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

[RealGun]

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. 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]

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.

 

[Billmanweh]

If the majority of people are still in favor of gun control, what would killing anti-gun politicians possibly accomplish?

 

[Drjones]

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]

something like the killing of abortion advocates has done?

you've got to be kidding, right?

 

[ProGlock]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

or, at the very least, something post-ban with a 5 rd magazine

 

[2nd Amendment]

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]

http://www.kc3.com/news/chicago_confiscation.htm

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

 

[RealGun]

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]

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]

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.

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

 

[fletcher]

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]

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]

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]

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.