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

[Waitone]

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]

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

California Constitution Declaration of Rights does not include RKBA

 

[Mark in California]

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]

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]

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]

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]

hillbilly -- nicely said, sir.

 

[carp killer]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

Hmmmm....

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

hillbilly

Yeah. What he said.

 

[RangerHAAF]

Possible, but not likely.

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]

Yawn

I think I'll go buy another gun....

 

[Brett Bellmore]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.