We Must Control the Second Amendment Conflict

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.

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."

The number one argument is the Second Amendment, period.

Amen, brother. The time to chew the fat over this issue is long past. This is the line in the sand. We need to tell the dictators that this is it. The Second Amendment is clear on its face. They either stop their attack on the Second Amendment or accept the consequences. The incremental destruction of the Constitution has to stop somewhere, so let it be the Second Amendment.

"The 4th Amendment and its unreasonable search and SEIZURE protection affirms property rights."

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 owner’s 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.

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.

From Federalist Paper 46:

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.

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)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-automatic_firearm#Early_history_.281885.E2.80.931945.29

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.

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.