Terrorists Can Use the .50 Cal Against Us...

[2nd Amendment]

*GASP!*

Sorry, that was the best I could do. HEY! 2hrs, 15 minutes. People will think I'm blonde if I keep this up...

 

[El Rojo]

Hey, I have some more points to make, so quit the bickering and take a break before this gets locked before I can finish my post and you all piss me off. Serious. I am going to start my reply. Any moderators in the process of shutting this down wait about 5 minutes please. Thanks.

Control-F for "voting".

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cach...oftops"&hl=en

and

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cach...oftops"&hl=en

Thanks for the link. I however don't see that as evidence that the anti-gunners made AB50 happen simply because deep in the legislation is a reference to a VPC study that is called, "Voting from the Rooftops". The VPC could have named it "War Machines of Death" and listed that in there if they wanted to. I don't really think it makes a difference and your references to their references of it really doesn't prove anything.

Second, without a real investigation into the origin of "Voting from the Rooftops", we are assuming it was originally a pro-gun saying picked up by the anti-gunners. How do we know that the anti-gunners didn't coin it and some pro-gunners didn't start using it to mock them? What was to prevent the anti-gunners from going and buying a rifle, making a shirt that says "Voting from the Rooftops", and taking pictures and using it as the basis of their report? Being critical of "Voting from the Rooftops" misses the real point. The real point is there are enough liberals in the State of California to elect liberal politicians and then they had enough votes to pass AB50 and not enough people stood up to Arnold to stop him from signing it. That is where we failed. I am not about to blame this defeat on some guy shooting his rifle with a "Voting from the Rooftops" shirt on somewhere not in California. This was squarely our fight to lose and we lost it. With or with out "Voting from the Rooftops" we lost this on our own merits.

With that being said, I spent about 3 hours this afternoon going to local businesses to promote our Taft Friends of the NRA event coming up on August 5th. We raise money so we can get grants for our local jr. pheasant hunt and get some more kids out there shooting. We raise money for range development. I take that opportunity to talk to people about guns and get our message out. By the looks of it many of you spent hours on this gun board bickering about the effectiveness of a poster that probably only 100 people have ever seen and only about 100 people will ever see.

So I ask you, what damages us more?

Everyone take note. This fight isn't happening on firearms discussion boards. It isn't happening at the VPC website. It is happening in your schools and in your neighborhoods. What are you doing to talk to people? Your right, taking the poster in questions to new converts might not be a good idea. Showing it to shotgunners who could care less about AWs or handguns might work. Use your best judgement. Sometimes you will be effective, sometimes you might rub someone the wrong way. I just know I am not going to cower and worry about what the other side tries to do to stop me. Let them try. They can't. I might be outnumbered in the PRK, but the rest of the country is still free and I am going to keep fighting to free us someday too. Good luck.

 

[cuchulainn]

Thanks for the link. I however don't see that as evidence that the anti-gunners made AB50 happen simply because deep in the legislation is a reference to a VPC study that is called, "Voting from the Rooftops".

Of course, I never claimed that the law passed simply because the study was in the record. I said it helped and that the title came from us.

And yes, "Voting from the Rooftops" originated on our side.

And you seem to confuse bickering with bantering.

 

[El Rojo]

I said it helped

Hell we all helped if you want to make those kinds of comparisons. Don't we all manage to do business with an anti here or there? I could care less if it helped, was it a big enough factor that it made the deal? No. So why worry about it? We have bigger issues to deal with in my opinion to make me take pause with what I do on my own time. I am who I am and I don't need to live in fear of what the other side might think of me. Heck I have better things to do than worry about getting some bone head shooter somewhere not to do something stupid. People are stupid, they do stupid things. I will encourage my friends not to be stupid and that is about all I can do. I guess that is really what cuchulainn is saying too. However, if someone does something stupid and the anti gunners try and use it, it is because we are failing in other places for people to buy into it. We need to work harder on fence sitters so they don't buy into this garbage, not try and censor all of the people on our side. That is my new hypothesis and I am sticking to it.

 

[2nd Amendment]

Yup, no bickering here, just having some fun.

That being said, I want to throw something else out and see how far it crawls...

C, what is the reason for the 2A? It's not about hunting or sport, correct? It's a Right, and it deals with the potential need to keep our own government in check. That's the primary reason for its inclusion in the BoR. That is a fact we make some issue about, dealing with the eventuality of a corrupt government, and we talk about this in no small detail.

You think that isn't an open death threat against politicians? I mean really, how else could you characterize it? The short version being, If you get too corrupt or over-reaching we're going to rise up and remove you, and that obviously means killing a few(or more than a few). And this is the core of the 2A. Otherwise all we have is sport and hunting and that carries no more legitimacy than any other hobby, exactly as the anti's claim.

What is "Vote from the rooftops" if not merely a visual statement of the same point? Would you have us not discuss the fact of the existence of this Right for fear we'll scare some political sheep? You'd really have to to be consistent here and I don't think you'd restrict the discussion to that degree, would you?

 

[cuchulainn]

We need to work harder on fence sitters so they don't buy into this garbage, not try and censor all of the people on our side.

I'm not attempting to censor them (as if I had that power). I'm attempting to convince them apply discipline and discretion to their speech.

If what we say doesn't matter, why don't we all go out and say, "The 2nd Amendment exists so I can shoot people I don't like, like my neighbor who doesn't cut his friggin grass or that bee-atch who wouldn't go on a date with me." Golly, it wouldn't be our fault if statements like that pushed away fence sitters. Nope, it would be the fault of some other gunners who didn't somehow prepare them.

As Art told you earlier, we shouldn't have to worry about these things. People should be better educated. But they aren't. In politics, you can't deal with people the way you think they ought to be. You deal with them the way they are.

In any event, you seem to be relying on a false division. It isn't a matter of either behaving in a disciplined manner or working to educate people. We need to do both.

And FWIW, VPC has been the primary driving force behind the .50 bans and "VftR" has been its primary propaganda.

 

[El Rojo]

And FWIW, VPC has been the primary driving force behind the .50 bans and "VftR" has been its primary propaganda.

And they just lost nationally when the .50 ban died in Congress. So how effective is it?

When I taught the 2nd Amendment to my students last semester, I told them what the 2nd Amendment was really about. It is about overthrowing the government. I also said that no one really wants to get to that point and as long as we can vote and have a free press, we aren't there. I told them the idea isn't popular and no one really wants to do it, but it isn't about sport or about hunting, it is about power and who has it. They seemed to get it fairly well. If we can't stand on the 2nd Amendment as a right to overthrow the government with force, then it no longer deserves to exist. There is a way to sugar coat it to some degree, but it is what it is.

 

[cuchulainn]

You think that isn't an open death threat against politicians? I mean really, how else could you characterize it? The short version being, If you get too corrupt or over-reaching we're going to rise up and remove you, and that obviously means killing a few(or more than a few).

People in general neither know nor understand the history of the 2nd. If you want to educate people in the that history, do so. But you'd better do so in a more disciplined manner than "vote from the rooftops!" Start doing that, and they won't listen to you -- and you'll lose your chance to educate them.

Is "VftR" an extension of the rebellion-factor in the 2nd? Perhaps. OTOH, taking that logic to its end, so would be a letter saying, "Dear Politician X, if you don't vote the way I want tomorrow, I'm going to shoot you."

But lets assume for the sake of argument that "VftR" is an extension of the rebellion-factor of the 2nd. Even if true, saying it doesn't help win us political support.

And declaring that you'll say what you like without worrying about who it scares may sound noble, but as a practicle matter, that translates to "I'll say what I like without worrying about whose votes it drives away from my cause." Is that smart?

 

[cuchulainn]

And they just lost nationally when the .50 ban died in Congress. So how effective is it?

Small consolation to the people of California.

 

[2nd Amendment]

I believe people have a somewhat more thorough understanding of the 2A than you give them credit for. It's existence as a "doomsday provision" is regularly cited by anti's and then dismissed as antiquated. That's a fairly consistent tactic on their part. It's been my experience that that is often all people DO understand about the issue, whether they agree with it or not.

I don't see how sending an explicit death threat to a politician over a piece of legislation or concept is a logical extention, either. Now if several million send such a letter, yes, but your "logical progression" would seem to demand the 2A is not only such a doomsday provision but that any single one of us can activate it at any time. I don't think anyone believes that, for both moral and practical reasons.

 

[El Rojo]

Small consolation to the people of California.

Are you from California? Do you even understand the PRK's politics? The VPC has nothing to do with California's politics. They could stop and not do a darn thing here and the politicians would have still passed a .50 BMG ban. California should never be used as a litmus test for the success of the 2nd Amendment battle in the rest of the nation. I most certainly wouldn't give the VPC any credit for the .50 ban. This state didn't need the VPC to help them get that through. No the effectiveness of VftR should be gauged where there are still voters who actually can make a difference, nationally. Nationally it is a loser.

The people of California get what they deserve. I live here so I am qualified to make that statement. They choose to live this life, let them continue to live in a screwed up state. The problem is, we have no choice even if we fought as hard as we could. We are outnumbered in this state. Plain and simple. I have lived through even disappointments in this state to know when all is lost. Right now, all is lost. As sad as it sounds, the only hope we have right now is Arnold and his redistricting initiative coming up. Arnold and redistricting or a terrorist detonation of a nuclear weapon in Los Angeles is the only hope this state has.

 

[cuchulainn]

2nd Amendment: but your "logical progression" would seem to demand the 2A is not only such a doomsday provision but that any single one of us can activate it at any time. I don't think anyone believes that, for both moral and practical reasons.

Ding! Ding! Ding! However, that's exactly what VPC is making people think we believe by using our slogan "VftR" against us. For most people, "VftR" doesn't conjur up the image of a freedom fighter who is part of a legitimate and organized rebellion. Nope, it conjurs up a loony loner bent on assassination. Lee Harvey Oswald voted from the rooftop (well, the window). VPC knows this is the image that "VftR" conveys -- and we handed it to them.

VPC has nothing to do with California's politics. They could stop and not do a darn thing here and the politicians would have still passed a .50 BMG ban.

VPC is active in Sacramento. VPC was the organization that brought the idea of banning .50s to the Cali. legislature. While, I agree that the the Cali legislature was ripe for this move, I don't think that it would have made it on its own.

VPC created the fear of .50s. Before VPC, I doubt if many Cali. pols were aware of the rise in their popularity among civilians. It wasn't an issue to them.

And we handed VPC a very effective image to crystalize the issue.

 

[Derby FALs]

Is "VftR" an extension of the rebellion-factor in the 2nd? Perhaps. OTOH, taking that logic to its end, so would be a letter saying, "Dear Politician X, if you don't vote the way I want tomorrow, I'm going to shoot you."

How do you come to this conclusion? You don't appear to have a basic understanding of the BoR.

 

[cuchulainn]

How do you come to this conclusion? You don't appear to have a basic understanding of the BoR.

I didn't say I agreed with the logic. I was simply taking it to its end.

VftR is a political death threat -- veiled and implicit, but a death threat nonetheless. If a veiled death threat like VftR is an extension of the 2nd (as others, not me, claim), then why not other death threats against politicians?

I don't agree that political death threats -- veiled or not-- are either appropriate or logical in terms of the 2nd.

I don't see the difference between:

A) Posters and T-Shirts with VftR -- meaning "Do what we want, politicians, or we'll blow your brains out."

and

B) Sending letters to politicans warning, "Do want we want, or we'll blow your brains out."

Although the 2nd Amendment clearly has a rebellion element built into it -- that's not a license to use death threats as a political tool.

 

[Derby FALs]

"The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed -- where the government refuses to stand for re-election and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees,...However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once." ___Judge Alex Kozinski

 

[cuchulainn]

The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed

Note the words exceptionally rare. I doubt that the good Judge would approve of the use of death threats --- veiled or not --- as a political tool.

And preparation has nothing to do with making death threats, veiled or not.

 

[NIGHTWATCH]

I will be going to a public park here in the city later this week to ask people what they think about the poster without my help. If their gut reaction is that they get it, the necessity of a very well armed citizenry following the WACO massacre. If they get confused and are not sure what to think. Or, that they see it as an invitation to confront government by force and therefore dangerous and extreme. Im actually curious for the feedback.

As far as the true purpose of the Second Amendment which has been explained to death a million times on this forum .......

Let me put it this way.....if standing armies have weapons, what are those weapons for? To kill of course. To enforce the commands of some political entity and concept of law (I say concept, cant forget the despots) to the point of death. To enforce the will of a leadership and/or political body of power.

Now, If it was the intention of our founding fathers to entrust us with these very same weapons for the sake of preserving our freedom. Not hunting and plinking but preserving freedom. Well, uh...what ya think?

"Let every man be armed".........IMO if an American citizen takes out a despotic type politician who has violated their rights and the constitution (the highest law of this land) where portions of that standing army or government force have enforced that criminal will to the point of bloodshed.......yes, its about killing....and being willing to die. And as one framer stated, "unfortunatley, the only thing government understands, FORCE".

IT IS ABOUT HAVING THE MEANS TO VIOLENTLY PRESERVE FREEDOM WHEN ALL HOPE IS LOST.

I know that is a scary place to be and nobody knows this better than gunowners. Shooting our mouth off on some street corner is important but it is the guns they fear.In the meantime we are doing everything in our power to avoid this.

Bottom line, they didnt give us these guns people to not be enabled to kill if necessary.

Anyway, guys, I hope this thread is still open by the time I get some feedback from the public. Please take a break.

 

[cuchulainn]

I know that is a scary place to be and nobody knows this better than gunowners. Shooting our mouth off on some street corner is important but it is the guns they fear.In the meantime we are doing everything in our power to avoid this.

It is in our power to behave with discipline, discretion and self-awareness. The fact that The People someday may need to rebel is not a license today to make political death threats, no matter how veiled and implicit.

It doesn't matter whether or not you intend for your statements to be taken as death threats. What matters is how people take them. Can you control such misunderstanding all the time? No. Do you have a responsibility to try to control such misunderstanding? Yes.

But your willingness to test your poster shows you accept that responsibility.

 

[Derby FALs]

"When all else fails"...

What are you going to do? I think we need another run of shirts. The PTBs need to know that we are watching.

 

[CAPTAIN MIKE]

Hey, Wait Just a Minute Here....

Don't those Terrorist know that the .50 calibre is "NOT ALLOWED" in the People's Socialist Republik of Kalifornistan????