Posted on 02/17/2013 7:14:01 AM PST by EXCH54FE
his State of the Union address, President Obama doubled down on his gun-control proposals, again demanding that Congress ban so-called “assault weapons” and “high capacity magazines.” This is not a surprise. What has been a surprise are the increasingly open calls for defiance from gun owners, state legislatures, and local law enforcement. If the president’s proposals become law, he may move the country into turbulent waters we haven’t seen in many years.
Gun control has long been a controversial issue in American politics. However, there are three aspects to this issue that make this more volatile than other hot topics such as taxes, foreign policy, or abortion:
1) The strongest advocates of each side hold fundamentally irreconcilable positions.
On one hand, committed gun-control advocates say: “No one should be allowed to own certain weapons.” On the other hand, equally committed gun-rights advocates say: “No way in hell are we giving up these weapons.”
2) Ordinary Americans have declared their willingness to disobey the law.
New York state has already passed laws similar to Obama’s proposals. Gun owners there are now organizing a campaign of open civil disobedience, daring state officials to “come and take” their rifles. State officials already acknowledge that they will be unable to enforce the new law.
3) Local law enforcement officials and state governments have also vowed civil disobedience.
Over 280 sheriffs and eight state sheriffs’ associations have vowed to protect citizens’ Second Amendment rights against new gun laws.
The Utah Sheriffs’ Association used unusually strong language:
We, like you, swore a solemn oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and we are prepared to trade our lives for the preservation of its traditional interpretation.
Similarly, several state legislatures are considering laws to stop federal officials from enforcing new gun laws
(Excerpt) Read more at pjmedia.com ...
The tipping point? One would have thought that the murder of Randy Weaver's family at Ruby Ridge would have been your proverbial "tipping point".....What happened?
The tipping point? One would also have thought that the annihilation of the Branch Dividians would have been your proverbial "tipping point".......What happened?
Your argument has already occured as evidenced by the above and nobody cared. As I've stated many times, there will be no revolution as long as people have their jobs, mortgages and families to worry about............
I'm going to somewhat disagree. You see the Constitution worked marvelously until three things happened: (1) people-in-general began to believe, in effect, "the Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means" which has the result of assigning the Supreme Court into a position of authority over the Constitution [instead of being under it], (2) The supreme court caved into the cowardice of justifying the politically expedient*, and (3) the general populace accepted the idea that government was "the good guy."
* Two cases stand out in my mind: Wicard v. Filburn, wherein the Court bent over backward to justify illegitimate law [in effect saying "no commerce = commerce"]; and, secondly, Schenck v. United States wherein that court declared that, yes, the Congress could regulate speech/print.
Some explanation here (Schenck v. United States) is needed. The case got started when a man, a socialist actually, was arrested for distributing anti-war pamphlets against WWI. In these pamphlets he declared the war immoral and urged two things: first, that men would petition the government to get-out/stay-out of the war and, second, to refuse to comply with the draft. -- This is particularly important, because there have nearly always been exceptions to forcing people with a religious-based objection to military-action [e.g. Quakers] in American law. So if the war was immoral, then to compel someone to fight in it would also be immoral -- this has been recognized in America until fairly recently.
Anyway, it was in this case that the court gave the example of "shouting fire in a crowded theater" as justification that speech could indeed be restricted by a law enacted by congress. They ruled this way so as to not ruffle Congress's feathers up by discrediting its Sedition and Espionage laws -- if you want to check it out, it's here.
I note that Harley Davidsons operate a very high decibal and purposely so.
I would move to restrict the noise levels from those bikes and all others to that of a Vespa.
We are scientificaly advanced enough, it can be done.
This would:
1. Make Sunday mornings pleasant days to sleep in without being awoken by the very disturbing and jarring sound many motor bikes produce.
2. Would protect our children from hearing damage caused by the horrick noise as they pass by.
3. May reduce crime as criminal gangs and clans of malicious Mischief Evil Doers are drawn to menaces for the sole purpose of intimadation and identifying themselves with certain cretin groups.
4. Would encourage ridership to move to full size vehicles that do not produce unnacceptable noise levels and would actually decrease deaths caused by motor bike accidents.
5. Would reduce LEO manhours managing events that sometimes involve upwards of 3,000 motor bikes. At they roll through tiny towns such as Gilroy, CA clog the streets by overloading traffic engineered for rural townships.
6. With less noisy bikes on the road and reducing the macho image of associations and bikes, there would obviously be a reduction in real crime and violent crime.
7. It would encourage car pooling thereby reducing traffic levels and their families would obviously bond as they would be able to spend more time with each other on pleasurable outings.
8. They could still own a muffler that produces horribly unacceptable levels of noise, scars small jack rabbits and forces people of ages to cover their ears as they pass by but, they could not drive them on any public road or on any National Parks and Monuments.
9. Highly unacceptable mufflers, which create noise that can damage hearing are designed for that purpose alone and serve no real function to the operation of a motor bike, except a cosmetic one. It will be permissable to keep a highly unacceptable muffler but, it will not and shall not be permissable to brandish it publicy.
10. Said Mufflers will also not be resold for any reason nor can they be passed on to anyone for the purpose of heir rights in an estate.
11. Further, it shall be impermissable to lend or give to any person a muffler so described in this legislation.
Pass the gun laws and I can see how we just start outlawing Harley and Indian motorcycles. We wouldn’t take their mufflers away but, they couldn’t use them in public anymore.
It’s for the Children.
After a few years we can go after these Motor bikes on the issue of safety alone but, for now, we’d have “reasonable” legislation for the publice safety and that of our children.
That’s what I call responsible public policy.
How big is his hunger?
There are on the order of 100 million firearms owners in this country.
The 0.01% of them not particularly interested in 2-liter bottles of soda and mindless drivel on TV would then number 10,000.
Now imagine 10,000 rational Chris Dorners, quietly selecting targets, stalking and shooting targets, and quietly moving on to their next target, instead of running their mouths with manifestos on the internet.
What effect do you think that would have?
Constitutional Convention?
Surely you jest.
A Constitutional Convention would be controlled by the likes of the Obamaphone “lady”.
And if the set of scoundrels we have in the Senate now won't abide by the best Constitution ever written what makes one think they will obey any revised version of the one we have now would be my question. No need for a Constitutional Convention, just enforce the one we have now.
Or put another way; as long as they have their couch, their bag of potato chips, the six-pack of beer and a handy remote at their finger tips watching American Idol or wrestling or whatever.
will neighbors come to each other defense?
You did not see my correction the next post I assume.
First, there will be a rash of lawsuits: that doesn’t work
there will be massive defiance!
First, there will be a rash of lawsuits: if that doesn’t work
there will be massive defiance!
Nope. Thoughts it wuz. A funny moment and the sherwiff needs to go.
It was after those 2 tragedies that you mentioned constitutional militias were organized and dialogue with the White House began, the ramifications of further tragedies and No More Free Wacos.
In feeling out this tension, the Feds were sent out to AZ for example for discussion with a local militia, asking basically what would happen if there were another ‘incident’ like Waco, what would be the response, “would u storm D.C.?”
The reply was “Why should we go all the way out to D.C. when a bunch of you Fed @$$(^%#$ are right over here.”
This unsettling info gave them pause, with further consequences to ponder.
"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!" ~Adolph Hitler, 1935,on The Weapons Act of Nazi Germany
How many arrestee's do you think you could incarcerate on closed military bases if you don't care how squalid the conditions are?
Do you think any one in the media will report or care how bad things are inside the wire?
Do you think the obaminoids would give a damn if you were starved or beaten to death? If you all came down with dysentery, cholera, scarlet fever?
You go right ahead and go Gandhi. That worked then because the British had a conscience. It wouldn't have worked against Stalin, and it won't work now against the radical left that is taking over our country.
I’m feeling a bit unprepared after seeing that.
99.99%? qwerty1234 obviously has never heard of the growing militia movement which I hear is now around a half a million in numbers.
I thought the number was 300 million firearm owners which was pre-Bush Jr. data? So now with largest arms buying in U.S. history probably 350 million.
The lessons learned from the Chris Dorner episode:
1-
When their own are targeted and in state of fear, expect law enforcement security forces to open fire. Forget the law, due process, inherent God given rights.
Did you see the blue truck ( a truck , different color than Dorner’s but a truck) filled with bullet holes and 2 ladies delivering newspapers shot, one in hand other in back, by 7 cops who expelled over 50 rounds into vehicle and into surrounding neighborhood puncturing homes? No warning, just open fire. Excuses by police supervisor, “they were stressed.” They should be in jail.
The surfer guy in another dark truck who was t-boned and fired upon without warning as well?
The audio heard over scanners after throwing CS gas into Dorner’s cabin, it’s heard to set up burners ‘like we talked about’, etc... thermite or incindiary grenades — I was reading the blogs while event was happening and people were posting what they heard on scanners before any fire started. They deliberately set place on fire, no conspiracy like media bullshits.
So if SHTF situation or gun confiscation we have a militarized police force that will be barbaric, with no concern for rights. These are the “only ones” the special privileged. Their “safety” is paramount to civilians rights, and burning homes down with people trapped inside is proper tactics.
But that will only last so long, and there aren’t enough law enforcement; in fact, there is a remarkable rage at law enforcement I’ve noticed looking at youtube videos or public comments all over internet on the recorded police abuses over the past decade. My personal opinion is police will be targeted in SHTF situation, their equipment and weapons taken, their HQ’s raided and robbed just like in 1920’s and 30’s. If I were law enforcement, lose the uniform and protect your families in this situation because chaos will reign.
-2-
It took only one man with psy-ops in his written manifesto and spreading terror with a guerrilla war to bind up the 2nd largest city in the country, the entire state of CA and Federal security forces (drones included) for a week. There were reported 40 cops protecting homes of officers listed in manifesto. No more motorcycle patrol, all cars filled with 2 officers, manpower stretched to brink. All unsustainable for a long drawn out fight.
In no fashion is the modern surveillance police stated able to handle a minority of better trained, better thinking, better equipped determined insurgents, who’s targets would be restricted as much as possible to the enablers, planners, leadership.
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.