-35% compliance. Months of uncertainty followed, with “Cheif Firearms Officers), technically Police(some RCMP) but, in reality bureaucrats appointed for their loyalty to the anti-firearms agenda, openly refusing to comply. Finally Federal authority forced the issue.
In summation, registration does lead to confiscation…or at least a brazen attempt.
Compliance with licencing/registration will be spotty at best. In Canada, licensed registrants were most limited to competition shooters and already registered handgun owners.
Police enforcement of confiscation is not a sure thing….or even probable.
As far as the utility of having Generals in the tyrants pocket….that historicaly has a high failure rate…it is the colonels/majors who are the factor that decides matters….Gadafy was a colonel, Nasser, Sadat as well…African dictators generally took their generals with them on international trips…to then find they could not go home because in their absence some colonels pulled off a “coup d’etat”. Latin America same deal.
Yeah the lefies are alarmed at the response they got to their threat to riot if Obama lost. Events in Wisconsin and Michigan have them in a panic. Frightened/desperate people are always dangerous.
The internet allows people the annonymity to expound their thoughts and language in ways they wouldn’t with family, friends, neighbors and people on the street and in their workplaces. This of course, gets measured by special interest pollsters to exploit for their causes.
So what would really be the numbers of gun owners and people who would participate in a ‘national’ organized civil disobedience movement — however they would define that? That answer always comes down to demographics of the people involved and the RISKS for those involved. Another even larger RISK is that of the behavior of those involved or infiltrate such a civil disobedience movement. It doesn’t take but a couple of stupid moves to turn the nations majority of people against a movement. When laws of any kind are enacted, the people have choices! They can abide or not abide and suffer the eventual consequences of not abiding, in the courts across the land.
Will be interesting to watch should there even be such gun control laws enacted that the ‘fear and anger’ is being perpetuated over presently by some special interest groups.
No. There will not be widespread civil disobedience. We’ll bend over and take like it everything else. Conservative blogs will explode, Rush’s ratings will go up, a few robust rallies at statehouses. That’s it.
I’m not so sure. I suspect that all across the country a few are quietly deciding that they are willing to pay the ultimate price in order to insure that their grandchildren do not live under tyranny. All it will take will be a few. That will embolden many others. Law enforcement officers will then find less risky activities to fill the day.
It is worthwhile to read of the Battle of Lexington and Concord: http://www.ushistory.org/us/11c.asp
Pesanteur would normally be right. But this isn’t a normal issue. This is an issue involving the Bill of Rights and the incidents that sparked the Revolutionary War.
#51 pesanteur
“We’ll bend over and take like it everything else. Conservative blogs will explode, Rush’s ratings will go up, a few robust rallies at statehouses. That’s it.”
Unfortunately, I think that you are right, and that most here haven’t been framing the argument effectively, which shouldn’t be “Why can’t I keep my guns?” to:
Who are they to tell me I can’t have guns?
“Who are they to tell me I can’t have guns?”
The authority they have is an assumed one. Reject it, and they’re stuck for a rational argument for gun control. They’re banning on appearance primarily, not power or functionality. And firearms crimes done with rifles are dropping… not rising.
If the “If only one life is saved!” argument is used, then the comeback should be “How much is a life worth? Quantify it. Tell us how possibly saving a life through banning is worth an incredible amount of time, trouble, and money – while definitely saving a life through banning backyard swimming pools (an average of 250 children under 5 drown per year) isn’t worth getting rid of all backyard swimming pools?”
I thought liberals were for choice? They want the choice to kill babies (which isn’t even defined explicitly in the Constitution), yet limit my choice on owning a weapon.
The level of hypocrisy is astonishing.
Another question worth considering: is the prospect of wide-spread civil disobedience — and the countering show of force by the government to squash it — viewed as a bug or as a feature by the anti-rights people currently in charge?
The several degrees of legislation, from limiting access to confiscation, being proposed are doomed to failure and those proposing these laws know they will fail. They are counting on it.
“After a year (insert your time estimate) since enacting more strict laws it has become evident they are not strong enough. Therefore, we are proposing to confiscate every firearm we can get our hands on. We understand this will put the slaves, I mean the general citizenry, at risk because for some reason criminals seem reluctant to give up their firearms. As long as we, your rulers, are safe it will be considered acceptable losses.”
Natural rights.
A law that limits any human being’s natural rights is a law that is destined to be disobeyed. It is a concept that seems to escape people on both sides of the ideological divide. In a perfect world, there would be no need to defend ourselves against violence, for there would be no violence to begin with. This is not a perfect world.
There is a need for individual human beings to defend themselves, not only against other human beings but against the the very nature of the world and of the universe. We must defend ourselves against everything from viruses and bacteria to poisonous spiders, from snakes to disease carrying insects, from rodents to rocks falling out of the sky. We must also prepare (defend ourselves) against the vagaries of weather (hurricanes, blizzards, tornadoes, etc.) and against the results of plate tectonics (earthquakes, tsunamis, vulcanism, etc.).
When the laws of men seek to destroy us, or to limit our ability to defend ourselves against harm, we must defend ourselves against such laws and against the men who enact and enforce such laws. The law of nature demands no less, or else we die.
Any human being who seeks to limit our ability to defend ourselves is attempting to kill us. They’ve become no less an instrument of harm than a disease carrying rodent or a natural catastrophe. They are no less and no more than a murderer. We must use whatever means necessary to defend ourselves against such men. If we do not, they will seek our destruction.
If you encourage such men, in any way, or support them, in any way, you conspire with them against others, and you share their guilt.
Civil disobedience? No. You engage them according the law of nature. Kill or be killed. Such men are no more than dangerous and rabid animals. They are by no means civilized, and cannot be dealt with in a civilized fashion. Take a bacteria to court, charge it with a crime. No, you eliminate the threat, before it eliminates you.
Couple of points.
First, belt-fed machine guns and flame throwers are already legal. They’re just hard to find. Rocket launchers are a grayer area: Consensus seems to be that the launchers themselves are probably legal, but the rockets are illegal as explosive/incendiary devices. None of these weapons show up at crime scenes.
As for the Tea Party, I don’t know where you get the idea that “most Americans LAUGH OUT LOUD” [sic]. Last polls I saw give the Tea Party a 30 percent approval rating, against 49 percent disapproval. That’s nearly twice the approval for the federal government 30 percent v. 17 percent), and slightly higher than the disapproval rating for the Obama administration (49 percent v. 45).
Those facts are not in dispute.
First, belt-fed machine guns … are already legal.
No, not for individuals since July, 1986. 18 USC 922(o).
actually, full auto weapons are still legal, but the supply has not been increased since 1986, thus driving up prices.
I know a store that sells them, but buying a new car would be cheaper.
I think New York will be test enough. My guess is that few will comply with the restrictions or register or get rid of their magazines. It’s not like there are no unregistered handguns in the state.
Some owners will leave the state. That number will be hard to determine. NY has had a tax exodus for decades, and I will be among them, for that reason. No AR here, don’t want one but I have nothing against them.
Andrew Cuomo will try to run for president, and will be rejected by his party. His political career will end, ignominiously, in New York, like that of his father.
The federal government does not know what I have or not, and under the 5th Amendment I do not have to tell them.
Right you are. This is a riddle for the government. Once they make something illegal, they cannot force anyone to tell them that they have it. U.S. v. Haynes (U.S. Supreme Court, 1968), “We hold that a proper claim of the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination provides a full defense to prosecutions either for failure to register a firearm under or for possession of an unregistered firearm…”
Lots of interesting comments on this board.
Thanks to Paul Hsieh and PJMedia for covering this critical topic.
While the issue of gun control is a hot one right now, I think that many citizens are taking a short-sighted approach. I don’t see this corrupt administration trying to disarm anyone. There are many hypothetical scenarios presented here, and they may happen, but IMO, the aspiring tyrants are still baiting there time, and using this as a pretense to gather more arms and ammunition. They want to secure total power for themselves, and control all major assets, resources and means of distribution. Once gas and food become unavailable, due to a major crisis or series of crises, they want to emerge as the rulers. As much as I despise the conspirators and traitors ascending up the ranks, I assume they will orchestrate the descent into chaos as they see fit with brilliant precision. They are using this debate to consolidate national defence and law enforcement assets into their storehouse. It won’t matter if the average Joe has an assault rifle with tons of ammo. They’ll starve the “undesirables” and maybe send drones, or simply ignore large swathes of disorder. We’ll see sheer ruthlessness in action.
Sorry, should be “baiting their time…”
Texas became independent from Mexico over the issue of armed self-defense. The reason people need guns it to defend their home against criminals. If individuals are entirely dependent on government for defense from the bad guys, government incompetence and non-enforcement can get you killed.
http://www.comeandtakeit.com/txhist.html
Rev. William P. Smith: “…To cap the climax of a long catalogue on injuries and grievances attempted to be heaped upon us, the government of Mexico, in the person of Santa Anna, has sent an army to commence the disarming system. Give up the cannon, and we may surrender our small arms also, and at once to be the vassals of the most imbecile and unstable government on earth. But will Texas give up the cannon? Will she surrender her small-arms? Every response is NO, NEVER!…”
Lets get the civil war started already – they want war, so be it. There will be no peaceable resolution to this – our side, the side our founders once took, must either take a knee, or take up arms.
Violence is nothing more than a tool. It’s application determines if it is evil or just. Remember that folks.
…if someone in, say, california, acidentally (or deliberately) drives his car into a crowd of people, and kills 5-10 and injures 20 more, where are all the politicians and liberals standing up and demanding that automobiles be banned? The common man cannot be trusted with such a weapon of mass destruction! And, by the way, there is no constitutional right to keep and drive cars….
the same aregument can be made about trucks, planes, & trains….the same argument can be made regarding a restaurant that serves food that sickens or kills its customers….and about food companies that distribute E-coli-tainted food across the nation….and child cribs, baby seats, incorrectly labeled/prescribed prescription drugs…etc….
THEER IS A CONSTITUTIONALLY-PROTECTED RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS!!!!!
if you dont like it, no one is saying you have to keep or bear arms, but YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO DENY ME THE PRIVILEDGE!!!!!!!!!!
Since “gun control” is unconstitutional and a breach of my rights, I see no reason to comply, therefore I won’t.
Newsflash! Existing gun laws are already widely disobeyed, and by no means just by criminals. If the concern is whether or not violence will break out over this issue, rest assured: It will. Both camps—government enforcement forces and citizen gun owners—are already arming themselves to the teeth.
In the 20th Century, tyrannies were most often put in place with the help of armed mobs—black shirts, brown shirts, revolutionary guards, Bolsheviks,etc. The imposition of dictatorial rule by the gradually expansion of bureaucratic control in welfare states just doesn’t seem to have happened. Sweden is a free country, after all, even if you do have to fill out an irritating number of forms at city hall.
The message here is that if you really want to guard against despotic governments, the last you thing you want to do is to multiply the number of excitable people with dangerous weapons.
Too late.
Idiotic comment. The paramilitary mobs you cited had the support of the dictatorships, after all they will not take away guns from their own suporters until the opposition is first crushed. So gun laws do nothing to keep guns out of their hands. And even if you currently have a moderate gov, do you think these armed mobs suporting the coming dictator are going to obey LAWS, rediculous.
The problem in all the cases you cite is the moderate opposition was NOT armed, and therefore could not fight back. The answer is not to take away arms from the moderate law abiding people, so only the supporters of the radicals have guns, the answer is to ensure that everybody has arms and can fight back against the dictators armed mobs.
It would have been a lot less pain to have put up a strong principled political opposition to this long ago, rather than now. It will be a lot less pain to put up a strong principled political opposition to this now, rather than what will likely become force in the future.
I used to be in the category of heavily-armed people who would not ever give up firearms, but did everything I could to stop the coming blow-up because war is such a bad thing. Now I no longer care. The war is coming. Let it come.
Perhaps we are looking at this the wrong way.
The vast growth in LCC in many many states, indicates a different trend which has the anti’s alarmed and desperate. Their rhetoric indicates this.
This is their last big chance before they forever go down in defeat.
Fast and Furious was a desperate act….
Just because, objectively, the signs are that this is a desperate last ditch “Battle of the Bulge”/Cidital/Kursk situation does not mean you can ignore it….the prospect of victory now is much like there was a very real prospect of a different result with those historical events….
It is still a desperate fight….hopefully political…there is nothing civil about civil war.
–bnut F&F only seems that desperate in the light of the whistles blown on it, and what seems to’ve caused the whistleblowing was the 2010 mid terms, when the House GOP unexpectedly regained control of congressional committee subpoena power. Kursk -like, a huge “whew!”
Im a Vietnam Vet, ive seen the shit the govt tells us that are lies.Ive been involved in scenarios where the govt. lied totally about the facts.Please contact your representatives, let them know how you feel.This gun battle is just beginning
The selected enforcement problem cited in this article is desired by the gun control advocates. These proto dictators love laws that are not generally enforced, since it gives them a legal way to make criminals out of their opposition, while giving yet another opportunity for graft, by not prosecuting ordinary citizens accidentally caught up in the net, for the right price. Any bets that anything passed will be strenuously enforced against any in the tea party, while they trumpet tea party lawlessness, and at the same time any armed leftist radicals will be ignored, as long as they take orders from the one.
Once you have enough laws so that everybody is a criminal, at least as long as a fed prosecutor says you are, and selective prosecution becomes the norm, rather than the exception, Obamas words about “rewarding our friends and punishing our enemies” becomes quite prescient. But our leftist friends will assure us the justice dept is impartial, and will always be fair, after all Holder is an honest broker, right, just ask the Black Panthers and George Zimmerman. Or at least the justice dept will be honest and fair to leftists, provided they tow the line and payoff the right people.
The leftists know that an armed populace is the last defense to their coming plans for tyranny, so that is why they are willing to go all out on gun control now, despite the political risk, and despite oppoosition from the majority of americans. And their real goal is not to keep guns from criminals, just look at Chicago to find out how effective that is working, it is to ensure that the only armed criminals left work for them.
I wish i could recall where exactly i read this, but it was an account of a facet of the real-estate market under the nazis in Germany. The party membership never exceeded 7% of the population (the party made new membership difficult once it had taken complete control). If a member like a certain house, say, owned by a German citizen in good standing but not a party member, the homeowner might get a knock on the door from a couple of police detectives. There’d be a couple laborers in tow, with pick and shovel. The homeowner would be presented with a search warrent for a gun that that had been reported to be buried in the back yard. A hole would be dug and natch, a gun found, and the homeowner would have to go down to the station for a couple days of Q & A re the gun. He’d be released, and someone would suggest he get out of that neighborhood, as his neighbors were denouncing him and if another gun was found in his property, well, that’s an enemy of the state trial, and maybe the noose. Soon thereafter, a cash offer of a small fraction of the value of the property would come around, and the homeowner would take the offer and the legal sale was done.
Seven percent!