Posted on 02/06/2013 2:00:45 PM PST by backwoods-engineer
I respect 'Ol Remus down yonder at the Woodpile Report. He is somethin' of an inspiration to me and mine here in the Backwoods. And this week, he has given us a lot to think about.
His basic premises are: 1) We don't have to show "need" to exercise a protected right, and 2) every infringement of the 2nd Amendment is already un-Constitutional, and should be rolled back.
I agree. Let's take a look at his arguments.
(Excerpt) Read more at backwoodsengineer.com ...
A right requires no justification, no demonstration of need, it merely is. The people do and should have the right to keep and bear arms of their own choosing, the same small arms police officers or light infantry have, if they wish, including fully automatic weapons. There's no such thing as common sense infringement, or reasonable infringement. Infringement is infringement. It's specifically forbidden.
This seems so simple, so plain-spoken, so black-and-white, it's bound to drive the Progressives nuts. That may be, but "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" means what it says.
What is being protected here? "The right of the people.". What is being restricted? Actions of the government (federal, state, and local) are, as in the remainder of the Bill of Rights. The government is specifically prohibited from infringing this right. Any law must meet this very strict test.
Okay, so let's take the popular "common sense" gun laws and proposals one by one, and check if they meet this test. I ain't no lawyer, but let's think about this, with backwoods common sense.
Banning specific types of arms? Banning fully automatic weapons? "Assault weapons"? Government infringement, because we know those laws set up a distorted black market for certain disfavored arms, but not the favored. Anyone who owns only a banned weapon and hasn't the means to buy another to comply with the law has their right infringed.
Banning specific types of magazines, or number of rounds carried? Government infringement. Easy example: an attack by a large criminal band quickly disarms the peaceable citizen. Right infringed.
Gun-Free school zones? Government infringement. Carrying a weapon is a protected right, with no infringement permitted because of location.
Ammo taxes? Special insurance? Taxes on specific weapons or accessories (suppressors)?
All government infringement. There is no clause in the 2nd that allows the government to assess 'need'. And any burden laid on the citizen regarding this right is an infringement.
Concealed vs. open carry? Requiring concealed carry permits? FOID cards?
Sorry, government infringement. The manner of carrying is not exempted from infringement.
Ol' Remus makes the point that the right to keep and bear arms is separate from crime and punishment:
Defending gun rights with arguments about self-defense and sporting use are not so much wrong as irrelevant, as are notions about wider gun ownership suppressing crime. The Second Amendment isn't conditional on the crime rate. As a practical matter, murder will continue to be illegal whether the victim is shot with a gun or beaten to death with a can of tomato juice. Defenders of gun rights are unwise to use these arguments, the fundamental issue was settled definitively in 1789.
I may want to kill government tyrants, or defend myself from criminals, or shoot little pink balloons, or deer, or prairie dogs, or skeet. The use case is irrelevant to the proscription on the government to infringe. The reasons I want to keep and carry arms are irrelevant to the no-infringment stance of the 2nd. Whether arms are used in crime is a separate issue; infringing a protected right is still disallowed.
Ol' Remus also cautions against appealing to the Supreme Court:
Appeals to the Supreme Court are also wrong, the court awarded itself the authority to rule on the Constitutionality of laws, it's a power it does not have other than by acquiescence. The Bill of Rights was written by the people, in plain language. The Supreme Court can't legitimately presume to speak in its place, rights which predate the republic don't exist now only as they define them, they were recognized as-is by the same document that brought the court into existence, and of the two, the court is the lesser. Rights are the purpose of governance, the court is only part of the plumbing.
Yep. Marbury v. Madison established judicial review, but did not give the Court the power to dilute the Bill of Rights, or any other part of the Constitution. Ol' Backwoods has been told by a county attorney that it did. Well, Thomas Jefferson disagrees:
You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.... Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. The Progressives want to empower the government to infringe rights, but stare decisis (settled court cases) cannot carry the weight that the Constitution itself does.
Ol' Remus continues, referring to the pile of horse hockey that is US v. Miller, and secondarily, Wickard v. Filburn:
Nor is trust in the good faith of the Supreme Court warranted. For one egregious example of their malfeasance, outright betrayal to be plain, it is they who elevated the Commerce Clause above our civil liberties. It's a clause intended to make commerce regular from one state to any other state, to keep Connecticut from imposing a surcharge on peanuts from Virginia for instance. By knowingly expanding this into an enabling act to disarm the people, the court placed itself above the law and, therefore, outside the law.
If the Supreme Court strikes down 2nd Amendment infringement (as in Prinz v. US, US v. Lopez, DC v. Heller and others), great, it's performing its Constitutional function. But if the Court codifies infringement (as in US v. Miller), it is in conflict with the Constitution, and it is up to the states or the people to stop it.
Ol' Remus continues by arguing that any infringement in law, past present or future, of our right to keep and bear arms is unConstitutional, lock stock and "shoulder thing that goes up". Ol' Remus says it better'n I can:
The "not one more inch" position is necessary but insufficient. It assumes and accepts infringement already in place. Nor can we vote for or against a right and continue to call it a right, as when we vote for candidates who conditionally support the Second Amendment. Doing so implies we've obliged ourselves to additional infringement when they compromise, which they will.
"Compromise" in Congress, as Alan Gottlieb puts it, means they take some of our rights today, and come back for the rest tomorrow. This has been borne out time and again in the history of US, state and local laws infringing the right to keep and bear arms. Ol' Remus lists past infringements at the federal level:
The National Firearms Act of 1934 specifies minimum barrel lengths and other mandatory features, criminalizes the possession of silencers and fully automatic firearms. The Federal Firearms Act of 1938 regulates sales of guns and ammunition.
The Gun Control Act of 1968 introduces the FFL system, ends buying guns by mail order, limits importing military arms, and creates a 'sporting use' requirement for civilian firearms. It has since been disclosed the Nazi Weapons Law of 1938 was used as a template.
Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, modifies some abuses of the 1968 Act, adds the Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban and a total ban of fully auto weapons not registered as of 1986.
The Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. [Which was struck down by US v. Lopez and others] The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993, creates the federal background check system.
The 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, known as the "assault weapons ban". It [sunset] in 2004.
The HUD/Smith and Wesson agreement of 2000, in which Smith & Wesson "voluntarily" changed the design, distribution and marketing of their guns.
Indeed, almost every time Congress takes up legislation on the right to keep and bear arms, our rights are infringed.
This must end.
Let me play devil’s advocate here for a second. The 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms, but it also recognizes the need for a well regulated militia. Now the argument goes that we are all part of the militia. I agree, but it calls for a well regulated militia. Under that structure would it not be permissible for the states, not the feds, to require registration for the purpose of regulating the militia members and also require periodic demonstration of member skill with the weapons. I am surprised that this approach has not been used by the gun control lobby. It recognizes the inalienable right and allows a state participation. I am open to any and all flames, but I think the replies are important since I can see this argument being put forward in the near future.
“The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed and that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of press.” Thomas Jefferson
MOLON LABE
I agree. Any man too dangerous to own a gun should be in prison. The simple fact is that far too many are restricted now.
However, I will say now that a) "well-regulated" means well-equipped and operated efficiently, and b) a free state must have gun owners from which to form a militia. Standing armies, like big-city police forces, DHS goons, even our formal military were all frowned upon by the Founding Fathers, for good reason: they are the instruments of tyranny.
The Framers meant something different from the modern definition of “regulation”. More like “well-armed”.
“well regulated militia”
American English is a dynamic language. At the time that was written, “well regulated” meant “well equipped”, NOT “well controlled”. As late as the Civil War, one newspaper reported that an Ohio regiment was “well regulated, being armed with Sharp’s breechloading rifles”.
Ask someone today what the 1930s Fred Astaire movie titled “The Gay Divorcee” is about and see what replies you get.
Don’t get sucked in by that, oftentimes intentionally mis-transleted term, “well-regulated”.
Well said! I agree completely.
“This seems so simple, so plain-spoken, so black-and-white, it’s bound to drive the Progressives nuts. That may be, but “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” means what it says.”
But what does it say? If it’s simple, plain-spoken, and black-and-white the answer should be easy.
In your post 5 you wrote “I am planning a post on the meaning of that phrase, “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state.” What’s needed more is a post on the meaning of the phrase “The right of the people to keep and bear arms.”
If I, as one of the people, have the right to keep and bear arms, does that include the right to do so on your real property if you don’t want me to? Is a law against keeping and bearing arms on the real property of someone who forbids it an infringement?
Several years ago in England, a man was killed by a weapon disguised as an umbrella that injected a poison pellet into him. The purpose of such a weapon is murder, assassination. Such a weapon has no moral purpose, as far as I know, in society. Is such a weapon covered by “The right of the people to keep and bear arms”?
Gun control laws are constitutional after “due process of law”. It is constitutional to pass a law abridging a person’s right to keep and bear arms after having been convicted of a specified crime.
It has been expanded to court determined mental illness.
It is now being expanded to administrative determination of violation of administrative regulations and administrative determination of mental illness.
Anyone who insists on carrying a gun is obviously mentally ill in the eyes of the administrators. :)
The gun nut is subject to the soon to be adopted regulations of a Healthcare Task force because, as we all know, gun deaths are a healthcare issue, not a law enforcement issue or issue of dead white guys dead 200 years. :)
THE UNABRIDGED SECOND AMENDMENTBut who would you call if you wanted the top expert on American usage, to tell you the meaning of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution ?
That was the question I asked A.C. Brocki, editorial coordinator of the Los Angeles Unified School District and formerly senior editor at Houghton Mifflin Publishers -- who himself had been recommended to me as the foremost expert on English usage in the Los Angeles school system. Mr. Brocki told me to get in touch with Roy Copperud, a retired professor of journalism at the University of Southern California and the author of "American Usage and Style: The Consensus."
(snip)
"In reply to your numbered questions:
[Schulman:] "(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to 'a well-regulated militia'?"
[Copperud:] "(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people."
[Schulman:] "(2) Is 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right 'shall not be infringed'?"
[Copperud:] "(2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia."
[Schulman:] "(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia, is, in fact necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' null and void?"
[Copperud:] "(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence."
[Schulman:] "(4) Does the clause 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,' grant a right to the government to place conditions on the 'right of the people to keep and bear arms,' or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?"
[Copperud:] "(4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia."
[Schulman:] "(5) Which of the following does the phrase 'well-regulated militia' mean: 'well-equipped', 'well-organized,' 'well-drilled,' 'well-educated,' or 'subject to regulations of a superior authority'?"
[Copperud:] "(5) The phrase means 'subject to regulations of a superior authority;' this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military."
The phrase, “The People”, appears more than once and I personally believe it should be defined *exactly* the same way each time it appears. I do not believe our founding fathers were playing word games and I think they wrote quite clearly.
I’m with Ol’ Remus on this: It doesn’t even warrant discussion, unless the discussion is to confirm rolling back *ALL* gun laws. That should be the only discussion we should entertain. Anything else should only warrant a resounding, “NO!”.
Lost in the gun rights debate, much to the detriment of American freedom, is the fact that the Second Amendment is in fact an "AMENDMENT". No "Articles in Amendment" to the Constitution, more commonly referred to as the Bill of Rights, stand alone and each can only be properly understood with reference to what it is that each Article in Amendment amended in the body of the original Constitution. It should not be new knowledge to any American the Constitution was first submitted to Congress on September 17, 1787 WITHOUT ANY AMENDMENTS. After much debate, it was determined that the States would not adopt the Constitution as originally submitted until "further declamatory and restrictive clauses should be added" "in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its (the Constitutions) powers". (This quote is from the Preamble to the Amendments, which was adopted along with the Amendments but is mysteriously missing from nearly all modern copies.) The first ten Amendments were not ratified and added to the Constitution until December 15, 1791.
In this Light:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." What provisions of the original Constitution is it that the Second Amendment is designed to "amended"?
THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS AMENDING THE PROVISIONS IN THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION APPLYING TO THE "MILITIA". The States were not satisfied with the powers granted to the "militia" as defined in the original Constitution and required an amendment to "prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers. "(Again quoting from the Preamble to the Amendments.)
What was it about the original Constitutional provisions concerning the "Militia" that was so offensive to the States?
First understand that the word "militia" was used with more than one meaning at the time of the penning of the Constitution. One popular definition used then was one often quoted today, that the "Militia" was every able bodied man owning a gun. As true as this definition is, it only confuses the meaning of the word "militia" as used in the original Constitution that required the Second Amendment to correct. The only definition of "Militia" that had any meaning to the States demanding Amendments is the definition used in the original Constitution. What offended the States then should offend "People" today:
"Militia" in the original Constitution as amended by the Second Amendment is first found in Article 1, Section 8, clause 15, where Congress is granted the power:
"To provide for the calling forth the MILITIA to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrection and repel Invasions." Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16 further empowers Congress:
"To provide for the organizing, arming, and disciplining, the MILITIA, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;" Any "patriot" out there still want to be called a member of the "MILITIA" as defined by the original Constitution?
Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1 empowers: "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the MILITIA of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;" The only way the States would accept the "MILITIA" as defined in the original Constitution was that the Federal "MILITIA" be "WELL REGULATED". The States realized that "THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE" required that the "MILITIA" as originally created in the Constitution be "WELL REGULATED" by a "restrictive clause." How did the States decide to insure that the Constitutional "MILITIA" be "WELL REGULATED"? By demanding that "restrictive clause two" better know as the "Second Amendment" be added to the original Constitution providing:
"THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." The States knew that "PEOPLE" with "ARMS" would "WELL REGULATE" the Federal "MILITIA"!
Now read for the first time with the full brightness of the Light of truth:
"A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."
For those still overcome by propaganda:
The Second Amendment declares by implication that if the "MILITIA" is not "WELL REGULATED" by "PEOPLE" keeping and bearing arms, the "MILITIA" becomes a threat to the "SECURITY OF A FREE STATE."
The "MILITIA" has no "RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS" in the Second Amendment, rather it is only "THE RIGHT OF THE ""PEOPLE"" TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS (that) SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."
“Several years ago in England, a man was killed by a weapon disguised as an umbrella that injected a poison pellet into him. The purpose of such a weapon is murder, assassination. Such a weapon has no moral purpose, as far as I know, in society. Is such a weapon covered by “The right of the people to keep and bear arms”?”
It could be used to kill a thief without disturbing the neighbors, or to drop an unsuspecting mugger who only has a knife. Sounds like it ought to be protected....
Agreed, and thank you.
We should start by introducing a bill in the House to repeal the Gun Free School Zones Act, an onerous law that creates free killing zones around our children.
I agree:
Please send this around if you agree
Th time to execute this War with our 2nd Amendment Rights on our terms.
Please consider the following. Make call and send some e-mails.... Make industry and the NRA work for us!
Gun Control; Time to Fight
As consumers and 2nd Amendment advocates, we have to engage an economic boycott of all ammunition and firearms covering the entire State of NY; Citizens & Government while pulling an “Alinsky” Andrew Cuomo when executing the boycott. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules for Radicals)
The embargo ends when the current NY Government agrees all NY State Citizens have a 2nd Amendment Right to own any quantity and all types firearms, those made 400 years ago and those to be made in the future!
How
The firearms industry from top to bottom completely terminate sales of a firearms and ammunition to all of NY State, citizens to Government to include the Federal Government offices in NY State till the State of NY recognizes the US Constitution and its own State Constitution starting on 12 February 2013.
To the Citizens aka Serfs in NY State
You will suffer till you elect representatives that respect the Constitutions. You made your bed, now go lie down in it! If you are a gun owner in NY you are a Serf, and it sucks to be you. If you are a believer
in Gun Control, great! Now your Government will have no guns too! NY Government can continue to prosecute the criminals without guns or ammunition.
To all Government in NY State
You want gun control for your Citizens and Taxpayers? Well the rest of us out here think that concept is flawed. The rest of the Country think you, the Government should be just as restricted or more so restricted than the law abiding taxpayer…….how do you like not having “Assault Rifles”, High Capacity Magazines or no Ammunition now? If it sucks for you Mr & Mrs. Government Employee in NY State……well it sucks to a NY State Citizen under the current laws too!
Respect your citizens/ taxpayer and Constitutions.
To Industry: Time to break the bully’s’ face
Andrew Cuomo and Elizabeth Warren will be running on the 2016 Democrat Presidential ticket. With record sales in other markets, there will be zero impact if all NY sales terminated tomorrow. If the NY State Government along with the SAFE act are not reigned in, this cancer will only spread. Time to fight the bully and make the bully understand in no uncertain terms, the 2nd Amendment is very important, has nothing to do with hunting and everything to do with citizens/sovereigns reigning in and eliminating out of control Government, foreign or Domestic.
To the Citizens of the “other 56” States
Call every manufacturer of ammunition and firearms and tell them to stand up to Andrew Cuomo and the NY State Government by completely boycotting all sales to NY State till the SAFE Act, Assault weapons ban and any other restrictions to firearms ownership are removed. Respect the 2nd Amendment or pay the consequences. Boycott NY State or we as consumers will boycott your company!
Federal Ammunition, Winchester/OLIN, FN USA, FN Herstal, Remington, Freedom Firearms Group, Colt, S&W, Glock, Lewis Machine Tool, Heckler & Koch, Sig-Sauer… etc.
Call the NRA and every other gun rights organization to support the industry boycott of NY State and make sure that Andrew Cuomo owns it!
Contact them all and tell them you support a NY State Firearms and Ammunition Boycott!
Andrew Cuomo
Mr. Cuomo owns this. Every Answer, every utterance about this initiative is his. This will end his chances for President in 2016.
When NY State Government Officials complain: ANSWER Call Andy…. When NYC Police Commissioner
Ray Kelly and NYC Mayor Bloomberg whines… ANSWER: Call ANDY! When the UN security teams in
NYC complain….. answer Andrew Cuomo…..When hunters in NY complain: ANSWER: Andrew Cuomo….. when non gun owners fear the “cops” will not be armed: ANSWER Andrew Cuomo. When any NY State Citizen comments, complains, or utters any thought about their safety: ANSWER Andrew Cuomo.
If it drags on and a NY Citizen or Police Officer is killed due to no training ammunition the answer is: Andrew Cuomo
When the news media runs a story explaining the criminals gangs think this boycott is great cuz the Po
Po ain’t gots noz bullets…. The answer is Andrew Cuomo
Andrew Cuomo is your fear, Andrew Cuomo is your pain, and Andrew Cuomo is your lack of security…..your lack of ammunition and firearms.. Governor Cuomo can heal that pain….
When Mr. Cuomo buckles: the left will hate him. The Left will punish him
NO negotiations, NO middle of the road,
Nothing but recognition of the Individual Taxpayers Rights to Firearms Ownership
When NY State Government recognizes the Rights of the Citizens, then and only then will sales resume
MAKE EVERY Gun Grabbing Democrat or Republican politician fear being “Coumo’d” by Taxpayers that believe in the Second Amendment.
The Common Sense Solution is already in place: Current NY State Constitution ARTICLE XII*
DEFENSE
[Defense; militia]
Section 1. The defense and protection of the state and of the United
States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature
shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized.
For clarity and intent here is the original language from 1777
XL. And whereas it is of the utmost importance to the safety of every State that it should always be in a condition of defence; and it is the duty of every man who enjoys the protection of society to be prepared and willing to defend it; this convention therefore, in the name and by the authority of the good people of this State, doth ordain, determine, and declare that the militia of this State, at all times hereafter, as well in peace as in war, shall be armed and disciplined, and in readiness for service.
(just a small observation: As read, the citizens of NY State should be fully armed “the duty of every man” , not the NY State Government or any Employee that takes a pay check from TAX REVENUE. Right now, it is completely backwards! NY State should be more like Switzerland of 2012 and less like Nazi Germany of 1938.)
And
US Constitution 2nd Amendment, which by the way is now in been affirmed as incorporated and defined to protect the individual’s right to own firearms, via the Heller decision
If a citizen and Militia member in NY cannot own it, can neither a NY State Government Agency nor
Employee. That is common sense and that is the current Constitution!
Make Mr. Cuomo recognize that fact. See the rules below and start making Andy Cuomo’s political life painful or we will be dealing with him and his venal ilk in 2016!
Addendum:
The rules
RULE 1: “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood.
How: NY State Boycott of all arms and ammunition, starting with NY State Government, local
Government and all NY State Citizens/Taxpayers/Serfs
RULE 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone.
We all know firearms and the Second Amendment. Time to say NO to the Bullies in NY State!
RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty.
NY State Government will be clueless on how to handle a boycott by Industry initiated by Taxpayers from the other “56” States.
RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules.
No Rights to own Firearms for Citizens = No Rights, exemptions, or any other weasel language to possess
Firearms or ammunition for Government Employees anywhere in NY
If a NY State Citizen cannot buy the firearms/magazines/ammunition…. Nor can a Government Entity or
Government Employee in NY State
RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It is irrational. It is infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.
Call Andrew Cuomo, he owns: your lack of Rights, your lack of security, or lack of ammunition or lack of firearms
RULE 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more.
They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones.
For those of us outside of NY State: More product available and we end this gun control issue for a while
For those in NY State: Think of this as Chemo-therapy for gun control cancer; the process is not very enjoyable, but the results of killing off the gun control cancer are worth it.
Enjoy watching the NY State bureaucrats squirm and fuss
Enjoy watching the anti- gun types freak when the Government is not armed either! Que Mike Bloomberg, NY Police Union types and the UN idiots “guns for our security now! While leaving the taxpayers un-armed”
ENJOY ANDREW COUMO GET POUNDED ON ALL SIDES and watch his 2016 chances go away!
RULE 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news.
Start this MONTH, it won’t last long!
Abe Lincoln took on slavery, so let us free taxpayers that enjoy firearms and the 2nd Amendment from being treated like Dred Scott honor Mr. Lincoln and start the BOYCOTT on 12 February 2013!
Call or e-mail every manufacturer of firearms and ammunition and demand they BOYCOTT all sales to NY STATE! Call and/or e-mail the NRA, NSSF, and SAMMI and demand they support a BOYCOTT of all firearms and ammunition to NY State to begin on February 12, 2013 starting with the NY State Government due to ANDREW Cuomo!
RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new.
The Boycott Ends when LAWS are repealed, not amended, not replaced…REPEALED and Law Abiding
Citizens & Taxpayers RIGHTS are recognized
RULE 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist.
NOT A THREAT. DEMAND a total BOYCOTT and make sure Andrew Cuomo owns it!
RULE 10: “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.” It is the unceasing pressure that will result in the reaction of the opposition that is essential for the success of the campaign.
The enraged Parties such as the NY State Police, Local Police, Government Employee Unions and finally
Citizens/Serf will be plenty of pressure on Mr. Cuomo.
RULE 11: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog.
Common Sense will prevail
RULE 12: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem.
No Compromise: The answers & solutions are already in place, the NY State Constitution and the US Constitution
RULE 13: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.
ANDREW COUMO
“It could be used to kill a thief without disturbing the neighbors, or to drop an unsuspecting mugger who only has a knife.”
It was useful to kill, not to stop and it didn’t kill right away. It took the victim three days to die. I don’t see it as much good for stopping a thief or a mugger in the moment.
In Ohio, and some other places, you aren’t allowed to shoot or otherwise use force to purposely kill and aggressor, only to stop him. If the aggressor ends up “killed” by your use of force, it should be a side effect of the effort to stop him, not an intent to kill him. If you intentionally harmed him in a way that wouldn’t stop him in the moment but would cause his death later, you might be charged with murder
A stronger poison, something that acted within minutes, would probably be the solution to that particular “problem”. In more enlightened states like NC we are allowed to use deadly force if we think our lives in danger. Most DAs in such states understand if the citizens remove some of society’s stains it is likely to result in a trial where the jury agrees with the shooter, and likely to benefit society in the long run if some creep is no longer in it.
What you propose (not new) presupposes the government takes an interest in knowing who is armed for the purpose of training, organizing, and calling upon them in need. This is the opposite of today’s intent of registration, which is to create a series of discouraging stumbling blocks to the lawful acquisition of arms, and the alleged justification that anyone not so registered is a presumed criminal. The Militia Act of 1792 required registration as you suggest; that I could live with, but so long as the government expresses zero interest in registration as a facilitation of regional and national defense, I have zero interest in them knowing what I have.
An alternate interpretation of the militia clause amounts to “the fact that the country has a standing army in no way gives excuse to the notion of hindering citizens from acquiring, keeping, and using weapons.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.