Paul Howe's perspective

[Shellback]

Interesting read on the AWB craze. http://blog.wilsoncombat.com/paul-howe/2nd-amendment-and-the-kool-aid-drinkers-by-paul-howe/

[jon volk]

Nobody needs to confiscate anything if possession is made a felony. Then it's a matter if not getting caught like the rest of the criminals.

[Tamara]

Nobody needs to confiscate anything if possession is made a felony.

I'm not sure that has worked on anything ever. ;)

[jon volk]

Work, no. Make enjoyment of a favorite activity exceedingly difficult, yes.

[RoyGBiv]

Nobody needs to confiscate anything if possession is made a felony.
Article I, Section IX, Clause III

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

[dbateman]

Irish good link I will be sharing it with a few people.

Thanks


Nobody needs to confiscate anything if possession is made a felony. Then it's a matter if not getting caught like the rest of the criminals.

Yes they are pushing for mandatory life in prison for possession of an unregistered firearm over here in QLD Australia.

They just got 5yrs mandatory sentencing past now they want life... Life in gaol just for owning a gun.

You guys need to fight this.

[joshs]

Article I, Section IX, Clause III

Criminalizing future possession is not an ex post facto law. If they tried to charge a person with possession of a prohibited item for possession that occurred before the item was prohibited, that would be an ex post facto law.

[NETim]

Criminalizing future possession is not an ex post facto law. If they tried to charge a person with possession of a prohibited item for possession that occurred before the item was prohibited, that would be an ex post facto law.

Which would require registration of existing firearms. And as we all know, registration leads to confiscation.

[JodyH]

If they force me into felonious behavior and tag me as a felon they will not like the results.
"Breaking Bad" will look like Sesame Street. Once I'm forced to make the turn, I'm going all in.
Crime does pay when its done right.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 2

[Sparks2112]

If they force me into felonious behavior and tag me as a felon they will not like the results.
"Breaking Bad" will look like Sesame Street. Once I'm forced to make the turn, I'm going all in.
Crime does pay when its done right.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 2

Yeah, ditto. They wouldn't like me or my friends very much either.

[LOKNLOD]

Which would require registration of existing firearms. And as we all know, registration leads to confiscation.

It doesn't even really require registration. Think about a mag ban. Starting May 1st, all mags >10 rounds are illegal to manufacture and sell, and possession or transfer are felonies. Prior to May 1st is amnesty for surrender, no penalties, no questions, and we'll even give you a $100 gift card for coming in and turning them over. One time only*, so bring them all at once. Would tons still be left out there? Sure. Would most of them never see the light of day because people are just hanging on to them but terrified to use them? Probably. Obviously none of that would accomplish anything in terms of actually decreasing violence or decreasing the ability to use a magazine in a crime, but nobody really believes those are goals, do they?


*Your name will go on a list, so you can't double dip, but that's just to prevent abuse, so don't worry that we now have a list of all the people who probably have weapons that could use these mags, and possibly kept a few squirreled away...

[RoyGBiv]

Criminalizing future possession is not an ex post facto law. If they tried to charge a person with possession of a prohibited item for possession that occurred before the item was prohibited, that would be an ex post facto law.

Passing such a prohibition would be a difficult thing to do, even in today's post-FDR, Commerce-Clause-justifies-everything world. Prohibiting alcohol or drugs or guns in school zones does not come up so squarely against an enumerated clause in the Bill of Rights.

Even during prohibition, possession was not illegal. Only manufacture, sale and transportation (distribution) was illegal. The Amendment even gave folks one year to stock up before taking effect.

I suppose a bit of good news is that the Illinois legislation failed in the State Senate today...

[joshs]

Passing such a prohibition would be a difficult thing to do, even in today's post-FDR, Commerce-Clause-justifies-everything world. Prohibiting alcohol or drugs or guns in school zones does not come up so squarely against an enumerated clause in the Bill of Rights.

Even during prohibition, possession was not illegal. Only manufacture, sale and transportation (distribution) was illegal. The Amendment even gave folks one year to stock up before taking effect.

I suppose a bit of good news is that the Illinois legislation failed in the State Senate today...

To be clear, I wasn't claiming that a magazine or assault weapon ban would be constitutional, only that it wouldn't violate the ex post facto clause.

[TGS]

Passing such a prohibition would be a difficult thing to do, even in today's post-FDR, Commerce-Clause-justifies-everything world. Prohibiting alcohol or drugs or guns in school zones does not come up so squarely against an enumerated clause in the Bill of Rights.

Even during prohibition, possession was not illegal. Only manufacture, sale and transportation (distribution) was illegal. The Amendment even gave folks one year to stock up before taking effect.

Several states already have AWBs that made the possession of something illegal, and citizens had to either sell them off or permanently modify them.

[joshs]

Several states already have AWBs that made the possession of something illegal, and citizens had to either sell them off or permanently modify them.

When most states passed their AWBs "assault weapons" and "high-capacity ammunition feeding devices were not nearly as common as they are today. While this shows the absurdity of the Supreme Court's "common usage" test, a different result could be reached as to the constitutionality of the prior state bans and a ban passed in 2013.

[TGS]

When most states passed their AWBs "assault weapons" and "high-capacity ammunition feeding devices were not nearly as common as they are today. While this shows the absurdity of the Supreme Court's "common usage" test, a different result could be reached as to the constitutionality of the prior state bans and a ban passed in 2013.

That's a happy-land train of thought, IMO, because it doesn't change the reality of what actually is.

[RoyGBiv]

Several states already have AWBs that made the possession of something illegal, and citizens had to either sell them off or permanently modify them.

Agreed, but, do those laws stand because SCOTUS has said they're Constitutional or because the 2A lobby is focusing their political capital on other things?

For example, in TX there was OC, campus carry, the "parking lot bill" (allowing storage of guns in your car at work when your employer prohibits guns in the workplace), removing restrictions on CHL's (fewer prohibited places), etc. on the 2011 legislative agenda (TX legislature is in session only in odd-numbered years, we have better things to do than pass laws to justify having a state government).

Talking with folks involved in the process, it was clear that they had to decide which fights to fight. In 2011 TX passed the "parking lot bill" and failed on campus carry. It looks like this session the push will be for reduction of prohibited places.

Looking at the National picture, we've successfully won Heller and McDonald... Cases where the mere possession of a gun was prohibited. These were cases where the Constitutional issues were clearer (not muddied by the Commerce Clause) and the political capital was available for the fight. They were also cases that set "Big Precedents" upon which to build further case law. When the AWB was signed in 1994, did it make sense to spend the political capital to challenge that law at that time? Or did the 2A folks see enough holes in the legislation and the light of expiration at the end of the 10-year tunnel and make a decision to let it run its course and employ their remaining political capitol (much of which was spent watering down the legislation) elsewhere?

I can find State Supreme Courts that have tackled the AWB issue (Co, NJ, IL, etc.) but I don't find any SCOTUS cases. Maybe my google-fu is weak today. To be clear, I do see several (many?) cases where SCOTUS has refused to hear AWB and other firearms cases, refusing to do so under the precedent set by US v Miller in 1939. However, the McDonald decision has opened up fertile ground for State law to be challenged on 2A grounds.

Looking forward, where do you spend your powder? National CC reciprocity?, Fighting State-level AWB's?, Fending off a renewed, more restrictive Federal AWB?,

SCOTUS has declared that just like you can't yell fire in a crowded movie theater when there is no fire, 2A is similarly not absolute. A few states with AWB's doesn't make it to the top of the "must fix this" list, neither does a watered down, full of holes Federal AWB.... Feinstein's proposal? The question is where to best spend your powder... In the legislative process first, then in the courts based on how bad the final legislation is. Time will tell.

[TGS]

Agreed, but, do those laws stand because SCOTUS has said they're Constitutional or because the 2A lobby is focusing their political capital on other things?

For example, in TX there was OC, campus carry, the "parking lot bill" (allowing storage of guns in your car at work when your employer prohibits guns in the workplace), removing restrictions on CHL's (fewer prohibited places), etc. on the 2011 legislative agenda (TX legislature is in session only in odd-numbered years, we have better things to do than pass laws to justify having a state government).

Talking with folks involved in the process, it was clear that they had to decide which fights to fight. In 2011 TX passed the "parking lot bill" and failed on campus carry. It looks like this session the push will be for reduction of prohibited places.

Looking at the National picture, we've successfully won Heller and McDonald... Cases where the mere possession of a gun was prohibited. These were cases where the Constitutional issues were clearer (not muddied by the Commerce Clause) and the political capital was available for the fight. They were also cases that set "Big Precedents" upon which to build further case law. When the AWB was signed in 1994, did it make sense to spend the political capital to challenge that law at that time? Or did the 2A folks see enough holes in the legislation and the light of expiration at the end of the 10-year tunnel and make a decision to let it run its course and employ their remaining political capitol (much of which was spent watering down the legislation) elsewhere?

I can find State Supreme Courts that have tackled the AWB issue (Co, NJ, IL, etc.) but I don't find any SCOTUS cases. Maybe my google-fu is weak today. To be clear, I do see several (many?) cases where SCOTUS has refused to hear AWB and other firearms cases, refusing to do so under the precedent set by US v Miller in 1939. However, the McDonald decision has opened up fertile ground for State law to be challenged on 2A grounds.

Looking forward, where do you spend your powder? National CC reciprocity?, Fighting State-level AWB's?, Fending off a renewed, more restrictive Federal AWB?,

SCOTUS has declared that just like you can't yell fire in a crowded movie theater when there is no fire, 2A is similarly not absolute. A few states with AWB's doesn't make it to the top of the "must fix this" list, neither does a watered down, full of holes Federal AWB.... Feinstein's proposal? The question is where to best spend your powder... In the legislative process first, then in the courts based on how bad the final legislation is. Time will tell.

I think we're talking about two different things.

A few posts ago, you said that they wouldn't be able to make the possession of an assault weapon/standard capacity mag, illegal:

Nobody needs to confiscate anything if possession is made a felony. Then it's a matter if not getting caught like the rest of the criminals.


Article I, Section IX, Clause III

<insert Joshs correcting what ex post facto is and isn't, and how Article 1, Section IX, Clause III does not apply>


Passing such a prohibition would be a difficult thing to do, even in today's post-FDR, Commerce-Clause-justifies-everything world. Prohibiting alcohol or drugs or guns in school zones does not come up so squarely against an enumerated clause in the Bill of Rights.

Even during prohibition, possession was not illegal. Only manufacture, sale and transportation (distribution) was illegal. The Amendment even gave folks one year to stock up before taking effect.

I shrugged, and pointed at states where it has already happened, where citizens were indeed made insta-felons past a certain date simply for the ownership of evil scary things, with no such grandfathering or legal "pre-ban" exemptions.......and confiscation was not neccessary as Jon Volk pointed out.

[RoyGBiv]

Following on from my previous post here... I did find ...

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silveira_v._Lockyer
Decision: 2A is not an "individual" right.

2. peoples rights organization v city of columbus
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/PaceCaseNote1.htm
Decision: City's AWB is unconstitutional (too vague). 2A argument failed.

3. citizens for a safer community v. city of rochester
http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=1994986164Misc2d822_1853.xml&docbase=CSLWAR2-1986-2006
Decision: Ordinance was struck under the 14th, but court opinion reinforced Miller (no individual right)

4. Fresno Rifle and Pistol Club, Inc. v. Van de Kamp
http://www.conservapedia.com/Fresno_Rifle_and_Pistol_Club,_Inc._v._Van_de_Kamp
Decision: 2A doesn't apply to the states.

So.... you can see how critical McDonald really is...
The McDonald decision reverses 70+ years of precedent that prevented 2A arguments against state law.
Now we can argue 2A vs. State law.... the battle begins anew.

[RoyGBiv]

I think we're talking about two different things.

A few posts ago, you said that they wouldn't be able to make the possession of an assault weapon/standard capacity mag, illegal:




<insert Joshs correcting what ex post facto is and isn't, and how Article 1, Section IX, Clause III does not apply>



I shrugged, and pointed at states where it has already happened, where citizens were indeed made insta-felons past a certain date simply for the ownership of evil scary things, with no such grandfathering or legal "pre-ban" exemptions.......and confiscation was not neccessary as Jon Volk pointed out.

Yes... I've moved on.
Joshs definition was correct... EPFacto is not a valid argument.

It's Friday... Friday is "Rambling train of thought day" on the interweb... No? ;)

[TGS]

It's Friday... Friday is "Rambling train of thought day" on the interweb... No? ;)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7E82ozXyNjk

[Chuck Haggard]

One would wonder, when we are letting murderers out of prison for lack of space to keep them, where we will house all of these new felons?

[Ray Keith]

One would wonder, when we are letting murderers out of prison for lack of space to keep them, where we will house all of these new felons?

There is ALWAYS room for political prisoners

[Suvorov]

Thanks for posting this. I read his newsletter every month but this one slipped past me.

He makes a lot of excellent points and throws a little water on the folks that think the cops are going to be going door to door let along the UN invasion thoughts. What I fear is the banning of them and having to go underground owning them and making the pursuit of training or enjoyment of shooting much more difficult. If we can not pass it down to our children, fewer and fewer generations will want to own them and this Fabian strategy will result not in mass confiscation but in everyone turning them in as they did in Great Britain and Australia.

But the outpouring of support from guys like MSG Howe, Travis Haley, Larry Vickers, Kyle Lamb, and Chris Costa is nice to have as these are guys you want on your side, and it is quite likely that if they are on our side, then most of their friends are as well.

[Shellback]

I originally posted this in another thread but think it's directly related to this one.

Is anyone familiar with the survey composed by Navy Lt. Commander Ernest "Guy" Cunningham, who was working on a Master's Thesis dealing with the deployment of US military units under foreign command as part of UN-supervised missions abroad? Commonly referred to as The US Armed Forces Survey from April 1994 and specifically question #46:

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

When Cunningham released his findings it was revealed that more than 61 percent of the Marines who took the survey responded that they wouldn't carry out such an order under any circumstances. However, slightly more than 25% of Marines who took the survey replied in the affirmative.

Here's an article written by the same: http://oath-keepers.blogspot.com/2009/04/lcdr-ret-ernest-g-cunningham-and-famous.html

Interesting stuff.

[Suvorov]

I originally posted this in another thread but think it's directly related to this one.

Is anyone familiar with the survey composed by Navy Lt. Commander Ernest "Guy" Cunningham, who was working on a Master's Thesis dealing with the deployment of US military units under foreign command as part of UN-supervised missions abroad? Commonly referred to as The US Armed Forces Survey from April 1994 and specifically question #46:

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

When Cunningham released his findings it was revealed that more than 61 percent of the Marines who took the survey responded that they wouldn't carry out such an order under any circumstances. However, slightly more than 25% of Marines who took the survey replied in the affirmative.

Here's an article written by the same: http://oath-keepers.blogspot.com/2009/04/lcdr-ret-ernest-g-cunningham-and-famous.html

Interesting stuff.

I recall this survey as it was fairly hot cooler/MRE talk back then. I have to wonder how gung-ho those 25%ers would be when they realized that the guy on their left, right, and quite possibly rear were not going to be participating along with him?

[SeriousStudent]

I recall this survey as it was fairly hot cooler/MRE talk back then. I have to wonder how gung-ho those 25%ers would be when they realized that the guy on their left, right, and quite possibly rear were not going to be participating along with him?

I'll tell you how. I was a rifle squad leader in the Marines, prior to this survey taking place. My good little PFC's and Lance Criminals would have followed their oaths, and obeyed the Constitution. They would not only have NOT obeyed an unlawful order, they would have actively resisted one. I know this, because I beat that into their heads. Literally, in some of their cases.

It's not a mutiny, when your side wins.

I remember a conversation I had with an officer that started out as a Private carrying a rifle on the Korean Peninsula, and ended up with the top slot in the food chain. Four stars and a house on G Street in DC.

"Serious, sometimes you don't wear your rank, you bet it."

Yeah, it would be a coin toss. But your word means everything, or it means nothing. You can't be sort of loyal, or sometimes faithful. You obey the Constitution, or else you might as well hoist a British flag and hope Liz will take you back.

And I am not a good subject, I'm from Texas. We fail miserably on the whole "good subject" thing. It's just not in our nature.

Sorry, rant over.

[TGS]

I'll tell you how. I was a rifle squad leader in the Marines, prior to this survey taking place. My good little PFC's and Lance Criminals would have followed their oaths, and obeyed the Constitution. They would not only have NOT obeyed an unlawful order, they would have actively resisted one. I know this, because I beat that into their heads. Literally, in some of their cases.

I admire your fervor, but what about when the order is lawful?

You know, 2 SCOTUS justices are appointed by BHO, some precedents are overturned, the 2A is interpreted to only mean flintlock muzzleloaders, and laws are passed to reflect that.

The people of Texas say, "Hell no." Violence ensues....let's not say anything really intense, but local sheriffs offices join citizens in opposing federal authority and a rash of federal agents are killed. Martial law is declared, and a MEU(-) is sent in to conduct stability operations and return order. One of their orders are to confiscate any evil black rifles.

The order is lawful.

[Suvorov]

I'll tell you how. I was a rifle squad leader in the Marines, prior to this survey taking place. My good little PFC's and Lance Criminals would have followed their oaths, and obeyed the Constitution. They would not only have NOT obeyed an unlawful order, they would have actively resisted one. I know this, because I beat that into their heads. Literally, in some of their cases.

It's not a mutiny, when your side wins.

I remember a conversation I had with an officer that started out as a Private carrying a rifle on the Korean Peninsula, and ended up with the top slot in the food chain. Four stars and a house on G Street in DC.

"Serious, sometimes you don't wear your rank, you bet it."

Yeah, it would be a coin toss. But your word means everything, or it means nothing. You can't be sort of loyal, or sometimes faithful. You obey the Constitution, or else you might as well hoist a British flag and hope Liz will take you back.

And I am not a good subject, I'm from Texas. We fail miserably on the whole "good subject" thing. It's just not in our nature.

Sorry, rant over.

I agree. My point was that even the 25% of Marines that said they would follow the order to confiscate arms, would be a lot less likely to carry it out when the realized that 3/4 of their squad were not going to engage in any such buffoonery.

As a former Army Officer, based on my experience, I would trust the mid-grade NCOs to obey the constitution (and as a result - many of the lower enlisted who will follow their NCOs) more than I would trust the officer corps. Why? Two reasons, first many officers have their eyes set on the star and they realize at a very early age that that requires them to play the political game. Second, many officers were college students looking for money and thus were not in it for what I believed to be the right reasons and subject to the typical leftist indoctrination at school. While this is certainly true of the enlisted ranks as well, it seemed to be more true in the support units than the combat arms units. If a kid from Red State America is going to become a Tanker or a Grunt, they are usually doing it for reasons beyond the GI Bill.

[SeriousStudent]

I admire your fervor, but what about when the order is lawful?

You know, 2 SCOTUS justices are appointed by BHO, some precedents are overturned, the 2A is interpreted to only mean flintlock muzzleloaders, and laws are passed to reflect that.

The people of Texas say, "Hell no." Violence ensues....let's not say anything really intense, but local sheriffs offices join citizens in opposing federal authority and a rash of federal agents are killed. Martial law is declared, and a MEU(-) is sent in to conduct stability operations and return order. One of their orders are to confiscate any evil black rifles.

The order is lawful.

I have a very, very difficult time imagining any Marine unit bigger than a fire team carrying out that order. I just don't. Because after guys hear muskets go off for real, they tend to fight for each other. Not medals, not flags, not apple pie. For their brothers and their souls.

I understand precisely the scenario you paint, and I dread it deeply. I dread it the way I fear for the lives of my children.

But Federal law enforcement officers were killed at Ruby Ridge and Waco, and martial law was not declared. Their murders were a terrible, terrible thing.

I understand exactly what happened with National Guardsmen in Katrina confiscating weapons. Texas has laws on the books now to prevent exactly that. But if martial law is declared, what do you follow?

That's a horrible scenario, and precisely the one that many of us are working to peaceably avoid. It's why I am writing letters and mailing checks. Because if that scenario you describe happens, then we have failed as a Republic. I truly fear that, and will do all within my grasp to avoid it.

I know that if I were that young Marine again, I would not follow that order. They'd send me to the brig, or shoot me. Either way, my oath is intact.

[SeriousStudent]

I agree. My point was that even the 25% of Marines that said they would follow the order to confiscate arms, would be a lot less likely to carry it out when the realized that 3/4 of their squad were not going to engage in any such buffoonery.

As a former Army Officer, based on my experience, I would trust the mid-grade NCOs to obey the constitution (and as a result - many of the lower enlisted who will follow their NCOs) more than I would trust the officer corps. Why? Two reasons, first many officers have their eyes set on the star and they realize at a very early age that that requires them to play the political game. Second, many officers were college students looking for money and thus were not in it for what I believed to be the right reasons and subject to the typical leftist indoctrination at school. While this is certainly true of the enlisted ranks as well, it seemed to be more true in the support units than the combat arms units. If a kid from Red State America is going to become a Tanker or a Grunt, they are usually doing it for reasons beyond the GI Bill.

I think you are absolutely correct. I bet you were a pretty good officer, too.

As an NCO, I felt I had two tasks entrusted to me. The first was to make my Marines into the most capable fighters to ever walk on two legs. The second was try and keep my officers from wasting their lives needlessly.

Telling them to take away the means of self-defense from lawful citizens they swore to protect, is a failure on both tasks. It would lessen them as men, and get them killed needlessly. You cannot ever fold a flag, and hand it to a mother or wife, and not have those words seared into your soul.

General Omar Bradley's autobiography "A Soldier's Story" has an excellent discourse on the "economics" of military leadership. I read it long ago, and took it to heart. I figured if he earned five stars, he likely learned a few things along the way. Including things beyond the GI Bill.

[cclaxton]

I admire your fervor, but what about when the order is lawful?

You know, 2 SCOTUS justices are appointed by BHO, some precedents are overturned, the 2A is interpreted to only mean flintlock muzzleloaders, and laws are passed to reflect that.

The people of Texas say, "Hell no." Violence ensues....let's not say anything really intense, but local sheriffs offices join citizens in opposing federal authority and a rash of federal agents are killed. Martial law is declared, and a MEU(-) is sent in to conduct stability operations and return order. One of their orders are to confiscate any evil black rifles.

The order is lawful.

Guns were confiscated during Katrina but were forced to be be returned and an injunction against it happening in the future.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-10-08-nra-katrina_N.htm

[cclaxton]

My only issue with Mr. Howe's statement is the purpose of gun ownership. It is very clear from the following supporting statements that the purpose of owning a firearm is not to defend against U.S. government tyranny. (It certainly is to defend against foreign invasion)

1) The Constitution, in Article I, allows armed citizens in militias to “suppress Insurrections,” not cause them.

2) The Constitution defines treason as “levying War” against the government in Article III,

3) The states can ask the federal government for assistance “against domestic Violence” under Article IV.

Even if some Founding Fathers made statements suggesting this, it didn't make it into the Constitution.

Self Defense, Defense of others, Militia Membership, Hunting and Sporting....those are the reasons in my view.

CC

[TGS]

My only issue with Mr. Howe's statement is the purpose of gun ownership. It is very clear from the following supporting statements that the purpose of owning a firearm is not to defend against U.S. government tyranny. (It certainly is to defend against foreign invasion)

The thing about that is none of those points contradict the RKBA being to defend against tyranny. Just because it's not specifically enumerated does not mean it's invalid.


Even if some Founding Fathers made statements suggesting this, it didn't make it into the Constitution.

Self Defense, Defense of others, Militia Membership, Hunting and Sporting....those are the reasons in my view.


Well, that's funny, because no statements made it into the US Constitution about your RKBA being about sporting and hunting, either.....yet you'll attribute that to it. Hmmm. Right.

Also, to ignore the statements made by our founding fathers on the importance of bearing arms (or any of the Bill of Rights) is incredibly daft when you're trying to interpret the US Constitution. This just blows my mind....these men just earned their freedom through armed insurrection against a tyrannical state, yet you don't think the RKBA has anything to do with securing the liberty of the people against government incursion? Seriously? Are you kidding me?

Finally, let's not look at just the US Constitution. How about we look at state constitutions to gain some additional context on the American idea of the RKBA:

Article 16th. Right to bear arms; standing armies; military power subordinate to civil

That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State - and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power. Vermont State Constitution (http://www.usconstitution.net/vtconst.html#Article9)

[Tamara]

My only issue with Mr. Howe's statement is the purpose of gun ownership. It is very clear from the following supporting statements that the purpose of owning a firearm is not to defend against U.S. government tyranny.
...
Even if some Founding Fathers made statements suggesting this, it didn't make it into the Constitution.

I'm assuming that any government that had become so destructive of these ends that the people were forced to resort to their arms to alter or abolish it would be operating outside the Constitution anyway.

But I don't see how anybody can claim with a straight face that any of the Founding Fathers didn't believe in the right to revolt against an oppressive government. That's akin to stating that Babe Ruth didn't believe in baseball.

[SeriousStudent]

................... That's akin to stating that Babe Ruth didn't believe in baseball.

I'm quoting you again at work on Monday.

[Odin Bravo One]

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

[SeriousStudent]

Does that bring us back to exactly what constitutes a lawful order? I am absolutely not picking a fight with you, I'm very curious as to what you think. If you have a moment some time, could you expand more on that?

I do have skin in this game. My daughter ships out next month, to start her military service. This is something she has asked about a lot, and is doing a lot of thinking about. I'm encouraging her to do her thinking now, rather than later.

I really, really hope none of this ever gets tested.

[Shellback]

But Federal law enforcement officers were killed at Ruby Ridge and Waco, and martial law was not declared. Their murders were a terrible, terrible thing.

It's far more complicated than that. American citizens were killed at Ruby Ridge and Waco. Their murders were a terrible, terrible thing.

[Odin Bravo One]

Does that bring us back to exactly what constitutes a lawful order?

Probably.

[cclaxton]

The thing about that is none of those points contradict the RKBA being to defend against tyranny. Just because it's not specifically enumerated does not mean it's invalid. Well, that's funny, because no statements made it into the US Constitution about your RKBA being about sporting and hunting, either.....yet you'll attribute that to it. Hmmm. Right.
Actually I think they are a direct contradiction. I don't see how you can have the right to firearms for the purpose of defending against tyranny without insurrection, making war or domestic violence. Since insurrection, etc, are in the Constitution, then it would have to show defending against gov't tyranny as an exception....which is does not.


Also, to ignore the statements made by our founding fathers on the importance of bearing arms (or any of the Bill of Rights) is incredibly daft when you're trying to interpret the US Constitution. This just blows my mind....these men just earned their freedom through armed insurrection against a tyrannical state, yet you don't think the RKBA has anything to do with securing the liberty of the people against government incursion? Seriously? Are you kidding me? It's not hard to understand at all. We formed OUR Government, a government of THE PEOPLE, to stand against tyranny. The Founders provided for a balance of power between the three arms of gov't and between the States and the Federal Gov't. The structure of the gov't was to prevent OUR government from ever becoming tyrannical. While there were those worried about OUR gov't becoming tyrannical, it was resolved through the balance of powers, and AGREED TO in The Constitution.[/QUOTE]


Finally, let's not look at just the US Constitution. How about we look at state constitutions to gain some additional context on the American idea of the RKBA: Vermont State Constitution (http://www.usconstitution.net/vtconst.html#Article9) Interesting, but if insurrection were to break out in Vermont, the Federal Gov't would be Constitutionally justified in suppressing it and trying those who led it as traitors.

[SeriousStudent]

It's far more complicated than that. American citizens were killed at Ruby Ridge and Waco. Their murders were a terrible, terrible thing.

I am not arguing with that either. I just wanted to make it clear in that post that I am not a law-enforcement basher. I know you are not either. I am trying hard to think of a word to describe either event other than "unnecessary", but I keep coming back to that. Both could have been handled much differently, with different leadership.

[SeriousStudent]

Probably.

I keep coming back to the same thing as well.

Thank you again for your service, and stay safe.

[SeriousStudent]

Actually I think they are a direct contradiction. I don't see how you can have the right to firearms for the purpose of defending against tyranny without insurrection, making war or domestic violence. Since insurrection, etc, are in the Constitution, then it would have to show defending against gov't tyranny as an exception....which is does not.

It's not hard to understand at all. We formed OUR Government, a government of THE PEOPLE, to stand against tyranny. The Founders provided for a balance of power between the three arms of gov't and between the States and the Federal Gov't. The structure of the gov't was to prevent OUR government from ever becoming tyrannical. While there were those worried about OUR gov't becoming tyrannical, it was resolved through the balance of powers, and AGREED TO in The Constitution.

Interesting, but if insurrection were to break out in Vermont, the Federal Gov't would be Constitutionally justified in suppressing it and trying those who led it as traitors.

Is the consent of the governed the ultimate source of authority? If not, why? If it is, what happens when the governed withdraw their consent?

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. Do you think the ultimate source of authority is the federal government, or the people of the United States? I honestly think that is the crux.

Please do not construe this as an attack. I'm just trying to work through what you have written. Thank you for your time.

[joshs]

It's not hard to understand at all. We formed OUR Government, a government of THE PEOPLE, to stand against tyranny. The Founders provided for a balance of power between the three arms of gov't and between the States and the Federal Gov't. The structure of the gov't was to prevent OUR government from ever becoming tyrannical. While there were those worried about OUR gov't becoming tyrannical, it was resolved through the balance of powers, and AGREED TO in The Constitution.

So, you're basing your argument on the text of the Constitution, but it isn't ok in looking at the intent of the people who played a role in crafting that text?

[MDS]

Is the consent of the governed the ultimate source of authority? If not, why? If it is, what happens when the governed withdraw their consent?

I'm not cclaxton, but fwiw my thinking is that when we agreed to the Constitution, we agreed that the only legal way to withdraw our consent is at the polls. The republicans benefited from that a while back, then We the People withdrew our consent. Oversimplified, but you see what I'm saying...?

[Tamara]

It's not hard to understand at all. We formed OUR Government, a government of THE PEOPLE, to stand against tyranny. The Founders provided for a balance of power between the three arms of gov't and between the States and the Federal Gov't. The structure of the gov't was to prevent OUR government from ever becoming tyrannical. While there were those worried about OUR gov't becoming tyrannical, it was resolved through the balance of powers, and AGREED TO in The Constitution.

Exactly. And as long as the government operated within the strictures laid out in the Constitution, there would be no need to resort to arms to alter or abolish it.

But to say that people who founded a country by taking up arms in the face of tyranny believed that there was no inherent right to take up arms in the face of tyranny is... well, let's say it's surely an unorthodox viewpoint.

[Shellback]

I am not arguing with that either. I just wanted to make it clear in that post that I am not a law-enforcement basher. I know you are not either. I am trying hard to think of a word to describe either event other than "unnecessary", but I keep coming back to that. Both could have been handled much differently, with different leadership.

I think "unnecessary" is a very appropriate word when describing either event.

[joshs]

I'm not cclaxton, but fwiw my thinking is that when we agreed to the Constitution, we agreed that the only legal way to withdraw our consent is at the polls. The republicans benefited from that a while back, then We the People withdrew our consent. Oversimplified, but you see what I'm saying...?

Technically it would also be possible to secede through constitutional amendment in accordance with Article V. Though this could be interpreted as withdrawing consent "through the polls."

As far as a right to insurrection, I think the simple answer is if you win, it existed, if you lose, probably not.

[cclaxton]

Is the consent of the governed the ultimate source of authority? If not, why? If it is, what happens when the governed withdraw their consent?

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. Do you think the ultimate source of authority is the federal government, or the people of the United States? I honestly think that is the crux.

Please do not construe this as an attack. I'm just trying to work through what you have written. Thank you for your time.

The Constitution makes no mention of consent of the governed. There are fourteen references to "consent" in the Constitution, and most have to do with getting the Consent of Congress. Nowhere in the Constitution does it specify that the governed must give consent. The Constitution specifies THE sources of authority in the US Congress, the Courts, The Executive and The States. The States must provide consent in some cases. Individuals and the States must sacrifice in order to create the Constitution, as is stated in the Constitutional Transfer Letter:

"It is obviously impracticable in the Federal Government of these States to secure all rights of independent sovereignty to each, and yet provide for the interest and safety of all. Individuals entering into society must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest. The magnitude of the sacrifice must depend as well on situation and circumstance, as on the object to be obtained. It is at all times difficult to draw with precision the line between those rights which must be surrendered, and those which may be preserved; and, on the present occasion, this difficulty was increased by a difference among the several States as to their situation, extent, habits, and particular interests."

You have the freedom to choose to live in the United States or in one of it's states or territories, or not. You give your consent by living here, illegally or not, to the State and Federal Government's authority. If you wish to withdraw your consent, you move to another country.
CC

[cclaxton]

So, you're basing your argument on the text of the Constitution, but it isn't ok in looking at the intent of the people who played a role in crafting that text?

The intent and opinions of the people who created the Constitution is diverse. They debated many issues and many had positions that did NOT make it into the Constitution, and had to compromise in order to form the Union. What matters is the Constitution itself. I don't swear allegiance to the Founders, or the Founder's writings or George Mason or George Washington or Thomas Jefferson. I swear allegiance to THE CONSTITUTION. If we go down that road then we will be debating the very same issues the Founders and States settled by CONSENT to The Constitution of the United States.
CC

[smithjd]

This may be too simplistic, but what happens when we move from a country with a love for the "Rule of Law", to a country under the "Rule of Lawyers?"

We may have elections, but it appears to me that we are moving much closer to an oligarchy by the "ruling class" than a republic of the people's representatives, when the founding principles and documents are ignored for situational ethics. Decisions are made based on what is better for ME, not the country. Checks and Balances are gone or ineffective and there are no consequences for elected leaders actions. Just because they have violated their oath, does not mean I, or those like me, will violate ours.

I had more written, but don't want to skyline myself much. Just because something is passed by the legistlature and signed into law, does not make it RIGHT (as in the best / correct course of action). Now, where to draw that line...

Interesting discussion for interesting times...

[MDS]

Technically it would also be possible to secede through constitutional amendment in accordance with Article V. Though this could be interpreted as withdrawing consent "through the polls."

As far as a right to insurrection, I think the simple answer is if you win, it existed, if you lose, probably not.

See? There are always more options than I think there are. :p As for winning vs losing, that's a deep truth. Throughout history, the only consistent long-term characteristic of "good" is: it wins. Without the benefit of hindsight, though, you have to use ethics and morals to define it. I know a lot of us are hot right now, but I'd like to think that we're nowhere near any kind of insurrection...

It's also important to realize that the states were colonies before the American revolution - you have to be careful comparing it to an uprising in the US today. Maybe we could start by thinking about the chances of Puerto Rico declaring independence...fwiw, I think that has all the probability of 3 A list actresses making daily "dating" visits to a missionary in the jungles of a South Pacific island... ;)

[RoyGBiv]

I'm not cclaxton, but fwiw my thinking is that when we agreed to the Constitution, we agreed that the only legal way to withdraw our consent is at the polls. The republicans benefited from that a while back, then We the People withdrew our consent. Oversimplified, but you see what I'm saying...?



You have the freedom to choose to live in the United States or in one of it's states or territories, or not. You give your consent by living here, illegally or not, to the State and Federal Government's authority. If you wish to withdraw your consent, you move to another country.
CC

I believe there is more than ample evidence that the Founding Fathers would disagree. In fact, they foresaw the EVENTUALITY (not just the possibility) of the "Tyranny of the Majority".


In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution, with all its faults, — if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of government but what may be a blessing to the people, if well administered; and I believe, farther, that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other..........Ben Franklin, Speech to the Constitutional Convention (September 17, 1787); reported in James Madison, Journal of the Federal Convention, ed. E. H. Scott (1893), p. 742.

When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic. (Credit to Franklin is debated)

To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
-Thomas Jefferson

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
— Thomas Jefferson

"... rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our own will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual"
— Thomas Jefferson (Letter to Isaac H. Tiffany - 1819)




And let's not forget this....


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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But 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.

I'm certainly not suggesting we've reached the point of insurrection, I'm just disagreeing with the notion that when we ratified the Constitution we gave up the option.

[joshs]

The intent and opinions of the people who created the Constitution is diverse. They debated many issues and many had positions that did NOT make it into the Constitution, and had to compromise in order to form the Union. What matters is the Constitution itself. I don't swear allegiance to the Founders, or the Founder's writings or George Mason or George Washington or Thomas Jefferson. I swear allegiance to THE CONSTITUTION. If we go down that road then we will be debating the very same issues the Founders and States settled by CONSENT to The Constitution of the United States.
CC

This is why original public meaning analysis is so difficult, but I still find it to be the most honest way to interpret the Constitution. Textualism is great where the meaning can be derived simply from looking at the text, but what is the scope of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms?" How can you determine this without examining things beyond the text itself?

Madison's notes on the convention and the various records of the ratification debates provide relatively good resource for what the text of the Constitution and the first ten amendments actually means.

[Tamara]

Textualism is great where the meaning can be derived simply from looking at the text...

...especially when you get to explain "letters of marque and reprisal" to somebody giving you the old "single-shot-muskets" argument. :D

[MDS]

I'm certainly not suggesting we've reached the point of insurrection, I'm just disagreeing with the notion that when we ratified the Constitution we gave up the option.

Unless I'm mistaken, no one is arguing that the option is gone. But there is a whole lot of noise here about the nuclear option, as if it were a much more immediate concern. I'd like to hear more chatter around middle ground: bold actions that will send a stronger message than letters ever can, or change some underlying root causes, or both.

Oh, and having them be actually legal would be a big win. I mean seriously, why wouldn't we survive a new awb as well as we did the last one?

[cclaxton]

I'm certainly not suggesting we've reached the point of insurrection, I'm just disagreeing with the notion that when we ratified the Constitution we gave up the option.
It depends on how you look at it: Yes, you have the option, but it is not an option supported by The US Constitution nor excusable, and probably considered treasonous. You have the option to oppose actions of our government through voting, peaceful assembly, organizing, spending, and public speaking. But people who oppose your positions have the same rights and might win the debate. That is one of the sacrifices we make when we live in a Democratic country.

But returning to my point: Our RTKBA was not put there to challenge the very government that guarantees the RTKBA. The Constitution states that we may not make insurrection or make war against the government. So, the RTKBA supports any OTHER firearm related activities and those specified in the 2nd Amendment: Militia Membership, Self-Defense, Defense of Others, Hunting, and Sporting, and of course, defending our country.
CC

[TGS]

So, the RTKBA supports any OTHER firearm related activities and those specified in the 2nd Amendment: Militia Membership, Self-Defense, Defense of Others, Hunting, and Sporting, and of course, defending our country.
CC

Right, because self-defense, defense of others, hunting and sporting are specified in the 2nd Amendment... :confused:

[Spr1]

Oh, and having them be actually legal would be a big win. I mean seriously, why wouldn't we survive a new awb as well as we did the last one?

They won't repeat the "mistake" of allowing it to sunset. That is why.

[dbateman]

Oh, and having them be actually legal would be a big win. I mean seriously, why wouldn't we survive a new awb as well as we did the last one?

That is a very dangerous attitude to have next thing you know ten years down the track you will have shooters telling you owning a gun is a "privilege" not a right and registration is a good idea because it stops crime oh yeah and ten round magazine limits are good because it stops drive by shootings.

Ask me how I know!!

Oh and then they scream at you that "no normal person would NEED a semi-auto" and "you must be up to something if you want one". You don't need a semi "it's a cock extension" these are the words that came out of my fellow shooters mouth...



These anti gun people have wrecked my country don't let them do it to yours.

They will not stop you cannot negotiate with them.

[MDS]

That is a very dangerous attitude to have

Come on, guys! I'm sending as many letters as you all, I'm not saying it's ok to let the freedom-haters tear up the 2A. I've applauded the folks involved in two bills that would remove gun-free zones.

The most dangerous attitude possible is a knee-jerk reaction of armed insurrection at the mere mention of awb.
All I'm saying is: we'll fight this, and if we end up taking a hard hit, we'll keep fighting and come back from it.

[dbateman]

Come on, guys! I'm sending as many letters as you all, I'm not saying it's ok to let the freedom-haters tear up the 2A. I've applauded the folks involved in two bills that would remove gun-free zones.

The most dangerous attitude possible is a knee-jerk reaction of armed insurrection at the mere mention of awb.
All I'm saying is: we'll fight this, and if we end up taking a hard hit, we'll keep fighting and come back from it.

I'm not saying you're not fighting just don't give in to them don't think you can negotiate with them, because you can't.

There is no logical reason to ban or restrict semi auto firearms but that wont stop them once they get the semis the will go after certain cals like 338lm 408chytac and the like.


Don't stop fighting.

[cclaxton]

I'm not saying you're not fighting just don't give in to them don't think you can negotiate with them, because you can't.
There is no logical reason to ban or restrict semi auto firearms but that wont stop them once they get the semis the will go after certain cals like 338lm 408chytac and the like.
Don't stop fighting.
I totally disagree with the idea you can't negotiate with "them," no matter WHO "them" is. What you are really saying is you don't want to negotiate with them. And, that will result in losing credibility. You need credibility to negotiate.

The biggest mistake we can make is to NOT negotiate. Don't forget negotiating means having a fair debate of the issues and the politics of the matter. And, being able to put your own ideas on the table, as the NRA has done. That was a smart move.

We want to be seen as a part of the solution, not a part of the problem. To put forward the idea that these politicians won't negotiate is just trying to demonize them. They are smart people trying to do the right thing and are just as American as we are. They have a different view on how to solve the problem. We have to convince them that A) Their idea isn't very effective, and B) We have ideas that can be more effective, and C) By working together we can both benefit politically (which is what most politicians care about anyway.)

Please don't make this mistake.
CC

[dbateman]

I totally disagree with the idea you can't negotiate with "them," no matter WHO "them" is. What you are really saying is you don't want to negotiate with them. And, that will result in losing credibility. You need credibility to negotiate.

The biggest mistake we can make is to NOT negotiate. Don't forget negotiating means having a fair debate of the issues and the politics of the matter. And, being able to put your own ideas on the table, as the NRA has done. That was a smart move.

We want to be seen as a part of the solution, not a part of the problem. To put forward the idea that these politicians won't negotiate is just trying to demonize them. They are smart people trying to do the right thing and are just as American as we are. They have a different view on how to solve the problem. We have to convince them that A) Their idea isn't very effective, and B) We have ideas that can be more effective, and C) By working together we can both benefit politically (which is what most politicians care about anyway.)

Please don't make this mistake.
CC


You cannot negotiate with them because they will never be happy till all guns are banned from private ownership.
These people are mentally ill they have a pathological fear of firearms.

There is no gun problem, restricting what firearms people can own will not fix anything, there is however a social problem.

Anyone who thinks restricting mag capacities or access to semi automatic firearms is the answer to the problem does not understand the problem.

[cclaxton]

You cannot negotiate with them because they will never be happy till all guns are banned from private ownership.
That is simply not true. First, I have never met a single person on the other side of the aisle who will support that. You might find some more extreme people who would say that all assault weapons or pistols should be banned from private ownership, but you will not see any support for removal of all guns with the vast majority of Democrats and Independents.

These people are mentally ill they have a pathological fear of firearms. Your are suggesting that about half of the nation is mentally ill because they want to do something to try and prevent another Newtown, CT, and they think gun control might work. I know you are passionate about this issue, but let's try to keep to facts.


There is no gun problem, restricting what firearms people can own will not fix anything, there is however a social problem. Agreed, but there is a PERCEPTION that there is a gun problem. We have to change that perception through educating the other side of the aisle and proposing other alternatives that have a better chance of succeeding, such as armed citizens in schools and mental health system improvements.


Anyone who thinks restricting mag capacities or access to semi automatic firearms is the answer to the problem does not understand the problem. Agreed. And, that is why we have to continue the dialogue with the other side of the aisle...so we have credibility to educate them as to WHY that is the case. If we take the position that they will not negotiate and therefore we shouldn't bother, then we miss the opportunity to help them learn, and to see the benefits of alternate proposals.
CC

[MDS]

Don't forget negotiating means having a fair debate of the issues and the politics of the matter. And, being able to put your own ideas on the table

Great point. And also remember that there is a whole sight difference between negotiating and compromising. Two different things.

[dbateman]

That is simply not true. First, I have never met a single person on the other side of the aisle who will support that. You might find some more extreme people who would say that all assault weapons or pistols should be banned from private ownership, but you will not see any support for removal of all guns with the vast majority of Democrats and Independents. The fact that they are jumping up and down screaming about banning assult weapons says they are. Can you show me your assault weapon?

Your are suggesting that about half of the nation is mentally ill because they want to do something to try and prevent another Newtown, CT, and they think gun control might work. I know you are passionate about this issue, but let's try to keep to facts. No I am saying that the small percentage that are riding on public emotion are mentally ill, the general public is not what you need to worry about.

Agreed, but there is a PERCEPTION that there is a gun problem. We have to change that perception through educating the other side of the aisle and proposing other alternatives that have a better chance of succeeding, such as armed citizens in schools and mental health system improvements.
I agree 100%

Agreed. And, that is why we have to continue the dialogue with the other side of the aisle...so we have credibility to educate them as to WHY that is the case. If we take the position that they will not negotiate and therefore we shouldn't bother, then we miss the opportunity to help them learn, and to see the benefits of alternate proposals.
CC I agree with that as well, however I feel you are underestimating your opponent.

[dbateman]

I know you are passionate about this issue, but let's try to keep to facts

Yes, I am passionate about the issue I am pretty much watching history repeat it's self.

[Haraise]

Great point. And also remember that there is a whole sight difference between negotiating and compromising. Two different things.

As soon as you sit down at the table for the negotiation, you're saying that you're willing to compromise. Basic rule of negotiation. You're above it, and opt out, or you're going to give in, and you sit down.

A negotiation where one side doesn't move, isn't a negotiation.

People who believe guns need to be controlled, that the physical items are dangerous in themselves, can only lead to complete removal of them. We've seen it with drugs, with alcohol, in this and many other countries.

Once you sit down at the table, you're negotiating with people who are treating /you/ like a four year old that wants to play with knives because it's 'neat.' There's nowhere to go from there, as 'extremist,' 'fundimentalist,' they're both considered insults now. What we need are extremists, fundimentalists for freedom. Everyone who is willing to give those inches is just assisting the decline.

[LOKNLOD]

While our countries have their cultural, political, and historical differences, I think it's worth remembering our Aussie friend is speaking as someone who has seen it happen in his country. He's not just a tinfoil speculator that sneaked over from the Infowars forums. Think of him as the ghost of legislation future from "A Congress Carol".

On negotiating with our opponent on the matter. Negotiate what? We have something. They want to take it away. What is the negotiation? Letting them take less than they really wanted? I really wish we had something better to offer up here, but we don't. I fully understand and appreciate an effort to deal with the other side in a way that results in both sides feeling like they've gained something, but I ask in complete honesty what does anyone expect to gain, compared to what we give up? No semiautos, but you can have nationwide CCW with revolvers only? Everything is now NFA, and no normal mags, but repeal the Hughes Amendment? Oh boy, machine guns are cheaper to own, and easier on ammo too since they're stuck with 10-rounders. I'd be much more open to negotiation if it was actually a negotiation. If a gang kicked in my door right this instance and held my family at gunpoint, would it be negotiating if I talked them into only killing half my family instead of all of them?

Besides, everything I've read since Dec. 14th has indicated that they really have no interest in true negotiation with us. The only reason they talk about discussion and compromise is precisely because they have big task of stripping us of rights, with nothing to offer in return. Their idea of negotiation is asking for the moon and being glad they got the clouds. They'll come back for the moon later. Take this article from the Washington Post yesterday: (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/white-house-weighs-broad-gun-control-agenda-in-wake-of-newtown-shootings/2013/01/05/d281efe0-5682-11e2-bf3e-76c0a789346f_print.html)

To sell such changes, the White House is developing strategies to work around the National Rifle Association that one source said could include rallying support from Wal-Mart and other gun retailers for measures that would benefit their businesses. White House aides have also been in regular contact with advisers to New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg (I), an outspoken gun-control advocate who could emerge as a powerful surrogate for the Obama administration’s agenda.

The Biden group, formed last month after the massacre at a Newtown, Conn., elementary school that killed 20 children and six adults, plans to submit a package of recommendations to President Obama this month. Once Obama’s proposals are set, he plans to lead a public-relations offensive to generate popular support. (Emphasis mine)

If this was a discussion or negotiation, or there was any interest in a so-called "balanced" solution, preserving the 2nd amendment, then the NRA would be as big a part of the Biden Commission as anyone else. They would want them in there to at least give some legitimacy to the outcome for our side. Instead, they're developing strategies to work around the NRA. To work around us even having a voice.

[MDS]

As soon as you sit down at the table for the negotiation, you're saying that you're willing to compromise.

I disagree. But even if you're right, just because you're saying that you're willing, doesn't mean you're actually willing. Negotiation is all about controlling information.

[MDS]

On negotiating with our opponent on the matter. Negotiate what? We have something. They want to take it away. What is the negotiation? Letting them take less than they really wanted? I really wish we had something better to offer up here, but we don't. [...] If a gang kicked in my door right this instance and held my family at gunpoint, would it be negotiating if I talked them into only killing half my family instead of all of them?

Wow, the gang analogy doesn't hold up very well, but let's go there. There's probably nothing you could offer the gang at a negotiation table. But if it would buy a few more minutes for my family, I'd sit at that negotiating table as long as I could! And if I could convince them to let half of them live, I'd do that, even though I know that they'll probably kill us all anyway. Now, the politicians are a little bit like the blood-thirsty gang, in that they have more guns than we do, and they can take whatever they want....but in this case we have something they need very badly: our votes. It's ironic to hear folks talk about NO COMPROMISE! now, but back in September they derided and literally made fun of people like me who voted libertarian, because we weren't willing to compromise and accept an arguably less stupid approach to government.

Anyway.

But you know what? I'm just a nerd over here, typing on my keyboard. My contribution in these matters is thin soup, and it's pretty much run out anyway. Let's hear from you: if we don't sit down and negotiate, what's the plan?

[Sparks2112]

So what happens when we let them ban semi autos and magazines over ten rounds and someone that's good with a rifle and crazy ends up on top of a building with an enfield and a hundred rounds on stripper clips? When we don't aknowledge people as the problem and somehow shift blame to the implements they use then confiscation is the only inevitable outcome. If we allow any new restrictions then the 2A is done. It might just take another 50 years. Keep that in mind if you ever find yourself thinking the word compromise.

[Chuck Haggard]

So what happens when we let them ban semi autos and magazines over ten rounds and someone that's good with a rifle and crazy ends up on top of a building with an enfield and a hundred rounds on stripper clips? When we don't aknowledge people as the problem and somehow shift blame to the implements they use then confiscation is the only inevitable outcome.

You mean like this guy?;

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

[Sparks2112]

I may have had him in mind when I was typing that.

Chuck I know you teach an active shooter course. Let me ask your professional opinion on something. Lets say someone with an actual grasp of tactical considerations who was prepared and willing to face an armed responce decided it was go time. They've secured themselves a position with good firing lanes with at least 100 meters of open area, solid cover, and your only approach is through said firing lanes. Let's also assume they've planned for Possible gas attacks.

They've planned for an extended engagement and brought enough ammo that they in all liklihood will not run dry.

You get to choose what they're armed with.

A) reliable AR variant firing m193

B) 1903 Springfield firing surplus 30-06 black tip

Personally I know what I'd not wanna get shot at with as a first responder in that situation and it sure the hell wouldn't be affected by any currently proposed AWB. Do you concur?

[NETim]

We're not dealing with rational minds when we're talking Feinstein and her cronies. They are not logical thinkers.

[JV_]

They are not logical thinkers.

I disagree, many of them are logical.

I think there's a huge disconnect between their public facing agenda (ie. what they'll admit to), and their true behind-the-scenes agenda. The public side is just bunch of reasons to try and convince most people these half steps are good; I think they know it's BS - but people will buy it.. They could never sell, to the public, their true intention and beliefs.

[Kyle Reese]

So what happens when we let them ban semi autos and magazines over ten rounds and someone that's good with a rifle and crazy ends up on top of a building with an enfield and a hundred rounds on stripper clips? When we don't aknowledge people as the problem and somehow shift blame to the implements they use then confiscation is the only inevitable outcome. If we allow any new restrictions then the 2A is done. It might just take another 50 years. Keep that in mind if you ever find yourself thinking the word compromise.

You'll see further restrictions, bans and confiscations on currently legal firearms. The other side will never stop until civilians are totally prohibited from owning or possessing arms of any kind. That's their goal right now, but they're just as content going about it in piecemeal fashion.

[LOKNLOD]

MDS - before we go any further with this, just wanted to say I think that you and I are actually very close to one another on this issue, and view these discussions as "iron sharpening iron", not arguing at somebody who is wrong. I just say that because it seems like we've rebuked one another several times lately across all these threads and didn't want you to think I was out trying to troll your posts or something :cool:


Wow, the gang analogy doesn't hold up very well, but let's go there. There's probably nothing you could offer the gang at a negotiation table. But if it would buy a few more minutes for my family, I'd sit at that negotiating table as long as I could! And if I could convince them to let half of them live, I'd do that, even though I know that they'll probably kill us all anyway.

I agree it's a crude and hyperbolic analogy, but your response helps make my point a bit: that's not negotiating; that's pleading, begging, and stalling. Maybe it's just semantics, and maybe not. But I don't see that we're being invited to sit down at a negotiating table and come up with a "compromise" on these issues. Our opponents, the ones driving these efforts at least, have a very specific agenda and they'll capitalize upon whatever wave of public sentiment they can to ramrod anything they can get forced though, lubricated with the blood of innocents.

I started out with an expectation that we'd take a hit on this, and the more I see from the other side, the more I've hardened my stance. "Just" reinstating the '94 AWB or similar isn't going to satiate them this time (although they'll take whatever they can get in the meantime).



Now, the politicians are a little bit like the blood-thirsty gang, in that they have more guns than we do, and they can take whatever they want....but in this case we have something they need very badly: our votes. It's ironic to hear folks talk about NO COMPROMISE! now, but back in September they derided and literally made fun of people like me who voted libertarian, because we weren't willing to compromise and accept an arguably less stupid approach to government.


I see commonality between the reasons one would want to play politics on the macro scale while we can't afford much of that on the gun issue. When it comes to foreign policy, economics, etc. there are infinitely more nuances than on gun control. There is much give and take in those topics to form the basis of negotiation and compromise. Ensuring we have a seat at the big table for the broad discussion of running the country is important. I always said we don't get to take our ball and go home because we didn't like how the teams got picked. Now, post elections, we're stuck with whomever is seated at the table, and while nobody is completely beyond persuasion, I'm glad to have as many of our general bent as possible in the mix, because it is (hopefully) easier to convince allies to hold than it is to convince the enemy to retreat before the fight even starts.



My contribution in these matters is thin soup, and it's pretty much run out anyway.


I know the feeling. I think we've all worn ourselves out a bit in the past few weeks. There's a palpable frustration growing in all these discussions. We're all sharpening our swords on each other, with little opportunity to use them on the enemy... Not to mention, I'm wasting way too much time at work talking about this crap. :p


Let's hear from you: if we don't sit down and negotiate, what's the plan?

I'll work on a better answer to that, but in the meantime, which part of your rights are you willing to put on the table? Really, I do think there is merit to hashing out the answer to that in advance. I don't believe we should willingly offer or give anything, but going into the battle without knowing how much attrition you can handle before you break completely is poor planning. It is prudent to understand the repercussions of their proposals and which are more or less onerous than others, so we can rally efforts on the most effective targets. Maybe, in that sense, we're saying the same thing? I just can't approach it as a negotiation, it's a fight. A fight to keep what we've got, because frankly, they don't have much that I want. It's just a mugging. Our MUC has failed, and they've got their hands on us, trying to drink our milkshake...so it's not about negotiating, it's about stopping them. If they can drink my shake by force, so be it, but I'm not going to give them a sip in hope that they leave me alone (until they're thirsty again).

[MDS]

I just say that because it seems like we've rebuked one another several times lately across all these threads and didn't want you to think I was out trying to troll your posts or something :cool:

No worries, dude. If I couldn't handle some enthusiastic debate, they would take away my Cuban card. ;)


...which part of your rights are you willing to put on the table?

Willing? None. But there they are, on the table. Our muc has failed - has been consistently failing for decades - and our milkshake is in jeopardy. And these thugs are very well trained for this kind of fight. It's not just 2A, it's a general lack of willingness to live with the natural outcomes of our choices, and the fact that there is no prerequisite of backbone or self-sufficiency in the voting public.

I would happily abolish the 2A in exchange for suffrage reform along the lines of my recent thread. A well-vetted voting public can fix anything that needs fixing, including bringing the 2A back. It would be painful and it would take time, but I don't see another long term plan to address the fundamental underlying issue: the nanny state only came because the voters asked her to.

[Erik]

Who in this thread (or on this forum) is actually in a position to negotiate anything? I think the operative word here is campaign, or lobby, not negotiate.

[SteveK]

One would wonder, when we are letting murderers out of prison for lack of space to keep them, where we will house all of these new felons?

Once upon a time a very bad man and his cabinet figured the answer out to that. They called it....Auschwitz, Buchenwald, Treblinka, etc.

[cclaxton]

We're not dealing with rational minds when we're talking Feinstein and her cronies. They are not logical thinkers.

I disagree. Feinstein's logic works, but she is motivated by a different set of values. Logic, in of itself, does not equal morality or ethics or soul, nor win elections.
All politicians, Democrat, Republican or Independent, are logical thinkers. They follow one simple logic: What logic do I need to espouse in order for my constituency to elect me again? Think of Feinsteins' constituency. If you want to get her to change position, you either have to provide overwhelming evidence or convince her constituency and she will follow their change in position or be put out of office.

I don't know the latest polling on gun rights in California, but the amount of effort it would take to convince Californians to protect gun owners is a lot higher than convincing Feinstein. Feinstein has been very friendly to the military and she has been willing to vote for the use of force more often than not. I don't think it would take a lot of convincing to get her to soften on gun control.

If you are asking any politician to put reason and logic over politics, you will be unsuccessful. Republicans and Democrats and independents are all the same where this is concerned.
CC

[TGS]

I don't think it would take a lot of convincing to get her to soften on gun control.

WHAT!?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQeq6ZzEQGA

The more you post, the more I'm convinced you're on some sort of communist agenda to subvert firearms owners from the inside, COINTELPRO style. Telling people that Feinstein wouldn't take a lot of work to soften her up on gun control is akin to telling people that Nathan Bedford Forrest could have been won over by the abolitionists.

[Suvorov]

I disagree. Feinstein's logic works, but she is motivated by a different set of values. Logic, in of itself, does not equal morality or ethics or soul, nor win elections.
All politicians, Democrat, Republican or Independent, are logical thinkers. They follow one simple logic: What logic do I need to espouse in order for my constituency to elect me again? Think of Feinsteins' constituency. If you want to get her to change position, you either have to provide overwhelming evidence or convince her constituency and she will follow their change in position or be put out of office.

I don't know the latest polling on gun rights in California, but the amount of effort it would take to convince Californians to protect gun owners is a lot higher than convincing Feinstein. Feinstein has been very friendly to the military and she has been willing to vote for the use of force more often than not. I don't think it would take a lot of convincing to get her to soften on gun control.

If you are asking any politician to put reason and logic over politics, you will be unsuccessful. Republicans and Democrats and independents are all the same where this is concerned.
CC

Wow....... :eek:

As a subject in Feinstein's fiefdom, I can tell you that she is an anti through and through. She has been one of the foremost champions of gun control since before she ever ran for a state office. The only way she will soften on gun control is, well there is no way she ever will.

The fact that you can make such a statement really makes me wonder where you are coming from. :confused:

[DocGKR]

"I don't think it would take a lot of convincing to get her to soften on gun control."

Having lived in CA for several decades, worked in LE and military in CA, given briefings at both State Gov and U.S. Congressional levels, I believe you are entirely incorrect....

[MDS]

Who in this thread (or on this forum) is actually in a position to negotiate anything? I think the operative word here is campaign, or lobby, not negotiate.

Fair enough. But correcting semantic improprieties isn't nearly as important as answering the important question of What Is The Plan? What actual steps? Besides preparing for, ah, civil unrest, what are we doing?

I have let my representatives know. I'm going to up my NRA membership to life today. I'm considering the option of literally organizing a picket. (Maybe a camping trip in front of city hall? "We are the ARMED 50%!" ;) Probably not a good spot for that particular message...)

What else?

[cclaxton]

WHAT!?

The more you post, the more I'm convinced you're on some sort of communist agenda to subvert firearms owners from the inside, COINTELPRO style. Telling people that Feinstein wouldn't take a lot of work to soften her up on gun control is akin to telling people that Nathan Bedford Forrest could have been won over by the abolitionists.

She is head of the Senate Intelligence Committee and has been a strong supporter for all the covert actions we have taken in those agencies. She knows the force we are using and supports it. I was simply saying that convincing millions of Californians to change their position is a lot harder than getting Feinstein to look at what would actually work. She (and her staff) are misinformed. Maybe I am wrong and it would be easier to convince millions of Californians.....

But the political reality is she represents a gun-control constituency, and she wants to show them she is taking strong action. I don't know why people go after the politicians....they are just representing their constituents....

I wouldn't vote for Feinstein, but she is a very smart person and I do think she could be convinced that a gun ban is not effective and there are other solutions that would work better.
CC

[JV_]

... I do think she could be convinced that a gun ban is not effective and there are other solutions that would work better.What do you think her goal is with gun control legislation?

[Erik]

Fair enough. But correcting semantic improprieties isn't nearly as important as answering the important question of What Is The Plan? What actual steps? Besides preparing for, ah, civil unrest, what are we doing?

I have let my representatives know. I'm going to up my NRA membership to life today. I'm considering the option of literally organizing a picket. (Maybe a camping trip in front of city hall? "We are the ARMED 50%!" ;) Probably not a good spot for that particular message...)

What else?

I wasn't correcting semantic improprieties. Negotiating and campaigning are two very different things. The actions you describe sound like a campaign to me, which is what I think most, although I understand not all, of us are in a position to do (and what I think most of us should be doing).

[MDS]

I wasn't correcting semantic improprieties. Negotiating and campaigning are two very different things. The actions you describe sound like a campaign to me, which is what I think most, although I understand not all, of us are in a position to do (and what I think most of us should be doing).

Wow! Did you just correct my semantic impropriety in misusing the phrase "semantic improprieties?" I'm going to have to sit on that a while, see if I can wrap my head around it.

Meanwhile, I'm not hearing specific actions. Let's skip to a point where you and I agree on what to label the specific set of actions that we can and should do. Can we proceed now to the enumeration and elucidation of same? Here, I'll start:

I don't know if it'll do any good, but I think a pro-gun picket might get some attention. I don't really know how to begin thinking about organizing something like that, let alone making it actually impactful. Anyone here have any ideas? Is this just a dumb idea?

[Erik]

Wow! Did you just correct my semantic impropriety in misusing the phrase "semantic improprieties?" I'm going to have to sit on that a while, see if I can wrap my head around it.

I'm confident you'll get there.


Meanwhile, I'm not hearing specific actions.

Sorry, I should have been more clear: You proposed some specific actions. I think they are good specific actions and illustrative of what most of us may be in a position to do. I was agreeing with you.

[JMS]

has been a strong supporter for all the covert actions we have taken in those agencies. She knows the force we are using and supports it.

Emphsis mine.

Imagine the surprise...that a statist would have a record that shows support for use of force used by state-sponosred organizations....

[MDS]

I'm confident you'll get there.

I lold. Point erik.


Sorry, I should have been more clear: You proposed some specific actions. I think they are good specific actions and illustrative of what most of us may be in a position to do. I was agreeing with you.

Sweet, my turn to wax semantic - I guess I'm thinking of my proposals as generic ("Hey, let's picket!") and I'd like to hear about some much more specific stuff ("Hey, let's meet in from of DiFi's offices tomorrow at 8am. I'll bring snacks, t-shirts , cardboard, wood sticks, and a stapler. You bring your passion!") I'm hoping someone with some knowledge can tell me either a) why it's a dumb idea, or b) how to make it actually effective (finding people, keeping it professional, etc.)

Make sense? The good news is we're all after the same thing here!

[LOKNLOD]

My rep is having a small townhall tomorrow. I'm considering trying to make it and if possible recruit some others. While he is pretty friendly to the 2nd, we can raise the issue as a reminder, or more importantly, counterpoint the enemy if they show up.

Specific enough?

[Erik]

Make sense? The good news is we're all after the same thing here!

It does to me, and we sure are. Since I have no knowledge in this area, I'd also be very interested to hear from those who do.

[MDS]

My rep is having a small townhall tomorrow. I'm considering trying to make it and if possible recruit some others. While he is pretty friendly to the 2nd, we can raise the issue as a reminder, or more importantly, counterpoint the enemy if they show up.

Specific enough?

Hell, yeah! I didn't think of this - I'm about to go check the schedules for my reps at various levels. Any prepared rebuttals or speeches?

[DocGKR]

"I wouldn't vote for Feinstein, but she is a very smart person and I do think she could be convinced that a gun ban is not effective and there are other solutions that would work better."

She and her staff have had the errors in their logic pointed out numerous times over the past 25 years. They have had the opportunity to review verified data and scientific assessments of the issues involved, yet they don't seem to care about the facts, just the illogical emotions...

[Kyle Reese]

She and her staff have had the errors in their logic pointed out numerous times over the past 25 years. They have had the opportunity to review verified data and scientific assessments of the issues involved, yet they don't seem to care about the facts, just the illogical emotions...

Agree 100%. These people are absolute ideologues, and it's naïve to presume that they can be reasoned with.

[JV_]

You guys are using reason to show them why gun control won't stop X or Y. They don't care about that, their end goal is to ban guns, it's not to reduce crime and it's not to make anyone safer. They want you disarmed.

Banning guns is the end, it's not the means.

[MDS]

You guys are using reason to show them why gun control won't stop X or Y. They don't care about that, their end goal is to ban guns, it's not to reduce crime and it's not to make anyone safer. They want you disarmed.

Banning guns is the end, it's not the means.

She's been around so long, she must have said something to that effect at some point. Maybe a Freudian slip at some point, or... Does anyone know of anything?

[guymontag]

She's been around so long, she must have said something to that effect at some point. Maybe a Freudian slip at some point, or... Does anyone know of anything?

I thought TGS's post on page nine explicit enough.

[MDS]

I thought TGS's post on page nine explicit enough.

We know she wants to ban all guns. I'm wondering if we have her on the record saying she wants to ban all guns regardless of their effect on crime.

There is some implication that she wants to ban guns for reasons other than what she claims. I really hope that's true, because then she might be on covered and shaved. But, I'm afraid she truly believes that the world would be a better place if only cops had guns - believes with the conviction of faith.

What would it take to convince a good Christian that the Bible is a pack of fictional stories, on par with, say, Greek mythology? Because that's the kind of fervor were talking about here, she fights for evil with the blessing of her own conscience. And she's not the only one.

In the voice of Galactica Actual: "How do I reach these kids?!"

[JV_]

She said:


The national guard fulfills the the militia mentioned in the Second Amendment. Citizens no longer need to protect the states or themselves.

[JAD]

...because then she might be on covered and shaved.

I do not think that is what you meant. And, now I have to go wash my brain.

Ps: dbate's right -- not an inch.

[Kyle Reese]

TGS beat me to it...

[TGS]

Her own words;


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blXkl9YVoHo&feature=player_embedded

Jinx, you owe me a pepsi. :cool:

[guymontag]

We know she wants to ban all guns. I'm wondering if we have her on the record saying she wants to ban all guns regardless of their effect on crime.

There is some implication that she wants to ban guns for reasons other than what she claims. I really hope that's true, because then she might be on covered and shaved. But, I'm afraid she truly believes that the world would be a better place if only cops had guns - believes with the conviction of faith.

What would it take to convince a good Christian that the Bible is a pack of fictional stories, on par with, say, Greek mythology? Because that's the kind of fervor were talking about here, she fights for evil with the blessing of her own conscience. And she's not the only one.

In the voice of Galactica Actual: "How do I reach these kids?!"

What matter is it if she is the robber baron or the moral busybody, if the end results are one?

[SeriousStudent]

The Constitution makes no mention of consent of the governed. There are fourteen references to "consent" in the Constitution, and most have to do with getting the Consent of Congress. Nowhere in the Constitution does it specify that the governed must give consent. The Constitution specifies THE sources of authority in the US Congress, the Courts, The Executive and The States. The States must provide consent in some cases. Individuals and the States must sacrifice in order to create the Constitution, as is stated in the Constitutional Transfer Letter:

"It is obviously impracticable in the Federal Government of these States to secure all rights of independent sovereignty to each, and yet provide for the interest and safety of all. Individuals entering into society must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest. The magnitude of the sacrifice must depend as well on situation and circumstance, as on the object to be obtained. It is at all times difficult to draw with precision the line between those rights which must be surrendered, and those which may be preserved; and, on the present occasion, this difficulty was increased by a difference among the several States as to their situation, extent, habits, and particular interests."

You have the freedom to choose to live in the United States or in one of it's states or territories, or not. You give your consent by living here, illegally or not, to the State and Federal Government's authority. If you wish to withdraw your consent, you move to another country.
CC

My apologies. In my attempt at brevity, I think I was not clear. I'm not talking about a single individual staging an Alec Baldwin hissy fit, and moving to Canada. And I'm never leaving.

I'm talking about Article 10 of the Constitution, the last article in the Bill of Rights.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

So if the people delegate powers to the states and federal government, I would think that the source of authority is the people of the United States.

The first three words of the US Constitution are "We the People." Not "I'm the Government and I Thought I'd Fill You In on Something". That's my point. The people of the United States delegate what is needed to the government. The federal government does not dictate what rights I have. It's the other way around.

As a practical matter, I am a law-abiding person. I do not have a criminal record, nor do I foresee ever having one. But like many, I am concerned at the ever-growing power the government seems to have.

A long time ago, there was this really radical guy. He wrote this: "Government is not reason, nor eloquence. It is force. And like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearsome master."

His name was George Washington. He was the president of the convention that drafted the US Constitution, and the first President of the United States. I kind like him, and agree with him on a lot of things.

Thank you.

[MDS]

She said:
The national guard fulfills the the militia mentioned in the Second Amendment. Citizens no longer need to protect the states or themselves.

That's the kind of thing I'm looking for. It really shows that there's no convincing her - she and people like her can be safely ignored, without worrying that we're not reaching the right people. We can only stand next to them and shout our message just as loudly as they shout theirs.

What's despicable is when these people use a situation like Sandy Hook - taking advantage of a vulnerable population in the aftershock of a terrible event. Dirty, slimy, blech. I'm sure she sleeps fine at night, too.

[MDS]

What matter is it if she is the robber baron or the moral busybody, if the end results are one?

The countering techniques would differ.

[TGS]

I'm sure she sleeps fine at night, too.

Surrounded by her bodyguards who carry firearms, and with her own handgun for self-defense.

Us mere plebeians shouldn't be privy to such protections, however.

[guymontag]

The countering techniques would differ.

Pray tell.

If as a robber baron, driven by hegemony and stature, to counter I would utilize the CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwR/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm), the FBI (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8), the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy (http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf).
If as a moral busybody, driven by sanctimony and superintending, to counter I would utilize the CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwR/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm), the FBI (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8), the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy (http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf).

I do not doubt she lacks the time, the means, or the opportunities to research or discuss the topic - she desires what she desires, she has desired it for quite a time... and one simply cannot teach the pig to sing.

[MDS]

Pray tell.

It's what I mistyped earlier: uncover and shame her. If as a robber baron, expose the underlying motive and discredit them politically; or bribe them to go away; or scheme with his business enemies to bring him down; or...whatever. There are chains of motive and hooks to work with.

If as a moral busybody, then I don't see any alternative: work just as hard as they do, present all your counter-arguments (logical and emotional!) whenever they put out their message, and do so a little more loudly, more often, more eloquently, and in a more likable way. And don't rest, because the moral busybody has boundless energy for it.

I'm sure you were thinking of the following quote when you chose your "robber baron" vs "moral busybody" language. C S Lewis is tied with Thomas Moore as the best Christian writer of all time, IMO.

"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - C. S. Lewis

[Clay]

You guys are using reason to show them why gun control won't stop X or Y. They don't care about that, their end goal is to ban guns, it's not to reduce crime and it's not to make anyone safer. They want you disarmed.

Banning guns is the end, it's not the means.


This. This is the bottom line.

[guymontag]

It's what I mistyped earlier: uncover and shame her. If as a robber baron, expose the underlying motive and discredit them politically; or bribe them to go away; or scheme with his business enemies to bring him down; or...whatever. There are chains of motive and hooks to work with.

If as a moral busybody, then I don't see any alternative: work just as hard as they do, present all your counter-arguments (logical and emotional!) whenever they put out their message, and do so a little more loudly, more often, more eloquently, and in a more likable way. And don't rest, because the moral busybody has boundless energy for it.

I'm sure you were thinking of the following quote when you chose your "robber baron" vs "moral busybody" language. C S Lewis is tied with Thomas Moore as the best Christian writer of all time, IMO.

I think something may have been lost in translation, as I think you are countering her person, I am countering her ideology. :D

I agree with what you have written, determining the appropriate or pertinent response by the motive of your aggressor, and I agree with the responses you suggested.

Though I must say, the potentially corrupt Feinstein (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/06/Dianne-Feinstein-Still-Dogged-by-Allegations-of-Conflicts-of-Interest) may have the luck of Ted Kennedy, Marion Barry, Timothy Geithner, etc.

P.S. We're in accord on C.S. Lewis from the works I've previously read; Abolition of Man is on my shelves yet to be opened, and The Screwtape Letters is on my (cluttered) "should-read" list. :)

[Sparks2112]

You know if someone publicly said they wanted to impose a federal licensing process on individuals before they were legally allowed to practice their right to free speach I can't help but think the tone of this conversation would be slightly different. I'm tired of people thinking there's some sort of middle ground on this. It's the second effing amendment to the effing bill of rights. We are just as guilty of letting our emotions cloud our thinking. Some kids get killed and all of a sudden things are a forgone comclusion and we should "talk" to these people? F@&k that noise. None of us had anything to do with Sandyhook, and this guilt/shame that makes us as a collective whole start talking about reasonable restrictions is BS.

Where is our moral outrage over what's happening right now? This isn't a conversation. Its a very simple "No you can't have them, if you feel differently then try and convince someone to take them, but you won't like it."

Why would we negotiate with people who label veterans who support upholding the constitution as domestic terrorists? It's time to get mad people, and fight. Not plead with people to pretty please don't castrate our rights we'll be good, we promise. Sickening.

[Suvorov]

Are we still trying to discuss whether DiFi can be converted?

She can't. She is one of the Baddest of Bad Guys. You will see Hitler's Ghost singing Hava Nagila at a Bat Mitzvah long before you will ever see DiFi become a friend to the 2A. She is not that way because she comes from an anti-constituency! She also represents Northern and Central California that is pro-gun. She is that way because she wants to see every one of her subjects disarmed as she is a philosophical leftists/statist (she may claim she was traumatized by watching the Milk/Mascone assassinations, but that is bunk as the murderer was a sworn police officer and would be unaffected by any of her laws).

[LOKNLOD]

Hell, yeah! I didn't think of this - I'm about to go check the schedules for my reps at various levels. Any prepared rebuttals or speeches?

Follow up to this: I attended Oklahoma Representative James Lankford's town hall tonight. Everybody in attendence gets a chance to write questions on cards and then he drew cards and addressed them (and promised he and his staff would follow up on the rest if you gave your contact info).

It was a packed house, I stood the whole time. My question didn't get drawn, but several about gun control did. I think 2 or 3 strongly worded in our favor. Lankford answered them pretty well. He mentioned slowing down the discussion of new legislation because Congress screws up worst when they're being egged on by the "Do Something, Anything!" attitude. The crowd clapped pretty vigorously for his pro-gun comments.

One older fellow did bring up some unintelligible question about either tracking guns via registration, or holding gunmakers liable, I couldn't hear him well enough to decipher and based on the answer he got (and he left immediately after) I don't think Lankford could tell what he was asking either?

It was only an hour session but Lankford took a few more face to face questions afterwards, I stuck around long enough to get to introduce myself, thank him for his support, and encourage him to stand fast on the issue. He pulled out his iPhone and showed me a pic of his 12-yo daughter shooting a pistol at the range :cool: I got to look him in the eye, tell him that, despite being a kid in OK during the bombing, and having watch the planes hit the towers live on TV, now I have a little girl in kindergarten and nothing has ever even phased me compared to the emotional reaction I had when I heard about Sandy Hook, but I still would never consider disarmament worthwhile as a way to prevent such events. He commented that they didn't ban fertilizer after OKC, did they? He seems to get it.

I got to look him in the eye and directly express my opinion (part of it, at least). I'm not "done" but I'm more satisfied that I didn't miss what might be my only best opportunity to get a voice into the fight. I would highly encourage anyone who can to get to events like these. Even if you only serve to reinforce the applause when someone makes a pro-gun comment.

I'm glad I went!

[SteveK]

In my opinion, here is the argument stripped down to it's core: The Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution were written to protect the natural rights of liberty and property. Natural rights are rights not contingent upon the laws of any culture or government and are therefore inalienable (bestowed by God). Our forefathers knew oppression and realized the fundamentals of being a free society. Therefore, the Bill of Rights is the basis for a free society and is not subject to interpretation by any culture or government. SCOTUS has upheld this notion on numerous occasions dispite the attempts of government. The passing of time and advance of technology has no bearing on the interpretation of these inalienable rights. For centuries, Americans have fought and died around the globe in defense of these premises. Not just for Americans but for everyman, everywhere. To think that our elected leaders would comprise these principles because they don't want to address the real problems facing our society today is appalling. We, as Americans need to quit voting in support of our unions and other special interest groups and demand to know what our potential candidates feelings are about the Constitution. This country needs to put it's priorities back the God, family and country. Notice what comes first. The forefathers that wrote The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution knew what was important to remain a free society. Some of us have long since forgotten.

[MDS]

I got to look him in the eye and directly express my opinion (part of it, at least). I'm not "done" but I'm more satisfied that I didn't miss what might be my only best opportunity to get a voice into the fight. I would highly encourage anyone who can to get to events like these. Even if you only serve to reinforce the applause when someone makes a pro-gun comment.

I'm glad I went!

Good work, dude!

[LOKNLOD]

Good work, dude!

Doin' what I can, with what I got...

Further thoughts: Lankford is more of a budget hawk type who is definitely most interested in the fiscal issues. His answers, while solid on the surface, didn't fully reaffirm the 2nd as a true safeguard against tyranny. He mentioned self defense and sporting purposes, but even when questioned directly didn't jump out to agree with the real purpose of the 2nd. It would take a longer post than I care to type out to describe the details of his questions and answers, but suffice it to say I think he could be swayed into compromising his way into some "reasonable restrictions".

So, despite being "on our side", like most, he's a politician, so I think he's an ally as long as we continue to make sure he knows it's politically beneficial to him to be on our side and detrimental to not be. He's not the guy that's going to sign on to DiFi and McCarthy wanting to round 'em all up, but he is the kind that might fall for a mag ban or something. He's exactly the kind of guy that needs constant contact and reinforcement from us.

Moral of the story: Just because you feel like your rep isn't really part of the threat, don't go easy on the outcry! It's not the Feinsteins and McCarthys who need our letters and emails, it's Representatives and Senators like him who are generally on our side but could fall prey to the siren song of "nobody really needs those, do they?".

[Bigguy]

.
Moral of the story: Just because you feel like your rep isn't really part of the threat, don't go easy on the outcry! It's not the Feinsteins and McCarthys who need our letters and emails, it's Representatives and Senators like him who are generally on our side but could fall prey to the siren song of "nobody really needs those, do they?".

http://www.guywheatley.com/gifs/index.php?cmd=image&sfpg=KmlhZ3JlZS5naWYqYmMzNzk5YWJkOTA5MzEyNDA5Nzg4Z WRhZThiOWEzY2E

I could not agree more. It's not preaching to the choir nor railing against the deaf that will change anything. Our efforts need to be aimed where there is a chance to actually have an effect.

[Shellback]

Biden's feeling froggy (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/biden-obama-might-use-executive-order-deal-guns_694984.html).

Vice President Joe Biden revealed that President Barack Obama might use an executive order to deal with guns.

"The president is going to act," said Biden, giving some comments to the press before a meeting with victims of gun violence. "There are executives orders, there's executive action that can be taken. We haven't decided what that is yet. But we're compiling it all with the help of the attorney general and the rest of the cabinet members as well as legislative action that we believe is required."

Biden said that this is a moral issue and that "it's critically important that we act."

Biden talked also about taking responsible action. "As the president said, if you're actions result in only saving one life, they're worth taking...

[Sparks2112]

Biden's feeling froggy (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/biden-obama-might-use-executive-order-deal-guns_694984.html).

I don't think that's a can of worms they really want to open up.

[SeriousStudent]

Good work, dude!

Agreed - good work, LOKNLOD. It's very important that we remind even our allies how important this fight is. I'm glad to hear that your rep is on the right path.

That's a great point about the fertilizer, and the Murrah bombing. We did not ban fertilizer, we sentenced the killer to death.

[Odin Bravo One]

That's a great point about the fertilizer, and the Murrah bombing. We did not ban fertilizer, we sentenced the killer to death.

Not to take this thing too far off topic............no, we did not BAN fertilizer.

But it has been restricted......severely. Licensing, tracking the sale, purchase, and use of said fertilizer. Chemical composition of fertilizer is restricted unless one has a demonstrated "need" for fertilizer with those particular capabilities that can double as low explosives.

Can you still buy fertilizer? Yup.

Is it the same fertilizer you could buy before OKC? Nope.

Will you still be able to buy guns? Yup.

Same ones you could buy before this proposed legislation? Don't know........currently no......because there are not any on the shelves. In the future? Time will tell............

[Drang]

Biden's feeling froggy (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/biden-obama-might-use-executive-order-deal-guns_694984.html).

Anyone know what Ken Starr is up to these days?

[LOKNLOD]

Will you still be able to buy guns? Yup.

Same ones you could buy before this proposed legislation? Don't know........currently no......because there are not any on the shelves. In the future? Time will tell............

Good point, Sean.

[SeriousStudent]

Ah, thanks for the info. It's been several decades since I lived on a ranch, and bought fertilizer in large quantities. Our garden was about an acre, and we'd only buy 400-500 pounds at a time.

Damn, I miss that place. :(