It's a tragedy, but....

[Bear Gulch]

Bottom line is that the right of a law abiding citizen to protect themselves should not be toyed with by State or Municipal officials.

 

[LynnKCircle]

"Bottom line is that the right of a law abiding citizen to protect themselves should not be toyed with by State or Municipal officials." --Bear Gulch

---------------------------------------------------------------

No! The bottom line in a democratic society is that reasonable people may reasonably disagree, and that disagreement justifies no violence at all.

Unfortunately (IMHO), jurists have been nibbling away at Second Amendment rights from the time the Bill of Rights were adopted. It began when courts ruled that municipalities were not violating the Constitution when they banned the carrying of loaded muzzle-loading weapons in specific venues (bars, etc.) and went downhill from there. But since a LOT of lawyers and judges have agreed with this point of view since 1798, that either means that ALL of them have been insane or that they were acting reasonably, albeit giving weight to reasons which you and I would not.

The truth is that shooting enthusiasts have uniformly done a piss-poor job of arguing our case to the general public. We do very well at preaching to the choir, but very few (if any) times have occurred where a lawsuit relating to RKBA was in progress and our side has stepped up to the bar with arguments. Instead, we have mostly let the other side present theirs, then whined in our beer when we didn't like the results.

The real bottom line is that shooting enthusiasts have to do a far better job of arguing our side to voters. It's a waste of time to present pro-gun arguments to ourselves, yet even now that is what most of us do. In a democratic society your right is to OUTARGUE the other side. If you lose, you swallow your feelings and wait until next time. But you do NOT -- EVER -- resort to violence because laws were legally passed with which you disagree. At the most you use civil disobedience and peaceful demonstrations.

Now, the question may be asked, "Well, when IS it permissible to use violence in such situations?" The answer is the minute that exercising your rights to free assembly and petition is answered with gunfire by the government. But not until then, and NEVER simply because the other side's interpretation of history and law is different from yours.

 

[Pilgrim]

I always assumed that with my S.E.A.L. training, etc., I was doing enough to keep myself and my family safe. I'd get to the office and slip the artillery into a drawer, I'd come in the door at night and do the same. Not anymore. Just when you are least expecting it and most likely to be casual about things, the goblins can strike. I used to think that people who were armed at the office or at home were paranoid. Once again I have been shown the error of my ways.

I always marveled at the Sheriff's lack of security consciousness. If anyone has the potential to be a political target, he is. While in the office his gun was in the desk drawer. When he left to go home, the gun was transferred to his briefcase.

Access to his office from the outside was direct without any security barriers. An assassin could easily walk in through the building's entrance, past his secretary, and into his open office. Nothing much has changed in the years since my retirement.

During the Y2K flail, the Sheriff announced his entire command staff would be on duty and manning an emergency command center, then he announced where that center would be. If anyone had planned any mischief that night, they knew where to neutralize any sort of organized response.

Pilgrim

 

[p35]

"Sic Semper Tyrannis" is also famous as the phrase John Wilkes Boothe shouted as he fled after shooting Abraham Lincoln.

Tasteless at least in this context.