Seriously: Is it time to start USING the Second Amendment?


PDA






Drjones
September 17, 2004, 06:01 PM
***PLEASE READ THIS ENTIRE POST BEFORE YOU RESPOND. DO NOT RESPOND TO THE QUESTION POSED IN THE TITLE OF THIS THREAD.

YES, IT WILL BE A BIT LENGTHY, BUT I WANT TO KNOW WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT THIS EXACT SITUATION. THANK YOU.***



My friends; someone posted a passage, quoted below, that truly struck a chord with me.

Please read it, and then continue below.


I don’t own a .50-BMG rifle, can’t afford one, and don’t particularly want one, but the new ban both saddens and angers me. It seems that the soap box, ballot box, and jury box have already failed us. All that’s left is the cartridge box or the moving box. Which will we choose?

Gun owners are law-abiding almost to a fault. I’m not aware of a single gun-control advocate or collaborator who has ever been assassinated. We can’t even muster a little civil disobedience. We just keep on playing the polite political game, and we keep right on losing it. Why is that?

The banning of the .50-BMG rifle may not even be that big of a loss for us, but it won’t be the last. Almost every single year, new gun-control legislation is introduced and passed in California. Democratic governors sign them. Republican governors sign them. What difference does it make?

Even now, more gun-control bills are still pending. Though we’ve all called, written, and e-mailed, multiple times in some cases, there is little hope that Governor Schwarzenegger won’t sign them. In particular, his signature on the ammunition-registration bill would/will be yet another major defeat for us. Where is our “line in the sand”?




My friends, I do not think I need to explain to any of you here the utter depravity of the anti-gunners and the depths to which they will stoop.

They label us as terrorists, murderers, nuts, extremists, and all other sorts of foul, disgusting epithets. They are not exaggerating when they say this; they truly mean it and want people to believe it.

All that gun owners want is to be left alone, to do what we want, to enjoy our freedom, just like any other law-abiding American citizen.

The facts show that gun owners are in general better educated, hold higher-paying and more prestigious jobs than non-gun owners, are more law-abiding (almost to a fault) and less tolerant of government abuse of dissenters, etc. than non-gun owners.


In short, gun owners are generally better people and better citizens than non-gun owners.


Yet they will not stop persecuting us.

They lie, cheat, and decieve to achieve their ends.

I am growing more and more afraid that "the system" (voting and other peaceful means) has failed us and will only get worse as time goes on.

Here is a perfect example of how the system is being undermined WITHOUT CONSEQUENCE from www.fiftycal.org:


Do-Overs and a Ghost Runner on Third...

There is apparently no limit to the insanity in California. For the umpteenth time in the long and sordid tale of AB-50, the California Assembly voted on the bill and the bill lost by a 35-36 margin. That was voting by the rules.

But the rules seem to matter very little in Sacramento. Shortly after voting to send the fifty caliber ban to a well-deserved grave, California Democrats called for a "re-vote" and we watched as a handful of Democrats pressed the vote button at their own desk, then calmly walked to the empty desk of another member of the Assembly and voted a second time. This, we learn, is what California Legislators call "Ghost Voting." Nobody there is shocked because "they do it all the time." Ah, I see...

As an American who'se last "do over" was somewhere around the third grade, I was stunned. What they casually call "ghost voting" seems to me like a complete abrogation of the whole voting concept. So who gets two votes? Does anybody get three? What can California residents hope for when their fundamental system of government has been reduced to a series of childish games?

These questions will boggle the rational mind until Californians decide to trust the reins of government to those who believe in silly, outdated ideas like rules and procedure, or "one equal vote for all." That matter is beyond our hands. What is before us is the last step on AB-50s road to becoming the greatest farce put into state law.




That's a REAL kick in the face, and a huge step over that proverbial line; our elected representatives lie, cheat, and use other unethical and illegal means to push their agenda.

It is absolutely reprehensible, inexcusable, and those who participated in this "ghost voting," republican OR democrat, should be tried and executed for treason.

AREN'T SITUATIONS LIKE THIS EXACTLY WHY THE FOUNDING FATHERS WROTE THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?????

WHY ARE THERE NO CONSEQUENCES FOR ACTING IN A TREASONOUS MANNER LIKE THE POLITICIANS DESCRIBED ABOVE???????



Further, in CA, we successfully recalled our communist governor, making a pretty large statement that we are sick and frickin' tired of business (lying, cheating, stealing, etc) as usual, and, IMO, taking a large step in the right direction.

Even THAT has failed us.


I ask you to seriously think about the facts I have presented thus far.


How long are we going to wait until we practice some "civil disobedience" of our own??

Or have I gone nuts?


Again, the above quoted passage from a THR member really, truly hit home;
it seems that, for many people, the only option left is the cartridge box or the moving box.

Like the War on Terror, I do not think that this is a war that will be won if we continue to play nice.

The only way we've ever played is "nice" and look where its gotten us.

We are all too happy to piss and moan on the internet, gripe about how the NRA isn't doing anything (or even harming us), write a few emails or letters, and call it a day.

We are going to lose in the long run if we keep playing like that.

Your serious thoughts are requested.....

If you enjoyed reading about "Seriously: Is it time to start USING the Second Amendment?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
deej
September 17, 2004, 06:44 PM
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."

-- Claire Wolfe, 101 Things to Do 'Till the Revolution

SB88LX
September 17, 2004, 06:54 PM
My opinion: We need to unite/form a coalition between all gun rights groups, make a grand all-encompassing plan towards defense and OFFENSE (bills that repeal worthless laws), and most importantly get out and be ACTIVE. Everytime the antis throw a news conference to announce their 'outrage' of the current situation and throw all sorts of false/deceiving information out, we need to turn around, pull whatever media outlets we can, show the facts and discuss how wrong the anti's positions are. I myself am guilty of inactivity (well I have donated to the GOA. life member in seperate payments, and plan to donate to the NRA), I dont' know of any local groups who get out and combat ignorance, probably my own fault for not looking hard enough. Turning to the magazine as you say would not have widespread support (Not yet I wouldn't think), and would fuel the antis because we'd be giving examples of "gun nuts gone crazy." That of all things would be most damaging, showing the public at large, who don't understand the right for the most part, members going out and shooting to protect their rights. I seriously get headaches whenever I hear the garbage spewed by the anti's, and there's more than enough to go around in maryland, believe me.

spartacus2002
September 17, 2004, 06:54 PM
The most illuminating thing about this thread won't be the responses, but the lack of responses out of fear of what alphabet agencies would say or do....

R.H. Lee
September 17, 2004, 06:56 PM
I don't think that some law prohibiting or restricting this that or the other thing is sufficient cause to start shooting. King George III had made all kinds of decrees and assessed all kinds of tariffs, but it wasn't until he hired 20,000 Hessians to invade us and the British attempted to disarm us that we actively resisted.

There is (in my mind, anyway) a difference between some ordinance on the books and an aggressive attempt to enforce it. Compliance is now and will always be a huge problem for lawmakers and enforcers. The more restrictive the law, the lower the rate of compliance. Just because the .50 will be "outlawed" in California after January doesn't mean there won't be any .50's in California. Now you may not be able to take it to the range, but is that worth armed resistance? Not to me. Now if/when the JBT's start a door to door search for the purpose of confiscation of firearms, all bets are off.

SB88LX
September 17, 2004, 06:57 PM
If they would come after me or anyone else for expressed outrage, well I would think it was about my time anyway, liberty or death.

Drjones
September 17, 2004, 07:02 PM
The most illuminating thing about this thread won't be the responses, but the lack of responses out of fear of what alphabet agencies would say or do....

I had that exact thought in mind as I was writing my initial post.





Not to me. Now if/when the JBT's start a door to door search for the purpose of confiscation of firearms, all bets are off.


Well, I don't think we'd ever see an actual door-to-door search for firearms in America (logistically impossible), but what about tracking down owners of "assault weapons" (now including the .50 BMG) and going to confiscate those arms??

R.H. Lee
September 17, 2004, 07:12 PM
Well, I don't think we'd ever see an actual door-to-door search for firearms in America (logistically impossible), but what about tracking down owners of "assault weapons" (now including the .50 BMG) and going to confiscate those arms?? Good question and I don't know the answer. When SB whatever (Roberti-Roos) passed here in California banning a slew of 'assault weapons', I don't remember the state tracking anybody down for confiscation. There was a lot of blather on the radio and tv by the Attorney General -"This and that are illegal, turn it in to us by such and such a date or you'll be a felon......etc., et yada. But I don't know that they tried to track people down and search houses. Enforcement is full of problems for them. Any idea how they plan to enforce the .50 ban?

buy guns
September 17, 2004, 07:14 PM
I don't think that some law prohibiting or restricting this that or the other thing is sufficient cause to start shooting. King George III had made all kinds of decrees and assessed all kinds of tariffs, but it wasn't until he hired 20,000 Hessians to invade us and the British attempted to disarm us that we actively resisted.


so what are we going to do? wait until the last minute when its already too late?


jeez, someone give me a scoped rifle, teach me to shoot it, and i'll go to cali myself.

swifter
September 17, 2004, 07:40 PM
If a few patriots start to organize a movement, it will be "conspiracy".:uhoh:

If less than a regiment takes action, it will be stomped flatASAP, by both state and feds, then charged with conspiracy...:rolleyes:

The paradigm of government is continual expansion of power.

Politicians only stop doing whatever they want when confronted with things that get their attention: Money, and Fear.

Even if we had a good collection, it'd only be enough to buy one or two pols, with a low probability that they'd stay bought...:fire:

Does narrow the options down, doesn't it?

I've been waiting for the revolution to start for a long time, now I don't believe it will.

But,:D I do think I've figured out why some folks turn to terrorism: All other options were invalid. Sure hope it doesn't come to that for us...:banghead:

Drjones
September 17, 2004, 08:03 PM
But, I do think I've figured out why some folks turn to terrorism: All other options were invalid. Sure hope it doesn't come to that for us...


I disagree with your statement.

Terrorism is the deliberate targeting of an uninvolved, innocent third party to force the acquiescense of another party.

I hardly think that fighting back against true tyrants fits that definition.

As far as "hoping it doesn't come to that for us, " well, I don't think you read my initial post.

CA legislators have been "ghost-voting," or voting FOR ABSENT LEGISLATORS.

We call, write, fax, email, to NO avail.

We RECALL our governor, only to end up with more of the same. (DON'T BLAME DRJONES, I VOTED FOR MCCLINTOCK!)

I fail to see what other options we have......

Cosmoline
September 17, 2004, 08:07 PM
Those who dream of fighitng "blue helmets" will be pretty disappointed if the real revolution ever does come. They'll be fighting their neighbors and friends.

The best response is to continue to migrate to "red" states where the RKBA is respected. The only hope for armed resistance is if it is coupled with outright rebellion at the state level. If all you do is take up arms against the government, with no declaration, no uniforms and no rules you really are a terrorist.

The founding fathers didn't just grab a rifle and start shooting Brits. The announced their intention to revolt in the open, signed their names to it and sent it to King George. They never attempted to hide. When the time came for open combat, proper military forces were set up under the authority of a representative legislative body. THAT is a revolution. Simply shooting an LEO in the gut because he comes to enforce a law you don't like is first degree murder.

Das Pferd
September 17, 2004, 08:31 PM
For a "revolution" to succeed it needs the support of the people. How many people will support your revolution when they find out that you are revolting to keep your Barret .50 BMG, AK-47, and AR?

The second amendment contains only one right. Other rights in the consitution are trampled on daily much more then the second amendment, yet I dont see you guys up in arms about that.

In over 200 years of existence, we have had worse times when it comes to peoples rights. However our country made it through those times as it will now.

You revolt when there is no other choice, when you have exhuasted every means posssible to change the situation, when there is no hope, when your freedom and god given rights have been taken away, when you have the support of those who were once opposed to you.

There might be a time when gun control advocates suddenly say "what did we do, this government we created and the madman in power needs to be stopped." Then I will revolt.

Read the Decleration of Independance again, read what it really says. We are a long long long long long long long long way from even being close to the reasons for revolting.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.


Whats you reason for revolting?

They are taking away my gun.

Das Pferd
September 17, 2004, 08:33 PM
I hardly think that fighting back against true tyrants fits that definition.

Please tell me where tyranny is alive and well in the US?

Das Pferd
September 17, 2004, 08:36 PM
What gets me is we are the greatest nation on this planet. We live longer, we make more money, our children have better health benefits, we have more freedom then alomst any other country on this planet.

Yet you guys are talking about revolting?

I mean seriously, have you really stepped back and looked at what you are talking about?

You want to revolt against the government of the most free nation in the world for not having enough freedom?

We need to stop looking at every little negative thing about our country and start reveling in its majesty and accomplishments. In what we have and the rest of the world does not.

Ieyasu
September 17, 2004, 08:48 PM
), I dont' know of any local groups who get out and combat ignorance, probably my own fault for not looking hard enough.

Well, well. Somebody finally hit on a possible problem/solution. Myself and a friend had formed a local gun rights group many years ago. That made it quite easy to get candidate endorsements and where appropriate, other statements, into the newspaper. Paper's usually have no problem quoting spokesperson's representing groups (they seldom ask for size).

That is what it would take to even have a chance at saving Mexifornia. Local groups would have to sprout-up all over California, and ideally would be somewhat coordinated when state or county issues are involved. I could go on and on with this topic, but it's a waste of time.

There just aren't enough people willing to make the kind of sacrifices necessary to make something like this work on a statewide basis, especially a state as large as Mexifornia.

That is why this cartridge box talk is such total balderdash. In fact the folks who sprout that kind of BS only show that they are part of the problem because they don't understand the whole issue. If you can't even get a small number of people to organize into a gun rights group, what good is armed resistance going to do? LMAO.

I believe Kal is hopeless, but you folks in other states that still have a modicum of freedom ought to start building your organizations now.

Donating to the NRA, etc., writing letters etc. is a great first step in gun rights activism, but it's a baby's first step and sadly the majority of gunowners will never remove their thumb's from their mouth's as their gun rights are removed by their parents.

(My shot at cartridge box talk was not aimed at the thread starter!)

Drjones
September 17, 2004, 08:51 PM
Das Pferd, you bring up very good points.

I'd just like to point out that "gun control advocates" by no means exist ONLY in the government.

With less pressure on politicians from anti-gun groups, there would probably be a reduction in the amount of new anti-gun laws produced by politicians.

drclark
September 17, 2004, 08:54 PM
In that same thread I posted the following

This thread started out posing the question of what our response should be to the ban. The only way we are going to stop the errosion of our rights and begin to gain them back is to go on the offensive. I think its time that gun owners in this state start looking at some of the tactics that were used by the civil rights, womens rights, gay rights movements. It is time that gunowners "come out of the gunsafe" and start being publicly active about preserving our gun-rights. We need to send a message to Sacramento that they have crossed the line and we are no longer going to sit idle while they continue to infringe on our rights.

I'm not advocating doing anything violent or illegal. Just doing something that would demonstrate our true numbers and unity. Something that would draw enough press coverage to draw out the politically ignorant/inactive shooters and at least vote...
When is the last time that gun-owners in this state held a 2nd-amendment rally? When have we had a mass-gathering protest in the state capitol? What percentage of gunowners overall do you think actually mailed/phoned the gov. urging him to veto AB50/SB1152/SB1140?
The facts show that gun owners are in general better educated, hold higher-paying and more prestigious jobs than non-gun ownersPretty much says it all. Gunowners have way too much to lose, and thus are much more resistant to actively protesting in a manner in which they end up in some government agency's files. Where were all the .50 shooters when this bill hit the gov's desk? Were they camped out in front of the governor's mansion or were they at home sending e-mails. Did anyone take time off work, drive up to Sacramento and protest?

I think there is plenty we can do within the system as it is. We just have to unite, organize and get vocal! Just look at all the gains the gay rights movement has made in the last 30 years when they are at best <5% of the total population?? The key is that they are out in public at their gay pride rallys & parades DEMANDING their rights. This gets news coverage which then reaches and energizes the closet-gays to come out "join the fun" or at the very least pay attention to whats going on in Sacramento.

In general the majority of the population is totally ignorant to what is going on in Sacramento on a day to day basis. Only when some hot button issue comes up (like gay marriage or drivers license for illegals) does the press cover it and the public get wind. Often times when it is too late.

I thought that this would be a particularly unique way to protest AB50 as well as a chance to educate the general public what these rifles are all about:Every .50 shooter in the state could converge on Sacramento and have a .50 Cal shoot at a local range in protest of the ban. How many .50 cal shooters are in this state? Invite the governor, some legislative reps and the press. Force our rulers to stand face to face with the people who's rights they infringed.How many .50 rifles could we get at a mass shoot at a Sacrameto area range? Can you see the symbolism if we could get 100 or more .50 BMG's on a firing line shooting in sync? It could be a very powerful reminder of the 2nd amendment's purpose without actually resorting to using it...

I'm not saying that armed rebellion isn't an option.... but it should be saved for when ALL other forms of protest and dissent have been exhausted.

drc

Michigander
September 17, 2004, 09:33 PM
Answer to the question in the title of this thread: No.

If Amendment II simply said, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to
the security of a free State, the people retain the right to keep and bear Arms," then some infringements (regulations, registration, etc.) could arguably be Constitutional.

But Amendment II goes further than just enumerating a right retained by the people: it goes so far as to declare that this right "shall not be infringed."

The ban on the .50 in CA is an outright ban. Certainly an infringement. But all the licensing, background checks, the NFA tax, permit to purchase, permit to carry, safety inspection, ad nauseum are all infringements too.

When a ban comes, people hollar about our right being infringed and that it's time to "use" the Second Amendment.

Well, once we succumbed to one infringement with no consequences to our elected officials, then another happened, then another, until we find ourselves in the situation we are today.

Banning the .50 does not deny you the "right to keep and bear arms," but it does infringe on that right. But where have we been with all the other infringements? Why pick this one? Because it's a ban? You still have the "right to keep and bear arms," right? How many infringements does it take?

I think they will widdle us down until we can only own rimfire, shotguns and blackpowder. After all, you will still have the "right to keep and bear arms," just not the specific arms you may want.

JoeWang
September 17, 2004, 09:58 PM
I feel sorry for you in CA.

You've let your state sink into a liberal morass. You have not led others up the high road, nor sacrificed enough to allow others to pass that way. Take some responsibility for the condition of your home state and quit bitching about it.

hillbilly
September 17, 2004, 10:33 PM
Look to history, for your answers.


In the American Revolution, the colonists did not get to open, armed confrontation until they literally had no other choice whatsoever.

The march on Concord was a march to confiscate the colonists' cache of weapons and ammo.

Remember, the shooting started on April 19, 1776.

The "Declaration of Independence" wasn't signed until three months after the shooting actually started. Even after the shooting started, it took them another three months to actually declare the war that had already been going since April 19.

That's how reluctant people are to go to war against their own governments, and wisely so.

The Kali .50 ban is bad and awful. It is the next step in the advance of the antis.

But, it does not yet make things so intolerable in Kali that those who still give a damn about freedom have no other choice than to start shooting.

Those who care about freedom in the US still have other viable options than to start shooting. Until the day comes that there are no other options, the shooting won't start.

My major points:

1) Those who say the frog will be slowly boiled and that we will lose our guns little by little until "poof," one day they are just gone, are completely dead wrong.

There are simply too many guns in private hands already in the US. You cannot slowly erode away 200 million guns in the US and really get anywhere.

Do the math. Even by the most conservative estimates, there are 200 million guns in civilian hands in the US. That's an average of four million guns a state.

Do you really think that the authorities in your state could actually round up four million guns easily and effectively? Even if they had a little federal help?

And that's if nobody started illegally smuggling guns in, which they would, or started illegally making guns out in the garage, which they would.

For the antis to actually achieve their goals in less than a 1000 years time, they will have to, some day, go for large scale confiscations.

That's what happened in Britain, in Australia, and in Canada. In every single one of those countries, the antis made slow progress over years. But in every single one of those countries the antis eventually had to take bold action and institute wide-scale confiscations.

The difference between Britain, Australia, Canada, and the US is that the US actually has a history of rising up against internal tyranny with arms.

2) Look to history for your enemies. In Revolutions, you enemies will be, by definition of the word "revolution," your neighbors, your friends who disagree with you, even members of your own family.

That's what happened in the American colonies in 1776.

That's what happened in the Civil War in the 1860s.

That's why revolutions are not to be entered into unless there are no other options whatsoever.

A revolution would mean killing people you see every day, people you speak to, people you've had a beer with, people who are actually related to you.

Read about the guerilla actions in Missouri during the Civil War. Talk about bloody, personal, nasty, and downright mean against people you know.

Read the story of the short, savage, blood-soaked life of Bloody Bill Anderson for what revolutionary guerilla war looks like.

Not a party I would want to attend unless I had abosutely no other choice.

3) While Kali may be a lost cause, there is still a little room to fight within the system.

Exhibit "A" in my case is the recent death of the awful, stupid, lousy Assault Weapons Ban.

There are still plenty of "red" states where you can own damn near anything you want.

In fact, the "red" states outnumber the "blue" states by about 2-1.

The "blue" states have more total people, as most of the population in the US is urban (which is a major part of the problem here).

But the actual number of states with lots of firearms freedoms is still significantly higher than those states which have lost most of their freedoms.

hillbilly

spartacus2002
September 17, 2004, 10:48 PM
Read the Decleration of Independance again, read what it really says. We are a long long long long long long long long way from even being close to the reasons for revolting.


There are many who would disagree with you wholeheartedly, and they would have a plethora of facts to back them up.

Folks in pre-revolutionary America would be aghast at the tax burden we suffer today.

Standing armies: TSA, DEA, ATF, need I go on...

Abuse of eminent domain.

Civil Asset Forfeiture laws and the damage it has done to the 5th Amendment.

The War on Drugs and the damage it has done to the 4th Amendment.

The abundance of federal regulations choking innovation and business like crabgrass.

I could go on....

Mulliga
September 17, 2004, 10:50 PM
Relax.

If you can still post stuff like this on THR, I think we've got a ways to go yet. :confused:

R.H. Lee
September 17, 2004, 10:57 PM
I feel sorry for you in CA.

You've let your state sink into a liberal morass. You have not led others up the high road, nor sacrificed enough to allow others to pass that way. Take some responsibility for the condition of your home state and quit bitching about it.


Uh, yeah. What starts in California doesn't stay in California. Let's see how y'all handle it when it gets down to JawJa. :rolleyes:

hillbilly
September 17, 2004, 11:01 PM
Spartacus2002..................

The fact that you can post what you have posted on this thread and you won't get arrested, and you won't get tortured, and you won't have your house confiscated by the government, and your family members won't get arrested and held and tortured is 100% positive proof that we aren't any where near time for a shooting revolution.

If you read the history of the American Revolution, you will see that the Founding Fathers did not go to war because the British kept a standing army or even because of the taxes the British imposed.


What pushed the colonists into war was the fact that colonials who spoke out against taxation got arrested. Their families got arrested. Their houses were burned. Colonists who protested or spoke out were crushed under the tyranny of the British Crown in numerous ways.

That's what started the American Revolution. It was troops marching to Concord to take away the guns so the colonists could be more readily crushed than they already were.

Remember the reading about "The Boston Massacre?" Those folks got killed for protesting in the street. And that was in 1770.....or six years before the Delcaration was signed.

You seen any street protestors gunned down by federal troops lately?

I haven't.

hillbilly

Waitone
September 17, 2004, 11:06 PM
The subject of the thread is related to the second amendment.

Seems to my you have a much larger problem. You call it "ghost voting." Out here in flyover country we call it fraud and corruption.

You in Cali have one great advantage over a lot of us. You can simply bypass the legislature. Can't do that where I live. You have lots of options. Use them. Concentrate on legislative corruption.

Sponsor a proposition to outlaw "ghost voting." That is a start.

RealGun
September 17, 2004, 11:30 PM
Well, before you start revolting, has anyone in CA actually "petitioned the government against grievances".

If there was a class action charging violation of the 2nd Amendment, the State Court would dismiss it because CA law does not recognize RKBA. The 2nd Amendment should apply to all States, but it actually doesn't in legal terms. Each State either has their own version or makes no guarantee of the RKBA in its Constitution.

That would mean the District or Supreme Court couldn't send you back to State Court as a way of ducking the issue. Your case would have to be designed from the start to be argued before the Supreme Court. You would, of course, have to get past Districts.

If the issue is confronted head on and only in a way that the US Supreme Court could address, the 14th Amendment would have to apply, and all State gun control law (all States) would be in serious jeopardy. The 2nd Amendment doesn't mean squat beyond the federal government until it is applied to States via the Fourteenth Amendment by the Supreme Court, according to the incorporation doctrine of the 14th Amendment. That simply means it doesn't apply until someone asks on a case by case basis. The reason this has never happened is because the legal strategy for gun cases has not aimed high enough. The Supreme Court will only address original arguments, so those need to be designed as if the Supreme Court was the initial hearing. They will get the case by default.

If denied due process, then I think more drastic measures would be in order. Consult a constitutional law specialist and take it from there.

You have the perfect opportunity to get enough people interested to raise the kind of money necessary to advance such a case. The true showdown is with the Supreme Court, and all States will benefit in the process.

California Civil Rights Aliiance (http://www.civilrightsforall.net/)

California Constitution Declaration of Rights does not include RKBA (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_1)

Mark in California
September 17, 2004, 11:34 PM
We need to get the governments attention at all levels, with no exceptions. I think that is most easly down by cutting off its income. Gun owners as a block should vote against ALL tax measures, bond measures and anything else to raise taxes or income for the state, and local governments. We should force them to not only stop growing but infact start firing there own.

If we cut their funding, they will start to stop playing games because they will be fighting battles among thermselves to keep their own jobs. But we must keep at it for years, no matter what happens, unless and until we get these laws removed.

Like "Deep Throat" said "follow the money"

Das Pferd
September 17, 2004, 11:42 PM
There are many who would disagree with you wholeheartedly, and they would have a plethora of facts to back them up.

Folks in pre-revolutionary America would be aghast at the tax burden we suffer today.

Standing armies: TSA, DEA, ATF, need I go on...

Abuse of eminent domain.

Civil Asset Forfeiture laws and the damage it has done to the 5th Amendment.

The War on Drugs and the damage it has done to the 4th Amendment.

The abundance of federal regulations choking innovation and business like crabgrass.

I could go on...

Then go on, dont be ambiguous to make a point. Many may argue, but none can show actual facts.

The decleration of independance was a declaeration against a monarch who controlled a tyrannical government. Not against a government elected by the people and still a republic.

We are a long way from have a tyrannical government, where one man controls everything.

RavenVT100
September 17, 2004, 11:56 PM
I am not the type of person who believes in using violence to get what he wants. I will only use violence to preserve my life and liberty and that of my family if all other avenues of diplomacy have first been exhausted. I feel that the use of deadly force in any civilian scenario is absolutely uncalled for unless one's life is being imminently threatened.

That said, I feel that any advocacy of violence in this case is absolutely wrongheaded. If you are that politically saddened by what has occurred in CA, and I know I am, then take action on a political and peaceful level. Do you think the original colonists actually had the privilege of voting for their appointed leaders or speaking their opinion in public forum? They did not. But you do. You have a right to make your voice heard, to donate to organizations that support your cause, and to publish your thoughts and ideas on the internet and in other public fora. The colonists enjoyed none of that. Until you are actually in the same situation that they were, and believe me you are not, you have absolutely no grounds to advocate violence in this case.

Taking your frustrations out through the use of your weapons would utterly destroy any perception the public might have that we gun owners are not a bunch of rednecks running around looking for an excuse to shoot someone. It would be incredibly irresponsible, undiplomatic, and foolish. I urge you in the strongest terms to abandon this nonproductive thinking. This is a frustrating issue for many of us, but flying off the handle is about the least productive thing anyone can do. You have an issue that is important to you; I understand that. And it is always frustrating for a person when it seems as if he can't convince others that his position has merit. But what makes you think you'd be any better than those who seek to strip you of your right to bear arms when you're speaking in such a cavalier tone of stripping them of their right to life? They hold political views that are contrary to yours and mine, and which you and I believe to be wrongheaded and foolish. Does that mean they deserve to die? If you truly believe in the principles upon which this country was founded, you will agree with me that the answer is no!

Anyway, I'm pretty new to this board, but if this is the kind of talk that goes on here on a regular basis, you can count me out. I'll have no part in this.

mountainclmbr
September 18, 2004, 12:03 AM
I would say that the Liberal Democrats are much like the Brittish. It is up to people like us to vote for individual freedom or risk horrible conflict. 50 cal is just divide and conquer. After they have successes, everything including 22's will be next. All the other ammendments will be interpreted in favor of gov power and all individual freedom will be lost. If every gun owner voted, the Dems would be in deep doo. Vote on election day and make the gun grabbers the new unemployed.

Kaylee
September 18, 2004, 12:16 AM
hillbilly -- nicely said, sir. :)

carp killer
September 18, 2004, 12:34 AM
We need to get the governments attention at all levels, with no exceptions. I think that is most easly down by cutting off its income. Gun owners as a block should vote against ALL tax measures, bond measures and anything else to raise taxes or income for the state, and local governments. We should force them to not only stop growing but infact start firing there own.

That will not work Mark in California. The ones who enforce the gun laws in Kali are the police. And Police budgets are the Very last thing to get cut. Law Enforcement in Kali are GODS!!!!!

Michigander
September 18, 2004, 12:37 AM
Remember the reading about "The Boston Massacre?" Those folks got killed for protesting in the street. And that was in 1770.....or six years before the Delcaration was signed.

You seen any street protestors gunned down by federal troops lately?


No, not to worry now-a-days. They are rounded up and put in "free speech zones" for their safety. Better to be confined and restricted than dead!

As for the number of firearms in private hands, that hardly will matter. As each type of firearm is banned, those who refuse to "turn them in by such and such date" will instantly become criminals. Felons, no less. Then no one has to actually go around confiscating anything, all they have to do is wait for you to trip-up somehow, speeding, seatbelt, jaywalking, or any of thousands of laws you will be violating at one point in time or another. Or maybe just a phone call to the authorities by a few neighbors.

In the meantime, everyone who chooses to "civially disobey" unjust and unconstitutional laws and keep their weapons will have to walk on eggshells, be careful to whom they speak and about what they speak.

Mindsets will change as they try to keep a felonious secret. Even fewer will speak out or protest or rally on the steps of the capitol for fear of being put on a "list." They will keep their heads down even moreso than when the weapons were "legal" to own.

And some will keep their heads down alone. Others will congregate. The congregation will draw attention. Organization will be thwarted. Then we are left with the loners.

It will be very difficult to organize any resistance once we are all felons on the lamb.

Cestus
September 18, 2004, 01:57 AM
"If there was a class action charging violation of the 2nd Amendment, the State Court would dismiss it because CA law does not recognize RKBA. The 2nd Amendment should apply to all States, but it actually doesn't in legal terms. Each State either has their own version or makes no guarantee of the RKBA in its Constitution."


"And the Constitution shall be the supreme law of the land..." (paraphrasing a bit)

The Constitution is overriding. The power to infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms is specifically denied to both the federal government and those of the various states.

2nd Amendment
September 18, 2004, 03:04 AM
We are a long way from have a tyrannical government, where one man controls everything.

The problem is if that is your sole definition of tyranny then we will probably never see it. No one man will ever control "everything". But we are seeing an ever increasing centralization of control within the grasp of an ever less responsive federal behemoth, funded by a small number of the super-rich. Soros would be a good example of one using his almost unimaginable wealth to further an agenda that is polar-opposite to the ideals of this Republic.

Meanwhile our education system is more and more designed to produce people utterly ignorant of their own past and history and the Rights to which they were born. We live in a new world and new definitions have to be applied at times. Personally I'd suggest we have probably already waited too long. Between the tax burden, the free-wheeling of enviromentalists and the buying off of large swaths of the public through government assistance and misrepresentation of programs I tend to believe when the "tyrannical government" arrives it will be so thoroughly entrenched, and accepted, there will be no way to unseat it.

Black Snowman
September 18, 2004, 03:07 AM
Our Constituon has some fatal flaws. Slowly fatal to be sure, but we're getting there. The fundamental problem as I see it is the same problem there is with many laws, enforcement. Everything we want is already guaranteed by the Constituon. The government cannot violate the Constituon by law but does it every day.

The provisions and measures in the Constitution to combat this corruption have failed because the enforcement is required to be done by their peers, who don't wish to take action for fear of reprisal. This is the same reason these problems are so difficult to fix. The people in power have to return the power to the individual. That's asking for too much it seems once they've tasted it.

The popular thing is to look out for yourself and your agenda. Gun owners, as a whole, are more respectful. We want to look out for the individual and the future. As a democracy the government reflects the people. People are greedy, selfish and fearful and our government is spawned from that.

Every member of Congress has sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution, but by not reining in their peers and striking down unconstitutional legislation they have failed in that duty. Not to mention all of the members who have actively fought to neuter it. Congress isn't the only culprit in this as many bad court decisions and executive actions have contributed their share.

By Constitutional law nearly ever member of the government on some level is illegally in power but we have no way to undo the damage. We have no way of making them correct the transgressions against the American people. People in power want more power. Giving freedoms back to others is against human nature it seems. The people are not trusted to rule over themselves.

The idea behind our Republic was to create a system of such freedom that it would never have to come to that. But human nature continues to beat out reason and respect. I don't think we'll see open rebellion in our lifetimes, but I don't think it's unreasonable to think that things will get worse until our descendants are forced to fight back.

How do we correct a corrupt, self-empowering government who's members are constantly changing? How do you get these forces to return the power to the people? These are very difficult questions. The historical answer has always been "you can't". Eventually, it breaks down to tyranny, and you are left with no choice but to revolt.

So, with no mechanism in the system to call out the offenders and strike down their actions what recourse do we have? Violence is not the answer. It won't prove who's right. Only who's left. How do we enforce the Constituon when all of the checks and balances have balanced against those it was designed to protect?

Constitutionally, morally, ethically, logically, we are in the right, but forcing enough people in power to do the right thing is very difficult. The popular thing is easy. The right thing is hard. People don't like to do what's right. They like to do what's best for them. It should be as simple as pointing out the transgressions against the Constitution and the offending party resigns or reforms to preserve the sanctity of the individual's natural rights. The time when that was possible has long passed.

So, with no mechanism in the system to call out the offenders and strike down their actions what recourse do we have? Violence is not the answer. It won't prove who's right. Only who's left. How do we enforce the Constituon when all of the checks and balances have balanced against us?

Can we create a new mechanism to force the Government to conform to it's original ideals or will it have to come down to open rebellion? What kinds of civil disobedience may work? How many people defying unconstitutional law together would it take before they would realize enforcement would be a larger fiasco than keeping their morsel of control? How do we get America back on the High Road? Man I wish I had the answer.

UnintendedConsequences
September 18, 2004, 03:09 AM
One day the pig will need to be slopped, but it is not that day yet.

However, I would say that when that day does come, it will be a frightful sight.

Billmanweh
September 18, 2004, 04:55 AM
There are simply too many guns in private hands already in the US. You cannot slowly erode away 200 million guns in the US and really get anywhere.


I really disagree with this. Take the AWB ban for example. How easy would it have been to just put evil features on your post-ban lower and screw the AWB? Well, pretty easy, but people sure fell into line and played ball. The feds didn't need to go door to door to enfore the law. If your gun is a felony once you take it out into public to shoot it, it's just about as good as banned sitting in your closet.

only1asterisk
September 18, 2004, 07:42 AM
hillbilly has put the issue to rest. Today is not the day. I pray the day never comes. I pray the need never arises. I pray that should the need arise and the day come, there will be Americans that feel the tug of duty at their heart and answer the call.
I fear and loath the idea of shedding new blood over old refighting battles that have already been won. Worse, I fear that should the day come freedom will die without a fight.



David

RealGun
September 18, 2004, 08:26 AM
The Constitution is overriding. The power to infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms is specifically denied to both the federal government and those of the various states. - Cestus

That may be your case before the SCOTUS, but it is not our current reality. A State can do whatever it wants to, until you successfully challenge it and establish legal precedent. Living in that defiant fantasy is unproductive, will land one in jail, and will not change anything. If you can't control the State legislature, or the tyranny of the majority is unconstitutional, you need to go to Court using a grand claim rather than a petty one. You don't sue the Sheriff for stalling on your permit application. You sue the State for violating your 2nd Amendment rights.

The Real Mad Max
September 18, 2004, 08:32 AM
But, I do think I've figured out why some folks turn to terrorism: All other options were invalid. Sure hope it doesn't come to that for us...

About an ignorant a statement as I've EVER heard here.

The Real Mad Max
September 18, 2004, 08:33 AM
Yeah. What he said.

RangerHAAF
September 18, 2004, 10:03 AM
There are gun banners in Georgia but we've managed to isolate and contain them mainly within the city of Atlanta. We then implemented laws loosening gun controls and pre-empting any such attempts by local politicians pertaining to gun control. I figure that our next step will be to get open carry as the accepted norm; to get people use to seeing citizens openly carrying their guns around as they do in Texas and Virginia.

All of America's gun owners, in general are guilty of allowing our 2nd Amendment rights to atrophy. It is our own fault for becoming so lazy and complacent that we allowed anti-gun politicians to become so embedded within our legislatures as they started to try to legislate away a basic right before a lot of them were yanked out of their jobs in 1994. There was some serious outrage in the summer of 1994 and a lot of Democrats paid for it with their political lives. They continue to allow themselves to be beaten over the head by gun control. I can't think of a dumber bunch of repeating cretins.

Liberal elected Democrats are very common in metro Atlanta but they are losing electoral ground in the state legislature here. We have a Republican governor and Senate. I would bet that we're about 1-2 elections away from getting a Republican majority in the House.

What you've written about can happen in Georgia but it is highly unlikely, the Dems are on the ropes in the Southeast; they know it and it's their own fault.

Zell Miller is right. Nobody believes their lies anymore.

Sungun09
September 18, 2004, 10:13 AM
I think I'll go buy another gun....

Brett Bellmore
September 18, 2004, 11:34 AM
Waitone is exactly right: You've got the initiative process, the bad law was enacted by means of an objectively fraudulent procedure which anyone but a legislator would find offensive, and which isn't only used to "pass" gun control laws: Put together a ballot initiative reforming legislative procedures. And write it based on the assumption that it WILL be violated, so put in evidentiary provisions, (Heck, ATMs photograph you when you make a transaction, why can't the voting button on a legislator's desk?) and some serious TEETH. And while you're at it, a provision stating that violations of legislative procedure ARE "judiciable", and that any citizen of the state has standing to sue. And to be reimbursed for their expenses if they win.

You'll find you have more allies than just .50 BMG owners, and your opponents are going to have a tough time explaining why legislators desperately need to retain the ability to use fraudulent votes to pass legislation.

Look, if it comes to it, I expect I'd be willing to kill in a revolution, but you've got to use EVERY avenue for reform that exists, before resorting to that.

ALS
September 18, 2004, 02:32 PM
I donated to the RNC about 6 months ago and ever since I get calls at my office about twice a week for more donations. I guess they have me on some donor list and passed it around to every 527 and PAC across the country. Well Arnold gave me one heck of a reason to shut these people down on the phone. Wednesday I had one of these calls and when I said "When Arnold rescinds the .50 Cal ban he SIGNED in California call me back other wise do not ever call me again for money" He is a RINO and I don't give money to groups supporting anti-gun politicians. The silence was deafening for a few seconds. Got a lot of umm's, buts, and gibberish and I just hung up.

13A
September 18, 2004, 03:06 PM
Great way to deal with it ALS.

I have been doing the same for the past year. I think it is one great way to get their attention.

tyme
September 18, 2004, 03:27 PM
drjones, get this straight.

The second amendment doesn't give you any right to start a war, guerrilla or otherwise.

Any determination as to whether things have gone too far, that the government has overrun its bounds, and that the only solution is violence, must be made by each person independent of anything written in a document, even one so important as the Constitution, even if it did grant you the right to start a war. You cannot say, "Oh, the Constitution says it's okay," because the Constitution says no such thing. The Declaration of Independence might, in a vague way, but it is not a binding legal document (whether the Constitution is is another matter).

Documents are just words written by people. Documents contain errors. Once you start shooting, you cross a line that is not crossed by a person who writes violence-promoting agitprop. Words alone mean only so much as readers wish them to. Murder has meaning beyond any of that, and whether you're right or wrong, if you commit a homicide you must be prepared for the consequences.

In this case, the consequences of taking up arms against the government today might include being killed by another member of THR, LEO or otherwise. Consider that.

Violence alone will not solve anything. As long as you can make no headway ideologically against those you oppose, a guerilla war will be long and ugly, and will only end if the other side decides that capitulation (against their ideology) is better than the resource drain caused by the war.

RealGun
September 18, 2004, 05:34 PM
RKBA is meant to be a cold war, but the bluff doesn't work if one is not seriously prepared to posture or even shoot. First you have to have a gun and something better than a musket.

Speaking of cold war, the next time someone asks why you need an "assault rifle", ask them why the US needs nuclear weapons or a formidable military. Of course, they won't get it unless they understand that it is up to the people to ensure their rights.

Rusher
September 18, 2004, 10:48 PM
Just food for thought

all that are feeding this thread have all under a hundred posts each..........







trolling again Special Agent Smuck???????



And yes my tinfoil hat is a snug fit tonight
:D :D :D

(and yes I know mine is well under a hundred posts buuuuuuut look at my registration date)

RealGun
September 19, 2004, 07:37 AM
all that are feeding this thread have all under a hundred posts each..........

Not sure what you mean by "feeding", since there are a number of posts from megaposters. A reflection of neophyte thinking is not necessarily trolling. You might want to mentor a little bit and add some substance by way of balancing comments. My own ideas are quite different than they were a couple of years ago.

Joey2
September 19, 2004, 08:46 AM
This is my opinion. The 2d Amendment along with the rest of the Constitution is becomming a moot point.

As an example look at the recent sunset of the AWB. Each state is allowed to keep its own AWB in effect. The sunset will only effect parts of the country, not the ENTIRE country. Think "states rights" when it convenently suites the powers to be.

I think that the new tactic of the government is going to be to pressure the states to enact what the federal government wants.

This decentralized the laws that nueters the Constitution by heralding "states rights" when it pleases the Federal Government.

The people will look to the Federal Government is let off the hook and allows more Bush's to be elected.

California and Illinois gun laws are going to be enacted in each of our states sometime down the road.

Some of you may not believe this, but this is the UN agenda to disarm America.

What can we do to stop this, not only the errosion of the 2d Amendment, but the errosion of the entire Constitution?

I know what needs to be done and so do many of you- and its not calling, writing, voting, or sending e-mails.

mpw
September 19, 2004, 09:47 AM
Violence is only justified if it is in self defense. It should always be the last resort. If you can't peacefully change unjust California laws, then why not just move to a more free state? If you are seriously willing to shoot LEOs over a .50BMG...then why aren't you willing to move someplace where you won't have to? "where tyranny reigns, you can fight, flee, or wear the chains" I suggest you either flee, or get used to the new link on your chains....the fight option will end badly for you in the current situation, and after Kali makes an example of you (assuming you live through it) do you really think it will all have been worth it?

Hand_Rifle_Guy
September 19, 2004, 10:30 AM
All through this thread we've been talking in terms of "The PRK's dun gone an' banned da Fiddy!..."

Uh, nope. I beg to differ.

All the new law does is require that .50's be registered as Assault Weapons under provisions of the existing AW law.

That law DOES NOT BAN possesion of AW's.

It WILL NOT BE ILLEGAL TO OWN THEM.

It simply requires their registration. Granted, registration equates to confiscation, but nobody's tried to confiscate all the handguns yet, and they've had required registration for YEARS.

What the AW law does is make it illegal to transfer/buy AW's within the state. If you wanna sell one, it's gotta be outta state. You wanna buy one, yer SOL.

Got one ALREADY? Good on yer. You get to keep it, provided you register it.

What you're NOT allowed to own, what's ACTUALLY BANNED, is UN-registered AW's.

AW registration compliance in this state is DISMAL. DOJ estimates it at around 10% of existing guns. But UNLIKE pistols, they have no real idea of where they actually are. DROS (Departmental Registration Of Sale) fees applied to long guns record nothing, as the background check for a long gun with DOJ has no gun-specific information, like caliber or serial number, sent in to DOJ with the background check request.

They don't know where they are. That makes it hard to bang on doors and round 'em up. All they can do is restrict further sales in hopes of diminishing the supply. It's going to take a LOOONG time for all of the current registered AW owners to die off. Until then, one could reasonably expect to see them turn up at ranges and such. Ranges, in my experience, DO NOT call the police when someone brings a gun of 'iffy' legality to shoot, they just boot the offender out. They don't WANT the role of enforcement, but they don't want to be 'friendly', per se.

I imagine it's going to take years and years until any enforcement agency would be justified in taking the time to validate the registration of every AW-style gun they might see, presuming they even see them at all. As stated, gun owners are a law-abiding lot, who rarely receive LE scrutiny. With a 90% non-compliance rate, I think there's going to be PLENTY of "Assault Weapons" in reserve to up-end a heavy-handed Gubmint should said Gubmint decide to start ultimate tyranny by first coming to collect the guns they know about. And that doesn't include all the rest of the NON AW-type guns.

Militarily obsolete, as most bolt guns could be considered to be, is a far cry from 'ineffective'. Should Gubmint-sponsored JBT's of some sort start Feinsteining the registered gunlist, (Feinsteining="Round them up, Mr. and Mrs America, turn them all in".) that being about the only circumstance I can imagine that even BEGINS to merit the idea of armed resistance, there's going to be 'a rifle behind every blade of grass' potentially primed to 'vote from the rooftops', (Which targets POLICY MAKERS, not field enforcers, BTW.) should so drastic a response prove to be neccessary.

I don't think the legiscritters are arrogant/confident enough in their position to think they can get away with Feinsteining. Restricting sales is not banning possesion. They haven't even banned possesion of class III stuff, but you haven't been able to legally BUY any of it in this state for YEARS.

So once again, Korny Kaliforny displays it's arrogance before the rest of the nation by exporting perceived 'dangers' (They're dangerous, right? Capable of causing death and mayhem? Bad thing to have around loose where criminals can get to 'em? That's the rationale behind trying to reduce their numbers, isnt it?) to the REST of the nation that we couldn't give a rat's behind about because we're all Better Than You, Or At Least More Equal.

Nice attitude, eh? We think it's a problem, so you deal with it. We can't be bothered, but it's OK if YOU have to deal with the crime-'n-mayhem-machines we ship out because they frighten us. Kinda reminds me of when Kennedy opened Florida's ports to Cuba, whereupon Castro emptied his prisons onto our shores, touching off a rather brutal and virulent crime wave. I suppose having Korny Kaliforny play the role of Evil Commie Castro isn't too much of a stretch.

Doesn't speak to well of our opinion of the rest of the U.S. though, does it?

Naturally, you'd never get the Gubmint to admit the REAL reason they want to export these guns: They leave WAY TOO MUCH POWER in the hands of the Great Unwashed. That they KNOW they're skating on thin ice, and that the level of the undercurrent of dis-satisfaction is rising. Ruins all those delicately-crafted pretenses they've stacked up to stand on so they can look down on us and feel superior enough to make all our decisions for us, because they know better.

Pretenses are like snow: a good dose of sunlight would leave these arrogant legiscritters fumbling in a lot of mud.

That being said, I repeat: Revolution? Not yet...


Re: the initiative idea.

Good idea. Here's another one. Send up an initiative requiring a sunset clause in all legislation passed from here-on out. That'd keep the critters in the Capital sty busy defending and trying to renew existing laws they want to preserve, so they have a lot less time trying to establish that they're accomplishing something for their salaries by passing ever more laws. A Legislature with time on it's hands is the tyrant's workshop.

We need to ram this one through on a Federal level too, which is how I originally was informed of this idea either here or on TFL. I'd cite a credit to the source, but I can't remember who it was. I wish I could, as it's a FANTASTIC idea, and an obvious solution to the constant encroachment of laws on our freedoms and liberties.

"When motivated by the Media Microscope under the Public Eye, an Idle Legislature tries to justify it's paycheck by becoming the Tyrant's Workshop, passing ever more laws to the detriment of Civil Liberty."--H_R_G

How's THAT for a hot one! :D;):D

RealGun
September 19, 2004, 10:58 AM
California and Illinois gun laws are going to be enacted in each of our states sometime down the road. - Joey2

I doubt it. Recognize that neither of those States has the RKBA in its Constitution.

The 2nd Amendment and a couple others are still electives for States, because Supreme Court cases have either not called upon the 14th Amendment, or the Court has resisted a confrontation. Before getting lost in the trees with various workaround ideas, do not lose sight of what it would really take to set all this State-centric gun control stuff right.

Yes, the SCOTUS would first have to get it straight what the 2nd Amendment means. The basic argument though is that it is unacceptable for US citizenship to mean different things in different States. Only matters of State scope have anything to do with "States' rights". Selective secession is not what the Constitution intended.

Old Fuff
September 19, 2004, 11:15 AM
I doubt that any attempt by gun owners in California to use legal action with the Second Amendment as a basis will work. During the last half of the 20th century much of the Constitution - and in particular the Second Amendment - were gutted by decisions passed down by left-wing judges and courts.

These courts have repeatedly said that the Second Amendment does not protect anyone's individual right to own this or that kind of firearm. In turn the US Supreme Court has either refused to hear challenges to these lower-court decisions, or has supported them.

So long as the Federal Court System is dominated by left-wing judges this situation will not change. The only thing that would change it would be the election - over a long period of time - of conservative presidents and congresses that truly believed in the Constitution and Bill of Rights as this country's founders did. Then as they either died or retired the current judges would be replaced with ones that had views much like out own.

But at this point in our history I don't see that happening.

RealGun
September 19, 2004, 11:56 AM
These courts have repeatedly said that the Second Amendment does not protect anyone's individual right to own this or that kind of firearm. In turn the US Supreme Court has either refused to hear challenges to these lower-court decisions, or has supported them.

None of the cases addressed the 2nd Amendment head on. That's what needs to stop. Initial claims are relatively petty and cannot be reformulated to grander claims just for the Supreme Court. If you look at why cases were refused or why rulings were so narrow, you would know how to design a case with much greater potential impact. The case would need to start with a constitutional law specialist, deliberately intending that the case deafult up the chain of Courts and anticipating resistance along the way.

One poor slob who got caught by the system is not going to be able to finance that in a reactive mode. 50,000 petitioners in a class action might be a different matter.

The DOJ side would be following Dept. stated policy that gun ownership is an individual right. The President could be quoted as well.

I believe the only impediment is the inability to present the SCOTUS with the right case. Gun laws will not be repealed. If anything, they will be set aside by the High Court.

My favorite is amending the 14th Amendment to make it immediately effective in all States across the board. Then let them sweat about what the 2nd Amendment really means.

The Real Mad Max
September 19, 2004, 12:05 PM
(and yes I know mine is well under a hundred posts buuuuuuut look at my registration date) \

Wow. Want a gold star? :rolleyes:

Old Fuff
September 19, 2004, 12:38 PM
RealGun:

Sure they have. The most recent and best was a case out of the 5th Circuit Appeals Court in New Orleans concerning a case that originated in Texas. It was well documented, and supported the "individual right" interpretation of the Second Amendment.

The Bush Justice Department recommended that the Supreme Court not review the case, and they didn't. In spite of their official position they have yet to support, or even ask the Supreme Court to review any case involving a Second Amendment component. On the other hand they have done they're best to block several cases that were under consideration. Considering the make-up of the present Supreme Court this might have been wise. It’s a judgment call you’ll have to make for yourself.

I tried to find you a link because the decision is well worth reading. Unfortunately the site that used to have it wasn't working.

grislyatoms
September 19, 2004, 01:55 PM
This may be rather naive of me to say, but:

To undo what has been done = Media coverage and lots of money to get the message to Joe Sixpack and Suzy Soccermom.
Oleg is on the right track with his posters.

Hey, it works for the anti's.

Imagine a top four tv network, "The Freedom Channel".

8:00 am - "Politically Correct and the 1st amendment"
9:00 am - "Freedom Channel Face Off - Chris W. Cox .vs. Michael Moore"
10:00 am - "Meet a Founding Father presents: Thomas Jefferson"
11:00 am - "Root Cause: The American Civil War"
12:00 pm - "We the people" - News
1:00 pm - "Innocents Betrayed"
3:00 pm - " My story: RKBA saved my daughter from a rapist"
4:00 pm - "Treason and Treachery: Lawmakers this week"
5:00 pm - "Eye for an Eye - Making the punishment fit the crime"


and so on. The titles probably would not interest most of the brain dead masses, so catchy titles and interesting prologues would of course have to be created. We could use some of the buzz words that the liberals use, well, liberally: Deadly, killer, bloody, ghastly, death dealing, spraying, assault, massive, murdering, terrorist, etc..

RealGun
September 19, 2004, 03:04 PM
The most recent and best was a case out of the 5th Circuit Appeals Court in New Orleans concerning a case that originated in Texas. - Old Fuff

If you mean U.S. v. Emerson, it's not that hard to find. It is not a good case, because waving a gun at his wife in front of a child while under a court restraining order is likely not what the Constitution had in mind. A better case is without criminal liability but simply claiming that the State is prohibiting exercise of your 2nd Amendment rights.

Short article on U.S. v. Emerson (http://www.cnn.com/2001/LAW/10/16/court.gunrights/)

U.S. v. Emerson published opinion (http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/99/99-10331.cr0.wpd.pdf)

The Last Confederate
September 19, 2004, 04:14 PM
......It's about time we secede and form a Confederacy!


http://www.mlc.lib.ms.us/trivia/flags/stars_bars.gif

The Real Mad Max
September 19, 2004, 04:52 PM
......It's about time we secede and form a Confederacy!

Lord knows that worked like a champ the first time!

:rolleyes:

RealGun
September 19, 2004, 05:03 PM
......It's about time we secede and form a Confederacy!

That's like voting Libertarian. You have to all first live in the same place.:)

Deavis
September 19, 2004, 05:26 PM
Simply shooting an LEO in the gut because he comes to enforce a law you don't like is first degree murder

I'm sure that is what many Jews felt when they were rounded up and later murdered like dogs by the Nazis. Cliché? Yes. Truth? Definitely.

I'm not trying to be Mr. Hardcore here but I don't understand why so many people here have this hang-up about killing a LEO or your next-door neighbor. Murder is simply a term defined by the group in power, not by what is innately right or wrong (which is another matter completely). The group in control determines who is ok to kill and who is not ok to kill, i.e. burglars and innocent civilians respectively for many states. Hear me out…

If someone comes to your door to take your rights/life/whatever and you kill them, you are defending yourself/beliefs/rights against your enemy at that time. It is only later that your decision is classified as murder/self-defense/whatever by popular opinion (jury/press/judge). Many people consider Nazis to be bad and the Jews to be their victims but not everyone feels that way, even today. There are plenty of people who will tell you that the Jews got what they deserved for a plethora of reasons based on emotional hatred and prejudice.

Terrorism is the deliberate targeting of an uninvolved, innocent third party to force the acquiescense of another party

Humans vilify those that they wish to destroy, subjugate, or rule. Look at some WWII propaganda or better yet watch some original Popeye cartoons to see how you shape the opinion of the people to suit the political needs of a war. We bombed factories where people worked in WWII to stop their production, but those factories were staffed with “innocent” people. They were doing the job their country asked them to do and we killed them to force their military to surrender. What about the other people who paid the taxes that the government used to wage the war, are they innocent? We firebombed Japan and then dropped the nuke on them, so don’t act like we, the US, have a history of respecting so called “innocents.” Innocence is, just like murder, simply defined by those in control of killing people.

Get real here. Nobody can be completely innocent in this world when it comes to dealing out death. You must, in your mind, form a reason that it is okay to kill anyone or anything. The views of who is okay to kill today are completely different from what they were a decade ago and they are different from person to person. Most people here probably would have been in favor of dropping the bomb back in WWII, even if it did kill innocent people because it would keep our soldiers from dying.

One thing is that you have been conditioned since birth to follow the law and respect the police. Then again you have never suffered under those police and have no real reason to consider their death as an acceptable event. I bet there are plenty of Russians who don’t trust the police anymore after Stalin used them to drag off innocents and murder them. Were those police just enforcing a law that the Russians didn’t like? Were they innocent men just doing what they were instructed by the law to do, right?

Here is the question you should be asking yourself, given the context of this thread, “Is killing my neighbor/LEO/whoever a greater evil than what my neighbor/LEO/whoever wishes to perpetrate against me?”

I’m not advocating the death of anyone but think about it logically and come to your decision. Would you kill another person because they were sent to disarm you (In this case take away your 2nd Amendment right)? If the answer is yes then it isn’t murder for you. If the answer is no, then it is murder for you. Quit injecting your emotion and conditioning into the argument, it is a simple question to answer.

(Edit, wrong button hit before checking grammer :banghead: )

The Last Confederate
September 20, 2004, 12:26 AM
Lord knows that worked like a champ the first time!

Yes, you are correct. The first attempt DID work, that was 1776!

R.H. Lee
September 20, 2004, 12:39 AM
Good post, Deavis. ;)

UnintendedConsequences
September 20, 2004, 03:00 AM
War and conflict, even crime and punishment are based on what one views as moral or immoral. To kill someone is often murder (depending on the circumstances), yet the state condones murder through capital punishment. One may say that killing is justified in war, but killing is killing no matter what one wishes to call it. We also perform abortions, which is killing as well, in the country. The state says what killing is murder and what is justified, just as each person decides for themself, usually, what is moral and immoral killing.

If one is the Gestapo or SS soldier in Germany, killing a Jew, Gypsy, or other stated defined "undesirable" was not wrong, it was even rewarded. The same for supporters of Stalin and Lenin, doing the state's bidding and killing as ordered, was rewarded. Well, until they were killed too at the whim of the state. Or even in the Communist Revolution in China after WW2, if you were an educated person, more than likely you ended up "reeducated", or killed.

History has shown us numerous examples of what happens when governments decide to deal with those they feel are "undesirable." Does this mean we start a preemptive revolution? No, not at all. But by the same token, when the British of our day come marching toward the militia arsenal of our day, do you let them take the last thing that will ensure freedom and liberty or do you stand your ground and fight?

Just like the partisans fighting in Nazi-controlled France, Italy or Poland, for some examples, they had to make tough choices as well. I am sure they had to kill local police officers and neighbors as well as the Nazis. Under the circumstances of that situation, the killings were justified.

As to the topic at hand, what choice does one make if the only reason they are being singled out, targeted, arrested or being sought out is because of what they believe, think or own, let alone racial or religious background? I would say I am excluding criminals from this question, but what happens if just being a gun owner is a crime in itself in a hypothetical situation, or even a historical one?

I am not advocating violence nor am I saying that persuing peaceful means at any cost is the answer either. Just like Chanselor Chamberlain in the years before WW2 and the League of Nations, pursuing peace at all costs is costly indeed. But using force without a reasonable justificiation isn't a solution either. I would say that Teddy Roosevelt said it best, "Speak softly, but carry a bit stick."

Each person has to do soul-searching and some profoundly deep thinking to come up with what they feel is the right answer to this question.

Gordon Fink
September 20, 2004, 03:22 AM
Since this thread was inspired by my own frustrated rhetorical questions, I should probably answer them.

Will I start shooting over .50-BMG rifles? Of course not! Killing is always wrong, and violence solves nothing. Right? Besides, the best way to survive an attack is to give the attackers what they want. Right?

Seriously, though, I will redouble my political efforts. I’ll donate more money where it’s needed. I’ll write more letters when I can. I’ll support pro-RKBA groups as much as possible. I’ll even come out of the closet as a gun owner, if it helps.

But someday California will probably make me into a criminal. When that day comes, I will have no choice but to flee the state or start taking it at its word. Most likely, I will choose life as a refugee, but I will always wonder what a few well-placed shots might have accomplished.

~G. Fink

The Real Mad Max
September 20, 2004, 06:15 PM
Most likely, I will choose life as a refugee, but I will always wonder what a few well-placed shots might have accomplished

Quite likely, your death and a smallish tombstone that will soon be forgotten along with your act of foolishness. Kinda like that turd McVeigh.

Jim Diver
September 20, 2004, 06:51 PM
Sponsor a proposition to outlaw "ghost voting." That is a start.

Ghost voting is already illegal. The assembly rules are clear that no member shall operate the voting device of another member.

Laws are ignored in PRK by the powerful... The law does not apply to them, only to us peons.

Tyrrany already exists in PRK. It's getting close to time to do something about it.

ProGlock
September 20, 2004, 06:57 PM
Many people need to be aware that We the People HAVE petitioned the government for a redressing of grievances. You really need to get out more and get active.

No this is NOT a joke and not a scam of any kind. We the People have sued the U.S. Government in court because they have not responded to a list of several hundred grievances.

Read about it here:
http://www.givemeliberty.org/

Brett Bellmore
September 20, 2004, 07:28 PM
The problem is that, while ghost voting is illegal, the law is utterly toothless. You don't need a proposition to make it illegal, you need a proposition to:

1. Specify who has standing to take it to court.

2. Establish that it IS "judiciable". That the courts don't have any choice about accepting the cases.

3. Arrange for video monitoring of the legislature to preserve proof that it's taking place.

4. Nail down that laws "enacted" by ghost voting are null and void.

and,

5. Set penalties for ghost voting, up to and including expulsion from the legislature.

Waitone
September 20, 2004, 08:06 PM
Ghost voting is already illegal. The assembly rules are clear that no member shall operate the voting device of another member.
Then you clearly have governmental institutional corruption. You have crooks and worse pushing the levers of power. You are being governed by people who use the power of the gun to coerse (?sp) tax money from your pockets.

In other words, you don't have a state, you have a kelptocracy.

Now what do you do? At an absolute minimum I'd think filing criminal charges against practicioners of ghost voting followed by a class action lawsuit. Accept as normal governmental corruption and your freedoms are limited.

A government engaged in felonious actions loses it legitimacy in a Noo Yark minute.

RealGun
September 20, 2004, 08:21 PM
they have not responded to a list of several hundred grievances. - ProGlock

All of which seem to concern protesting Federal income taxes. I saw mention of war powers, but the rest deals with objections to paying taxes. It could serve as a model for other issues, but they would lack the leverage of withholding payments. What does a gun owner do, for example. Promise not to shoot someone? Just what we need. :uhoh: We already leverage votes and are inching closer and closer to establishing a separate political party with guns or civil rights in general as number one on its platform agenda. As a matter of fact, by the 2008 election, I expect to have abandoned the GOP to the Christian right and gone my own way, in search of government with rational integrity. The upcoming Constitutional amendment debates and laws to sidestep the Courts on social conservative issues will pretty much tell the tale.

At this point, I think your WTP petition is a hack. Has anyone bothered to campaign for individual taxes only at the State level and win some political support? We are going to have to pay somebody. How much to pay and how much to spend are separate questions.

Good luck.

Deavis
September 20, 2004, 08:42 PM
Killing is always wrong, and violence solves nothing.

I beg to differ. From a completely logical viewpoint, violence always solves the problem if taken to its natural completion. There is not a human problem in existence that violence cannot solve. You may not like the cost, but you cannot argue with the outcome's finality. :evil:

Billmanweh
September 20, 2004, 08:53 PM
If the majority of people are still in favor of gun control, what would killing anti-gun politicians possibly accomplish?

Drjones
September 20, 2004, 09:04 PM
If the majority of people are still in favor of gun control, what would killing anti-gun politicians possibly accomplish?


It would show them the price of thoroughly trampling on others' rights.

Make them think twice about supporting gun control.

And yes, before you ask, I don't care if they hate us, as long as they fear us.

Billmanweh
September 20, 2004, 09:13 PM
something like the killing of abortion advocates has done?

you've got to be kidding, right?

ProGlock
September 20, 2004, 09:46 PM
If the majority of people are still in favor of gun control, what would killing anti-gun politicians possibly accomplish?

The rights of the minority must still be respected. That is what makes our country a republic, but hell you wouldn't think it because everyone always talks about democracy. I think most people just don't know any better. And if you do a little fact finding in our own history, you'll learn that our Founding Fathers hated the idea of a democracy.

Drjones
September 21, 2004, 02:58 AM
something like the killing of abortion advocates has done?

you've got to be kidding, right?


To the best of my knowledge, only abortion doctors have been killed, not government officials nor lobbying groups who support it.

It would be like taking out Arnold for signing a gun control bill rather than taking out sarah brady or one of her cohorts.

Billmanweh
September 21, 2004, 03:36 AM
I sort of see it like this...

Politicians are representing their constituents. What they understand/fear/respect is votes and money (because $$ equals more votes). That's it. When it comes to gun related issues, politicians are going to write legislation and vote the way that the majority of their constituents want them to. We complain about Clinton/Feinstein/Schumer, etc...but they keep getting elected. It's not an accident, they represent the people who are voting for them. A lot of people are anti-gun, it's not just politicians. If we want to change the law, we have to change people's perceptions and attitudes. Just believing we're right isn't enough.

And as far as protecting the rights of the minority, I think that mostly falls to the courts. We may believe that laws like the AWB are unconstitutional, but that and $4 will get you a cup of coffee. The tough part is that who really wants to be the test case when losing gets you ten years in prison? Not quite like challenging the same sex marriage laws. And even when we do win a decision, like the overturned verdict in the 9th circuit for the home made machine gun, the guy was already back in prison for attempting to have the judge murdered. Just the face you want to put on the gun movement, right? When a good test case does come up, we need to jump on it with both feet, obviously. But I don't think we're going to win our gun rights back through the courts, for the most part.

I just think the solution is put the most attractive, publicly acceptable face possible on the gun movement, stress the positives and win people over a little at a time. Get the best lobbyists possible and win the battles that are winnable. Put pro-gun websites out there that are palatable for the average soccer mom. Explain the lies and mistakes that the media make. Convince the dove hunter that after they take your folding stock 870, his o/u is next.

And I'm not even arguing that the idea of murdering an occasional anti-gun politician is wrong (don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's right either), I'm saying it's utter nonsense to think it would help matters. If Lee Malvo and John Muhammed had been pro-gun advocates, you think that would have helped our cause? Or Timothy McVeigh, or David Koresh, or whoever else you want to name. It's fine for novels and message board fantasies, but it's just not reality. Most people already see the pro-gun movement as a bunch of loonies planning for the end of the world. And now you want to start talking about assasinations over hi-cap mags and bayonet lugs? It's ridiculous.

RealGun
September 21, 2004, 06:12 AM
If we want to change the law, we have to change people's perceptions and attitudes. Just believing we're right isn't enough.

Major successes by the civil rights movement were not achieved by popular opinion. Doing what's right may be a bitter pill for many people. Folks don't need to like the fact that I carry a gun. They just need to understand that they are not entitled to a controlling opinion about it until it actually intrudes upon them in some way. Gun control is very much about prejudice and second class citizenship, so civil rights strategies and philosophies could serve as a model in many ways.

4570Rick
September 21, 2004, 06:37 AM
The most illuminating thing about this thread won't be the responses, but the lack of responses out of fear of what alphabet agencies would say or do....
Agreed, however as of this post 9/21 AM there are more replys then I thought there'd be. :) As for me, I am way too old, way too single, and way too disabled to give a hoot and a holler what the JBT's think of my beliefs.

IRONFIST
September 21, 2004, 07:16 AM
"Pig in a poke, you better starting shaking, todays pig is tomorrows BACON"!

I think that sums up where we are and where we can expect to be in the future. Mom-and-Pop America are more concerned about which credit card to put this years Disneyland vacation on, than whether or not they will be able to exercise their RIGHT to own a firearm. THEY DON'T CARE! They noisily suck in all the spoon-fed pap the Major media outlets give them and then worry their pretty little heads about whether or not they will have to remove their shoes for an inspection next time they board a plane.

The game is over and most of the spectators haven't a clue. We are beset on all sides by enemies(some who pose as longtime supporters) and we are barreling down the nasty straightaway that leads to Third-world status. Sooner or later, folks who own guns are going to have to make preparations for some kind of an armed struggle to reclaim what used to be our country. I think both major political parties have been corrupted so much by the pursuit of power, that it is a sad joke to believe that we, as citizens, are given even the slightest representation that we deserve.

The rapid "Mexicanization" of California and our SouthWestern states, the formation and growing power of the European Union, the rise of radical Islamic fundementalism, the not-so hidden agenda of the United Nations, the growing economic and military threat from China and Japan, the proliferation of Nuclear weapons to countries that can't even give their citizens clean drinking water, let alone reliable security for those Nukes and the forced dumbing down of our schoolchildren in many public schools across this nation all point to the eventual collapse the superpower known as the United States.

The Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence will be worthless if there is no free country to apply them to. We can argue about the issue of gun ownership until we are blue in the face, but until someone stands up and says "NOT ONE MORE RESTRICTION ON MY RIGHTS, WILL I ALLOW"! and is willing to fight for it and risk everything, then the dissoulution of our culture and way of life as Americans will continue.

I will hold my nose and vote Republican this election, only because there is no viable candidate other than Bush. I am now part of the problem too, and acknowledge it here. I am starting to believe that the only true solution is admitting to the world that I don't want to be governed by people I can't respect. Liberal, Conservative, Libertarian, Democrat and Republican... Just labels used to define a person who thinks that they can run my life better than I can. They are wrong... and I am buying more ammunition.

Drjones
September 21, 2004, 02:53 PM
If Lee Malvo and John Muhammed had been pro-gun advocates, you think that would have helped our cause? Or Timothy McVeigh, or David Koresh, or whoever else you want to name.

I NEVER, in ANY way, shape or form, advocated or even hinted at the thought of knowingly murdering innocent civilians.

The Second Amendment was written to give us the tools to fight back against tyrants, not to become terrorists.

It disturbs me that you mention McVeigh and the DC shooter, who was a racist murderer who deliberately targeted white people, in a thread about when it is time to use the Second Amendment.


And now you want to start talking about assasinations over hi-cap mags and bayonet lugs? It's ridiculous.

This isn't directed at you personally, but the normally stellar reading comprehension of most people on this board is frighteningly absent in this thread.

Perhaps it is my fault; perhaps I did not write my initial post as clearly as I could or should have.

But I digress....

The issue is not JUST hi-caps or bayonet lugs.

I never mentioned anything of the sort in my initial post.

The issue IS that many of our politicians are lying, cheating, and acting in an illegal manner in order to further their agenda.

The issue IS that the anti-gun lobby lies, cheats, acts illegally, immorally and unethically in order to further their agenda.

BOTH parties act without consequence of any sort.

THAT is the issue.

Billmanweh
September 21, 2004, 03:27 PM
Major successes by the civil rights movement were not achieved by popular opinion. Doing what's right may be a bitter pill for many people. Folks don't need to like the fact that I carry a gun. They just need to understand that they are not entitled to a controlling opinion about it until it actually intrudes upon them in some way. Gun control is very much about prejudice and second class citizenship, so civil rights strategies and philosophies could serve as a model in many ways.


You believe that we're going to win in spite of public opinion being against us? I couldn't disagree with you more. We aren't going to win more gun rights in the legislature and in the courts in spite of public opinion.

Billmanweh
September 21, 2004, 03:34 PM
I NEVER, in ANY way, shape or form, advocated or even hinted at the thought of knowingly murdering innocent civilians.

I understand that, I was just trying to find a somewhat related situation. There is no-one that you could kill that would sway public opinion to your cause. If you took out sarah brady, charles schumer, diane feinstein, and hillary clinton, what do you think the public reaction would be? My guess is that it would set back gun rights to a place we can't imagine. Certainly, nothing positive would come from it.

And I understand that it's not about hi-caps and bayonet lugs. Let's say that you feel the 2nd amendment allows you unfettered access to arms of all types without restriction. Not even 1% of the voting population of this country agrees with you. It's not going to happen.

Ozendorph
September 21, 2004, 05:07 PM
If any of the folks seeming to suggest a violent response to anti-gun lobbyists do decide to go on a killing spree, can you do me a favor and use a table leg, shovel, or maybe one of those oversized SUVs to commit your crimes? I'd rather not become the target of yet more legislation because you decide to "vote with your gun". thx ;)

Billmanweh
September 21, 2004, 05:09 PM
or, at the very least, something post-ban with a 5 rd magazine

:p

2nd Amendment
September 21, 2004, 05:31 PM
I have always believed that, if it were necessary to remove some of the anti-constitutionalists(it's the most PC phrase I can think of in a very un-PC thread), the best way would be anything but a gun. You not only achieve the goal of disposing of the miscreant but you also send the fairly obvious message that their agenda didn't have anything to do with controlling violence or killing. Not a gun in sight and yet they're still dead. Hmmm...imagine that.

Richardson
September 21, 2004, 05:44 PM
http://www.kc3.com/news/chicago_confiscation.htm

It's not door-to-door yet, except for those who complied with the law...

RealGun
September 21, 2004, 05:49 PM
We aren't going to win more gun rights in the legislature and in the courts in spite of public opinion. - Billmanweh

Yes, we are miles apart. If I think I need a Supreme Court ruling, why would I rely on PR, the tyranny of the majority, etc. I need the Bill of RIghts to protect from that stuff. Instead of being hung on the spot, accordingly to popular opinion, we get due process, a fair trial, etc. I don't need to convince anyone that I need a gun. I am entitled to have one, and by golly I intend to make that stick.

Billmanweh
September 21, 2004, 05:54 PM
I don't need to convince anyone that I need a gun. I am entitled to have one, and by golly I intend to make that stick.


Well, I agree with you. Problem is, how many federal judges and Supreme Court justices do you think agree with you? Thinking that you're right isn't enough. I believe we do have to convince people, believing that we're entitled isn't enough.

R.H. Lee
September 21, 2004, 06:00 PM
An elderly first-generation Chicago resident was recently paid a visit by an Illinois State Police trooper. After asking to come inside the man's home, the trooper asked if the man owned a gun - to which he replied yes. The trooper then directed the individual to surrender the firearm. The man complied with the officer's demand and the trooper left with the gun. And the story gets better...

The gun in question was purchased legally by the man in the 1970s shortly after he became a U.S. citizen. When Chicago's infamous gun registration scheme went into effect in the early 1980s, the man registered the firearm as per the requirement. However, over the years, the fellow apparently forgot to re-register the firearm, and forgot to renew his Illinois FOID Card.

:fire: How is this different than pre war Germany in the late 30's?

fletcher
September 21, 2004, 06:45 PM
Hrm... A lot of good points going both ways here...


I believe it will be time to use the Second Amendment when an intolerable intrusion on rights happens. The instances I can think of are the explicit confiscation of firearms (with no trivial reasons), or any other undeniable infringement on rights granted in the Bill of Rights, combined with the Government's failure to cease and desist after warned.

I also believe that a simple display of force would be best, but those displaying must be ready to keep going. Read MacBeth? Remember the point of no return? Just like that if push came to shove. If things got serious enough to display force, then those individuals must be completely willing to fight if need be, and accept the consequences, good or bad.

Unfortunately, I can see this happening in my lifetime...

ralphie98
September 21, 2004, 06:48 PM
But the rules seem to matter very little in Sacramento. Shortly after voting to send the fifty caliber ban to a well-deserved grave, California Democrats called for a "re-vote" and we watched as a handful of Democrats pressed the vote button at their own desk, then calmly walked to the empty desk of another member of the Assembly and voted a second time. This, we learn, is what California Legislators call "Ghost Voting." Nobody there is shocked because "they do it all the time." Ah, I see...

If true, how is this law not being contested? The carry law in MN was overturned because the way it was presented was found to be in violation of the state constitution. It was attached to a DNR bill that was unrelated to carrying a firearm or some crap like that. Apparently they do that all time time but when appealed, the law was overturned. Methinks that maybe somebody should put together something to get the .50 legislation overturned because what they did has got to be illegal.

The best way to deal with these sorts of things at this point in time is to go about it politically and rationally, and not to start shooting. This is why we have the NRA isn't it?

ctdonath
September 22, 2004, 12:38 AM
How is this different than pre war Germany in the late 30's?

Read the prior line again: the man registered the firearm as per the requirement. However, over the years, the fellow apparently forgot to re-register the firearm, and forgot to renew his Illinois FOID Card.

The difference is this man was persuaded (under threat) to register, and the registration law set him up for a predictible mistake - and he got nailed for it.

The old gun-grabbers just went house-to-house. That's too obvious now.
The new gun-grabbers carrot-and-stick you into registration, then set you up for a fall. NY is trying to go that way: now that all hangun owners are registered, governor Pataki tried to get the lifetime registration changed to "every 5 years plus a pile of $$$", which would let the state know exactly when non-renewal "mistakes" happen and quietly toss the victim in the slammer. No noisy door-to-door stuff, just gunowners quietly going away to prison.

ctdonath
September 22, 2004, 12:54 AM
This kind of thread pops up occasionally, and centers around "what should we do when?"

This misses a key problem: it won't happen on your timetable or to your criteria. Some "lines in the sand" are decried as absurd or dispicable for whatever reason, and the discussion ends there. Unfortunately: some nut is going to make the first move. (Your definition of "nut" may vary.) In 1776, arguments might have been made to let the British take the arms cache in the interest of waiting for a better time - but some nut fired "the shot heard 'round the world", and everyone else had to deal with the consequences. Early in this thread someone made a comment about "going to cali" in a way most of the rest of us object to - we won't like it when he or someone like him gets around to doing so, but we'll have to cope with the consequences when it eventually happens.

The grabbers have legislation in the pipe ready to go when some nut starts shooting, and have done so often enough that people believe someone is inducing school shootings etc. just to get legislation passed. I don't believe the incidents are deliberately planned that way, but I DO believe the anti-RKBA leaders plan on the eventualities. Will the pro-RKBA leaders plan likewise?

Some nut is going to arc over. Some oppression-feeling individual will decide to act. Some over-enthusiastic cop is going to confiscate the wrong individual's gun. Unintended consequences will follow. Anyone planning for the inevitable? anyone prepping to contain or ride the resulting wave? anyone acting to head off the likely chaos with an orderly proper pre-emptive move?

Some nut is going to make a move.
I'm hoping we can resolve and restore our rights before he does.
Shall someone file and win an "I want my M4" lawsuit? or do we yak with the choir until someone pulls a trigger on a high-value target?

Don't get me wrong at all:
I'm not advocating revolution. I'm saying someone is gonna try starting one.

Billmanweh
September 22, 2004, 01:29 AM
Anyone planning for the inevitable? anyone prepping to contain or ride the resulting wave? anyone acting to head off the likely chaos with an orderly proper pre-emptive move?

I'm kind of curious what you have in mind

RealGun
September 22, 2004, 05:17 AM
I'm kind of curious what you have in mind

A flurry of legitimate militia activity would raise the profile considerably. A few thousand keyboard commandos is not going to do it. Those militias would need to focus more on having good leaders, writers, and lawyers than on tatoos and macho photographs. Right now the only real soldiers are lobbyists, all discredited as that pesky "NRA", undeserved credit in many cases and increasingly becoming a pejorative to the liberals.

In order to wage a cold war, formidable force must be met with formidable force.

A sympatico connection must exist with the general population, or any such movement would be easily demonized. If not disavowed by 2A friendly Congressional representatives, such a movement would be on the right track.

Ryder
September 22, 2004, 05:24 AM
Are they not individual rights? Should we not exercise them as individuals? I don't understand all this "we" and "us" talk. If you're free you're free. If you're not, you're not. This comes from within.

"When do we start?" :banghead:

Here's a document written before the civil war which I believe does a beautiful job of describing the spirit of freedom in just one man. It is not a long read.

Civil Disobedience - Thoreau (http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/Literature/Thoreau/CivilDisobedience.html)

ChiefPilot
September 22, 2004, 10:15 AM
Sigh. This discussion comes up now and again but until recently I never really formed an opinion or even thought much about it. However, with the .50cal ban, I've seen this topic on a couple of sites and have had a chance to think about it a bit. I'm not pushing this on anyone, these are my thoughts and mine alone - if you agree with them, great. If not, well, that's fine by me as well. Anyway, they are a bit long winded, so hit the bathroom and grab some popcorn before reading further :).

In Minnesota, there are four requirements that must be met in order for the use of deadly force to be justified:
1) Unwilling participant,
2) Unable to retreat,
3) Lesser force unavailable/ineffective,
4) Reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm of yourself or bystander.
These requirements are emphasized at self defence courses, carry permit classes, and elsewhere. They are in line with my personal convictions and religious beliefs also, and I agree with them.

When it comes to rebellion, I think I would see if those same four requirements. I'm looking at this from the "cold dead hands" point of view i.e. I am not willing to give up my .50cal rifle (I don't actually have one, but bear with me). Based on that, let's apply it to the .50cal ban in California.

1) Unwilling participant: Pass.
Obviously, .50cal owners didn't do anything to encourage the state government to ban their weapons and were in fact quite vocal in their opposition. This was not a fight they picked, and without any evidence of a .50cal being used in a crime or terrorist attack, the .50cal owners are clearly the sole victims of this crime. The ban easily meets this criteria for use of deadly force.

2) Unable to retreat: Fail.
Although a tough call, my personal belief is that the ban fails to meet this criteria simply because a .50cal owner can move to any number of states where no such ban exists. I can understand the reluctancy to move, but given the choice between using deadly force and simply moving, I would personally have to go with moving.
Note that if this were a nationwide ban, this would be different in my opinion because I am an American. I don't feel any particular patriotism or pride in my state compared to my country.

3) Lesser force unavailable/inneffective: Fail.
The soap box and ballot box, etc. have proven ineffective, but what about the jury box? Has this been run through the court system? Don't register the weapon, don't turn it in, but do store it out of state (and out of the state governments reach) until the court system has had a crack at it. If that fails, then, and only then, can the ammo box be considered.

4) Reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm of yourself/bystander: Fail.
Unless you have a tinfoil hat, I don't think you can effectively argue that this ban by itself will result in death or great bodily harm to anyone. Perhaps if this was a far-reaching nationwide ban (AWB, where an AWB is anything other than a .22 single shot or a 20 gauge side by side), then I would rethink this because of the whole registration->confiscation->exploitation->extermination chain. Such a ban would make me concerned for my safety and that of my family at the hands of a oppresive government. The .50cal ban is no such thing, however wrong it may be.

Using these four criteria, the .50cal ban only meets one of my four listed requirements. Clearly, for me, "using the 2nd amendment" in this case is out of the question. There are too many other options available, such as fighting it in court or simply moving to another state. They might not be good options, but I'm not about to abandon my beliefs simply because I don't like the options available to me.

NoHarmNoFAL
September 22, 2004, 01:53 PM
We get the .GOV that we deserve. Face it we are in the minority when it comes to the populace. Jane Suburbanite does not think that anyone should have a gun they are bad. All her friends at the coffee shop most likely think so also. You are about to find out in Nov. just how valued the "Gun Vote" will be in the following elections. If GWB looses and any seats are lost in the House/Senate the gun owners are screwed because believe it or not GWB put his fate in our hands and if we let them down they will not come back the this well for votes again. When the fear of the "Gun Vote" is gone you are powerless. Then who knows what then.

Tip: Don't look at the beach for the reef look just in front of the bow. (Pay attention to what is about to happen in the next few weeks not 10 years from now.)

CZ52GUY
September 22, 2004, 04:48 PM
I feel your pain...and I'm not trying to be cute about my response.

I think your original post contains some of the answers to your frustration, not all, but some.

On 9/13/2004, the AWB died, as it should have, objective evidence that the anti's are not an all-powerful force that cannot be defeated. I think all the posturing and hysterical rhetoric notwithstanding, the reality is that it died because there was not sufficient political will to sustain it. Sure, there are those that might tell a pollster they were for it, but they wouldn't tell a politician that their voting for him/her was contingent on their position on AWB. To get to the point, it was our side that indicated to pol's that there would be consequences, ballot box consequences. People listened, including those who publicly came out in support of the extension of AWB, but did little to put their words into actions.

Sadly, in California and other oppressive states there have been no consequences to the blatant abuses of rights which our Constitution guarantees. I think for many well meaning members of this thread who advocate moderation of tone and "perspective" on threats to our liberities, they should really walk a mile in your shoes first.

This thread contains representative evidence of the most successful tactic of the anti's, divide and conquer. Sure they lost a battle with the AWB, but they won another engagement in California. This is indeed a great country, but for those living in California and other oppressive states, they do not share in the liberties that many of us take for granted.

Is it time to use the 2nd? I've heard it said that if you have to ask, then not yet. So I'd discourage the cartridge box option.

I recommend continued use of the ballot box.

I recommend consideration of the moving box. To your point, gun owners represent the kind of citizens that make good neighbors, tax payers and citizens. If there was a mass exodus of gun owners from oppressive states to gun friendly states, what would be left behind? Soccer Mom's? Gang bangers? The "beautiful people"? Would they be enough to sustain their contribution to the GDP?

What about the rest of us? Are we willing to consider economic sanctions against California and other Constitution flouting states? How, you ask? At the idiot box maybe (stop tuning in to the propoganda - ratings=revenue). At the movie theater (stop funding the VPC, the Brady Bunch, and others). At the grocery store, at the on-line retailer, etc., etc., etc.

Is it time to act, absolutely! But we need to stop denying the gravity of the problem and stand together. We need to be willing to sacrifice the "entertaining" or "convenient" for the sake of something that really matters, freedom. We need to make a difference with our actions. We need to make sure there are consequences and that the immunity from accountability stops. We need to realize that when others are denied freedoms we enjoy, that we are at risk also.

The AWB sunset is objective evidence that our enemies are not all powerful. But that so many even in this thread are willing to cast a blind eye to the plight of THR members in oppressive states, and to dismiss the gravity of the situation we are in...it proves the anti's are winning the war.

Can they be defeated? Sure, but only if we are willing to fight to win. If we have to exercise the 2nd, I believe that it will be because we have already lost. I'm not willing to concede that.

I'm voting with my wallet.
I turned off the idiot box.
I don't knowingly provide funding to the enemies of liberty because they are pleasing to look at.
I keep fighting at the ballot box.

I'd encourage you to do the same.

I do feel your pain.
I don't deny the gravity of your circumstances.
I am also outraged.

The tactic you hypothetically put forward is an unintended admission of defeat. Don't give up!!

Stay safe,

CZ52'

Gordon Fink
September 23, 2004, 04:33 AM
If any of the folks seeming to suggest a violent response to anti-gun lobbyists do decide to go on a killing spree, can you do me a favor and use a table leg, shovel, or maybe one of those oversized SUVs to commit your crimes?

I was thinking that a muzzleloader would be satisfyingly ironic. :evil:

But don’t worry. The financial cost of living in California will probably force me to employ the moving box long before unconstitutional legislation forces me to employ the cartridge box.

~G. Fink

Gordon Fink
September 23, 2004, 05:27 AM
If any of the folks seeming to suggest a violent response to anti-gun lobbyists do decide to go on a killing spree, can you do me a favor and use a table leg, shovel, or maybe one of those oversized SUVs to commit your crimes?

I was thinking that a muzzleloader would be satisfyingly ironic. :evil:

But don’t worry. The financial cost of living in California will probably force me to employ the moving box long before unconstitutional legislation forces me to employ the cartridge box.

~G. Fink

John Ross
September 23, 2004, 05:11 PM
Some guy once wrote a novel that kinda dealt with this issue...

I agree with ctdonath that IF it ever happens, it will be unforeseen circumstances that precipitate things, just as WWI started because of the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand.

That said, I am optimistic. Here's why:

A veritable sea change across the country in CCW, and it's continuing.

More and more people, especially women, focused on defensive use of guns and not recreation. You don't see HCI and VPC bleating about "Saturday Night Specials" any more. Why? It wouldn't work, with so many CCW states and permit holders.

Grassroots gun groups everywhere.

An increasingly wised-up electorate.

Alternative news sources on the Internet.

Instant information dissemination.

The emergence of serious legal study on 2nd A cases.

Folks, our rights of all types have always been under assault from those who would chill our freedoms. There were no good old days. Don't whine, spit on your hands and get in the fight.

JR

USAFNoDAk
September 23, 2004, 06:06 PM
John Ross wrote:

Alternative news sources on the Internet.

Instant information dissemination.

The emergence of serious legal study on 2nd A cases.

Those 3 items have been very important in stemming the incoming tide of more gun control, and in some cases have pushed back the tide, eg.; sunsetting of the AWB, and more states adopting right to carry laws.

We still have many battles to fight. Some will be lost, some will be won. We need to continue to support gun rights groups, gun rights friendly politicians. Most importantly, we need to educate our friends, neighbors, co-workers and family members on the importance of our rights and how the anti gun folks lie to advance their agenda. If you are a trustworthy person, people who know you will put much more stock in your statements vs. the talking heads such as Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw and Peter Jennings.

We have to get our message out at the grass roots level as well as at the local, state and national level. That is certainly a big challenge, but worthy of the endeavor. Otherwise, we will soon find ourselves with little choice but to take back our rights. I think we are not there yet. We have been moving in that direction, and the ban on .50's in California is certainly one step in that direction. We have taken a few steps back up the slope with more right to carry states and the sunset of the AWB. We need to make more steps back up the slope while holding fast against going any further down.

It's hard when we have a soft country, many of whom don't understand freedom in the first place, but take it for granted. In many peoples' minds, there is no reason to own firearms, that is what the cops and military are for. We need to reverse this logic, somehow. I don't know how, other than to try and talk to people you know who feel this way. Get them to trust you and it will be harder for the Sarah Bradys and Chuck Schumers of the world to poison their minds.

RealGun
September 23, 2004, 07:37 PM
In many peoples' minds, there is no reason to own firearms, that is what the cops and military are for. We need to reverse this logic, somehow.

That would be nice, but what we really need is a decent Supreme Court. That may be a chicken or egg question, but it won't be popular opinion that gets our rights affirmed. Civil rights rulings are not popular except among those directly benefiting in the short term and particularly attuned to the issue.

ctdonath
September 25, 2004, 11:55 AM
Billmanweh -

What I have in mind is a coordinated, thorough, deliberate, wide-scale legal action.

We've been waiting around for someone to bring The Case to court, and get all hopefull when some questionable character brings up the 2nd Amendment as a Hail Mary ploy. That is not a good way to restore rights.

What we need is for several (dozens? hundreds? thousands?) upstanding citizens to go to court saying "I am legally part of the militia, and I demand my right to keep and bear currently-banned militia arms." It may take a series of cases, both in breadth (enough people filing separate cases that differing judgements force the issue to SCOTUS) and in depth (systematically peel away the layers of oppressive laws).

First step is overturning 922(o) - the machinegun ban. (Yes, grandfathered machineguns are technically legal. The 10x overpricing and limited & aging supply makes that point moot.) Someone recently posted a case (anyone got that link?) which declares NFA '34 null-and-void due to 922(o) (the '86 machinegun ban, which effectively terminated NFA as a tax-collection measure). We need to make a court face the multiple rulings stating NFA was Constitutional only because it collected taxes and was emphatically not a ban (courts, IIRC SCOTUS included, stated clearly that NFA as a prohibition measure was unacceptable and stood only on tax grounds), and hence 922(o) is unconstitutional precisely because it is a ban.

Various state machinegun bans, and the CA .50BMG ban, could then be overturned for similar reasons: flat-out gun bans (by type) are unconstitutional. This case would insist on incorporating RKBA to the states.

At the same time, interstate recognition of CCW must be fought for, with cases separately insisting on every combination of issuing-state and recognizing-state, all based on "full faith and credit".

And so on.

The core point is step-by-step, deliberate, pervasive court actions. A major factor is PERVASIVE: lots of people must file these cases simultaniously, to force multiple conflicting decisions which must be taken and resolved by higher courts. Someone should create a do-it-yourself guide to filing the cases: not everyone can be a lawyer, but one lawyer can give all the info needed to everyone who wants to go it alone (to avoid the trap of risking the failure of a single hugely-expensive case).

We need a coordinated center to work out which case when, and disseminate the info needed for hundreds of individuals to file similar/identical cases.

We've been hoping that Stewart or Emerson or other criminal cases to save us in one fell swoop. Wrong approach. We need a large-scale movement in court. As I see it, step 1 is 100 people simultaniously filing "I want my M4" cases.

CZ52GUY
September 25, 2004, 12:25 PM
I'm pessimistic re: the courts

The courts are the ones who uphold obvious infringements and several have ruled that the 2nd is not an individual right. I'm not convinced that SCOTUS (as currently staffed) would rule differently than the 9th.

In the end, the court tactic depends on 5 individuals siding with us (who could very easily rule differently at some later date).

I'm intrigued by THE PLEDGE action in the House. If it makes it through the Senate and is signed, 5 individuals cannot reverse it, they have no standing. 270 individuals (218 Rep's, 51 Senators, and a sitting President) would have to concur to override it.

I wonder out loud if the right legislation (or series of bills) where Congress invokes it's right to exclude SCOTUS review might work better?

The 9th has proven to be reliably anti. SCOTUS has proven to be reliably unreliable.

I'd start with a simple..."the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution shall be interpreted as an individual right of ALL citizens of the United States of America to keep and bear arms for their self-defense, hunting, and recreational purposes, and no court within these United States may rule otherwise"...or some such language that someone far more capable than I could craft...exclusions for felons and consideration of those who are of diminished mental capacity would need to be ironed out (do we police ourselves or do we allow for legislative restrictions on the truly impaired?).

Building on that foundation, additional laws could be crafted which would aggressively seek to restore the original intent of the 2nd. Things like national shall issue concealed carry come to mind, as well as pre-emptive legislation forbidding federal, state, and local versions of AWB. The predatory lawsuit protection that the AWB/gunshow amendments "poison pilled" would also be a priority.

No strategy is perfect, but I concur that many non-violent remedies should be pursued aggressively before desperate measures are considered.

Safe shooting,

CZ52'

RealGun
September 25, 2004, 01:23 PM
We need a coordinated center to work out which case when, and disseminate the info needed for hundreds of individuals to file similar/identical cases.

Gun control can be viewed as a house of cards or pyramid. Careful analysis must be done to take legal arguments away in the right progression.

I don't like these workarounds to judicial impeachment or legitimate constitutional amendments. If the Supreme Court is going to refuse to hear the case without comment, what's the point except to raise the profile of how outrageous and arrogant they have become or perhaps always were? Taking away their lifetime, untouchable status may be the place to start. I would at least make it mandatory for them to provide meaningful comment when refusing to hear a case.

If Congress has the power to dissolve and reformulate a Court, they should do it at least once to make the point. When they have to start passing laws to emasculate a Court, that's a workaround.

Drjones
September 25, 2004, 03:46 PM
If any of the folks seeming to suggest a violent response to anti-gun lobbyists do decide to go on a killing spree, can you do me a favor and use a table leg, shovel, or maybe one of those oversized SUVs to commit your crimes? I'd rather not become the target of yet more legislation because you decide to "vote with your gun".


Actualy, wouldn't an average, everyday, common centerfire bolt-action rifle in a very common caliber (.308, .30-06, etc.) be the PERFECT tool?

What do you seriously think would happen when they try to ban bolt-action hunting rifles???

artherd
September 25, 2004, 04:01 PM
What do you seriously think would happen when they try to ban bolt-action hunting rifles???

I think they'll call 'em 'sniper rifles' like they did to .50BMG guns in CA...

Drjones
September 25, 2004, 04:19 PM
I think they'll call 'em 'sniper rifles' like they did to .50BMG guns in CA...


Right and I almost used that term in my post above.

But it still wouldn't change the fact that it is a rifle that millions of Americans use to hunt every year.

We have a problem rallying hunters to our cause, if they aren't completely against us.

I think THAT would help.

RealGun
September 25, 2004, 04:32 PM
We have a problem rallying hunters to our cause, if they aren't completely against us. - drjones

Ted Kennedy may help you out, were he to succeed in banning the body-armor-piercing ammo for those rifles. All you really have to do is publicize that doing that is what he proposes.

If you enjoyed reading about "Seriously: Is it time to start USING the Second Amendment?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!