We Need To "Just Say No"

Status
Not open for further replies.
L

LKB3rd

Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2007
Messages
857
Location
CT
With all of the anti gunners running full steam with their usual antics I have had a realization. All of the statistics, logic, and reasonable arguing is ineffective against them. They are not honest in their intentions.
We need to tell them that no matter what they say or do, as long as the constitution stands, and the 2nd amendment exists none of that matters, because infringing on our right to keep and bear arms is against the constitution. So, even if they can pass these laws, they are null and void.
You aren't going to win an argument with people who aren't being honest, or the people who these liars have tricked. Just say no.
 
I think there will be widespread non-compliance with a lot of the proposed new laws. IMHO it won't be done maliciously but simply because they are a PITA and silly.
 
There is a precedent to our north (Canada) of massive noncompliance eventually ending in the repeal of ineffective and useless gun control laws.

Fortunately, that didn't require violence.

(And we won't be discussing violent action here, either. :scrutiny:)
 
Yes, no.

Which is why my idea of compromise with the anti-gun crowd is winning back some of the freedoms already lost.
 
"Just saying no" is not a strategy at all, as long as the antis have the votes. You have to at least use the power of persuasion to convince those who are still on the fence.

In reading gun boards and blogs, I'm struck by the disconnect between the stonewalling and blustering of the pro-gun side, and the emerging political reality. Gun owners are disproportionately white, old, Southern, rural, and male -- factors which define a shrinking demographic.

It's not a matter of "compromise." It's a matter of making the best of what's being forced upon us. This isn't being "defeatist" -- it's being smart.

I'm a student of history. The parallels are striking between what's happening now in the gun debate, and what happened in the 1850's in the runup to the Civil War. In both cases, you had/have a group fighting a rear-guard action to defend what it perceived as its rights. And we know how that turned out in the earlier case.
 
I have drawn my own lines about what I will and will not do as a private citizen, a cop, and an Army National Guard solider for different scenarios. I don't feel comfortable discussion my own personal choices in these matters online. But I will say that some lines will not be crossed, regardless of who is telling me what. Keep in mind that talking about non-compliance could still be construed as a violation of the THR guidelines against discussing criminal activity. So don't discuss it. But be prepared to defend at the very least, your own liberty, if not the liberty of others.

All I'm saying is that I'm not just going to roll over and say "Yes Sir" anything and everything. You can choose your own course. I've chosen mine.
 
AlexanderA said:
"Just saying no" is not a strategy at all, as long as the antis have the votes. You have to at least use the power of persuasion to convince those who are still on the fence.

In reading gun boards and blogs, I'm struck by the disconnect between the stonewalling and blustering of the pro-gun side, and the emerging political reality. Gun owners are disproportionately white, old, Southern, rural, and male -- factors which define a shrinking demographic.

It's not a matter of "compromise." It's a matter of making the best of what's being forced upon us. This isn't being "defeatist" -- it's being smart.

I'm a student of history. The parallels are striking between what's happening now in the gun debate, and what happened in the 1850's in the runup to the Civil War. In both cases, you had/have a group fighting a rear-guard action to defend what it perceived as its rights. And we know how that turned out in the earlier case.
Click to expand...

THAT's making the best of it? Seriously, that's your message as a student of history? (And btw, isnt everyone in the South now better off? I mean *everyone?*)

If you feel that the demographic you mentioned is now marrooned and isolated, diminishing...shouldnt you be working on making ALLIES instead of waiting to go extinct? Or working with the other demographics, to find common ground? (I believe that that common ground is the Constitution, just IMO)

Seems like an attitude problem to me, not a demographic one.

Here's just one example: One area that is under attack STILL after centuries is women's rights...equal wages, reproductive rights, birth control, etc. We're still hearing about 'legitimate rape.' And you wonder why it's hard to gain ground with other demographic groups?


Adapt or die....I guess you were partially right. But I see no reason why 'adapting' means flushing the Constitution....it means all Americans working together. Everywhere in the natural world, more diversity means more strength, more ability to survive.
 
Many of us have been saying "no" to compromise. Compromise without getting anything in return is surrender or concession. Until the opposition starts offering actual compromise by giving something in return, there will be no further negotiations.
 
What I'm trying to say is that in the sausage-making that is now going on on Capitol Hill, the NRA and its allies are not really players, because of its decision to stonewall. It's almost a certainty that some kind of bill will pass. By default, the pro-gun side is being represented by some friendly Senators that the gun activists are quick to label "Quislings." We need to jump in and present our input in a meaningful way, not just keep shouting "no!" to the unhearing wall. BTW, the idea that UBC's cannot be implemented without national registration is just not persuading anyone (outside the hard-core gun activists). The more the NRA insists on this assertion, the more it lays itself open to mockery.
 
http://www.nraila.org/media/10883516...olicy-memo.pdf
Or
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=702992&p=8739561

This is a link to a Justice memo published 04 Jan 2013. It's only 9 pages long. It's intended to be a short summary of findings and policy recommendations. The real agenda outlined is shockingly plain and frightening in the extreme. These people ADMIT ubc will require full registration, and that registration will facilitate confiscation. They ADVISE that gun control will only work on a much larger and more restrictive scale than being publicly discussed.

This is not conspiracy theory tin hattery. This is a government document given to President Obama by the NIJ less than 6 weeks ago, and it is VERY PLAIN in its meaning.

This administration WANTS YOUR GUNS. Any statements to the contrary, any soft words about reasonable compromises that respect your rights, are UTTER BS LIES.

Don't take my word for it, but don't dismiss this as hyperbole or "tin hat" craziness until you READ THE NIJ MEMO.
 
Last edited:
If the second amendment can be legislated then they all can be and I would must surely push to have members of the so called main stream press criminalized for biased reporting.


Posted from Thehighroad.org App for Android
 
Alexander,

Some of us are students of history. Some of us can also make accurate comparisons- so we know there is no similarity between the Old South's agrarian, labor-intensive slave owner-ruled society, and the freedoms the majority of states have re-won in the past 13 years. It's not too late to continue advancing, to continue re-taking our freedoms. Do you really think that a few rural white Americans have made the AR-15 the most popular rifle in the US? Is it "reality" to think that a few old white males have bought 4 years worth of ammunition and firearms in the last 3 months?

Don't go looking for concessions. Our enemies are desparate. Don't give an inch.

John
 
You aren't going to win an argument with people who aren't being honest, or the people who these liars have tricked. Just say no.
Click to expand...
LKB3rd is on target.

I believe history has well established that widespread civil disobediance is a completely legitimate and effective response to injustice. No matter what happens if at the end of the day they come for your civil right to defense and liberty just say no; then resist until you prevail.
 
Let's make THEM make concessions and roll back some of these unreasonable and non-common sense laws and restrictions.
 
Massive noncompliance and non-violence. Gotta love those Canadians. There is a lesson of history to be learned from beyond our northern border. Agreed.

One step at a time.
 
AlexanderA, I haven't seen you do anything in these threads but plead compromise and then drop out and/or refuse to respond to very good responses to your post. Then you do the same song and dance in some new thread. Why is that?
 
AlexanderA, I haven't seen you do anything in these threads but plead compromise and then drop out and/or refuse to respond to very good responses to your post. Then you do the same song and dance in some new thread. Why is that?
Click to expand...

The 2nd Amendment absolutists are right -- in theory. (That's why I don't want to argue with them.) The situation in Congress is what it is, however. Something is going to get passed, whether we like it or not. What I'm trying to say is that we should have some input into this process. Simply naysaying gives us zero influence. We need to put some creative counterproposals on the table.

Here's another thing to keep in mind -- by taking a hard-line stance on "universal background checks," the NRA (let's face it, it's the main organization speaking for gun owners) is setting itself up for a defeat. Once it's defeated on such a high-profile issue, it will be easier for congressmen to defy it next time. This is exactly what the antigunners are counting on. They want a confrontation with the NRA on an issue that's considered in Washington to be "low hanging fruit." The NRA would be well advised to avoid this confrontation. Choose your battles carefully. The fight over magazine-capacity bans is next, and the result there would be far worse than getting UBC's.

Of course, both sides are playing a sort of Kabuki theater, in public, for the benefit of their own supporters, hoping to get financial contributions. (This is what happens when grass-roots movements evolve into structured institutions such as the NRA, the Brady Campaign, etc., with big offices and high executive salaries.) Who knows what discussions are really going on behind the scenes, in private?

As you can see, I'm focussed on legislative tactics, not philosophy. I'll leave the philosophical discussions to others.
 
We already won the legislative battle when they wrote the 2nd amendment. This is the simplest way to make my original point. Act like it. Remind them of that. Tell them publicly that THEY will be the law breakers if and when they pass these laws.
 
Here's another thing to keep in mind -- by taking a hard-line stance on "universal background checks," the NRA (let's face it, it's the main organization speaking for gun owners) is setting itself up for a defeat. Once it's defeated on such a high-profile issue, it will be easier for congressmen to defy it next time. This is exactly what the antigunners are counting on. They want a confrontation with the NRA on an issue that's considered in Washington to be "low hanging fruit." The NRA would be well advised to avoid this confrontation. Choose your battles carefully.
Click to expand...
So your answer is to ADMIT defeat on an important issue and acquiesce? Or worse, ignore the issue and pretend we don't care? That's your grand strategy?

Neither I, nor a huge number of other gun-rights advocates, nor most of the opposition, could maintain any respect for the NRA if they were to so blatantly betray their members and their cause.

If we lose, we lose -- on this one issue -- but we can make them pay in blood (political capital) for every inch they take, leaving them no energy for the next fight.

If they win on UBC, let us make the victory so very, very costly and painful that they (or rather, the more moderate politicians who are swayed to vote with them on this issue) have not an ounce of energy (or the political will) to fight us on the next front.

You say one victory will open the door to others. I say, BALONEY. IF they win this (and I'm not ready to concede defeat, here, not by a mile), then lets leave them so burned, so bloodied, so utterly ruined by the fight that they are comprehensively spent. As they say, make it their "hill to die on."

If we stand strong, as the NRA seems ready to do, none of their political friends and middle-grounders looking for something "reasonable" will have ANY will to touch another gun issue for the rest of their political careers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M
  • Locked
Thought Experiment: Second Amendment
Replies
11
Views
1K
Baba Louie
Baba Louie
V
  • Locked
We need to have national registration
Replies
6
Views
595
FIVETWOSEVEN
FIVETWOSEVEN
U
  • Locked
This isn't good - Opposite reaction we need for pro-gun senators
Replies
16
Views
846
Panzerschwein
Panzerschwein
U
  • Locked
One battle won, now we need to remove those who voted to infringe upon the 2nd Amd
Replies
2
Views
335
usmarine0352_2005
U
V
  • Locked
SCOTUS says release felons due to overcrowding
Replies
6
Views
466
rbernie
rbernie
Back
Top