They finally said it.


PDA






Queen_of_Thunder
March 21, 2013, 10:18 AM
Feinstein said on the news yesterday that the goal and purpose of the gun bills were to "dry up the supply". In other words they want our guns. The anti's want to disarm the American Citizen.

So are you going to actually get involved or just say you sent an email. Its Time folks. Time to get involved with campaigns. Time to offer our money and time to those who support us. If it means running for office then run for office. Our silent majority needs to step up and be counted.

Make appointments to visit with your reps during the upcoming Easter recess. Call their home office today and make that appointment. Get that "face time" with your rep.

If you enjoyed reading about "They finally said it." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Impureclient
March 21, 2013, 11:32 AM
Yeah, no beating around the bush with that remark. Pretty much like my signature line.

chevyman097
March 21, 2013, 11:36 AM
Well in that case it wasnt a very smart move. Ya, some guns and ammo might be hard to find on the shelves right now. But all they really accomplished was helping to arm thousands of more Americans that may or may not have been gun owners before. They prompted hundreds of thousands of already active gun owners to become even more active in fighting back against their attempts. And put millions of more guns and ammo into circulation of the American public. The shelves WILL be restocked eventually.

98C5
March 21, 2013, 11:36 AM
Needs to be BIGGER rallys. I think the local gun communities should spearhead this. I would love to participate/start my own but not sure where/how to start(Legalities)

Carter
March 21, 2013, 11:39 AM
She's said that before. Its nothing new.

The fact that she doesn't see that as unconstitutional, or taking away guns from a future generation is the disturbing part.

wojownik
March 21, 2013, 11:42 AM
For accuracy's sake, Feinstein did say this back in January when she reintroduced the proposed legislation - "to dry up the supply of these weapons over time".

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jan/24/nation/la-na-nn-feinstein-gun-ban-bill-20130124

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/feinstein-ban-includes-handguns-purpose-dry-supply-these-weapons

N003k
March 21, 2013, 11:53 AM
Personally...I wouldn't read it as 'they want our guns'. That just comes off poorly, and sounds equivocal to 'they want to TAKE our guns', which (while in the long run is likely some of the anti-gunners goal, isn't the goal in this round). She said dry up the supply which...well is the intent of banning the sale of something. It really doesn't change anything.

Don't get worked up and paranoid sounding about this quote, especially not around people on the fence, you'll end up coming off as a crazy, which is already something enough people consider us just for owning guns in the first place.

Rob G
March 21, 2013, 12:03 PM
Feinstein actually said it rather clearly back in '95

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffI-tWh37UY

The confiscation of all civilian owned firearms has always been the endgame for Feinstein and her crowd. Anybody who's ever been confused about this probably hasn't been paying attention.

12131
March 21, 2013, 01:21 PM
Well in that case it wasnt a very smart move. Ya, some guns and ammo might be hard to find on the shelves right now. But all they really accomplished was helping to arm thousands of more Americans that may or may not have been gun owners before. They prompted hundreds of thousands of already active gun owners to become even more active in fighting back against their attempts. And put millions of more guns and ammo into circulation of the American public. The shelves WILL be restocked eventually.
Exactly my thought. There are only 2 explanations for that stupid remark of hers.
She is truly that stupid, or she was just spinning her "defeat" in a positive light. And, I don't think she is that stupid.

Ignition Override
March 21, 2013, 01:25 PM
They know that it worked in the UK and Australia, with a complex process to then apply to buy a "first" gun.
You can have a Mini 14 in the UK (check Youtube), but it is operated manually as a bolt action.

Agsalaska
March 21, 2013, 01:26 PM
Feinstein actually said it rather clearly back in '95

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffI-tWh37UY

The confiscation of all civilian owned firearms has always been the endgame for Feinstein and her crowd. Anybody who's ever been confused about this probably hasn't been paying attention.
That is misrepresenting her quote. She was, in that clip, specifically referring to weapns that were grandfathered in under the assault weapons ban in 94. She was not referring to all firearms.

Dont get me wrong, I hate the woman, but I do not like it when our side takes things out of context like that. It makes us look bad.

M2 Carbine
March 21, 2013, 05:02 PM
The fact that she doesn't see that as unconstitutional, or taking away guns from a future generation is the disturbing part.
No, the disturbing part is thousands of idiots keep voting for such as Feinstein, obama, schumer and the rest of that political trash.

22-rimfire
March 21, 2013, 07:59 PM
Feinstein would outlaw ownership of firearms in general if she could. Her comments are no revelation. She has been saying this stuff for years. Nobody has been listening.

Ryanxia
March 21, 2013, 08:04 PM
Don't slow down now, everyone keep writing your representatives and let them know you OPPOSE further gun control (especially the "universal background check") and that you will vote for or against them depending on if they violate their Constitutional Oath.

danez71
March 21, 2013, 09:22 PM
Imagine if the just increase in spending on guns and ammo was instead donated to NRA and 2nd Admendment Foundation.....

All the gun mgf would still be in business and we'd have lots of money for court battles.

feedthehogs
March 21, 2013, 10:14 PM
Imagine if the just increase in spending on guns and ammo was instead donated to NRA and 2nd Admendment Foundation.....

All the gun mgf would still be in business and we'd have lots of money for court battles.
Don't know any gun manufacturers who went belly up. Its been a windfall since 08. Small ffl retailers who can't get product is another story.

NY'er
March 21, 2013, 10:51 PM
NOO3k, that's what they said about full-auto. As a kid I remember seeing them in Edelmans, no different than the other rifles on the rack, and looking forward to the day I turned 18. Well guess what, I turned 18 in 1988 which made me SOL on those, and I wasn't into firearms yet when 1994 came and went.

In just my lifetime we've gone from a time when high schools (like mine) had shooting ranges in the basement and varsity shooting teams and the government itself endorsed the CMP (Civilian Marksmanship Program for anyone who doesn't know) to encourage our citizenry to buy surplus rifles and be proficient in their use.... to the current demonization of guns and gun owners. In one generation they have incrementally and persistently placed restrictions on our civil right with laws requiring background checks, handgun registration to the actual confiscation of previously owned rifles that were legal but had to be "registered" (NYC and California) to an entire political party putting their every effort into banning and confiscating yet again

If we lose this battle now in 20 years the US will be just like the UK. That is their absolute and stated goal.

JRH6856
March 21, 2013, 10:58 PM
They finally said it??? Finally??? They have been saying it for years. I can barely remember when they haven't been saying it.

But maybe people are finally listening.

M2 Carbine
March 21, 2013, 11:20 PM
In just my lifetime we've gone from a time when high schools (like mine) had shooting ranges in the basement and varsity shooting teams and the government itself endorsed the CMP (Civilian Marksmanship Program for anyone who doesn't know) to encourage our citizenry to buy surplus rifles and be proficient in their use.... to the current demonization of guns and gun owners. In one generation they have incrementally and persistently placed restrictions on our civil right with laws requiring background checks, handgun registration to the actual confiscation of previously owned rifles that were legal but had to be "registered" (NYC and California) to an entire political party putting their every effort into banning and confiscating yet again


I 1962 I bought this new in the box GI 1911A1 from our government.
The gun cost me $17 and was delivered to my house by the Postman.
(that's when it was "our government', now it's "the government")
http://i1183.photobucket.com/albums/x464/Bell-helicopter-407/1911A1Remington.jpg

You could order all manner of guns from magazine ads, which were sent to your house. Even a couple anti tank guns but I couldn't afford the ammunition.:D
My first two handguns, a Beretta MINX .25 and a British Webley .38, were ordered from a magazine ad when I was 17.

So you can imagine how much I despise today's anti gun politicians and the idiot Americans that vote them in.:fire:

skimbell
March 22, 2013, 09:25 AM
"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal." —Former U.S. Attorney General, Janet Reno
Yeah, and no matter how you slice it, the one thing that ALL of these gun grabbing schemes have in common is their birth in the bowels of the Democrat Party.
I can't think of a better reason to become a single issue voter.
A vote for ANY democrat is a vote against the 2A.

bds
March 22, 2013, 09:49 AM
They finally said it??? Finally??? They have been saying it for years. I can barely remember when they haven't been saying it.
Yup - living in California, we have been FEELING it for decades! :fire::cuss:

BUT, we have been fighting back and have made some progress as well at the dismay of the anti-gunners (bullet button, single shot exemption, etc.). We now have AK pistols and "MAC 10" clones in California gun store shelves! :neener::D

But maybe people are finally listening.
Time for "We the People" to come together and impose OUR will on "the government". It needs to be "Government by the people, for the peole" again as it was originally intended by the founding fathers.

sansone
March 22, 2013, 10:02 AM
if the plan was to disarm us it backfired.. more people became armed citizens due to their (liberal) mania

Bartholomew Roberts
March 22, 2013, 10:07 AM
Feinstein actually said it rather clearly back in '95

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffI-tWh37UY

The confiscation of all civilian owned firearms has always been the endgame for Feinstein and her crowd. Anybody who's ever been confused about this probably hasn't been paying attention.
That is misrepresenting her quote. She was, in that clip, specifically referring to weapns that were grandfathered in under the assault weapons ban in 94. She was not referring to all firearms.

Dont get me wrong, I hate the woman, but I do not like it when our side takes things out of context like that. It makes us look bad.

So she only wanted every modern semi-automatic firearm that held more than 10 rounds to be forcibly confiscated from the American people and supported bans on all handguns earlier; and us implying she feels that way about all firearms is a misrepresentation?

Do you really feel like you have a strong, valid argument there?

Trung Si
March 22, 2013, 10:14 AM
[QUOTEShe's said that before. Its nothing new. [/QUOTE]
Yes she has!

InkEd
March 22, 2013, 10:44 AM
The issue of the second amendment is a very touchy subject with strong opinions and beliefs on both sides. Obviously, I am pro-2A and have political stances in accordance with such beliefs... That said, I make the following comments in an unbiased matter as possible...

I feel that Diane Feinstein is taking the issue of gun-control, to the point of it being a "personal obsession" rather just a political stance. She is so consumed by it that I wonder if she is addressing anything else that is relevant to her position in office. It's like the senator has developed tunnel vision over this single political issue. Senator Feinstein has seemingly become almost FANATICAL and that is not something good, regardless of which side of the coin they are on politically.

It is my hope that the people she represents will grow tired of her neglecting other issues of concern due to being so hung up about gun controls and not re-elect her again. If anyone reading this is for gun-control, it is my genuine feelings that Diane Feinstein really hurts your cause more than helps because she is so extreme and speaks so venomously to anyone (even other anti-2A people) when they are not 100% behind her agendas.

I find her to be frightening, not due to her view on the 2A but rather her mental state and drive for gaining more power over the citizens.

JustinJ
March 22, 2013, 11:23 AM
There is no "they" just as there is no real definition of an "anti" as we all have different opinions of who qualifies. There is a whole gamut of views on gun control with Diane Feinstein just being one of them, albeit one of the more extreme. There are people who believe some guns should be legal, no guns should be legal, and all guns should be legal. Heck, some even think all weapons should be legal.

Spdracr39
March 22, 2013, 11:27 AM
She's said that before. Its nothing new.

The fact that she doesn't see that as unconstitutional, or taking away guns from a future generation is the disturbing part.
no the disturbing part is people actually voted for her in the first place.

( i guess someone already said this but it is true :) )

Sheepdog1968
March 22, 2013, 11:30 AM
I am basically a simple voter. I vote for two issues.

Issue one and priority 1. What is their view on firearms. Pro gun or most pro gun gets my vote.

Issue two and priority 2. What is their view on taxes. Those that want to cut taxes to true middle and upper class get my vote.

As for their admissions on this topic. I don't believe it. It is all spin. They are loosing what they really wanted so they will spin anything positive they can.

VVelox
March 22, 2013, 04:16 PM
Needs to be BIGGER rallys. I think the local gun communities should spearhead this. I would love to participate/start my own but not sure where/how to start(Legalities)
Start by forming your own local meetup group that gets together and talks about local issues. I started working on that two months ago here in Chicago. Yes, it is problematic and slow to get started, but it is something that needs done. Below is the original thread with my thoughts on the subject.

http://www.thehighroad.org/search.php?searchid=11420200

Gun Geezer
March 23, 2013, 08:03 AM
Imagine if the NRA actually used the money I give them to do something other than send me letters and junk mail asking for more money. Imagine the NRA did something with the money besides building gun museums and paying LaPierre $1.5M/year?

Bartholomew Roberts
March 23, 2013, 09:43 AM
The NRA-ILA, NRA-PVF, spent $24 million in the 2012 elections to promote pro-gun candidates at the national level. This is separate from the NRA, who by their charter, cannot use money they raise to lobby. Instead that money goes to things like range building, competitions, Eddie Eagle, youth shooting programs, etc. It also does not include money spent by the NRA Civil Defense Fund in lawsuits to protect the rights of gun owners.

The reason the NRA and every other charity organization spends money on junk mail is because it produces more money than it costs - which is a good thing for us. Especially since you can ask to be put on the "Do Not Solicit" list and never receive a piece of junk mail again.

Torian
March 23, 2013, 10:20 AM
And this is why there is NO COMPROMISING with the likes of these people. They have nothing but contempt for the 2nd amendment and gun owners. Let's reciprocate.

Trung Si
March 23, 2013, 10:42 AM
I feel that Diane Feinstein is taking the issue of gun-control, to the point of it being a "personal obsession" rather just a political stance. She is so consumed by it that I wonder if she is addressing anything else that is relevant to her position in office. It's like the senator has developed tunnel vision over this single political issue. Senator Feinstein has seemingly become almost FANATICAL and that is not something good, regardless of which side of the coin they are on politically.


You are correct in your assesment of her, but she will never be voted out of office, because her constituents (San Francisco) are as crazy and fanatical in their views as she is!:evil:

Phaethon
March 23, 2013, 11:00 AM
So she only wanted every modern semi-automatic firearm that held more than 10 rounds to be forcibly confiscated from the American people and supported bans on all handguns earlier; and us implying she feels that way about all firearms is a misrepresentation?

Do you really feel like you have a strong, valid argument there?

He said it was a misrepresentation of the quote, not her intentions. I'm sure we've all had things we want to say before that we haven't; if she has never publicly declared her desire to see private firearm ownership in the United States destroyed, it's very impolitic to publicly assume it, despite whatever we may believe to the contrary.

Agsalaska
March 23, 2013, 11:01 AM
So she only wanted every modern semi-automatic firearm that held more than 10 rounds to be forcibly confiscated from the American people and supported bans on all handguns earlier; and us implying she feels that way about all firearms is a misrepresentation?

Do you really feel like you have a strong, valid argument there?
Its not whether or not I 'feel' have an argument. There is no argument. I have no position to defend. In that clip she was specifically referring to the weapons grandfathered in 1994 ban. To represent it as anything other would be taking her quote out of the context of the interview. TO use that clip as evidence that she wants to take all guns is intellectually dishonest. I cant stand the woman. And I am pretty certain that, if she was king for a day, she would take every gun out of every house. But that clip is simply not the smoking gun evidence of that.

stonecutter2
March 23, 2013, 11:08 AM
I 1962 I bought this new in the box GI 1911A1 from our government.
The gun cost me $17 and was delivered to my house by the Postman.
(that's when it was "our government', now it's "the government")
http://i1183.photobucket.com/albums/x464/Bell-helicopter-407/1911A1Remington.jpg

You could order all manner of guns from magazine ads, which were sent to your house. Even a couple anti tank guns but I couldn't afford the ammunition.:D
My first two handguns, a Beretta MINX .25 and a British Webley .38, were ordered from a magazine ad when I was 17.

So you can imagine how much I despise today's anti gun politicians and the idiot Americans that vote them in.:fire:
I think there are a lot of good reasons for not being able to just mail order guns anymore. Let's just throw Lee Harvey Oswald out there as an example.

I would caution against calling Americans who exercise their right to vote idiots. They're Americans just like us, with different viewpoints and opinions. Our nation is stronger for having a diverse set of views and the right to exercise our rights, which not only includes the right to keep and bear arms but also the right to vote and have free speech. I do realize that you have the right to call them idiots if you like, but dismissing fellow Americans as "idiots" instead of trying to help inform them of our attempts to exercise our rights won't help our cause.

I would say the true "idiots" are the ones not voting and exercising their rights. Many who don't vote will say "i'm not informed enough so i'm not going to vote ignorantly." They need information, and not the fearmongering the anti-gunners are spewing everywhere right now.

JRH6856
March 23, 2013, 11:48 AM
Let's just throw Lee Harvey Oswald out there as an example.

Let's not. The mods would just close the thread.

Loc n Load
March 23, 2013, 03:22 PM
After the 94 AWB was passed...Feinstien was on national TV then stating that the ban did not go far enough, she said that if she had the votes she would have passed a bill outlawing all of them and told "Mr. & Mrs America - turn them all in".....this has always been their agenda and always will be....regardless of the rhetoric.

joeschmoe
March 23, 2013, 03:38 PM
I think there are a lot of good reasons for not being able to just mail order guns anymore. Let's just throw Lee Harvey Oswald out there as an example.

What difference does it make that the rifle was delivered by mail? There was certainly no difficulty in getting rifles in Texas. Unless all rifle sales had been banned, there is no ban that would have stopped Oswald. Maybe the fact that he had renounced his citizenship, declared his alligence to the Soviet Union and was openly working for the overthrow of our country should have played a part in his ability to get a gun. Instead, like all other "gun control" laws, it's used as an excuse to restrict everyone instead of the obvious problem child.

brickeyee
March 23, 2013, 03:50 PM
Th first amendment needs to be modified to limit everyone to 2,258 words in their vocabulary and only ten at a time can be used.
:banghead:

98C5
March 23, 2013, 04:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 98C5
Needs to be BIGGER rallys. I think the local gun communities should spearhead this. I would love to participate/start my own but not sure where/how to start(Legalities)

Start by forming your own local meetup group that gets together and talks about local issues. I started working on that two months ago here in Chicago. Yes, it is problematic and slow to get started, but it is something that needs done. Below is the original thread with my thoughts on the subject.

http://www.thehighroad.org/search.php?searchid=11420200

Thanks! The link didn't work though. Please PM any info you have!

Agsalaska
March 23, 2013, 04:38 PM
After the 94 AWB was passed...Feinstien was on national TV then stating that the ban did not go far enough, she said that if she had the votes she would have passed a bill outlawing all of them and told "Mr. & Mrs America - turn them all in".....this has always been their agenda and always will be....regardless of the rhetoric.
Yes. But she was referring specifically to the weapons banned in the 1994 bill. She was asked a question on why it just banned manufacturing and importation and not ownership and transfer. She said that if she had the votes she would have told Americans to turn them all in.

Never mind.

PabloJ
March 23, 2013, 04:41 PM
Feinstein said on the news yesterday that the goal and purpose of the gun bills were to "dry up the supply". In other words they want our guns. The anti's want to disarm the American Citizen.

So are you going to actually get involved or just say you sent an email. Its Time folks. Time to get involved with campaigns. Time to offer our money and time to those who support us. If it means running for office then run for office. Our silent majority needs to step up and be counted.

Make appointments to visit with your reps during the upcoming Easter recess. Call their home office today and make that appointment. Get that "face time" with your rep.
That was goal from the start to eliminate number of guns sold through legal channels so fewer would be in circulation. Next step is to disarm the criminal element. I hope you didn't just realize this approach.

Agsalaska
March 23, 2013, 04:44 PM
That was goal from the start to eliminate number of guns sold through legal channels so fewer would be in circulation. Next step is to disarm the criminal element. I hope you didn't just realize this approach.
That is absolutely their plan. It is a 50-100 year plan. And it has been set on its path.

Lost Sheep
March 23, 2013, 06:08 PM
I think there are a lot of good reasons for not being able to just mail order guns anymore. Let's just throw Lee Harvey Oswald out there as an example.

I seems to me that blaming the Postal Service for JFK's assassination is as logical as blaming Bushmaster for Sandy Hook.

(joeschmoe beat me to it, but, uncharacteristically, I said it with fewer words.)

That was goal from the start to eliminate number of guns sold through legal channels so fewer would be in circulation. Next step is to disarm the criminal element. I hope you didn't just realize this approach.

True for the most radical of the anti-gunners. But they have got it exactly backwards. The current plan disarms the law-abiding first, and disarms criminals afterwards.

The scary part is the likelihood they will stop when the job is only half done.

Lost Sheep

BigG
March 23, 2013, 06:08 PM
But to them the criminal element includes gun owners, doesn't it?

joeschmoe
March 23, 2013, 06:17 PM
But to them the criminal element includes gun owners, doesn't it?
That's fair, since we think they are criminals for violating the Constitution and our rights. The only thing that matters is who wins.

yokel
March 23, 2013, 08:01 PM
Alas, it seems that there are some forum members who truly believe that those who want to disarm the law-abiding public have the public’s best interest at heart.

Injustice is never in the public’s best interest, and it is unjust to respond to gun crimes by depriving the innocent and the victims of their God-given right of self-defense and their constitutional right to carry the means of that defense on their person.

JRH6856
March 23, 2013, 09:07 PM
Alas, it seems that there are some forum members who truly believe that those who want to disarm the law-abiding public have the public’s best interest at heart.

Injustice is never in the public’s best interest, and it is unjust to respond to gun crimes by depriving the innocent and the victims of their God-given right of self-defense and their constitutional right to carry the means of that defense on their person.
Some of them really do think they are acting in the best interest of society.

If one doesn't believe in God and believes the Constitution is just a quaint historical document that stands in the way of social progress, then it is easy to disregard both "God-given rights" and the Constitution that protects them and do so in the best interests of the public.

They're sincere, they're just misguided and wrong in their sincerity.

yokel
March 23, 2013, 09:18 PM
"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."

Louis Dembitz Brandeis--Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States from 1916 to 1939.

JRH6856
March 23, 2013, 09:25 PM
And some have accused Brandeis of being exactly the thing he warns against.

No matter what side you are on, in your eyes, your side is right and the other side is wrong.

blkbrd666
March 23, 2013, 09:33 PM
If the plan was to disarm us it backfired.. more people became armed citizens due to their (liberal) mania

So true, and mostly with weapons that resemble assault rifles. There was almost nothing for sale at the local gun show today except AR15s. Hundreds of them from one end of the building to the other for $799. I saw people walking out the door with ARs that I would never have thought would want one. That is the only good thing about this whole situation...that and the increase in NRA membership.

yokel
March 23, 2013, 09:47 PM
No matter what side you are on, in your eyes, your side is right and the other side is wrong

Now is not the time for relativism; we must reject the concept that our values and beliefs are not absolute but relative to those holding them.

It's really not a complex issue.

What we learn from history is that folks do not learn its lessons! Despite what we have learned about the deleterious effects of draconian gun control in other countries, particularly during the previous bloody century, our foes continue to beat the drums calling for more gun control.

Whatever their professed or unacknowledged aims and designs, the upshot remains that domestic disarmament is not only dangerous to one's liberties but also counterproductive in achieving safety.

JRH6856
March 23, 2013, 09:56 PM
we must reject the concept that our values and beliefs are not absolute but relative to those holding them.

And yet, the very Bill of Rights we seek to defend protects the right of individuals to hold and express differing beliefs, It is unavoidable that they may be in conflict.


It's really not a complex issue.

Except that it is

yokel
March 23, 2013, 10:03 PM
I would submit that there is really nothing subtle about what's at stake.

Whoever has the arms tends to win when it comes to self-defense and doesn't lose life or property. But if the tyrant/criminal has the arms, he has the upper hand.

JRH6856
March 23, 2013, 10:12 PM
I would submit that there is really nothing subtle about what's at stake.

And I would agree. What is at stake is the individuals right to individual liberty in an increasingly collectivist society. Self defense is an extremely important part of that liberty, but is only a part.

yokel
March 23, 2013, 10:27 PM
Self defense is an extremely important part of that liberty, but is only a part.

Huh?

The right to keep and bear arms is a part of the right to life, which is the only fundamental right, from which all other rights are derived!

JRH6856
March 23, 2013, 10:40 PM
I'm not sure there is a right to life, it may be more of a privilege. But once an individual has life, all other rights come into existence. Among these are the right to continue that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and yes we do hold these truths to be self evident.

But these rights are not inalienable. They can be lost, they can be taken, and they can be surrendered voluntarily. The most important right is the right to individual identity, the right to self. After that comes the right to self defense because if you do not value your identity as an individual, there is no self to defend.

This is where progressive collectivists leave us. They find their value and identity not in them but in the society of which they are apart and upon which they believe their existence depends.

yokel
March 23, 2013, 10:54 PM
The right to life that the Declaration of Independence enshrines protects the individual’s ability to take all those actions necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of his life. It is based on the idea that life is the standard of moral value.

Self preservation, i.e., self-defense defines life in it's most fundamental description.

JRH6856
March 23, 2013, 11:19 PM
As for our views regarding individual rights, I really think we are saying the same thing, I just see it a bit more complicated than you but there is no real disagreement.

As for the collectivists, self preservation defines selfishness. They (at least the ones I know personally and have argued with) tend to see themselves as cells in the body of society, each cell having a defined role that contributes to the greater good. Any cells seeking individuality and self preservation are seen just like cancer cells in the human body: a disease that is dangerous to the body as a whole. Out of control cells that live off of the body politic without making meaningful contribution.

alsaqr
March 23, 2013, 11:25 PM
Schumer, Feinstein and the rest of the anti-self defense suspects in congress have been saying this stuff for >20 years. Does anyone remember Schumer's reference to the "rest of the camel" in his victory speech after the AWB was signed into law?

yokel
March 23, 2013, 11:33 PM
I trust that we can all agree that only a full philosophical system upholding life, reason and self-interest can ground the founding principles of America.

As absurd as it sounds, some gun control and confiscation cretins truly believe in a “social liberty” where no one has to worry.

Another ugly form of collectivism that gives priority to "group" rights over individual rights and individuals sacrificing themselves for the "group" or "greater good".

The forced equality of the convict camp.

Of course, every form collectivism is linked to statism and the diminution of freedom when political authority is used to advance collectivist goals.

JRH6856
March 23, 2013, 11:41 PM
I trust that we can all agree that only a full philosophical system upholding life, reason and self-interest can ground the founding principles of America.

That may be what grounded the founding principles of America, but there is obviously disagreement today as to what should ground the principles of America's future.

Collectivism and statism are anathema to me, but that does not stop me from seeking to understand the thinking of those who embrace those ideas in order to attack their arguments.

I say "seeking to understand" because I clearly have not yet succeeded. For example, I don't fully understand how statists (both socialist/progressive and corporatist/capitalist) can consider George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-four to be anthing but utopian, yet many of them consider it to be the dystopian novel that it is. It is easy to think that they are confused or in denial, but I suspect it is just a symptom of their philosophy: They were told by an authority that it is dystopian so that is what it is in spite of the fact that it describes the kind of society they want to build.

yokel
March 24, 2013, 12:12 AM
All you really need to "understand" is that all collectivists/statists are divorced from reality. All of them are irrational and foolish. But I must admit the fact that they are somehow aware of the nature of this battle. Yes, they know, albeit not consciously, that they are engaged in a battle of ideas.

But if there’s one thing that the collectivist/statist could claim as some sort of achievement, it would only be their uncanny ability to create lies, myths, and propaganda.

BigG
March 24, 2013, 06:39 AM
Remember what Ayn Rand said, - There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.

You are seeing it today for yourself.

Archer
March 24, 2013, 12:29 PM
Well, locally to me, at least, it seems the manufacturer lag time in ramping to meet need has finally wound down- all manner of black rifles in three local gun shops and two box stores in the past few days. I personally picked up a Colt 6920 from the local sporting big box (for a pre-Newtown price, no less).

However the mentality is still there for a while among the great unwashed- I was offered double what I paid for it later that very day by a co-worker. I set them on the correct path rather than take advantage.

Ammunition, on the other hand. is still an issue. Thankfully not for me, having prepared years ago.

VVelox
March 25, 2013, 05:21 AM
As for our views regarding individual rights, I really think we are saying the same thing, I just see it a bit more complicated than you but there is no real disagreement.

As for the collectivists, self preservation defines selfishness. They (at least the ones I know personally and have argued with) tend to see themselves as cells in the body of society, each cell having a defined role that contributes to the greater good. Any cells seeking individuality and self preservation are seen just like cancer cells in the human body: a disease that is dangerous to the body as a whole. Out of control cells that live off of the body politic without making meaningful contribution.
Which is ironic as collectivism demands one press their own individualism as far as possible for the purpose of being as small of a drain as possible on the collective. This among other things means being armed for both the purpose of defending ones self(for the lose of one weakens the collective) and the collective.

Individualism and collectivism are mutual and heavily interlinked dependencies.

shafter
March 25, 2013, 07:34 AM
Needs to be BIGGER rallys. I think the local gun communities should spearhead this. I would love to participate/start my own but not sure where/how to start(Legalities)

Elected officials don't care about rallies. They're too busy "buying" their votes with government handouts and looking the other way when dead people and pets vote multiple times. They're also busy working feverishly to allow the illegals to vote.

JRH6856
March 25, 2013, 12:42 PM
Which is ironic as collectivism demands one press their own individualism as far as possible for the purpose of being as small of a drain as possible on the collective. This among other things means being armed for both the purpose of defending ones self(for the lose of one weakens the collective) and the collective.

Individualism and collectivism are mutual and heavily interlinked dependencies.
Which is why there is so much focus on "It if saves just one life..." Self defense by any means which results in any loss of life is unacceptable. Except when it is their life at stake, and then collectivists can become very individualist.

Bartholomew Roberts
March 27, 2013, 05:27 PM
Its not whether or not I 'feel' have an argument. There is no argument. I have no position to defend. In that clip she was specifically referring to the weapons grandfathered in 1994 ban. To represent it as anything other would be taking her quote out of the context of the interview. TO use that clip as evidence that she wants to take all guns is intellectually dishonest. I cant stand the woman. And I am pretty certain that, if she was king for a day, she would take every gun out of every house. But that clip is simply not the smoking gun evidence of that.

Intellectually dishonest? So you don't believe in inferring intent from statement and actions? If someone said they wanted to hit you in the head with a sledgehammer, you would consider it intellectually dishonest to assume that person wants to kill you since they didn't specifically say what amount of force they wanted to apply and you might survive it anyway?

If we just list the weapons she has unequivocally indicated she wants to ban, it would be more than half of every firearm designed since 1898, yet you think it is productive to quibble over whether she intends to ban all firearms? Why do you think that distinction is worth debating?

Agsalaska
March 27, 2013, 06:09 PM
Intellectually dishonest? So you don't believe in inferring intent from statement and actions? If someone said they wanted to hit you in the head with a sledgehammer, you would consider it intellectually dishonest to assume that person wants to kill you since they didn't specifically say what amount of force they wanted to apply and you might survive it anyway?

If we just list the weapons she has unequivocally indicated she wants to ban, it would be more than half of every firearm designed since 1898, yet you think it is productive to quibble over whether she intends to ban all firearms? Why do you think that distinction is worth debating?
There is a difference between claiming you want to confiscate all guns and claiming you want to confiscate all guns in a specific category, specifically those falling under the 1994 act. Claiming they are the same is.... Never mind.

Actually, to use a much better analogy than yours. It would be as if I supported a treaty with Muslim terrorists. I am then asked what I thought about it and I made the comment that I would have killed every last one of them. Then you, or someone else, turns around and claims I want to kill all Muslims. That is the same logical analogy. It doesn't mean I do or don't want to(and for the record I do not hate or want to kill all Muslims), But you could not come to a definitive conclusion based on that comment. That's exactly what people are doing in the case of her comments from the interview.



This is stupid. I'm not going to argue about it. If you don't see it then you don't see it. I can't stand the woman anyway and don't know why I put myself in a position to defend her. Have a good night.

If you enjoyed reading about "They finally said it." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!