Gun-rights banner at Capitol draws outcry over its language

[General Geoff]

Heh, I'm not saying they couldn't have exercised more discretion; I'm just saying that fundamentally it's not their message that's the problem, it's the atmosphere of political correctness. We should adapt when we can, but the banner as it was written is a breath of fresh air in the sweaty, noxious fume hood of modern day politics.

It's simple. If he can't be counted on to fight the physically safe propaganda war in an effective manner, why on Urth would I count on him to fight the far more demanding and dangerous shooting war?

Some people (these protesters included) don't deal in political correctness. I can't blame them for that.

 

[Joe Demko]

Some people (these protesters included) don't deal in political correctness. I can't blame them for that

Then they are a liability.

 

[General Geoff]

Speaking in terms of liability, you could argue that all "assault weapon" owners are a liability because of their image in the public eye. I don't want to see this argument devolve to that.


A better idea would be to take this rather blunt message delivered by the protesters, and explain it to those who would otherwise think it's racist or threatening. The message contains truth, therefore the only thing needed is clarification and explanation for those who don't understand what the "Tree of Liberty" is, or what it stands for symbolically.

 

[Rev. DeadCorpse]

Everytime you say something like that, Sarah Brady does a little girlish jig of glee. We will lose because of people like you.

Well.. wrong. We ARE losing because few people will stand up and speak plainly. Even fewer care enough about freedom and liberty to take it seriously. For most, as long as Amerikan Idle is on tonight, who cares what freedoms they lose?

Attitudes like your have led to this complacency. Freedom is not free and anyone who wants power will gladly sell out principle to get it. Unless we are willing to pay that price to keep our liberties, we will lose them. As we have been doing because all peaceful options must be exhausted first.

Well guess what? After the Parker decision works its way through the courts, that's pretty much it for peaceful solutions. If Congress, or the States, enact more gun control in the wake of the VT shootings, that too pretty much kills the goat there.

If you have another solution... let us know. I'm all ears.

 

[atomd]

Since they specified exactly why they thought that particular person should hang in the sign, there is no way this can be a racial issue. Actually, I think they could have put no reason at all and it still wouldn't be racist. Unless they specifically said that the reason for hanging the person was their race, it should not be considered a racist statement. It's crazy how people can pretty much make anything look racially motivated. Hanging for treason is a pretty common phrase for obvious reasons....it is what was done to traitors.

I think the sign makers had good intentions but I could have thought of a lot better things to put on that sign. A lot of people will dismiss their argument because of how they worded it. I'll give them credit for at least doing something though. It's a shame that "thick skin" barely seems to exist these days. People need to stop being such wusses. We need people in the public eye with the guts to stand up to these race baiters and call them out for being the liars that they are.

 

[cuchulainn]

I don't see how that makes him a quitter.

He's a quitter because -- despite our having more victories than losses on the ballot, soap and jury boxes -- he spouts off about the only solution being violent revolution.

We're winning. Barely it sometimes seems, but we're winning

• In England, a lunatic with a gun kills dozens -- the debate is over which guns to ban.
• In Australia, a lunatic with a gun kills dozen -- the debate is over which guns to ban.
• In the USA, a lunatic with a gun kills dozen -- the debate is over how to better enforce the existing laws (mental health records and NICS).

We're winning. The NRA doesn't need to say: "If you try and take my Rights away from me, I will kill you."

It can say: "If you try and take my Rights away from me, I will get you voted out of office."

We're winning.

Anyone who spouts off about revolution is -- at best -- a quitter.

 

[ATW525]

If being politically incorrect is a liability then we might as well go throw our guns in the trash heap. After all, many people in this country consider the private ownership of firearms to be politically incorrect.

 

[Joe Demko]

How did we, as gun owners, get to where we are? Were our victories due to us physically intimidating anyone? Were our losses due to us being physically intimidated? No. The outcomes came from how well we played politics. You can talk about how people should be, and how society should be, but unless you can also give us your practical plan for bringing about those changes, you are doing little more than wishing on a star. Politics is the name of the game. If we want to win we have to use winning strategies. Bellicose, in your face, rhetoric isn't one of them.

 

[Rev. DeadCorpse]

He's a quitter because -- despite our having more victories than losses on the ballot, soap and jury box -- he spouts off about the only solution being violent revolution.

We're winning? We've been compromising if that is what you mean. In order to get SOME of our Rights back, we've had to submit to "guilty until proven innocent" licensing just so we can "bear" certain arms. We have State level bans on "scary feature firearms" going in place every year. There is current legislation in Congress that would make millions of us gun owners instant criminals. And you consider a minor court win or new CCW law a "win" in the larger battle?

This is both short sighted and counter productive. It isn't a RIGHT, if you have to ask government permission. You may as well just agree with Cruz that your "rights" are merely "privileges" from government to be rescinded at their whim.

 

[Joe Demko]

Yes, we've been winning for a while. It isn't time to get complacent or comfortable, but things have been getting better for gun owners for a while now. The Ban sunsetted without issue, CCW is available to more citizens than ever, states are forging reciprocity agreements on CCW, and more...Was any of that accomplished by other than playing politics to win?

 

[Autolycus]

Well first off many Puerto Ricans are black so it is feasible that he maybe a member of the Black Caucus. Threatening the man's life because he has a different opinion than you is not exactly the best idea in the world either and will only further alientate us gunowners. I dont understand how you all can support this signage at all and claim to be on the high road.

 

[cuchulainn]

We're winning? We've been compromising if that is what you mean. In order to get SOME of our Rights back, we've had to submit to "guilty until proven innocent" licensing just so we can "bear" certain arms.

Yes, we're winning. Things are better than they were 10, 20, 30 years ago. We didn't lose our gun rights overnight. We won't gain them back overnight.

Bread slices.

I'm in this for the long haul. It will take patience, prudence and maturity, not ineffectual cries for 'Revolooooootion!" every time we have a little setback or don't win a full victory.

You want to play war? Go in your back yard.

You want to fight for the RKBA? Behave like an adult.

 

[Rev. DeadCorpse]

So by ignoring all the "safe storage laws", restrictions on CCW, assault weapons bans both in place an pending, continued and increasing BATFE abuse, ect... you think we are "winning" because of a couple of conciliatory gestures?

 

[dave_pro2a]

Two things keep coming up in my mind about this issue, here's the pertinant quotes from the article:

"Members of the Legislative Black Caucus called yesterday for a state police investigation into the display of what they called a racist banner in the Capitol that said a Latino lawmaker should be 'hung from the tree of liberty for his acts of treason against the Constitution.'"

"Williams was one of 10 Philadelphia-area lawmakers who appeared at a news conference yesterday afternoon to denounce the banner's language as a 'terroristic threat' that raised the ugly specter of mob violence against African Americans."


Many states have instituted what are commonly called "hate crime laws." They make certian crimes against minorities an "aggravated offence." So people, and organiziations like the Black Caucus" can call for "special police investigations." It in essence gives them special protection under the law that "regular" citizens do not enjoy. It also gives them extra power to silence, shame and humiliate their detractors. Calling for a special investigation by the police for this incident is 100% bull crap.

Hate crime laws = special protection + a tool to be used against those who simply disagree with 'their' agenda.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that hate crime laws are nothing more than special protection for liberals (for the most part).

And regarding terroristic threats: just more BS. I firmly believe that the WoT will be used against average Americans just like the WoD has been. That an unwritten political goal of the WoT is an overarching police state, where the politicos are protected from the consquences of their actions. We've lost a lot of fundamental rights in the WoT already (secret prisons, secret search warrents, no Habeas Corpus, effective repeal of the Posse Comitatus act, etc.). And here's a case of dirty rotten politicos playing the "terrorist card to slander, defeat and otherwise discredit legitimate detractors. Utter BS.

And someone made an excellent point about the MSM not mentioning what the "tree of iberty" means, about the context of that phrase and historical importance (and its inherent relationship to the... "world of politics"). SHAME ON THE MSM, and on our broken educational/indocrination system. Every citizen should know the context of that phrase, and omiting it from articles about this incident is blatantly biased journalism.

This whole incident should be filed under "Much Ado About Nothing."

fwiw, imho: You don't need to worry about the guys who loudly climb the statehouse steps to protest the loss of freedom... rather you need to worry about the guys who quietly climb onto the rooftops to do it. The damn liberals should be VERY supportive of the former, in hopes that we all can stave off need for the later.

 

[Joe Demko]

So by ignoring all the "safe storage laws", restrictions on CCW, assault weapons bans both in place an pending, continued and increasing BATFE abuse, ect... you think we are "winning" because of a couple of conciliatory gestures?

How old are you? I don't mean that as an insult, but because I wonder if you are old enough to remember when it seemed like every time you turned around there was another restrictive law or executive order going in place. Until recently, CCW in many places was impossible to get for all but the rich and/or connected. What was the last restrictive gun law passed at the federal level? I don't want to hear about proposed bills or what you think might happen, what and when was the last anti-2A federal law passed?

 

[Rev. DeadCorpse]

Things are better than they were 10, 20, 30 years ago. We didn't lose our gun rights overnight. We won't gain them back overnight.

In case you haven't noticed, things were even better than that before the time period you mentioned. Pistol sales through the Sear catalog. No problems with unlicensed carry. Heck, even the NFA's taxing scheme allowed you to at least register new machine guns.

So just keep thinking things are rosy when they quite obviously aren't. Firearms ownership in America has never been so tightly controlled and legislated against as it currently is. Exactly what do you think a President Hillary would do with all those NICs checks that BATFE has admitted it keeps on file despite court order to erase them? How about all those 4473's that the FFL's are required to turn in after the BATFE runs them out of business for not dotting an "I" in "Indiana". Think you would be safe because you were "allowed" to purchase that new Bushmaster lower receiver after filling out the paperwork?

And yes, we could get them back a lot faster. If we just ignored the unConstitutional gun laws. 240 million guns in the hands of some 80 million gun owners. What would they do? Arrest us all?

Even Hurricane Katrina should have taught you better. Your Rights are only yours if you are willing to fight and die for them. If not, they will be taken from you or legislated out of existence.

 

[Joe Demko]

And yes, we could get them back a lot faster. If we just ignored the unConstitutional gun laws. 240 million guns in the hands of some 80 million gun owners. What would they do? Arrest us all?

When you wish upon a star
Makes no difference who you are
Anything your heart desires
Will come to you

If your heart is in your dreams
No request is to extreme
When you wish upon a star
As dreamers do [/Jiminny Cricket]

You keep fantasizing. The rest of us will keep fighting the propaganda war. We'll see who gets the best results.

 

[30 cal slob]

I dont understand how you all can support this signage at all and claim to be on the high road.

1. I don't necessarily give a rat's a$$ about being "on the high road" - whatever that means.

2. While I am usually a polite, well-mannered, and reasonable fellow...

I DON'T WANT MY RIGHTS TRAMPLED ON.

 

[cuchulainn]

In case you haven't noticed, things were even better than that before the time period you mentioned. Pistol sales through the Sear catalog. No problems with unlicensed carry. Heck, even the NFA's taxing scheme allowed you to at least register new machine guns.

Yes, there's still a lot of work to do. We haven't won yet, but we're winning.

So just keep thinking things are rosy when they quite obviously aren't.

Rosy? No. Better? Yes. We're pushing them back. They can't even use VT to do much.

Firearms ownership in America has never been so tightly controlled and legislated against as it currently is.

Things were worse in the 70s, 80s and early 90s. Things are better now.

Could they be even better? Yep.

Like I said, I'm in this for the long haul.

Are you? Are you really committed to the RKBA? Are you willing to run the last miles of the race?

Or are you a quitter who whines, "revoloooootion!" because he's too lazy to complete the job.

 

[Rev. DeadCorpse]

What was the last restrictive gun law passed at the federal level? I don't want to here about proposed bills orwhat you think might happen, what and when was the last anti-2A federal law passed?

Not that it matters. But I am 38.

This would be President Bush, the current, and his ban on foreign firearm imports without a certain number of US parts in them. I was going to buy a Norinco 1991 from Marsters in Canada, and couldn't because of the import ban.

Further, the BATFE revises its standards, paperwork, and testing on a regular basis. Most recently, several people have gone to jail for AK receiver with the full auto hole drilled. Previously, as long as no full auto fire control parts were installed, it didn't need to be registered. Further, some types of AR lower are now being reclassified as a "machine gun" if it was manufactured in such a way as to allow the installation of a "lightning link" or a RDIAS. Even if no such M16 fire control parts or DIAS is installed.

Lawsuits. Currently, there are still dozens of lawsuits against perfectly legal firearms for a variety of reasons. Silveria/Emerson/Parker create a Constitutional crisis that the SCOTUS is apparently oblivious to. Three lower Courts in contention over the Individual/Collective interpretation means that the equal protection clause is being violated.

The McCarthy ban (1022) and the new NICs legislation are serious threats. The NICs bill particularly because it expands the database used to track us all. You might be perfectly fine with the idea, but I don't like the idea of them compiling a permanent record on me. Part of that whole, "be secure in person, papers, and thing" that I'd rather not have them violating.

Is that enough? Or do you need me to point out all the State level bans going in place in places like Illinios, Maine, New Jersey, California, Wisconsin, ect...

 

[michaelbane]

My letter to the Chair of the PA Black Caucus

It's not politically correct, but for some people not supporting gun control in the first place isn't politically correct.

April 26, 2007

Hon. Thaddeus Kirkland, Member
Pennsylvania House of Representatives
29 East Fifth Street
Chester, PA 19013

Dear Mr. Kirkland:

I am writing to criticize, berate, chastise, admonish and condemn you for your unfounded accusation, as reported in the April 25, 2007 edition of the Philadelphia Inquirer, that the controversial banner displayed at the State Capitol during a recent pro-gun demonstration was racist.

I direct your attention to the text of aforementioned Philadelphia Inquirer article, in which you were quoted as saying the following:

State Rep. Thaddeus Kirkland (D., Delaware), chairman of the Black Caucus, called the sign "an act of racism and bigotry" and said those responsible for it should be brought to justice.

There was nothing on the banner that expressly mentioned, or even implied, that Representative Cruz was of any particular race or ethnic background, or that he should be the subject of violence based on his racial or ethnic background.

If you think the banner was inappropriate on the grounds that it advocated violence against another human being, you could have made your objections known without references to race. However, you chose not to do that. The only logical explanation for your blatant disregard of the facts in this case is that you are intentionally using the “race card” to advance your gun-grabbing agenda at the expense of innocent, law-abiding citizens who only want to exercise their Federal and Pennsylvania right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, our Commonwealth and our great nation.

Shame on you for your despicable, underhanded tactics.


Sincerely,
Michael L. Bane

 

[Rev. DeadCorpse]

Things were worse in the 70s, 80s and early 90s. Things are better now.

And things were even better than that in the '30's, 40's, and 50's. A repeal of anything that would violate "shall not be infringed" is what I'm aiming at.

You appear to be setting you goals a good deal lower.

 

[Rev. DeadCorpse]

When you wish upon a star

Trite. Childish. And about what I should expect from you from now on?

 

[07Lway]

Don't you tell people that we aren't willing to fight and die for our rights. We are and will, when the time comes.

However, no one has come to my door and asked for me to return anything (except for that baseball that got hit into my backyard). Cuchulainn and Joe Demko are right. This is a political war, and we have to play their game right now. If every gun-owner wrote and called (e-mails don't cut it) the people who represent them in congress, and told them that they will lose the vote of you and every other gun owner you know if they vote for anything agianst the BORs, then I would be willing to bet you that no new gun laws would ever get passed agian on a federal level. To bad that doesn't happen though. Too many gun-owners prefer to sit on their ass and talk about how many people they are going to kill when big brother comes knocking on the door.

The banner is not in good taste, and does nothing to help get the high road message across. However, it is not racist. Also, does anyone else think that any club that you can only join if you are of a certain race, is a racist club? Why is it ok for there to be all black, brown, yellow, blue, purple, green, red, or white clubs?

 

[Geno]

It wouldn't be the first time that someone faked to be a pro-whatever! If the anti-gunners can't win the debate legally, ethically and with common sense, they would post such a banner to attempt show the pro-gunners as fanatic, dangerous fools. Let's withhold judgment until we learn who really posted it.

Edited at ask:

Since when did free speech and free expression become rascist and terroristic? Like I said, when you can't win by engaging in a good old-fashioned debate, and base it upon legality, Constitutionality, ethics and with common sense, resort to "leftist stupidity": Gotta buy this book!

Bernard Goldberg's new book: Crazies to the Left of Me; Wimps to the Right: How One Side Lost Its Mind and The Other Lost Its Nerve