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 presidents proposals become law, he may move the country into turbulent waters we havent 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 Obamas 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 ...
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF SISKIYOU (CA)IN SUPPORT OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT
AND THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS
WHEREAS, the American people have retained to themselves the right to keep and bear arms a right not subject to infringement by Congress as is memorialized in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, as part of United States Bill of Rights, ratified on December 15, 1791; and,
WHEREAS, Cooper v. Aaron held that since the Supremacy Clause of Article VI made the U.S. Constitution the supreme law of the land and Marbury v. Madison gave the Supreme Court the power of judicial review, the precedent set forth in Brown v. Board of Education is the supreme law of the land and is therefore binding on all the states, regardless of any state laws contradicting it; and,
WHEREAS, a landmark decisions issued by the United States Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller established that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm from federal infringement unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that Arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as, but not limited to, self-defense within the home; and,
WHEREAS, the Court in McDonald v. City of Chicago established that the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution extended protection of the individual right to keep and bear arms to the several States under due process provisions of that Amendment; and,
WHEREAS, the strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government; and,
WHEREAS, the government of California has repeatedly released violent criminals back into its lawful society; and,
WHEREAS, according to Merriam Websters New Collegiate Dictionary, the word infringement means an encroachment or trespass on a right or privilege in other words a violation or constraint upon a right; and,
WHEREAS, sadly, recent high profile events within our country have sparked discussions of gun-control at the local, state and federal levels, which have advanced proposed legislation which professes to address gun violence, while, in fact, infringes upon Second Amendment rights - (this has included numerous gun and ammunition control proposals, outright gun bans as well as registration schemes that would convert the right into a revocable privilege); and,
WHEREAS, the County of Siskiyous economy is supported by family ranching, farming and natural resource businesses, and that the right to keep and bear Arms is fundamental to our right to protect our families, our property, our livestock, and our livelihood; and,
WHEREAS, as a frontier county, hunting for food is a practice among many residents and, as a sport, hunting makes an important contribution to the local economy; and,
WHEREAS, the residents of this County respect the rights protected by the Second Amendment through the recognition and support of responsible firearm ownership, training and awareness; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of the County of Siskiyou supports all discussions seeking new ideas to protect our citizens from violence but cannot abide by any order, provision, law or agency initiative that violates the protections of the Second Amendment.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Siskiyou County at a regular meeting of said Board, held the 12th day of February, 2013, by the following vote of said Board:
Ayes: Armstrong, Kobseff, Bennett, Criss, Valenzuela
Noes: None
Ha. I moved to Arkansas last year.
CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE has been used by protestors for years. The “Bucket Brigade” at Klamath Falls to protest the cut off of water to farmers was an act of civil disobedience. Even Congressmen attended.
How to protest using civil disobedience (peaceful)http://www.ehow.com/how_2083182_protest-using-civil-disobedience.html
Civil disobedience (peaceful)
http://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/society/civil-disobedience.html
Civil disobedience (what is it)
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/civil-disobedience/
The Role of Civil Disobedience in Democracy
http://www.civilliberties.org/sum98role.html
The class of nonviolence
http://www.salsa.net/peace/conv/
That is certainly a possibility.
That is certainly a possibility.
That is certainly a possibility.
That is certainly a possibility.
That is certainly a possibility.
F*ck you. Little Quisling, you are on the wrong website.
Five possibilities altogether. Why not say it once and be done with it?
The OK’s will end up on our side. A few more will sit it out. The ones who go out and follow illegal orders aren’t the kind of people who deserve to be living in a free Country anyway.
IPad flipped out. Wasn’t registering the keyclick on the Post button.
That is certainly a possibility. Thanks ...
http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/full_text_search/AllCRCDocs/90-1.htm
The above is from their conclusion. For the libs, it is symbolic. Conservatives expect RESULTS when they do it. Won't the libs be surprised.......................
For individuals on the Left, civil disobedience is frequently justified with reference to one’s conscience. For Operation Rescue participants, however, civil disobedience is seen not as an act of following one’s conscience, but as an act of obedience to God. The word obedience recurs frequently.
Another interesting note from the article. We can now understand our founding fathers a little better.
. Social movements of the Left that are committed to nonviolence tend to intentionally avoid using language that evokes images of violence, including words that evoke a militaristic analogy with the movement. The Colorado chapter of Operation Rescue terms its rescues Minuteman rescues, evoking the citizens’ militia during the American War of Revolution. Other literature states:
We are among the front line troops in this battle for life. Together we will win!
We have an army of people. The battle is raging....The Commander is calling most of us to the front lines.
It is useful for participants to understand the ideolo- gy of nonviolence, such as that it is not passive but rather is an active form of resistance that differs from violent resistance in the refusal to inflict violence and the will- ingness to incur it; and that its use can be either pragmat- ic of philosophically (usually religiously) based. It is important for participants to know how civil disobedience achieves desired ends: either the opponent is persuaded to change his or her views upon witnessing the willingness of the nonviolent activist to incur, but not in return inflict, suffering; or the opponent is physically prevented from carrying out his or her actions. Participants are sometimes asked to sign a pledge that they will remain nonviolent during the action.
Operation Rescue trains its participants only minimally and not in the ways described above. In the case of the Colorado group, though participants were required to sign a pledge of nonviolence, they were not required to have participated in nonviolence training. During the two rallies that I attended on nights before rescue actions, the philosophy, use, and history of nonviolence were not discussed. Nor is nonviolence explained in any Operation Rescue literature, except in reference to the Bible allowing it when man's laws conflict with God's laws.
Part of the article address the sheep scenario also which I most times agree with but things do change. As people protest and participation increase and word of mouth goes on we may discover we have more sheep dogs than we thought we have. The lie is that we are sheep, the truth is we have have potential to be sheep dogs.
After reading the article, I am more encouraged than I was when I got up this morning.
No apologies required. Well, not from you. :-)
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.