A Hill To Fight On — Not a Desk to Die Under
It really does appear that the Left wants to engage on the subject of “gun control” — or, to use their latest euphemism, “gun safety.” Led by two of the unloveliest of their specimens — Sens. Chuck Schumer of New York and Dick Durbin of Illinois — the emboldened progressives clearly feel the time to strike against Americans’ Second Amendment freedoms is now, while the shooting iron is still hot.
The Right’s natural reaction when confronted is, of course, to cut and run. Being liked is far more important than being right, and as for standing on principle, that went out the window with the Gipper long ago. Indeed, the history of the modern GOP is one of pre-emptive surrender, reaching across the aisle and fleeing from any kind of direct confrontation with the Democrats in a desperate attempt to pacify them and their natural allies, the Ivy League-educated national media, better known (in Orwell’s famous phrase) as the Pansy Left. With even alleged Tea Party stalwarts like Marco Rubio earning strange new respect by coming out foursquare in favor of Amnesty Lite, movement conservatives might be forgiven for thinking they’ve been defeated across the board, and that the country they grew up has all but vanished.
That’s why the battle over firearms — which as far as the Left is concerned has only one true objective, which is the complete abolition and confiscation of guns in civilian hands — is so important, because it’s a fight conservatives can actually win. And, in winning, can make many new friends among hitherto reflexive Democrat voters who (thanks in large part to the GOP’s inarticulateness) haven’t realized that “progressives” do not and never will have their best interests at heart. And what could be more in one’s interest than self-preservation?
Just look at the disgraceful video from the DHS above. About the only tactic it forgot to include — other than “bring your own gun to unsafe environments and know how to handle it responsibly ” — was Kiss Your Ass Goodbye.
The problem right now is that, in the fight over personal firearms, the Right has lost control of both the narrative and the vocabulary. When I was growing up in San Diego, it was a common sight to see kids carrying their air rifles or even the .22s they got for Christmas as they headed into the hills around Mission Valley to go rabbit hunting; today, some busybody would call the SWAT team. Attending high school in Honolulu, I was part of a JROTC program and nobody was shocked to see a young teenager in a khaki uniform carrying around an M-1 training rifle (the firing pin had been removed) or a .22 out to the shooting range. For us, “gun control” really was all about shot groups. Schools as “gun free” — i.e. “free-fire” — zones? Not on your life. Had there ever been an “active shooter” on the campus of St. Louis High School back then, 400 guys would have gone to their lockers or to the armory and shot the sonofabitch out of his socks.
What the Left has managed to do, however, is to convince a significant voting bloc — white, educated, affluent urban professionals — that the mere presence of a firearm within reach will suddenly set off an uncontrollable urge to go postal. ”I just wouldn’t trust myself to have a gun in the house,” I often hear my lefty friends say, and of course with an attitude like that, I wouldn’t trust them either, so perhaps it’s just as well. They also consistently confuse the issue by nattering on about such non-existent things as high-magazine clips, and confusing the term “semi-automatic” with “machine gun,” whether ignorantly or, more likely these days, willfully. Playing on people’s fears, they seek to both disarm and unman the populace, leaving everyone entirely dependent upon yet another government entity, in this case the police.
No, not this guy:
Gee, Officer Krupke…
These guys:
… never mind
Now, one thing conservatives need to stay away from is the trope that firearms are needed to protect innocent members of the Michigan Militia and Aryan Nation white-supremacist compounds in Idaho from the black helicopters patrolling the skies in the service of the ZOG in Washington. The heavily armed cops of today are a response to two events, both of which conservatives ought to use in their favor. The first is the upgrade in weapons that the bad guys use, part of the eternal arms race between good and evil. The second is the residual effects of the “war on terror,” whose ineluctable end result has been to make every cop a RoboCop.
Yes, we read a lot about various associations of chiefs of police trying to get guns “off the streets.” Ask any cop below the rank of captain, though, and you’ll find that the police welcome the presence of responsible citizens with firearms; cops are people too, and they realize that the cop’s motto — “go home alive at the end of your shift” — ought to apply to civilians as well. As the police will be the first to tell you, they can’t be everywhere. Nor, legally, is it their duty to save you, as the U.S. Supreme Court made clear in its 1995 Castle Rock v. Gonzales decision. New York Times reporter Linda Greenhouse wrote at the time:
The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.
The way to win the “gun control” argument, therefore, is to frame it for what it really is: the Democrats’ attempt to strip away the right of self-defense to the citizenry, cloaked in its traditional sheep’s clothing of “compassion” and “reasonableness.” But you need to know is that when they whine, “how many bullets/magazines/guns does a person need?” the answer in their minds is zero. And the lying starts at the top.
As the last election showed, the GOP has all but completely alienated blacks and Hispanics — and yet, paradoxically, these are the two groups who a) are the most victimized by crime and b) have the least trust in the police. Shouldn’t the right to defend oneself and one’s family be of paramount importance to them? If so, then why are they allowing rich white yuppies from Harvard who can’t tell a clip from a bobby pin and a 15-round magazine from the new issue of Vanity Fair to dictate to them what they may or may not use in the course of self defense?
Principles, not programs. Conservatives need to couch the debate in terms of personal freedom and personal protection. Take a page from Alinsky and surround themselves at press conferences and photo ops with people who have saved their own lives and those of others with their personal firearms. And make the Left have a “Kitty Dukakis” moment over and over again:
More: Is the NRA Winning the Influence Battle?
One million plus fully armed people on the Washington Mall demanding their 1st and 2nd amendment rights to petition the government for redress of their grievances seems justified. Am I wrong?
Sounds inspiring, but totally impractical. They’d just panic and sic the National Guard on you. Then you’d have a complete FUBAR on your hands.
Publisher of Blagojevich book under fire.
Chicago Review Press: Do they ignore the facts?
http://illinoispaytoplay.com/2013/02/02/chicago-review-press-do-they-ignore-the-facts/
I’m pretty sure that Tories like you said the same thing about Lexington Green. Didn’t work that way, did it?
2nd Amendment is meant to prevent tyranny. Left/liberals want to take our guns for the same reason King George III did. Period.
King George III and King Obama George III.2, second verse same as the first.
Actually George III was benevolent compared to the present american president and his cohorts in congress who are insufferable tyrants. King George only asked for a small tax on tea while the present american dictatorship demands forty percent of your wealth and higher; always going higher. sic semper tyrannis
Not quite, Johann. Ben Franklin asked Tom Paine to write a list of American grievances against the Crown. That long list is in Common Sense. Maybe someone should list our grievances against King Obama. The Case for Armed Rebellion. Paine wrote his after Lexington.
So, “tyranny” is the reason you deserve guns, and all possible guns you want at that? If you’re claiming that you need your guns because you might need to murder members of the government (yes, that is what “fighting tyranny” comes down to, when you’re doing it with stockpiled ammunition), then the ability to murder a large number of people quickly is a prime feature. These aren’t people who mumble about needing high capacity, military style weaponry because today’s modern deer really need 30 or so shots pumped into them before they’ll stay down—they’re perfectly blunt about saying they need it because someday, there’s gonna be “tyranny,” and if they themselves wake up one morning and decide that “tyranny” has come they need to be able to go to their closet, arm up, and start killing people who think otherwise. Often, for some reason that most of the rest of us can’t even begin to parse, it’s couched in crackpot religious terms, often citing “prophesies” and other Jesus-sounding stuff as the reason why potential mass murder is, well, just around the corner.
That someone can easily dispatch a roomful or two of elementary school children, or college students, or theater-goers, or restaurant-goers with these same weapons is not seen by these people as something that needs fixing—at all. Yes, it’s sad that those particular people got murdered, but whether Americans have the God-given right to murder a large number of people quickly, and easily, if they feel the circumstances warrant it is something the tyranny fetishists will go to their graves, or your grave, or the local sheriff’s grave believing in.
The other tricky part of this is that (of course) the people most obsessed with defending themselves against government “tyranny” are the people who see “tyranny” in absolutely everything. The United Nations is coming for them; Barack Obama is a crazy Marxist; bicycle paths are a sign of the devil. The most unhinged people among us are the people who have volunteered themselves as the judges, juries, and executioners of any American government figures they’ve decided they don’t like—and those are the people that a large segment of our no-gun-regulations-ever crowd are catering to. Why? You could suppose the NRA, as obvious example, is merely acting as passthru for the manufacturer’s lobby, which makes a very sizable income off of crazy frightened people, or you could suppose them to be unironic believers in the tyranny theory of American proto-terrorists someday becoming American freedom fighters—but why does the we’d like to maybe someday be able to kill members of the government theory get so much mainstream love from supposedly mainstream sources?
It seems rather obvious that we could take all the arguments as to why one might need a 30-round clip because of potential tyranny and just flush that entire population from legitimate discussion. If tyranny does come to America, your little closet stockpile is not going to do a damn bit of good against the Air Force, and basing all our public safety decisions around your own little delusion that it might, someday, is not a very good reason for our continued enabling of frequent, convenient mass murder. So that seems a good first step: If you’re arguing that people need to be able to speedily murder other people because someday you and your little band of societal malcontents may want to murder the right people, the ones who really need murdering, all of the policymakers concerned with American public safety ought to write off your opinions on the matter from the outset. Then the rest of us can begin to have a discussion on guns in America that isn’t objectively, you know, insane!
Glad you could get that off your chest.
But I didn’t say it. Hubert Humphrey said it.
Go ahead, look him up.
bahah. Fussy liberal is frothy. Change his nappy.
Blah, blah, blah…”If tyranny does come to America, your little closet stockpile is not going to do a damn bit of good against the Air Force…”
How many times has this old argument been made and lost? First, you assume that the entire US military would side with the government and kill it’s own citizens. An assumption I don’t buy. Second, you display a total defeatist attitude that is becoming much too normal in America today. THat is why lefties don’t look at that DHS video and wince. It actually makes sense to them. We are a nation of pansies now.
If opposing tyranny is not a good enough reason to fight for, what is?
The US military “looks good” fighting “Arabs”. So has every other Western military. Back during the Vietnam War where the US military was having its hands full fight the VC, people were pointing out how “effective” the Israeli military was in comparison. The commanding general of the Israeli Army pointed out that Israel was fighting “Arabs”, while personally brave, tended to be poor soldiers. Their skills at marksmanship and tactics were poor. Our military is fighting the same sort today as the Israelis were fighting back then. If we had to fight a foe who was “competent” in the military sense, we might find that we aren’t as “great” as we thought. Expert riflemen armed with say Winchester 70′s in 25-06 with good scopes would be tough for our military to deal with assuming the riflemen knew something about tactics and cover. There are also means to deal with infrared detection such as the use of “space blankets” where a large portion of a person’s heat signature is concealed. So a competent resistance might be harder for the military to deal with than with relatively incompetent jihadis. Note that a good portion of our losses are due to explosives planted alongside roads and such, not so much from actual individual firearm fire.
OKI DOKI, So I expect you to publish your name and address on ,Oh, how about Craigslist and let everyone know you would Never use or own a gun to defend you,your family or property.Go ahead Hero, show us real courage in defense of liberty.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
“…when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
Your assuming Cynical thinks these words have meaning and are relevant to today. He doesn’t.
Remember these words were written by old white ‘European’ guys who owned slaves, so they don’t have any relevance in todays world…to many negative rights per Obama. The irony is rich.
”If tyranny does come to America, your little closet stockpile is not going to do a damn bit of good against the Air Force…”
And who would have bet on a rag-tag mob of colonials to defeat the mighty British Empire?
The Second Amendment is there for a reason. If you think you have popular support to repeal it, there are set procedures for doing that. Go ahead.
But try to repeal it through Imperial Dictat at your peril.
All that is required for tyranny to come is more brainwashed goons like Mr. Lily White Wonder Bread here.
Anyway, some small arms worked pretty well against this Government for your allies in Vietnam back in the 60s and 70s, eh, hippie?
Here’s the problem with your argument, CW.
WE don’t have to convince YOU why we “deserve” to have guns, because the 2nd amendment says we already have a “RIGHT” to have guns. We don’t need your vote to keep our guns.
On the other hand, YOU have to convince US why we don’t “deserve” to have guns, because the 2nd amendment forbids government the “POWER” to infringe on our “RIGHT” to have guns. If you think government should have that “POWER”, YOU will need OUR vote before government will get it.
…and just from a PR standpoint, I’d say your comment isn’t very convincing…
Get a grip on Reality, Bud
Your little rant illustrates support for the following concept: It’s okay for the criminals to arm themselves to the hilt, as they will pay absolutely no attention to any gun control laws now on the books, but it’s not okay for law-abiding citizens to arm themselves in any sort of competitive fashion because of this fear that they are somehow “deluded” in thinking that they must fight tyranny one day.
Hopefully it will never be necessary to fight “tyranny” in such a fashion but meantime the criminals & thugs are well stocked with all the firearms they can get their hands on & you expect the rest of us to just lay down & let them have their way with us. Obviously you have never tried to wrap your mind around the well-known admonition that “An armed society is a polite society.” Can you even begin to imagine just why this might be so, CW?
Anyone who tries to tell us that tyranny and mass murder are myths, or went out of style a long time ago, is in fact the one who is positively insane and out of his lying mind. I studied history, and the fact of the matter is, Lord Acton got it exactly right:
POWER CORRUPTS; ABSOLUTE POWER CORRUPTS ABSOLUTELY INTO MASS MURDER!!!
Just want to pull one of the supports out from under your arguement – to wit, it is a non issue as to needs and or wants.
The 2nd Amendment states that it is the RIGHT of Americans to bear arms. Not a response to a need or a want, but a right.
And that the government shall not infringe that right.
You and the folks in DC really have zero jurisdiction to stand between an American and his rights with your opinion as to what he does or does not need. … Unless, you would appreciate similar treatment of rights you value the next time conservatives hold the reigns of government. The rule of law is a protection for the rights of man -in bith directions – when some men find the rights noxious.
“That someone can easily dispatch a roomful or two of elementary school children, or college students, or theater-goers, or restaurant-goers with these same weapons is not seen by these people as something that needs fixing—at all.”
Do you have sharp knives in your home? If so, according to your own logic, you could use them to kill someone. They should be confiscated immediately.
Also your car, and any baseball bats, hammers, bricks, rocks. Oh, and your furniture. You could bash someone in the head with that.
And protests that you would never do any such thing will be met with the same regard you give to gun owners that have never used their legally acquired weapons for criminal purposes.
I suggest a course on the Federalist papers before you speak of Our Bill of Rights. People such as you are the reason we have safeguards placed in our founding documents. Our Founders included affirmation of our godgiven rights and expounded on the virtues of being an armed and free people. The right to bear arms backs up the all of the others.
Nobody is asking the correct question. All federal gun laws (and drug laws) were enacted under Congress’s authority to regulate interstate commerce. Thus, the correct question must be: ‘Does the Commerce Clause give the federal government the power to ban certain types of firearms’?
Most people don’t understand that. All federal gun laws and drug laws were enacted under congressional authority – not to protect children – but to regulate INTERSTATE COMMERCE. Congress has no power to protect school children.
And it gets more absurd. If Feinstein’s law is passed – Americans will be able to buy fully automatic machine guns, simply by paying for a tax stamp. But they will be forbidden from buying semi-automatic, single-shot weapons under any circumstances.
Think about that. You can still buy machine guns. But the Feds won’t let you buy single-shot semi-autos.
Actually, you won’t be able to purchase an automatic weapon unless you have a massively large amount of disposable income. The NFA act froze the amount of Automatic weapons when the registry was closed to new entrants. So, the number of automatic weapons is a fixed and known quantity and the prices commanded for these weapons is exceedingly high. A SMG such as the Sterling goes for more than $7,000 dollars U.S. and the prices are rising quickly as the market in semi-auto rifles has completely dried up. If you could purchase a M4 today the price is excess of $4,000 but none are readily available for purchase.
So look up those Sten gun plans and make your own.
While doing so is within the abilities of the average mechanically minded person, it would land you on the other side of the law and ensure your incarceration if found out and you did not resist arrest, if you chose to resist it would lead to your death. To think otherwise is not sane.
Make a million Sten guns, keep quiet until they are needed.
Actually, apparently not. The law states that you can make a gun for yourself, but not for sale or transfer.
http://aresarmor.com/store/Category/hmgar10
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30i_6awxEG4&feature=player_embedded
No worse than the penalties today for dealing drugs, making “meth”, or any number of other activities that are against the law. Also consider the number of actual combat fighters in the Army and the Marines. The figure is not that large. As a matter of fact, we had trouble with having enough manpower to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan at the same time. We were drawing down the National Guard to get enough people not to fight, but to do all the other tasks a modern military requires. The population of Iraq was 23 million. That of Afghanistan 35 million. In both cases we were actually fighting a rather small minority of the national population of these countries. We were forced to extend tours of service, and had to hire civilian contractors because we didn’t have enough members of the military to do all the jobs that needed doing. The USA has a population six times that of both of these countries put together. Also, when fighting in these countries we didn’t have to worry too much about innocent civilians being killed. The political consequences of doing the same here today in the USA would be an entirely different matter…
Well as the 3d printing technology advances a person will be able to make their own firearm.
See the website “Defense Distributed” http://defensedistributed.com/.
The technology is in its infancy so who knows where it will go.
Of course, ever ready to make new laws, government actors are preparing to address this. See this video, which mentions the, soon to expire, Undetectable Weapons Act.:
http://money.cnn.com/video/news/2012/12/20/n-3d-printers-make-guns.cnnmoney
“The Right’s natural reaction when confronted is, of course, to cut and run.”
I don’t think so. I think it is to go on defense instead of offense.
Well that’s the problem isn’t it? As Patton put it, “nobody ever defended anything successfully, there is only attack and attack and attack some more.”
“What the Left has managed to do, however, is to convince a significant voting bloc — white, educated, affluent urban professionals…”
Frankly, I don’t give a damn about voting blocs whatever color, IQ, income bracket, where they live or what they do for a living. This is a constitutional representative republic, not a democracy or Democracy.
Why the House of Representatives doesn’t bring impeachment charges against Princess Feinstein is beyond me. Yeah, I know, she wouldn’t be convicted in the Senate, but it would tie up her unconstitutional activities for a while. Time to fight fire with napalm.
Because it’s unconstitutional.
The House of Representatives cannot impeach a Senator. According to Article I section 5 of the Constitution, the Senate is responsible for its own self-discipline.
Since we conservatives place such great value in the Constitution, it behooves us to actually read it and know what is in it.
Senator Feinstein could still be censored or impeached or whatever by her fellow senators for violating her oath to uphold the Constitution
According to Article I, section 5, a Senator can be expelled from the Senate for “disorderly behavior.” Introducing legislation–even bizarre legislation like the bill Sen. Feinstein introduced–does not constitute that.
That’s because the Founders explicitly intended the Second Amendment as the recall mechanism.
@SDN
Last I checked, the constitution created a judicial system with a due process clause in that judicial system. Don’t recall the constitution referring to the judicial system and due proces clause as being that of the second amendment. Of course, I’d be happy to read what you have to the contrary, of the constitution I read.
Yes, we should read it. Especially that part where it says:
Article 1, Section 2:
The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.
What is impeachment?
Impeachment:
If a federal official commits a crime or otherwise acts improperly, the House of Representatives may impeach—formally charge—that official. If the official subsequently is convicted in a Senate impeachment trial, he is removed from office.
A Senator is a federal official.
I read ‘sole Power’, assigned to the House, to impeach and not to try, gives the House the authority to impeach across the strata of every part of government without interference from other ‘authorities’. There seems to be no limitation placed on this clause, given that the House can impeach those working for the Judiciary and Executive branches. I see no limitation on this clause which would prevent impeachment within the Senate. Might help get rid of the child molester Menendez. I seriously doubt the Senate (Reid…) is going to take a chance on losing a seat under any circumstances.
To me, impeachment and discipline are two different things entirely. And, yes, I know I am on the short end of this argument, but it would make a nice constitutional kerfuffle.
> A Senator is a federal official.
No, a Senator is not a federal official.
> Yes, we should read it.
Actually, we should understand it.
You are right. The only way to expel a house member or a senate member is by vote of their own chamber, which has occasionally occured in corruption cases. But of course since the senate is controlled by dems, they are highly unlikely to expell any dems, unless they have a really glaring coruption case that threatens their own popularity and ability to win elections. They will definitely not expel a member because they propose a bill that we dont like.
I am getting a bit sick of these blowhards constantly wanting to impeach everybody. Even if the house could force an impeachment of a WH official, for example Eric holder, who does indeed deserve it, it would be futiloe since the senate would never convict. Impeachment requires a large majority and a very clear case, with widespread popular support. We learned that lesson with Clinton, where the case was fairly good, but we lost the senate vote anyway, and lost seats for trying, becausethe impeachment did not have enough popular support, no matter how solid the case might have been. If they really want to change things, they will need todo it the old fashioned way, by gaining popular support and wining elections.
The only other way, if the dems gov handout and election fraud machine makes fair elections impossible, is by revolution. But the declaration of independece makes it clear that means should never be used until all possibility of peaceful remedies is exhausted, and we are a long way from that point.
The left-wing Constitution and freedom haters realize they can’t just outlaw firearms outright. They’ll establish the talking points, and repeat them over and over, using the ‘Big Lie’ strategem. The first thing they’ll seek is universal gun registration. That will allow them to know where the guns are. Then, they’ll make them more and more difficult to obtain. They’ll pick away. The head pig in San Diego mentioned something the other day about taking guns away in one generation. Watch out for him and people like him. They loathe us.
That’s what I fear: The gun grabbers will make some huge all encompassing gun bill that has no way of getting passed. Then they out of the goodness of their hearts make lots of compromises and changes. Their new watered down bill passes and everyone in DC says they won. The gun grabbers got a bill passed. The gun rights people forced compromise. But a bill regulating law-abiding citizen’s Constitutional right to bear arms was passed. Then they try again with a new bill… …and so it goes.
Which is the best congress critter to introduce legislation to repeal the NFA and the GCA.
I believe your best chances would be Gomert in the house and Cruz in the Senate. But I doubt any of them would take the bull by the horns.
Exactly what they’ve been doing since 1934, enough is enough! No more!
You are right and the phony “compromise” is already in the works. The dems will compromise temporarily on the assault weapons ban, in exchange for everything else they want, like universal registration, a ban on private sales unless they have a background check, ban on large magazines, etc.
But we need to lay down a marker to the rhino repubs, there can be no compromise on this issue, other than no new gun regulations. Unlike the fiscal cliff and debt ceiling, where not getting a deal had severe downsides, because bad things like tax hikes, gov shutdowns, and bond defaults would happen without a deal, in this case not getting a deal just means no new gun regs, the best possible outcome. So any repub that makes any deal under those circumstance is a gutless rhino, and we will need to make war on them until they are driven from the party. Any dems serving in swing states and districts should get the same message. Any deal at all that introduces even “reasonable” new gun restrictions, means relentless war until they rue the day they voted for that trash.
And we need to make the case to the public as well, to refute the dem lie that only hunters need guns, and nobody neds a magazine over 10 for legit self defense. Not by talking about preserving guns for a possible revolution, even though the is the real need, and the real reason the dems want to take our guns, since that will scare moderates. We need to make the case by emphasising the use of guns in legit self defense against crime. The good thing about that is many voting blocks we need to make progress with, like blacks and hispanics, are heavy victims of crime, poorly served by police, and need legit self defense even more than most.
The one thing the Democrat Aristocracy involves itself with, that they like to label as “expertise” at their appointed position, is constant, impulsive, vociferous, reaction to whatever the proletariat has engaged in, while enjoying their Constitutionally protected activities.
And they continue to regulate as if these “problems” have never been addressed by society before.
God, Himself, has not attempted to micromanage humanity to the degree these “glitterati” seem to think they are required to, in order to protect “man” from himself.
According to the Democrat Party; American society is a critically broken community that needs constant monitoring, and relentless reprimanding, to atone for its juvenile behavior. And this same community cannot compensate, nor hold in high enough regard, these pillars of orthodox human perfection.
It’s a technocracy of overly credentialed “experts”. Virtually everything you see and do hammers home a message that the individual is innately incompetent, and therefore must depend on a caste of professionals.
“Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.”
Looks like they’re trying to do the “Ark redux”, with a pair of Democrats from every species.
It’s not enough to stop the new crop of unconstitutional enactments. It’s time to roll back many of the gun laws we have now. To name a few which are unconstitutional on their face – laws which require gun registration of any kind, laws which forbid the sale of weapons suitable for militia use (aka semi-automatic rifle bans), and laws which limit the carry of personal weapons on any public property where the government is not strictly liable in the event of violent crime perpetrated on otherwise law abiding citizens (end victim disarmament zones).
Good point. My minimum bottom line is no new gun regs. If the repubs cant even stop that they are useless as a party. But to make the dems rue the day they ever dared to bring up gun control, an even better outcome would be if this fight led to a rollback of some existing regs, and not just stopping the dem power grab. If we managed that, it would burn into the dem psyche for a generation what they had started to learn before Obama, dont mess with guns, it is a sure loser.
The article and most of the comments reveal why I sometimes fall into despair for this country. Many of you are still in denial. You seem to think that any of this can still be resolved peacefully, through the political process.
You’ve tried petitions, emails, phone calls, letters, town halls, protests and demonstrations. You’ve tried elections and replacing local, regional and state political leaders and activists. You’ve tried organizing, with all of the tactics mentioned. What has it gained you but the loss of more of your freedoms and liberties?
What will it take? Will you resist when you or your families and friends start disappearing in the middle of the night? When government forces, demonizing you as it takes you away to a unknown location, w/o charges, juries, lawyers or judges? When the government takes all of your property? After the government has ruined your life, and you and your family are starving in the streets? Then, it will be too late.
Seek peace while it may yet be found…but you should prepare for the use of more agressive forms of resistance than emails, phone calls, letters, and peaceful protests.
Your options are shrinking. Realistically, you only have one option remaining to you.
The only question is: what are you willing to do in order keep or regain your freedom?
If you aren’t willing to do whatever it takes, you deserve everything that’s going to happen to you.
Freedom or death, to paraphrase Mr. Henry. Anything less is too horrible to endure.
Warren, I live in Florida and legally carry a gun for self-defense. My military service qualifies as gun safety and use training by Florida law. I drive up to Michigan each summer to see my lifelong friend. I legally carry in each state I pass through on my way up there and while in Michigan because of reciprocity agreements among the states en route. All I have to do is avoid driving into Illinois by mistake as I go through Indiana. My natural self-defense right has been recognized by all those states and not infringed by the Federal Government. This is the most freedom of arms I can remember.
All this has been done for me by smart and brave local, state, and federal elected representatives. The fact that some elected officials are unscrupulous, use emotions instead of thoughts to form opinions, and are outrageous hypocrites and liars is expected and is not at this time a cause for overthrowing our current government IMO. It still works better than the alternatives we hear about all round the world and in the UN.
Am I concerned? Yes, but not yet ready to join a revolution. I recommend to you patience and working within the system. Is Piers a rocketing idiot? Why yes, yes he most certainly is.
Sedition.
Just because we finally elected ONE left-wing President who is pushing a left-wing agenda.
We are the same country we were in 2007. If it didn’t make sense to pursue armed resistance in 2007, then it doesn’t make any sense now.
There’s no difference between you and the Weather Underground, who decided to use violence just because one president decided to get us into Vietnam.
“We are the same country we were in 2007. If it didn’t make sense to pursue armed resistance in 2007, then it doesn’t make any sense now.”
We aren’t the same country. It is currently established law that the government can in peacetime take over the administration of any chunk of the economy it feels like, abrogate any freedom of contract as it sees fit, and run the economy into the ground piecemeal or wholesale to the satisfaction of the majority. It’s not the same country at all.
Obedience to such arbitrary “law” is nothing the constitution binds us to, and nothing the majority should expect. Prudence and self interest only, and no obligation of right, is all that can be looked for.
If it is successfully resisted peacefully or violently, so much the better.
Obamacare is sedition. Gun control is sedition.
Speaking the truth of that is so far costless and can not be sedition. I suppose you still won’t wake up if that is changed, and the 1st also goes by the wayside?
“There’s no difference between you and the Weather Underground, who decided to use violence just because one president decided to get us into Vietnam.”
Well then if past precedent with the weather underground holds true he should be more than qualified to become a bigshot professor at a major university. More than qualified to launch the next president’s political career from his living room. I mean if the president’s past association with unrepentant terrorists like Ayers barely rates a mention in the media then that’s the “new normal” right? I mean, being a seditious terrorist worked pretty well for Ayers right, so who’s to say it wouldn’t work out just fine for Warren?
The concern troll is concerned.
Heh.
Him and Zeke.
Are they and Tlaloc on a journolist? Or do they just proceed in parallel?
http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2013/02/03/national-life-without-guns-is-a-beautiful-thing-isnt-it/
George Washington was never referred to as “Father of his Country” in Lord Cornwallis’ officers mess.
“Why does treason never prosper? Because if it prosper, none dare call it treason.”
We don’t care what names you call us.
Your call for revolution is premature. The declaration states that revolution is justified, but only when all possible peaceful means of redress are exhausted. We are a long way from that, dont lose faith in our country just because we were temporarily stupid enough to reelect a left wing president and senate. Political pendulums eventually turn, and the dems day of reckoning is coming. Of course we should fight gun control tooth and nail, to preserve the means of revolution, and if gun control goes too far even break the law and keep some clandestine guns carefully hidden, but we are nowhere close to violent revolution now.
Mr. Bonesteel,
To paraphrase a line from a great movie, I find your lack of faith disturbing. Your despair is understandable and even seductive in a dark way, yet it is unjustified and excessive.
Ours is still the greatest nation in the history of civilization, a shining city on a hill for all the peoples of the world to behold with wonder and awe. The American people from all walks of life are actively involved in the political process – at local, state, and federal levels – and are asserting their constitutional right to self-preservation. Some (though not all!) elements in the GOP may be craven as this article bemoans, but citizens’ organizations such as the NRA are not sitting down and are not going to shut up. Our fellow citizens well understand the importance of this issue and are using all legal, civilized means – petitions, letters, phone calls, litigation, peaceful demonstrations, recognition and support of those elected representatives who are bravely defending the right to self-preservation – to exert influence on the political process. There is considerable reason for hope, as elaborated by several other comments here.
Of course, I acknowledge that it makes sense to “Be Prepared” for emergencies, however, now is not the time to give up hope on Americans and the political process.
Let us try to maintain a positive outlook, resist the temptation to despair, and find constructive ways to channel our love and concern for our Republic and our Constitution.
Despair? No. Defiance! I’ve studied enough history and have done enough research to know how this all ends. People like yourself, however, continue to live in denial. Your denial is what causes me to -occasionally- despair.
You can do nothing without government interference. You must have government permission to do everything, including getting married. At some point along the line, government permission was granted for you to be able to do anything. You must pay a fee, buy a permit, purchase a license, pay a tax, buy insurance or even go into debt in order to do anything in this nation. Even if and where you can individually avoid doing so, you cannot do anything in this nation if you do not intereact with *someone* who has done all of those things. From business, investments to toilet paper and toothpaste, you cannot do anything w/o government approval at several steps of the process.
On any given day, on average, you unknowingly commit at least three felonies, not counting misdemeanors. When the government catches you violting onme or more of the laws on the books, it can and will charge with with several violations, if not dozens…but you think that you are free.
You’ve lived in a prison all of your lives… and must ask permision from the wardens and the guards in order to do anything, but you think that you are free.
You think that you can have desert with your bread and water if you only lobby the wardens and the guards often enough and long enough.
You are wearing chains and you think that you are free.
Cool, since you’ve studied history then you know that approx 25 years ago States that allowed carry with or without permits were few, and that many States outright banned carrying a handgun for self defence. Now every State in the Union (but 1?) have carry permits. Think for a minute, the abuse of power at the hands a venal or moronic politicians has been with us since Rome. But the existence of political corruption does not mean political activism is useless. Those ‘Right To Carry’ laws were not enacted on the tip of a bayonet, but with the stroke of a pen. Because hundreds and thousands of regular folks, some networked into huge social networks, some by relentless evangelism, some by donating money to 2nd amendment organizations, made the choice to fight for our liberties at the ballot box, and save the armed insurrection for a day when that was the ONLY option to keep our liberties. Heck when the pro-gun activists started high-tech was bbs, we still didn’t have the internet. So don’t take council from your fears, we have more resources to carry on the fight for liberty than any other group of people in recorded history.
Until we don’t need Waco vs Romanian Rules!
Keep Your Powder Dry Baby!!
Molon Labe!!!
I remember telling conservatives that the housing crisis was coming. That was in 2002 and 2003. I got much the same response as I’m hearing, now. It can’t happen in America, you said.
I remember telling conseratives that the markets would crash in 2007 or 2008. That was in 2004 and 2005. I got much the same response as I’m seeing, here. It can’t happen in America, you said.
I remember warning conservatives that The Patriot Act was a very, very bad idea…and that many of President Bush’s Exective Orders were taking our freedoms away. I asked you what would happen with those orders, acts and legistion if and when the Democrats took charge in D.C. You laughed. It can’t happen in America, you said.
Now, you have regional ‘fusion centers,’ the NDAA and more, with a list of conservative values which designate you – legally, I might add – as domestic terrorists.
The only surprise to me in the responses to my comments is that you haven’t used the ‘freedom is anarchy’ argument.
It can’t happen in America, you say, once again.
After all that has happened over the lasrt decade, you still don’t think it can happen in America.
I’ve got news for you: That paradigm is about to crash and burn around your ears. You’ve got between six to eighteen months, mebbe as much as thirty-six months to prepare for the inevitable.
Not because I’m a prophet or because I’m psychic. Because I’ve done the research.
You haven’t. …because you say, in denial of all of human history…that it can’t happen in America…
I’m with Warren on this one!! American is full of frogs being slowly boiled. “Nope, the water isn’t getting too hot yet so I can just sit here.”
Warren.
If you are advocating that we preserve the means of revolution, and peacefully prepare for the future possibility of revolution, I am with you. But if you are saying we should have a revolution now, I am not. As others have stated, until recently the gun debate has been going our way for a long time, and we have made decent progress. Dont despair because america was temporarily stupid enough to reelect one left wing president. The political spectrum may swing back our way again. The declaration justifies the right to revolution, but only when all peaceful means of redress have been exhausted, but we are a long way away from that point.
I find it ironic that you paraphrase the ultimate tyrannical overlord who was disciplining a somewhat lesser tyrannical overlord and then blew up a planet just to see how it looked!!! Probably not the best example for just taking it easy and not getting too caught up in the moment!
“Doing whatever it takes” may be what happens, but that is a very hard step to take. If you think people are hesitating, well, they are. In 1775, men were imprisoned in Boston and some died at Lexington and Concord. Is the Constitution worth defending? Of course it is.
Someone else said it well also:
I think the Blue Model will go into full collapse before the libs can get what they want, even if they manage to maintain overall control of the government like they have now. I also have faith that Midwestern governors and state legislatures will give both active and passive resistance to the liberal agenda. They will run out of money before you know it and they won’t be able to inflate their way out of debt. They are following the Japanese model. And look who just won in Japan.
Published on Jan 10, 2013
All the heavy hitters that advocate for second Amendment freedom are smashing the anti gun propaganda. Also I have added Local News clips that show people defending themselves with guns. Funny how the mainstream media never shows you people using the second Amendment the way it was intended.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KztkvfeyO80
Great link. Thanks, Wash.
Anytime patriot!
“It really does appear that the Left wants to engage on the subject of “gun control” — or, to use their latest euphemism, “gun safety.””
Never stop your enemy from making a mistake.
We need to stop them from passing actual gun legislation, no matter how “reasonable” they manage to make it appear. But I agree with you that the dems have done us a favor by bringing up gun control now. The defenders of liberty had been demoralized by repub losses and incompetance. But the dem overeach on guns will rally the forces of liberty like nothing else could have.
MW: “The way to win the “gun control” argument, therefore, is to frame it for what it really is: the Democrats’ attempt to strip away the right of self-defense…”
Yes, because without a natural, God-given right to self-defense there is, in effect, no right to life.
“He who attempts to get another man into his absolute power does thereby put himself into a state of war with him; it being to be understood as a declaration of a design upon his life. For I have reason to conclude that he who would get me into his power without my consent would use me as he pleased when he had got me there, and destroy me too when he had a fancy to it; for nobody can desire to have me in his absolute power unless it be to compel me by force to that which is against the right of my freedom… To be free from such force is the only security of my preservation, and reason bids me look on him as an enemy to my preservation who would take away that freedom which is the fence to it… He that in the state of society would take away the freedom [action in self-defense] belonging to those of that society or commonwealth [Democratic Party] must be supposed to design to take away from them everything else, and so be looked on as in a state of war.” John Locke
The Marxist Constitution of the Soviet Union granted the Russian serfs a right to “inviolability of the person,” but the Soviet Constitution did not grant the Russian serfs a right to keep and bear arms in self-defense.
http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/1936toc.html
Marxist Constitutions never have a Bill of Rights which acknowledge that the individual’s inherent natural rights to life, liberty and labored-for property come from Almighty God. Marxist Constitutions never contain a Second Amendment, and so it follows that Marxist societies end up waging war against their own people.
When Canada enacted gun registration it’s estimated only half of the guns or less were registered. Most people had two collections, one in the den and another behind a false wall in the basement. The basement guns were the ones they traded, unregisteredered guns were considered to be more valuable than ones that required paperwork to trade with your buddies.
I use the past tense because the Canadian government is finally giving up on it. At a cost of over one billion dollars (and a fraction of the population), Parliament finally woke up to the fact that registration had no resulting reduction in crime. People wouldn’t comply as noted, what should they do kick down Uncle Charlie’s door(s), dig up doctors’ and lawyers’ backyards to fill already overcrowded prisons with ordinary citizens? Nearly everyone, especially farmers and ranchers refused to register more than a token number. I was there and saw it.
we have an illegal government on our hands folks, no doubt about it.
1. candidate presents obviously forged documents to run for office of president of third grade quality. nobody in authority required experts examine them? sworn in w/o so much as a glance by real experts? computer experts all over the net (including expert witnesses in court) have shown exactly how they were forged, using a computer to generate same.
2. our government sells thousands of guns to mexican drug dealers and get hundreds, if not thousands killed and then claims executive privilege when rep. issa gets too close. executive privilege was not to be used to cover up for criminals. and nobody has to testify as to what this was all about?
3. our government high officials leave four brave Americans to be killed in benghazi when help was readily available. then when one of these slimy snakes finally gets up to tell the truth, it sounds more like a game show where deception is behind every statement.
4. we get elections where we are told having an actual i.d. confirming citizenship is racist. outcomes are statistically impossible. where every state requiring i.d. goes republican and every one using the honor system goes for progressives. we have the prog’s flagrantly buying votes w/ tax $$$ (obamaphones). that was illegal at one time.
5. we have a porous border, a government that fights against enforcing immigration laws, and now wants to just legalize everybody that can swim or wade across a river.
6. we have a government agencies that buy billions of rounds of ammunition designed for heavy fighting, buys tens of thousands of fully automatic assault weapons for government civilians w/in these organizations, while at the same time trying to outlaw honest Americans owning guns.
now we have a school shooting (see sandy hook hoax) where we are again given almost no credible information from those in charge. school videos not available to be reviewed outside their circle, and more legitimate questions about the shootings and the people involved coming out on utube every day. we have the government using false flags and childrens’ deaths to try to seize weapons (rifles) that, according to the croner’s report, were not even used in the killings.
i have to agree w/ some posting here. it is only a matter of time until they feel either they are losing ground or have enough of an edge to try a forced takeover. me? i’ve already made up my mind what i will do when (not if) they attempt a coup. we have a duty to our children and g’children to give them the republic our forefathers fought and died to preserve.
have you decided just what you will do? if you aren’t sure, go to utube and watch videos of how they treated people w/ guns during katrina. that might help you understand better what we will be up against.
I have not only do I have all the weapons I need I also am building a reloading system that also lets me make all my own ammunition for several calibers of rifle and pistols. Even this is in short supply at the moment but as far as 9mm I am OK .223 and 5.56mm NATO the same buy brass if you can or save your own from the range and you can get lead from the local tire store either for free or cheap.
Ammunition right now is hard to come by and it never was before until Obama became president, the last problem was a couple of years ago again some sort of scare about this particular president…hummm seems to be a pattern here, also the fact that most of the best rounds that are scarce are service pistol rounds 9mm .40 and .45!
WE are winning. Not done yet, but winning this battle. BTW,it’s not the only battle we are fighting (“it’s the economy, s…”). How do I know we are winning? See the recent pic (August 2012) of Zero shooting trap that the Whitehouse had to release? Kind of like the one of SecState Lurch with a shotgun from several years ago. You think that the Ministry of Truth would not have released a photo with Zero shooting a gun of any type unless they felt compelled to? Zero’s supporters must have read the poll numbers. Now to repeal a bunch of unconstitutional enactments!
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/wh-releases-photo-obama-shooting-gun_699234.html
BTW folks, as an NRA certified instructor, take a lesson from Zero’s technique (actually, his lack thereof). Raise the elbow on your strong arm (right arm if right handed), don’t keep it down like Zero, and hold your weak hand in such a manner as to point down the barrel with your index finger (so you literally point at the target clay with your finger). You can’t see his feet in the photo so let’s just say I suspect he’s got problems there too. OK? Be safe and have a great time at the range!
Bingo! We have them on the defensive already. This nation does have the civil counterpart of an immune system. it’s made of well reasoned arguments instead of leucocytes, but the overall mechanism follows the same dynamics.
This president should be credited for being the great genius who managed to awake the spirit of this nation, without even trying! Ask yourself: “Would there have been a tea party movement without the early provocations of his first term?” Further provocations during the second term will only galvanize the patriots and eventually bring up the real issue of our national identity to the fore, a process that is already in motion, regardless of how much the media wishes to forestall it.
Remember the fundamental principle of gun control theory: A woman found dead in a blind alley raped and strangled with her own pantyhose is a morally superior outcome to the same woman explaining to the police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound. Kindly mention this to your lib-O-matic friends and relatives. Just give them a fair chance to digest it. It’s good for the soul.
“Bingo! We have them on the defensive already. This nation does have the civil counterpart of an immune system. it’s made of well reasoned arguments instead of leucocytes, but the overall mechanism follows the same dynamics.”
Yes, and the leftist media, are the HIV doing their best to destroy that immune system. Once the immune system is destroyed the patient goes into a state of AIDS and a common disease (like Obama) that would normally be easily fought off becomes a fatal infection.
Yes we have them on the defensive. Another indicator of that is most dems will say “I fully support 2nd amendment rights” immediately before they lie and propose the next assaiult on those rights. If they knew the public was ready for gun bans they would not bother with such lying hipocracy. But having them on the defensive does not mean we have won the battle yet. That victory will be clear when 3 things happen.
1. No new national gun regs are passed. Anything other than that must be considered a loss, and any rhino repub or “moderate” dem that dares to vote for any “reasonable” compromise must be hounded to the end of their days until they cant get elected to dog catcher.
2. The pro gun forces are rallied enough that we not only defeat any new gun regs, but even manage to repeal some old ones, and extend gun rights. That would be real victory.
3. The dems start turning on the extreme gun banners, the same way repubs turned on Akin for his rape comments, and start saying things like “why do these idiots bring up loser issues like this, and say stupid stuff that hands the other side election issues”. This very thing happened when dems lost seats over gun control during Clinton. Our victory will only be clear and long lasting if the same thing happens here.
Dear RKV,
Thank you for your post (and for the tips about proper stance and grip).
If you are looking for some amusement/encouragement, then look at how some individuals are squirming at the conciliatory gesture from the WH:
http://www.salon.com/2013/02/02/white_house_releases_photo_of_obama_shooting_skeet/
As a shooting instructor, I’m sure you will get a great laugh from some of the comments that are posted at the end of the above article.
Keep up the good work.
I am just beginning to study the roots of the Second Amendment. I had heard that it was taken from the Virginia Declaration of rights, which reads:
SEC. 13. That a well-regulated militia, or composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
Where’d you get that documentation, Dwight? Muffington Post, Talking Points Memo, Daily Kos?
Next you’ll be trying to convince us that self-defense rights were intended to foster and protect slavery.
http://www.constitution.org/bcp/virg_dor.htm
The Introduction is
THE VIRGINIA DECLARATION OF RIGHTS 1
[On May 15, 1776, the Virginia Convention "resolved unanimously that the delegates appointed to represent this colony in General Congress be instructed to propose to that respectable body to declare the United Colonies free and independent states . . . [and] that a committee be appointed to prepare a DECLARATION OF RIGHTS and . . . plan of government.” R. H. Lee’s resolution of June 7, 1776, implemented the first of these resolutions and precipitated the appointment of the committee to draw up the Declaration of Independence; the second proposal was carried out by the framing of Virginia’s first state constitution, of which this declaration was an integral part. It is notable for containing an authoritative definition of the term militia in Section 13.
As passed, the Virginia Declaration was largely the work of George Mason; the committee and the Convention made some verbal changes and added Sections 10 and 14. This declaration served as a model for bills of rights in several other state constitutions and was a source of the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, though its degree of influence upon the latter document is a highly controversial question. The reference to “property” in Section I may be compared with the use of the word by John Locke, its omission by Thomas Jefferson from the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, and its use in the Constitution, Amendments V and XIV.
George Mason (1725-92), one of Virginia’s wealthiest planters, a neighbor and friend of Washington, is best remembered for his part in drafting the Virginia constitution of 1776. In 1787 he was a leader in the Federal Convention. Refusing to sign the completed document, Mason, along with Patrick Henry and others, opposed its ratification in the Virginia Convention of 1788.
Much too much reality for PJM.
It was the Virginia delegation that insisted that there be a recognition of the natural rights of man; aka the Biill of Rights, be included in the Constitution before they would sign it. Virginia was fisrt, other colonies followed.
I believe that Virginia did ratify the Constitution with the understanding that a Bill of Rights would follow. Rhode Island and North Carolina were the only two who did not sign and actually became independent states for a period.
I dont know why you think that comment is anti gun rights. I wish that “body of the people” line had been in the original 2nd amendment, since it it makes it clear that the 2nd amendment malitia line envisioned the entire general population being armed, so they could all volunteer for a well regulated peoples malitia at need, rather than restricting arms to just paid for gov empoyees in the national guard and police.
BTW, Dwight, “…That a well-regulated militia, or composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state”. That’s me alright, one of that body of the people.
Are you arguing with yourself here?
I report, you decide.
Yeah, I do that sometimes when I think I’ve found a better way. Try it.
Argue with yourself?
Yeah.
I argue with myself as least as many times as Obama shoots skeet. That’s a lot cause he does it “all the time.”
Patriotic New Yorkers respond to their would be masters:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=BTdhVxva5KU
Give the GOP a fair chance. They’ll find that desk to hide under.
Funny video: Prop the door closed from the inside and then hide under a desk. Proping from the inside gives you away that you are in the room. These liberals don’t even know how to play hide-and-seek!
I could understand repub caves on the fiscal cliff and debt ceiling, since the alternatives to no action very unpleasant. But in this case, the result of no action, no new gun laws, is a perfectly reasonable outcome, and it is very easy for a determined minority to force a no action outcome. So if the repubs cave on this one, and agree to any “reasonable compromise” it is time to give up on them. And any rhino or “moderate” dem that votes for any “compromise” on this trash should be hounded to the rest of their days, so they cant even be elected dog catcher.
I want to believe that our 2nd Amendment right will never be taken away. But if this administration succeeds in it’s mission, I have to believe that We The People will not just sit idly by. I’m a first time gun owner. And if you don’t exercise your right and arm yourself, that’s your business. The generation that lived through the Great Depression, had a saying that still rings true today; ‘hope for the best, but prepare for the worst.’
Soon Obama will settle the gun availability controversy once and for good. He will have a press conference that introduces the U.S. Constitution revised edition.
His lawyers realized Congress need not be consulted to do this. An executive carries the day.
The New Constitution will contain everything a totalitarian country needs.
THE U.S. CONSTITUTION (REVISED EDITION)
The Bill of Duties…the first ten being…
1. No public protests against the rightful commandments of the commander in chief, President Obama.
2. No church doctrine that in any way suppresses a woman’s right to have a safe abortion, be it for convenience sake to the slightest whim.
3. The banning of bullets; any form of ammunition. You can have any type of firearms you want. Just no ammunition on the theory that people don’t kill people. Bullets do.
4. The end of news stations that in any way impeach the good name of the President. Waived of the requirements of this commandment are all stations but Fox.
5. The imprisonment of all political activates who disagree with the President except for left wingers who simply do it for show like Joe Scarbourgh.
6. The Coronation of Michelle as Queen of the castle known as the White House which gives her an operating budget of 1 billion tax dollars per year to put forth any leftist cause or obsession. Vacation needs have a special 1 billion budget.
7. Jail time for anyone who considers running against President Obama in a presidential election. Since 90% of Obama’s people desire that he be made commander in chief for life, so shall it be done.
8. All women can become combat soldiers, but none will suffer the requirement to be drafted should the draft be needed in a national emergency.
9. President Obama will have the final say in cases of official abuse of power such as Operation Fast and Furious and the Benghazi coverup, which includes the alleged White House decision it would be politically smart to blame the murders on a youtube video. Questioning about the criminal White House reaction to the attack and murders is hereby and forthwith forbidden, be the discussion held in private homes or on public media.
10. The execution of Rush Limbaugh, Hugh Hewitt and Shawn Hannity for acts of treason. Sentence to be carried out forthwith.
The next 900 pages will explain this document in more detail, but will be available only to the president’s executive committee, and not the public. Those running afowl of this document will be arrested and prosecuted to the fullest intent of the law.
I’ve emailed Limbaugh and others like him my name and address. When they go for him, they can find my name and come after me as well.
Sure, they can win the debate. They could win almost all of these debates. Will they? I think you answered this: Not a chance. If this “debate” is won it will be because enough Americans stood up and roared. Period.
Choose Your Own Crime Stats
An interesting look at Crime Stats in the United States using data from the FBI that doesn’t seem to be getting much discussion from either the press or politicians. There has been a 50% reduction in the violent crime rate in the last twenty years and neither political party is taking credit for this? I thought politicians always wanted to take credit for good things? Perhaps they don’t want to draw attention to the fact that higher crime rates seem to correspond with inner cities? The great thing about living in the United States is you’re Free To Choose, at least for now, so feel free to Choose Your Own Crime Stats if you don’t like these.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ooa98FHuaU0&feature=player_embedded
Now is the time to push this battle over the 2nd amendment into the Supreme Court before Obama has the chance to stack it. The argument we should push is if the court finds the 2nd to mean the right to possess arms to defend ourselves against our own government then it follows that any forced registration of firearms by any government entity is a violation of the 2nd amendment. Exibit A, the New Orleans Police Dept. during Katrina.
But even the current court is going to side with gun registration, the fear being greater for lunatics with AR-15′s in classrooms, than for folks having guns that the guvment “knows about.” You will die on the hill of no registration for guns.
Democrats don’t need any help. You will defeat yourself.
Legislation must be passed to effect registration, the need only not pass it, no need to die on a hill.
Gun registry has been in place for some time but just not extending to all gun owner classes. For example, Texas has a system that not only issues licenses of record for concealed carry, but also,a system that monitors those currently licensed to ensure their continued eligibility.
“DPS administers the Concealed Handgun Licensing Program under the authority of Government Code Chapter 411, Subchapter H. DPS licenses individuals to carry concealed handguns within the state of Texas, evaluates the eligibility of applicants through criminal history background checks, and monitors those currently licensed to ensure their continued eligibility. DPS also trains and certifies instructors who teach the required course to applicants.”
I’ve yet to see any legitimate arguement of unconstitutionality for registering and or licensing of guns.
The 2nd amendment is the dispositive argument they are unconstitutional.
You’re a concerned concern troll who’s concerned.
Maybe you should file a brief before a federal court and cite all your evidence to the unconstitutionality. Sounds to me that you have a cake-walk case on all your postitions you’ve stated here on PJM. Maybe start your brief with “The 2nd amendment is the dispositive argument they are unconstitutional.” Git’er done hoss!
“Shall not be infringed,” can sound absolute, but there is “Infringed” and “infringed,” and internet blusterers on either side will not be the ones doing the parsing. Because nationwide registration MIGHT eventually lead to confiscation will NOT be the basis of how the courts decide this. Since confiscation is the one thing on the table that might lead to civil war, one could say that since, of course, there will not be confiscation, registration is OK.
Being in the center, I go with that option.
To take it to the SC the legislation would first have to be passed, then someone would have to sue over it. In the years it would take to work its way up to the SC the law would essentially be in effect and the admin could do incalculable damage. Plus the administrations lawyers could just use delaying tactics to keep it tied up in lower courts until such time as Obama can stack the court, if he even needs to. Remember that Roberts changed his mind on Obamacare at the last minute, I’m sure than whatever threats or blackmail Obama used to get to him then are still valid now. Plus, don’t forget that a liberal activist court will not hesitate to overturn a precedent at the first opportunity anyway, so there’s limited value in attaining one. No, it’s far far better just to block all the legislation so that it never even has to be taken to the SC.
When that Sandy Hook father the other day “Who can tell me they need an assault weapon with large capacity clips.” my response would have been:
“Who are you to say you can pass judgment on ANYTHING that I say I need? It appears that no one is willing to pass judgment on how much someone NEEDS to be provided with free food, medical care, and housing from the government. In contrast, I am only willing to NEED weapons that I can afford to pay for with my own money.”
“Do you realize how many people own jet fighter-type aircraft in the USA? Private ownership of jet fighters numbered around 114 back in 1974. Today it is no doubt a much higher number. At a museum not far from my home they have a Mig-17P that some college kids bought, figured out that it was too expensive to fly, and gave to the museum. Who NEEDS a jet fighter? And any jet fighter, even without guns installed, is potentially far more lethal than any number of firearms. Why is no one concerned about people who NEED jets relative to their potential for destruction? Could it be because they realize that mere ownership does not indicate intent?”
“If you pass judgment on my NEED for a semiauto magazine fed weapon, then I reserve the right to pass judgment on anything you NEED as well. And do you NEED a new Mercedes? Won’t a used Ford Fiesta do as well? I do not see why not! And that 2500 sq ft house you have. Don’t you only NEED 900 sq ft like I used to have?”
“So you don’t agree that my assessment of your NEEDS is acceptable? Too bad, because I am coming to that those things I do not think you NEED away! And if you want to stop me you NEED a gun. Too bad that I say you don’t NEED one of those, either!”
I very much would have liked to ask that father if the woman in Georgia who defended herself and her children from an intruder somehow did not need to have enough ammo to finish the job. I would have asked him if he thought her children were less valuable than his own.
I’ll consider disarming when: a) the current gun laws are enforced, b) Hollywood stops making mindlessly violent movies in the name of cool, c) the President leads by example and arms the Secret Service with “gun free zone” signs, d) our government stops arming our enemies/bad guys (MB, drug cartels), and e) when pigs fly.
By the way, I think the recent pictures of Obama out skeet shooting offer some basis for hope.
Now, if we could just get him to go hunting with Dick Cheny.
Shouldn’t pro-amnesty opinions go with anti-gun-control opinions? They’re both defenses of individual rights.
America is a place where people from all over the world should be able to defend themselves.
Why is the terrible record of slaughter by politicians of their own people not being discussed more ??? DEMOCIDE , look it up. 260 million murdered in the 20th century. That is 4x more than all the wars of 20th century. A bullet to the back of the head or being tortured to death has been the final experience on this earth for millions of people.
It starts with gun registration, then confiscation. Only politicians or party members and the police are allowed the right to own firearms. Don’t think it could not happen in the US. It could.
Even today millions of people in the world live in fear of their political rulers.
Patriots, freedom lovers, conservatives and libertarians should loudly and aggressively stand up for the 2nd amendment , the bill of right and our constitution.
This would be a great example and inspiration to all the peoples of the world.
All the current hoohaw in DC about gun control will probably amount to very little – this time. The place to concentrate is at the state level. Work to get more reciprocity, easier ccw permitting, i.e., a more 2nd Amendment friendly environment. Even blue states have large numbers of firearm fans outside metropolitan areas who vote for state-wide offices. States like Utah and Texas that already are 2A compliant are not about to acquiesce to the Feds. Also, the Courts will no doubt be drawn into this, for better or worse. Suits already filed against NY’s latest gun grab. Support your local gun organizations in addition to the NRA and NSSF. We can win this!
What is amazing is that a body of people that have an approval rating between 10-15% expect to be taken seriously. I will not comply and don’t look for the SOS (Stuck On Stupid) party to actually engage in a fight on this issue or any other issue that requires a spine.
Mr Walsh is disingenuous. What started this was the War on Drugs. Ready to end that one?
Kind of like those Civil Defense films in the 60′s… Duck and Cover as the A bomb went off outside your window. Scissors to a gunfight? Put your head between your legs, and kiss your ass goodby.
A new modern well done documentary about democide in the 20th century could be a game changer in the debate about the 2nd amendment. The “Great Global Warming Swindle” documentary influenced a lot of people. Our 2nd amendment and all the patriots who fought for the bill of rights and our constitution deserve a voice that only a documentary can give. See post #28
The 2nd Amendment isn’t just about preserving the ability to resist tyranny to The People, its very existence is incompatible with tyranny.
I’ve been working on a way to describe this that is pithy enough to be useful.
When some Imam or other explained that democracy was incompatible with Islam, he meant the same sort of thing. (Though that example isn’t a politically useful one! I need something else.)
The 2nd Amendment and Tyranny are incompatible. In order to come into being, tyranny needs conditions where The People are not trusted with weapons. So if The People ARE trusted with weapons, the shocked “you really think you need arms to resist your own government” question really is that outrageous.
The People have to accept the subordinate condition *first*… “I don’t trust myself with a weapon in the house” is the ultimate abandonment of the notion of civil authority resting with The People rather than the state. Not that anyone must have weapons in their house, but that’s not what is meant when they say it… because it’s never about some strange aberration or condition that “I don’t trust myself” because it’s not followed with “because I am medicated for a serious mental illness” or even “because I live with someone who is unstable.” Not at all! It’s almost a brag and is certainly a back-pat and meant to imply that other people as responsible and competent as myself can’t be trusted EITHER.
(Unless they work for the government, at which point that magically changes?)
Tyranny doesn’t work until after the people (or The People) have affirmed that they are not to be trusted and their neighbors are not to be trusted. The 2nd Amendment affirms the opposite, that we are, each of us, CAPABLE of governing our own selves.
BUT; The degree of POLARIZING THE PROLETARIAT has not been as successful as has been during this regimes reign.
As “Jack” @ #30 said;
“What is amazing is that a body of people that have an approval rating between 10-15% expect to be taken seriously.”
And this regime has displayed its incompetency more adroitly than any previous regime in all aspects, except covering up for their incompetently felonious misdeeds.
Take the “Benghazi Inquisition” for the most recent example of deliberate concealment and whitewashing of their habitually felonious activity, being reduced to nothing but infantile mischief.
The American martyrs who died in this attack need to be hailed as heroes for their sacrifice to uphold Our American values, even though this regime will choke on those words when having to call these American martyrs “heroes”.
Until this regime is deposed, what Marine will be foolish enough to put his life on the line to protect the next American Embassy as willing and faithful as these Marines were?
As obnoxious as the current push is, the fact is that this is one issue where we fight from a position of strength. Gun rights have made major strides in the last couple of decades. As others above have pointed out, most states didn’t allow concealed carry a couple decades ago, and now almost all do. The gun banner’s hysterical warnings that concealed carry would result in constant wild west type shootouts have been met with a huge drop in violent crime. We have 2 important recent supreme court rulings at our back. Public opinion in the late 20th century was decidedly against guns, polls used to show majorities in favor of banning handguns all together in many places, and now polls show that >70% of Americans believe in the second amendment. To get the kinds of opinion polls they want the press is reduced to conducting crooked push polls in the immediate aftermath of a mass shooting, spreading misinformation wherever they can and asking things like “do you think there should be any controls on guns whatsoever” in order to get a number they can spin into supporting their agenda. They don’t even bother asking about the favorability of banning all handguns anymore because they know they won’t like the answer. Even the most liberal president in half a century is forced to pose with a gun to try and appeal to the great masses of Americans, that is not a position of strength for going after guns.
Right now guns are one issue where the left is fighting to retake lost territory, rather than advance ever further into ours. They had their assault weapons ban in 1994, it cost them at the polls, and it was gone in 2004. Back in 1994 they probably expected that by 2013 they would be going in for the final kill, or at least taking the next big step toward disarming the population. Instead they’re desperately putting everything behind trying to regain something they thought was safe 20 years ago. They talk about wanting a “national conversation”, but the “conversation” has been going on for decades, and they lost. Right now they’re running on ideological autopilot, trying to exploit a tragedy after an election because it’s all they know how to do, they can’t help themselves. Their giddiness after getting their messiah elected a second time is causing them to forget that they only won by staying as far clear of the gun issue as possible. They’re shooting themselves in the foot, becoming willing architects of their own doom. I hope they get every bit of punishment they deserve at the polls, liberals seem to need a sharp reminder every couple decades or so of why they don’t f*ck with this issue.
This video is an improvement over an earlier version, Run Hide Fight. That one shows them fighting the perp by bashing him with a fire extinguisher. Hello! Haven’t they seen any Die Hard movies? Use the fire extinguisher to spray the perpetrator, don’t hit them with it!
The problem right now is that, in the fight over personal firearms, the Right has lost control of both the narrative and the vocabulary
The right will never control a narrative until they purchase the media. He who pays the piper calls the tune. The left owns the media. That is why they call the tune. Any wealthy conservatives out there. Spend some money. Buy one of the alphabet networks. Or all of them.
Great idea. If some of the rich conservative/libertarian folks that bought all those mostly worthless superpac adds for Romney had used that money to buy NBC instead, that might have really been worth something.
Like! A lot!
“Conservatives” may claim some sort of victory for a particular moment, but what they cannot claim is the fact the government ‘can’ constituionally regulate guns without disturbing the second amendment! Even the NRA, has a long history of endorsing federal gun regulations especially, during the 20s going forward. It wasn’t until the tea party movement of 2010 that the NRA turned left at Albuquerque.
It was the NRAs’ compromise on the 1968 Gun Control Act that lead to the Cincinatti Revolt, lead by iirc, Harlan Carter. That was the turning point where the NRA became first and foremost a gun rights organization.
Don’t have the time to find the one about NRA endorsement of expanding the ATF for expanded federal gun enforcements but heres only one of several far more recent ones as related by the New American.
NRA Executive Director Wayne R. LaPierre reiterated the group’s endorsement of this federalizing trend. While rightly and forcefully condemning the draconian, full-speed-ahead gun control proposals tendered by the notoriously anti-gun Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), LaPierre offered as an alternative a reduced-speed package headed in the same direction. Said the NRA exec:
• “We think it’s reasonable to provide mandatory instant criminal background checks for every sale at every gun show. No loopholes anywhere for anyone.”
• “We think it’s reasonable to prevent all juveniles convicted of violent felonies from owning guns, for life.”
• “We think it’s reasonable to provide full funding for the National Instant Check System so it operates efficiently and instantly.”
• “We think it’s reasonable to support the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act.”
• “We think it’s reasonable to expect full enforcement of federal firearms laws by the federal government.”
Each of the NRA’s “reasonable” endorsements constitutes support for federal usurpation of power and an expansion of the federal police state.
I had no idea the NRA was caving that badly. The only “reasonable compromise” is no new fed gun regs, period. Anything else is a loss. The NRA will be portrayed as fanatics by the left no matter how much they compromise, so why do it at all.
Unless a woman is facing permanent physical damage to her body, or a possibility of fatality by carrying her pregnancy to full term, there is no NEED for her to have an abortion. With the ever increasing demand for adoptable children there is also no NEED to abort when the mother cannot care for the child after birth either.
Statistically speaking, there is 1 Murder in the United States for every 29,521 Guns.
However there is at least 1 Murder in the United States for every 1 Abortion.
http://networkedblogs.com/HSh31
Venomous Antisemitism published by Palestinian Ma’an News Agency funded by Danish, Dutch and UK governments and the EU, UNDP, and UNESCO
I think two things are going on. First people are understanding what Thomas Paine taught us: “Because bad men will not good men dare not cast aside the sword”. i.e. banning guns isn’t going to help; rather it will make things worse.
second people are coming to the cold realization: what would I do ? this dissipates the emotional argument that is the core of the statists’ anti-gun propaganda .
You can never have too many bullets (rounds), just too few.
The antidote to violence is self-defense.
http://pjmedia.com/michaelwalsh/2013/02/01/a-hill-to-fight-on/#comment-15359
I am not asserting it can’t happen here, it is happening here! What I am saying is that positive change is still possible by political activism. To quote Clair
Wolf, “Don’t shoot the bastards yet”
Like many people I lived most of my adult life believing that all governments were essentially corrupt. That rational anarchy, ala Professor Bernardo de la
Paz, was the only ethical position.
I didn’t devolve into a bomb throwing anarchist because of the example of Vladimir Bukovsky.
The only hope I had for avoiding the long descent into night was the observation that technology outpaces politics. That personal involvement in political
activity was a waste of time and resources.
And then the Supreme’s made their ruling on Heller and shook the foundations of my mental maps of the political process. I’m still dealing with the
ramifications=)
Then I discovered that the phrase ‘all men are created equal’ did not refer to native ability, but rather that god didn’t love kings more than commoners. That
no bloodline had the right to ‘rule’ the peasants. That in a very real sense American government is composed of the American citizenry, that state actors are
our agents not our masters. I am still looking for a foreign government that asserts governmental authority is derived by the consent of the governed. I’m not
finished, but so far I haven’t found one.
I’m working on a spreadsheet to consolidate all the numerical data so I can make quick fact checks, AND HOMICIDE IN AMERICA IS DOWN ALMOST %50!!
Then I stumble across two of the maps from this gif (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a8/Rtc.gif), the 1986 map and the 2012. (ok this stops
at 2011, the 2012 showed every state except for Illinois, I think) so turn every state but Illinois green in your minds eye.
From 16 states outlawing carry, and most states frowning on the practice, to all but one.
So once again, do not take counsel from your fears. Join the pro 2nd Amendment political activists and the fight to restore Constitutional government. Political activism is still useful in bringing about political change.
Don’t worry…Be Happy=)
Until we don’t need Waco vs Romanian rules!
Keep Your Powder Dry Baby !!
Molon Labe!!!
“…the GOP has all but completely alienated blacks and Hispanics — and yet, paradoxically, these are the two groups who a) are the most victimized by crime and b) have the least trust in the police. Shouldn’t the right to defend oneself and one’s family be of paramount importance to them?”
Not necessarily, as the majority of them doubtless don’t pay attention to gun control laws. JMO.
I have sometimes questioned MW’s motives in the past. This column redeems him completely in my eyes.