Stop that shit! Life, liberty and the pursuit of our rights

[Old Man Winter]

Like him or not, Colion Noir does an excellent job advocating for second amendment rights, and he does so in a manner that’s digestible to regular folks who aren’t gun owners. He’s had some good videos recently.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_GrUYGu8dA


As Colion states in the video; The founding fathers feared governments ambition for power and thus preserved the right of the people to keep and bear arms. If the government tried to overstep its bounds, the people could look at the government with guns in their hands and say stop that shit.

Our leaders in the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government are bound by an oath of office to defend the Constitution of the United States of America. Regardless of which party is in control, there are numerous examples of the government running roughshod over the Constitution which directly impacts our unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

At what point do we tell the government to stop that shit?

If we the people can’t fairly elect a government that respects our unalienable rights and follows the Constitution, what are our options? We can communicate with our representatives and encourage them to honor their oath of office. We can vote them out at the next election and hope the replacement will honor their oath of office. Meanwhile our government is still running roughshod over the Constitution, our rights have been stripped away, and we’ve left our children and grandchildren to shoulder the burden of our negligence.

There’s always so much talk about I’ll never give up my guns or I’ll fight if they try to take them. Why are people so quick to dismiss the idea of fighting for our rights before they’re lost?

Let me be clear, I’m not advocating for people to bear arms and start a shooting war with our government. There has to be something between “the democratic process” and firing shots to enact change. The democratic process only works if the people involved are governing within the framework of the Constitution and that isn’t happening.

What say you?

[Robinson]

I hope we never see another civil war in the U.S. and I hope it never comes to the point of citizens taking up arms against the government. Ever.

But yes, the primary reason the 2nd Amendment was enacted was to ensure that the citizens of this country are never outgunned by the government. The people are to retain the means to resist and if necessary "throw off" the government.

The American rebels of the Revolution tried every means available to them to move the British government to end its tyrannical methods. They resorted to violence as a last resort.

Gun owners should fight against infringement of the right to arms. Finding the best way to do that is the hard part.

[blues]

I hope we never see another civil war in the U.S. and I hope it never comes to the point of citizens taking up arms against the government. Ever.

But yes, the primary reason the 2nd Amendment was enacted was to ensure that the citizens of this country are never outgunned by the government. The people are to retain the means to resist and if necessary "throw off" the government.

The American rebels of the Revolution tried every means available to them to move the British government to end its tyrannical methods. They resorted to violence as a last resort.

Gun owners should fight against infringement of the right to arms. Finding the best way to do that is the hard part.

I've been reading the biography of U.S. Grant by Chernow and though I've read the classics by Foote and others, Chernow's description of the events and cost of the Civil War on the nation is harrowing.

I can't imagine what it would require to take up arms against my government. I've tried putting myself in the shoes of R.E. Lee and others who found themselves in such a position and it's mind numbing to try to fully comprehend.

[Joe in PNG]

One of the few truthful things that Mao ever said was "power grows from the barrel of a gun".
If only one group/class/set of people has a monopoly on arms, that group will eventually have a monopoly on power*.

The founders, after the study of history and thinkers like Machevelli and ect believed firmly in the concept of Separation of Powers. No one person or governing body should have all the power, but other government bodies should be able to check the others, and so on as per basic civics. Likewise, recognizing the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms allows them to act as a check on the armed forces of the state.

*and it is the people who directly bear arms who wind up with the power, not those that give them orders.

[Totem Polar]

I really like that Colion dude. Most of what he posts is typically pretty far over on the excellent side of the bell curve.

And, yeah, we should do what we can to stay civil—especially to the "other" side, whatever that may be. The ultimate destination down the opposite path is unthinkable. I say that as a guy who has had the pleasure of shopping both souqs in Syria, and markets in Mexico in long bygone eras.

[JohnO]

I'm not a Ronald Reagan worshiper but he had somethings right.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ixNPplo-SU

It's about time that people realize that government does not have the solutions. Oh, they want you to think they do but the don't! Virtually everything government is trying to do today is in someway for a problem that government intervention caused. Why should anyone think that the same people who caused the problem have the fix?

The so called "Gun Issue" has nothing to do with guns. It is a manifestation of the breakdown of society.

My friend Henson nailed it when we were at the CT State Legislative office building to testify against the impending knee-jerk legislation post Sandy Hook.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUi6LOl49s4

Morals and values are out the window. Gender doesn't matter. You can be whatever you think you are. There are no losers, everyone is a winner! Now all it takes to get on a public school honor roll is semi-decent attendance and a pulse. Going back a ways to feminism that laid the seeds for this, the idea that a woman can have everything, children and a career may work for some but in many cases it is to the detriment of the child. Keeping up with the Jones'. Got to have the fancy cars and everything else. Many of these people should have gotten a low maintenance pet rather than producing offspring. Before school programs, school, after school programs, day care and other activities to keep the kids out of their parents hair. It's a wonder that some parents even recognize their own children. The ridiculous assertion that "it takes a village to raise a child" is totally bogus. If the child does not have caring, involved and engaged parents providing the basics, that child may well be lost. Especially today when no one dare point out the misstep of a child lest they receive the ire of a parent who thinks their child walks on water and does no wrong.

The chickens are coming home to roost. I think we have a generation of broken individuals who are going to wreak havoc on society.

Sorry rant over.

[andre3k]

A concern that I have right now has nothing to do with another active shooter incident.

I'm more worried about the left pushing their agenda so much that someone gets fed up and we're going back to the days of diesel fuel, fertilizer and large trucks being placed in front of soft targets. These mass shootings will pale in comparison.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[Old Man Winter]

Let me frame this in a different way. My general impression is a great many people feel the ballot box is incapable of "checking" the government or getting it back to governing within the framework of the Constitution. I'm also under the impression a great many people are not willing to start pulling a trigger to "check" the government and get it back to governing within the framework of the Constitution.

In that space between the ballot box and the bullet, what options do we the people have available to check the government and enact change?

[Darth_Uno]

In that space between the ballot box and the bullet, what options do we the people have available to check the government and enact change?

Civil disobedience is in that nebulous area. Of course when you're the guy they make an example of, it's not quite so appealing.

[Old Man Winter]

The American rebels of the Revolution tried every means available to them to move the British government to end its tyrannical methods. They resorted to violence as a last resort.



If we excuse the extreme left and the extreme right, I'd say the remaining American people have tried every means available to move our government to end its tyrannical methods. If we revisit the events that led to the declaration of independence and revolutionary war, our government has far exceeded the tyranny that caused those rebels to say enough is enough.

[Robinson]

If we excuse the extreme left and the extreme right, I'd say the remaining American people have tried every means available to move our government to end its tyrannical methods. If we revisit the events that led to the declaration of independence and revolutionary war, our government has far exceeded the tyranny that caused those rebels to say enough is enough.

I'd say working to garner grass roots support for things like rallies and marches is a necessary step. Any hope of righting the ship will involve large public support, and in fact that is where the real battleground is at this point. Public opinion is a larger obstacle to freedom than outright government abuse of power.

Contacting elected representatives to let opinions be known is a no-brainer, and most of us on this forum have probably already been doing that.

A healthy, robust NRA (or similar organization) is needed. That's why the turmoil and apparent corruption within the NRA is such bad news.

Civil disobedience is something each individual needs to consider and weigh and act on or not, based on his/her own conscience. It may have nothing to do with violence.

As far as our government exceeding the tyranny the British held over the Colonists, you are referring to things such as the following?

* The Boston Massacre
* No representation within the governing body
* Excessive taxes and trade regulations (see the immediately preceding point)
* A thoroughly corrupt justice system at every level
* Officials who committed crimes being removed and tried on foreign soil without witnesses
* Having federal troops quartered in homes with or without consent
* Unfettered search and seizure of homes, businesses, and possessions beyond the legal limits of "Writs of Assistance"

Seriously?

[Ronin_Jedi]

As I've stated many times, maybe even on this forum, the Secondment Amendment is just that, an amendment. As such, it can be amended and even dropped in its entirety.

Here's one media site calling for just that scenario:

https://www.thenation.com/article/repeal-second-amendment-gun-control/


And if we, as a nation, do not get our act together on the many issues that divide US, and issues often used as the basis of many of these killings (single person but especially mass murders/terrorism), we can kiss the 2A goodbye.

Organizations on both sides of the aisle need to work on changing people's mindset of intolerance towards those with differing opinions. It's not a Republican problem to fix or a Democratic problem. It is not a Conservative problem or a Leftist (or as some would gave it, Liberal) problem.

Doesn't matter what your race, religion, socio-economic status, sexual ID or orientation is, or what. We pulled together for WWII and after 9/11. We can do it again. We need to stop debasing each other and start reaching out for dialogue.

(Liberal thinking is what birthed the Declaration of Independence. Because a "conservative" thought would never allow you contemplating such a thing.)


(For the record, I am a gun owner and have been for years (except when living in countries that ban them). I fully understand why we have the 2A and fully support the need to keep it. After all, WE THE PEOPLE ARE THE MILITIA; the last line of defence for our freedom and our country. )

Apologies for the rant and if I derailed this discussion in any way.

Sent from my SM-T713 using Tapatalk

[Duelist]

I'd say working to garner grass roots support for things like rallies and marches is a necessary step. Any hope of righting the ship will involve large public support, and in fact that is where the real battleground is at this point. Public opinion is a larger obstacle to freedom than outright government abuse of power.

Contacting elected representatives to let opinions be known is a no-brainer, and most of us on this forum have probably already been doing that.

A healthy, robust NRA (or similar organization) is needed. That's why the turmoil and apparent corruption within the NRA is such bad news.

Civil disobedience is something each individual needs to consider and weigh and act on or not, based on his/her own conscience. It may have nothing to do with violence.

As far as our government exceeding the tyranny the British held over the Colonists, you are referring to things such as the following?

* The Boston Massacre
* No representation within the governing body
* Excessive taxes and trade regulations (see the immediately preceding point)
* A thoroughly corrupt justice system at every level
* Officials who committed crimes being removed and tried on foreign soil without witnesses
* Having federal troops quartered in homes with or without consent
* Unfettered search and seizure of homes, businesses, and possessions beyond the legal limits of "Writs of Assistance"

Seriously?

Let us not forget:

*armed bands of government troops roaming the countryside confiscating and destroying arms and ammunition owned by both private citizens and local law enforcement. Which was the causus belli that actually got the shooting part started.

[Joe in PNG]

Let us not forget:

*armed bands of government troops roaming the countryside confiscating and destroying arms and ammunition owned by both private citizens and local law enforcement. Which was the causus belli that actually got the shooting part started.

The worst part is that all these things were done by a group that was increasingly seen as foreigners by the native born Americans.
People can usually tolerate home grown oppression, but can't abide it if some turkey from some other country is doing it.

[Old Man Winter]

As far as our government exceeding the tyranny the British held over the Colonists, you are referring to things such as the following?

* The Boston Massacre
* No representation within the governing body
* Excessive taxes and trade regulations (see the immediately preceding point)
* A thoroughly corrupt justice system at every level
* Officials who committed crimes being removed and tried on foreign soil without witnesses
* Having federal troops quartered in homes with or without consent
* Unfettered search and seizure of homes, businesses, and possessions beyond the legal limits of "Writs of Assistance"

Seriously?


* The Boston Massacre

US Government + Native Americans > the Boston Massacre.

* No representation within the governing body

While we may elect representatives it would be easy to argue we have no representation within our governing body.

* Excessive taxes and trade regulations (see the immediately preceding point)

We’re taxed on so many levels it’s unbelievable. We have no real say in the matter which goes back to the debate of representation in the governing body. Trade regulations are equally out of control.

* A thoroughly corrupt justice system at every level

political corruption: dishonesty, unscrupulousness, double-dealing, fraud, fraudulence, misconduct, crime, criminality, wrongdoing; bribery, venality, extortion, profiteering, payola; informal graft, grift, crookedness, sleaze. ANTONYMS honesty.

Show me a level of our justice system where there hasn’t been repeated corruption.

Bad apple officers?
Activist prosecutors and judges?
Attorney General’s?
Justice department abuses against a presidential candidate and president elect?
FISA court abuses?
Special counsel abuses?

It would be interesting to see a full listing of incidents of corruption within our justice system.

* Officials who committed crimes being removed and tried on foreign soil without witnesses

Can’t answer that one but we certainly have officials who’ve committed crimes that haven’t been brought to prosecution.

* Having federal troops quartered in homes with or without consent

Probably no third amendment violations in recent memory.

* Unfettered search and seizure of homes, businesses, and possessions beyond the legal limits of "Writs of Assistance"

Watertown, MA after the Boston marathon bombing?
Court cases are impacted by fourth amendment violations?
Need for exclusionary rule on top of fourth amendment?
NSA helping other government agencies monitor US citizens when they didn’t have evidence to obtain warrants.
Present day NSA?

It would be interesting to see a full listing of fourth amendment violations that have occurred in this country.

[Robinson]

36trap - I understand your position. The U.S. government, along with various state and local governments, is guilty of corruption and violating citizens' rights. But at the time of the Revolution it was standard operating procedure.

In most court cases today, due process is followed. Perhaps not all, but most.

We still have a representative democratic republic. It's dysfunctional but still mostly operates according to law. Mostly.

Nobody likes paying taxes. Or over-regulation. Some regulations have been rolled back in recent years.

The government sticks its nose where it doesn't belong. We all know that. But the 'Unfettered search and seizure of homes, businesses, and possessions beyond the legal limits of "Writs of Assistance"' I mentioned was much worse. It was physical search and confiscation with bogus or no warrants, and a legal system that supported the practice all day every day.

There is a lot to be pissed about at present. It's not equivalent to the state of things at the time of the Revolution in my opinion.

I won't quote the whole reference, but we are "at that awkward stage". It isn't time. Hopefully it never will be.

[mc1911]

As I've stated many times, maybe even on this forum, the Secondment Amendment is just that, an amendment. As such, it can be amended and even dropped in its entirety.

Here's one media site calling for just that scenario:

https://www.thenation.com/article/repeal-second-amendment-gun-control/


And if we, as a nation, do not get our act together on the many issues that divide US, and issues often used as the basis of many of these killings (single person but especially mass murders/terrorism), we can kiss the 2A goodbye.

Organizations on both sides of the aisle need to work on changing people's mindset of intolerance towards those with differing opinions. It's not a Republican problem to fix or a Democratic problem. It is not a Conservative problem or a Leftist (or as some would gave it, Liberal) problem.

Doesn't matter what your race, religion, socio-economic status, sexual ID or orientation is, or what. We pulled together for WWII and after 9/11. We can do it again. We need to stop debasing each other and start reaching out for dialogue.

(Liberal thinking is what birthed the Declaration of Independence. Because a "conservative" thought would never allow you contemplating such a thing.)


(For the record, I am a gun owner and have been for years (except when living in countries that ban them). I fully understand why we have the 2A and fully support the need to keep it. After all, WE THE PEOPLE ARE THE MILITIA; the last line of defence for our freedom and our country. )

Apologies for the rant and if I derailed this discussion in any way.

Sent from my SM-T713 using Tapatalk

Technically, the amendment concept you state is not inaccurate. However, it bears keeping in mind that the Constitution was only ratified by the states based on the contingency that the Bill of Rights would soon be hot off the presses. If we start repealing them, we cut at the legitimacy of the whole ball of wax.

With regards to liberal thinking birthing the Declaration, there is a big difference between classical liberalism and the crackpot crap called liberalism today.

[fixer]

Great Colion video.

[GyroF-16]

Great Colion video.

Concur.

Then we got derailed around post 7 or 8....

[RevolverRob]

As I've stated many times, maybe even on this forum, the Secondment Amendment is just that, an amendment. As such, it can be amended and even dropped in its entirety.

Here's one media site calling for just that scenario:

https://www.thenation.com/article/repeal-second-amendment-gun-control/


And if we, as a nation, do not get our act together on the many issues that divide US, and issues often used as the basis of many of these killings (single person but especially mass murders/terrorism), we can kiss the 2A goodbye.


It is true, the amendment is an amendment.

It is also true, that an amendment is an incredibly difficult thing to pass. According to Senate.gov - "Approximately 11,770 measures have been proposed to amend the Constitution from 1789 through January 3, 2019."

27 of those Amendments have passed. And we'll note that the first ten of those were the Bill of Rights.

Requiring 2/3rds of the House and the Senate + 3/4s of states to ratify an amendment, makes the formal repeal of the 2nd Amendment largely a pipe dream for idiots. Or even a Constitutional Convention would still not allow this to occur.

Sure it could happen, and if we are not vigilant it will happen. But chances of us waking up tomorrow to finding the 28th Amendment to repeal the 2nd are zero. Even if such an amendment passed through Congress, it would never gain the 3/4ths state majority (38 states) needed, because 40 of our current 50 states have state constitutions that guarantee the rights of their citizens to bear arms. Ratifying a US Constitutional Amendment that violates their state Constitutions is a very tricky legal precedent. Not something that simply could happen either over night nor probably at all.

Which is why making sure the rights are properly protected at the state level is so critical. State level constitutional changes that remove the right to bear arms should be viewed as a harbinger of a Federal constitutional amendment to do the same.

___

If folks think that ballot boxes aren't working, you're reading too much rhetoric. Seriously, dial it back. Take a little vacation to Venezuela, Mexico, South Africa and see how the other half lives. We aren't even close to this. Which does not mean I am suggesting complacency, I am not. But if you really think that the U.S. is spinning around the drain then your perspective needs adjusting.

[JohnO]

As I've stated many times, maybe even on this forum, the Secondment Amendment is just that, an amendment. As such, it can be amended and even dropped in its entirety.


Society has been lulled into believing that Constitutional Amendments especially the Bill of Rights grant the citizens their rights. Nothing could be further from the truth!

The Rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are natural rights granted from "Nature's God". The intent of the Constitution is to restrain the government not to people.

Constitutional scholars will tell you that even if the 2nd Amendment did not exist the right to keep and bear arms would be covered under the 9th Amendment. "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Note how it says retained by the people not granted to the people! As well it says rights do not have to be written down to exist.

There was an argument over the inclusion of the Bill of Rights into the Constitution. Some felt it was unnecessary to write down natural rights others felt that if written down they could be taken away. Hamilton and Madison argued that the Constitution didn't need a Bill of Rights, that it would create a "parchment barrier" that limited the rights of the people, as opposed to protecting them.

Thomas Jefferson argued that “a bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth.” Jefferson felt the rights secured a freedom from tyranny and would balance the power of the national government, while also ensuring that personal freedoms could not be encroached on in any of the thirteen states.

James Madison became an advocate for a Bill of Rights, arguing that a declaration of rights would not only educate people on their rights, but could also be used as a vehicle to rally the people against future oppressive governments as well as allowing for the judiciary to serve as a “guardian” of individual rights.

How far we have fallen!

[Joe in PNG]

The other bit of overheated rhetoric often seen is the proposition that our government is somehow no longer representative.

Nope, it represents the majority of the American people just fine- it's just that some people aren't happy that it represents the views and beliefs of other American people.

Pretty much every current problem one may have with Congress has pretty much been there since the first one- Gerrymandering, vote fraud, the "wrong" guy in office, over representation of the populated areas, party nonsense, too many damn lawyers, and so on. Once could even points to periods where things were much much worse.

A more cynical fellow would probably say that the problem isn't that the Congress doesn't represent the American people, but that it represents them a bit too much.

[Bart Carter]

My problem with government is that, bit by bit, it has given itself more power over the people. It passes laws that take away our freedoms. Federal government disregards its Constitutional limitations. I can't believe how the Federal government uses its authority to regulate interstate commerce to justify almost everything it does.

We have more freedom than any other country in the world. Yet, do you feel really free when everything we do is overseen by government?

You can say we get the government that we deserve because of how we voted. But it doesn't matter how I vote, it matters how the majority votes. Democracy works until the majority votes against minority interests. Why should the majority decide on how much to tax the minority so they will benefit? Our Constitution was formed to protect us against a democratic majority's dictatorship and government overreach. We are losing our rights bit by bit.

[Old Man Winter]

My problem with government is that, bit by bit, it has given itself more power over the people. It passes laws that take away our freedoms. Federal government disregards its Constitutional limitations. I can't believe how the Federal government uses its authority to regulate interstate commerce to justify almost everything it does.

We have more freedom than any other country in the world. Yet, do you feel really free when everything we do is overseen by government?

You can say we get the government that we deserve because of how we voted. But it doesn't matter how I vote, it matters how the majority votes. Democracy works until the majority votes against minority interests. Why should the majority decide on how much to tax the minority so they will benefit? Our Constitution was formed to protect us against a democratic majority's dictatorship and government overreach. We are losing our rights bit by bit.


What’s scary is how many of us are willing to let our rights and freedoms get stripped away and watered down.

[Suvorov]

The so called "Gun Issue" has nothing to do with guns. It is a manifestation of the breakdown of society.

.........

The chickens are coming home to roost. I think we have a generation of broken individuals who are going to wreak havoc on society.

Sorry rant over.

Pretty much as clearly stated as can be.

[RoyGBiv]

The chickens are coming home to roost. I think we have a generation of broken individuals who are going to wreak havoc on society.

Sorry rant over.

I think it's been this way for a loooong time.... It's cyclical.

The ruling class wants to rule.... they gain power by influencing impressionable people with reasonable words.... While the sheepdogs are mostly minding their own business... They gain power and make themselves feel safe by doing away with scary things (like guns) and agreeing to stupid things that empower our enemies (like the Iran nuclear deal), just to make them fade from view. If they can't see it, it isn't so scary, even though it's festering. Eventually those mistakes come back to haunt us, our enemies seize an opportunity, attack us or our friends/proxies and the sheepdogs come back in power out of necessity. Then the ruling class blames everyone but themselves and starts over.

[Robinson]

What’s scary is how many of us are willing to let our rights and freedoms get stripped away and watered down.

What's your plan? If it involves pulling triggers don't bother responding.

[Joe in PNG]

The biggest problem with our government stems from the people's desire that Something Must Be Done- Right Now!

Most government comes from that desire. Sadly, people seldom sit down and think about things like Unintended Consequences or Perverse Incentives or "how is this going to come back and bite me in the arse?".

[Suvorov]

The biggest problem with our government stems from the people's desire that Something Must Be Done- Right Now!

Most government comes from that desire. Sadly, people seldom sit down and think about things like Unintended Consequences or Perverse Incentives or "how is this going to come back and bite me in the arse?".

It reminds me of this quote (quite ironically) made by Lyndon B Johnson -
You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered.

[Thy.Will.Be.Done]

I noticed that Military Arms Channel is hosting a live event on Wednesday night with somebody from Gun Owners Of America, said something about informing about some upcoming legislation that will be rolled out soon and what to do about it. Sorry no links, but google works.

[Guerrero]

The editors of National Review have come out with an excellent article explaining how universal background checks are bad. Worth a read

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/08/against-universal-background-checks/

[OlongJohnson]

It reminds me of this quote (quite ironically) made by Lyndon B Johnson -

Along those lines...

The right amount of power for government to have is the amount that you would want it to have if the other side was fully in control.

[Old Man Winter]

What's your plan? If it involves pulling triggers don't bother responding.

I don't have a plan but rest assured my path is focused on information, not pulling triggers.

[11B10]

With regards to liberal thinking birthing the Declaration, there is a big difference between classical liberalism and the crackpot crap called liberalism today.


Beat me to it!

[OlongJohnson]

It occurred to me in another context that when we are trying to engage with someone who sees the world in a significantly different way than we do, it may be useful to frame the conversation around the idea of trying to pass their Turing test.

Of course, if all they want to engage with is a mirror that tells them they are the fairest of them all, there is no Turing test to pass.

I'm going to have to think about where this goes.

[fixer]

There are over 20 people attempting to gain a path to the presidency by running a platform of trashing the 1st, 2nd, 4th amendment. Astonishing that people eat this crap up because "DO SOMETHING!"

[Joe in PNG]

It occurred to me in another context that when we are trying to engage with someone who sees the world in a significantly different way than we do, it may be useful to frame the conversation around the idea of trying to pass their Turing test.

Of course, if all they want to engage with is a mirror that tells them they are the fairest of them all, there is no Turing test to pass.

I'm going to have to think about where this goes.

It's hard to make decision without knowledge. In that case, one has to trust feelings, and feelings lie.
Eg, most Taurus handguns are bought by people with limited firearms knowledge, so they go on what "looks cool" and doesn't cost a lot.

In this case, most people don't have a knowledge of historical context. To them, history basically started at their birth, and anything before that is old, superseded, obsolescent, and fairly irrelevant.
Any lessons are thus to be ignored.
Which is utterly foolish. Human nature hasn't changed.

[JohnO]

In this case, most people don't have a knowledge of historical context. To them, history basically started at their birth, and anything before that is old, superseded, obsolescent, and fairly irrelevant.
Any lessons are thus to be ignored.
Which is utterly foolish. Human nature hasn't changed.

That last sentence, "Human nature hasn't changed", is the crux of the argument when it comes to the Constitution and our Rights. The framers of the Constitution were highly learned men who studied history and understood human nature.

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."--Alexander Hamilton

The framers incorporated the wisdom of the ages, took from the ancient Greeks & Romans, thousands of years of human interaction boiled down into one document establishing rules for our Republic. The one constant throughout time has been human nature. To suggest that the passing of ~250 years have rendered the document obsolete is pure poppycock.

The framers knew precisely the consequence of human nature. e.g. As Benjamin Franklin departed the Constitutional Convention, he was asked if the framers had created a monarchy or a republic. "A republic," he famously replied, and then added, "if you can keep it."

[Thy.Will.Be.Done]

Looks like their will indeed be a major push to rush in these new background checks and red flag laws

https://www.getzone.com/news-mcconnell-looks-to-strengthen-background-checks-red-flag-laws/?trk_msg=T2UT6F0A0KTKP1DJGD4UCI0V7O&trk_contact=ASLT97L6NIAONM7NQ3I9H6AFAK&trk_sid=MBD7N4A9LJAKTRQEB5UPSV87OS&utm_source=Listrak&utm_medium=Email&utm_term=NEWS%3a+McConnell+Looks+to+Strengthen+Bac kground+Checks%2c+Red+Flag+Laws&utm_campaign=2019.08.10_Henry&utm_content=2019.08.10_Henry

"
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Thursday that strengthening background checks and red flag laws will “lead the discussion” on addressing gun violence in the wake of two mass shootings that left at least 31 people dead.

McConnell’s remarks on a Kentucky news radio show follow a conversation he had Thursday morning with President Donald Trump, who has called for revisiting stricter background checks for gun buyers as well as red flag laws, which allows authorities to limit a person’s access to guns if they pose an imminent threat to others.

“The president called me this morning about this, he’s anxious to get an outcome. So am I,” said McConnell, who added that he spoke to Trump about starting staff-level discussions about reforming the nation’s gun laws in preparation for the Senate’s return from recess in September.

During the radio show, McConnell reiterated his call for Democrats and Republicans to come up with a bipartisan legislative solution. He described red flag laws and expanding background checks as “two items that for sure will be front and center.”

On Thursday, Speaker Nancy Pelosi also called on Trump to bring the Senate back from recess to consider gun control legislation the House passed earlier this year, citing a section in the Constitution that allows a president to convene the Senate or House. McConnell has resisted calls to bring the Senate back.

“If we did that we’d just have people scoring points and nothing would happen,” McConnell said. “There has to be a bipartisan discussion here of what we can agree on. If we do it prematurely it will just be another frustrating experience for all of us and for the public.”
Several Republican senators have come out in favor of red flag laws following the shootings in El Paso, Texas and Dayton, Ohio. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said Monday that he was working on such a bill with Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.). Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) also has his own red flag bill that he introduced earlier this year.

Trump’s public support for stricter background checks has given new life to legislation from Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) that would expand background checks to all commercial gun sales. But most Republicans have historically resisted that idea, and the proposal has failed twice in the Senate. McConnell was among the Senators who voted against it.
“It’s always a challenge making federal legislation because we do have a lot of differences in our country over an issue like this,” McConnell said.

McConnell also addressed the recent controversy surrounding his campaign’s Twitter account, which Twitter shut down after it posted a video of protesters yelling threats outside the majority leader’s Kentucky home. McConnell accused Twitter of political bias, noting that the social media site allowed the hashtag #MassacreMitch to trend nationally on the platform after the weekend massacres.
“Twitter is perfectly fine with carrying ‘Massacre Mitch’ which is obviously an invitation to violence but when those kinds of words are directed at me they shut us down, locked our account down,” McConnell said. “So we’re in a major war with them and they haven’t given up yet.”
"

[Suvorov]

The simple thing that is just boggling my mind is this - They are pushing for universal background checks and yet nearly every single one of these murdering turds purchased the gun from an FFL and passed the background check. If this related to a limiting the rights of those the Left hold sacred - there would be no shortage of journalists and pundants pointing to this obvious incongruity.

It really makes me think the ones calling for these laws have ulterior motives because it really is hard for me to grasp that level of stupidity.

[OlongJohnson]

It really makes me think the ones calling for these laws have ulterior motives because it really is hard for me to grasp that level of stupidity.

Think about the demographic requirements to even be affected by the CA magazine confiscation, and what it's all about comes into focus very clearly. It's not about what they say it's about.

[Thy.Will.Be.Done]

The most effective liars are those that are skilled at weaving in bits of truth with their lies, politics is not immune to this as we often see.

[the Schwartz]

The simple thing that is just boggling my mind is this - They are pushing for universal background checks and yet nearly every single one of these murdering turds purchased the gun from an FFL and passed the background check. If this related to a limiting the rights of those the Left hold sacred - there would be no shortage of journalists and pundants pointing to this obvious incongruity.

It really makes me think the ones calling for these laws have ulterior motives because it really is hard for me to grasp that level of stupidity.

This is happening because, once again, due to a sense of urgency created by recent events, the Democrats/Left (and many others) have conflated legislation with the function of enforcement. Laws merely describe prohibited actions. Enforcement is the act by which perpetrators are brought to justice by law enforcement and judicial agents after the Commission of an offense. While these coward's actions (most recently in El Paso and Dayton) which have elicited the cries of the Democrats/Left to "Do something!", what the Democrats/Left are really seeking is not the creation of more laws that address some undefined criminal act, but rather a new species of legislation that can somehow "prevent" these tragedies from occuring in the first place. What seems to have escaped the Democrat's/Left's understanding is that such laws would require the ability to accurately predict both normal and abnormal human behavior. To date, no such ability exists and is unlikely to ever exist since human behavior is far too complex in nature.

The ulterior motive being pursued by the Democrats/Left has nothing to do with controlling firearms, but rather with controlling the citizenry. Take away the guns: eliminate the need to worry about predicting future human behavior since the instrument is gone. Of course, such an approach ignores the fact that the human species is marvelously adaptive. If deprived of a specific instrument or tool, the human species has a very long and successful history of finding or improvising another.

[Kanye Wyoming]

A cousin of mine posted this piece on his FB page. It's an entertaining read, with some good historical context for the philosophy of John Locke. The end game:


Locke was perfectly prepared to acknowledge the horrors of anarchy, but he doubted very much that they so exceeded those of tyranny that human beings could be persuaded to give up the right to organized self-defense. A well-ordered government would include a monarchical executive armed with a prerogative enabling him to execute the laws, defend the realm, and respond to emergencies; it would include a representative assembly empowered to lay taxes, make laws, and examine the conduct of the executive's ministers. But it would rest ultimately on an enlightened citizenry prepared, in the face of executive and legislative abuse, to take up arms in defense of the right to life, liberty, and property.

MY FELLOW AMERICANS, DOES THIS SOUND FAMILIAR YET?

Like I said, America’s Founding Fathers stole a hell of a lot of Locke’s ideas. They used Locke’s principles of the social compact, consent of the governed, and the right to keep and bear arms to form a near-perfect union—to shape (and philosophically defend) the fledgling United States of America. The Declaration of Independence says “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.” It also says that “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”

And the Second Amendment, which is part of the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the Constitution), says “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

That’s not something the 1st United States Congress pulled out of their asses. It comes straight from Locke.

https://www.quora.com/Why-does-America-allow-the-general-public-to-keep-guns-Why-doesnt-America-restrict-guns/answer/Andrew-T-Post?fbclid=IwAR0YOjh79GkKl0OEmvAKAZCAmWXOaMVnpx15 1LduGb1wCWkCl6Yf03j1xDc

[Thy.Will.Be.Done]

MIlitary Arms Channel had an in depth discussion over what may be happening with this potential legislation with Gun Owners of Amera. There is lots of good information shared here and hopefully what we can do to help the situation.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDWDjUp_HgY