Skip to comments.We Must Control the Second Amendment Conflict
Posted on 01/04/2013 11:22:29 AM PST by Winged Hussar
The side that controls the language of an argument controls the argument, and the side that takes and maintains the offensive controls the entire conflict. The enemy must then react to our actions instead of making us react to his, and continue to react until he is no longer capable of fighting. We are indeed at war with an adversary with whom good faith and win-win negotiation are not possible.
Recognize Incrementalism for What It Is
Incrementalism is the process whereby an aggressor who cannot achieve his entire long-term objective immediately will seek to do it a piece at a time. The free world's failure to take seriously "Germany today, tomorrow the world" brought untold misery to millions of people. The Arab approach to the destruction of Israel also is incrementalist: Gaza and the West Bank today, and Tel Aviv tomorrow.
The anti-Second Amendment camp's agenda also is incrementalist. Dianne Feinstein now talks about so-called assault weapons, but we must not forget her openly stated desire to ban all handguns -- even revolvers. "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them ... Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here." That's all we need to hear, and all we need to know. This is the civil rights version of "Germany today, tomorrow the world."
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
I’m not at all for arguing, conversing about, the ins and outs of what the Second Amendment is, what an Assault Rifle is, how big of a magazine does one need, and so on.
The number one argument is the Second Amendment, period. No hunting, no magazine size, no distinction - it says ARMS, period.
We stand on this or fall to tyranny and we’ll have to decide whether to drag the rest of the sane part of this country in on a conflagration just like our Founding Fathers had to do.
No polite ‘conversation’, no appeasement, no incrementalism - not one bit!
Eventually there will be confiscation.
How can we make the job of confiscator so unpalatable no one will take it?
To assist in making the author’s point:
There was no AK used in the Newton shootings.
There was a long gun in the trunk of his car.
All shooting was from FOUR handguns.
The Sheriff and M.E. LIED!
In Aurora, the rifle jammed early and MOST of the damage was done with the buckshot from the shotgun.
The media and LEOs have made this information VERY difficult to find.
There are a few things that could be done, but I’m not going to detail them here...all I can say is forewarned is forearmed - be diligent and think about what you want to do.
Make sure that confiscation becomes a high-risk occupation.
Having found it, now, perhaps you would share a source?
ya know, not everybody has 24/7 to do your homework for you....
1st - Weapon too damn long for an AR
2nd - no rifle brought into the school....only 4 handguns
The anti-Second Amendment camp’s agenda also is incrementalist. Dianne Feinstein now talks about so-called assault weapons, but we must not forget her openly stated desire to ban all handguns — even revolvers.
Nelson T. ‘Pete’ Shields
Founder of Handgun Control, Inc.
“I’m convinced that we have to have federal legislation to build on. We’re going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily given the political realities going to be very modest. Of course, it’s true that politicians will then go home and say, ‘This is a great law. The problem is solved.’
And it’s also true that such statements will tend to defuse the gun-control issue for a time. So then we’ll have to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen that law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we’d be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice.
Our ultimate goal total control of handguns in the United States is going to take time. My estimate is from seven to ten years. The problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns sold in this country.
The second problem is to get them all registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors totally illegal.”
-Pete Shields, Chairman and founder, Handgun Control Inc., “A Reporter At Large: Handguns,” The New Yorker, July 26, 1976, 57-58
BREAKING NEWS: CT School Shooter Killer Link To LIBOR SCANDAL
Libor scandal grows as the fathers of two mass murderers were to testify
Gunmans computers may be key in Connecticut school shooting investigation
“Im not at all for arguing, conversing about, the ins and outs of what the Second Amendment is...”
To not do so is a concession to our opposition and what they will come up with unopposed, they will use to persuade those in the middle to their benefit and our detriment.
I’m disappointed that you’ve bought into this ‘conversation’ stuff. You really should know by now that when you debate them on their opening arguments and points, they change them to something else midstream when they find out you’re open to debating it.
Being ‘open’ to debating it is the same thing as surrender in their eyes, and they have a dozen, two dozen other silly ass “touchy-feely” heart tug questions and debate points to further draw you up in an unwinable ‘conversation’... you cannot win this ‘conversation’ with the media (all of it, even your drive time, and your teachers and their unions, etc.) You just can’t.
When a liberal I know brought up the great concern we should all have for "global warming", I asked him how much warming there had been since 1998.
He said he wasn't sure but thought that it was "about 3 degrees", I told him that the answer was ZERO.
He immediately responded, "Well what about all the glaciers melting?"
The fact that there might have been NO WARMING FOR 14 YEARS seemed to have little relevance whatever.
Is there any conclusive proof of what guns were and weren’t used in the Newtown shootings? A Remington shotgun (not a rifle) was in the trunk, that’s all I know.
There are so many ways to do that it would take a book to describe them all.
Absence of discipline of children is the problem. ABSOLUTELY.
“Im disappointed that youve bought into this conversation stuff.”
Actually, I’m more interested in a conversation among those on our side of the issue.
Stipulated: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms” pre-exists and does not depend on the US Constitution even though it is stated in and protected by that document. An owner of real property has no such clearly stated right in regard to real property. Obviously, a real property owner may not rightfully prevent one of the people to “keep and bear arms” while on the real property owner’s real property.
If you are not at all for arguing, conversing about, the ins and outs of what the Second Amendment is..., your possibly helpful thoughts on the above stipulation may remain unknown to others who would be helped by them.
The number one argument is the Second Amendment, period.
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.
Don't like my position?
Here’s my conversation. “No.”
The 4th Amendment and its unreasonable search and SEIZURE protection affirms property rights. Especially so when in the case of arms the second amendment affirms the right. There is no question at all here for me
That should cover it...
And it says "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures..."
Interesting. That changes the stipulation as follows:
Stipulated: The right of the people to keep and bear arms pre-exists and does not depend on the US Constitution even though it is stated in and protected by that document. And "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" pre-exists and does not depend on the US Constitution even though it is stated in and protected by that document. Obviously, absent any other such clearly stated right in regard to real property, a real property owner may not rightfully prevent one of the people to keep and bear arms while on the real property owners real property as long as the aforesaid "one of the people" is not violating the real property owner's right to be secure in his person, house, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.
This is the only response to the gun grabbers: “If you come to confiscate our firearms, we will kill you. End of discussion.”
>>How can we make the job of confiscator so unpalatable no one will take it?<<
I love the way you worded this.
They want that. They want a few high profile incidents which end in bloodshed. Then it becomes easier to send troops and drones in to get the “extremists”.
Make no mistake, they want and hope for a violent reaction from our side. Think about that.
And remember. Everything, and I mean everything, you say on line will be used against you. Don’t get all key board commando and end up arrested.
Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors.
I wonder if there is a way to send a message to those that would send people to our doors...I wonder.....
Those that SEND the people to your door will not BE the people at your door.
If those don’t get the job done; they’ll just send more.
The problem ain’t the ones that show up at your door.
Mine the friggin’ HARBOR!
The time has come to quit arguing with these anti-gun idiots, and to start turning them into dust.
Step one: stop calling them “assault” weapons. They are just plain old semi-automatic rifles. A technology first developed in the 19th century. You know like with the telegraph or steam powered railroads and back in the day when coal fueled everything and the mysterious, dangerous electricity was first used.
Hit them with the facts: The Mannlicher Model 85 semiautomatic rifle was first sold in 1885 (hence the 85 designation)
Repeat for every lie told.
The NRA needs a mini-seminar on Youtube for reporters & the general public on what is an isn’t a gun, magazine, clip, pistol, rifle, shotgun, revolver, semiauto and full auto. Make it under two minutes. Add a website link with the basic facts laid out and use pictures.
Just publish it as a journalist’s guide to guns (not the funny one) and let public humiliation do the rest. We just need a simple link to it and every anti-gun lie-filled story becomes moot. Bury them in the comments section. Their ignorance is fun. Let’s use it.