Posted on 01/06/2013 10:19:08 AM PST by marktwain
"Obama Plans Broad Gun Control" screamed the Drudge Report headline. So what actions can a responsible gun owner take to stop this legislative insanity? There are, of course, the accepted channels of communications: email and phone calls to your two Senators and the Representative from your Congressional district. Having once worked as an idealistic political intern in a legislative office, I was flabbergasted at the utter contempt that the staff and "my" legislator held for the ordinary voters of the district. Respect was only paid to the large financial donors and their minions.
Emails and phone calls may have a modest but fleeting effect on most ordinary Congressional votes. However, the Obama Gun Grab is not an ordinary vote. This legislation is a direct assault on the 2nd Amendment, personal firearm ownership, and certainly paves the way for the indefinite detention of disarmed undesirable political and religious opponents and their families.
So, what actions can a responsible gun owner take to stop this legislative insanity? First and foremost, accept that you have fears and channel that anger and outrage into a productive and effective plan to defeat this legislation. Humans have an instinctual fear / threat reaction that saved our Pleistocene ancestors on the plains of Africa. Today gun owners must not wave weapons in the air and jabber mindlessly at those who wish to disarm us.
We are still thinking citizens of this great nation, not a mob. We must act calmly and rationally. We must let our legislators know exactly what the electoral consequences of their votes will be. Period. Everything else is just the mis-allocation of American gun owner resources. Money, time and stick-to-itiveness are exactly what is needed to defeat B. H. Obama's gun grab.
Ok here is a recipe on how
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
And while we are doing all these nice things, the Communists are screaming, hollering, stirring up the people to demonize us.
When are people going to get it through their thick skulls that elected officials don’t give two hoots in hell what the people do or say?
This is a war for our very survival as a free people. You had better prepare for a long and ugly conflict. A lot of us won’t survive; but it is better to die free than to live in chains.
First, if you go state by state...more than half just won’t agree with any significant change in gun laws. Mandating smaller ammo clips might pass through most voters, but that’s just all that would be accepted.
Second, once the media has kinda burned out on the topic of discussing the gun control stuff and people are turning their news off or just laughing over commentary....the whole thing starts to dissolve away.
Third, elections are just twenty-two months away, and with twenty democratic US Senators in the running...most don’t want a fuss over this topic, especially if they are from a southern state.
Finally, there are ten thousand fed and state laws and regulations on the books currently. The mere suggest that another page will help solve the mess...makes it all just a comedy of sorts. We have laws against murder, and we aren’t seeing much of a plus-up on that situation.
Number 1, they are magazines. number 2, 'that's just all' is another step down the road to disarmanent
I hear you. It is better to die on one’s feet than to live on one’s knees.
If your Congress-Critter is already among the more conservative, pro-2A types, focus on your Senator.
The only problem there is they are even more impervious to non-finacial influence.
They are wed to their ideology, and only care if you support them.
Not if you don’t.
“We must act calmly and rationally.”
I am acting calmly and rationally. I just found and ordered a 25 shell magazine for my Ruger 10/22 rifle. That plus hollow points for that weapon is acting calmly and rationally.
As much as the European Jews may have benefitted from gun ownership, I don’t think any remaining survivors of the Holocaust (not many still alive given the passage of almost 70 years) would appreciated the Star of David as choice for this symbol. The Nazis used different markings, usually colored triangles, for other enemies of their state, for gypsies, for communists, for homosexuals, etc. Maybe something based on that concept, this one is hypersensitive and would not be appreciated, probably for some right, and wrong reasons.
........
The author is not correct, when he writes: “The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting or self-defense.”
We understand that he’s trying to say, that the 2nd Amendment is *not exclusively about* hunting and self-defense, but he is not careful.
Carefully ...
- - -
Various wordings of the Second Amendment were tried during its development. The end result *purposefully* leaves out any enumeration of reasons why an individual has the right to keep and bear Arms. Any reason *why* an individual may or may not keep and bear Arms, was left to the states and the people thereof, to settle among themselves.
The only enumeration in the Second Amendment focuses on what to do about a group of men under Arms - what is to happen when individuals who bear military grade Arms are in a group, and they *are* capable of exercising martial power. What *then,* was to become of that power?
The answer was, that both the states and the federal government would rely upon *the group* being formally mustered, well-regulated, well trained to Arms, well discplined, and answerable to civilian authority.
Both the states and the federal government sought unity of function and preparedness of the militia of each state. The state militiae should be “well trained to Arms” and be capable of, and mindful of, lawfully exercising martial power and respecting lawful civilian authority.
In the old days up to around WW-I times and for a while thereafter, there was a tradition of local militia drilling on the common, the town green, or the county fairgrounds. It gave people an opportunity to remain somewhat familiar with military duty; it helped to keep them from becoming too rusty. It demonstrated the proper practices and discipline *for all to see.*
It is a shame that most communities and counties and states got out of that practice.
All the uses of weapons, firearm or not, for non-military purposes, were left to be decided by the states and their people.
Again, there would be no condition within the Second Amendment, by which you do, or do not, have the right to keep and bear Arms; because, the Founding Fathers correctly anticipated that any such enumerated condition might be used as grounds for an individual to either be forced to bear Arms or be stripped of their Arms.
- - -
The *only* say in the matter, that the federal government has, is in the agreement of the state and the federal government, specifically regarding *What will be “military grade” weapons.*
The reason, there, and there only, that the federal government has a say re the agreement, is because of the need of both the state and the federal government, that we maintain some common Arms for the common defense.
Having established in agreement, what are military grade Arms, then the state may use its authority to consider and establish regulations about such agreed-upon military grade Arms - while the federal government has no Constitutional authority to regulate those Arms within the states, though a state *could* adopt a federally-proposed war department regulation ... but still, the federal government cannot Constitutionally impose weapons regulations within a state.
All other Arms that the people keep and bear, are a matter for the people and their respective states to consider and regulate if the people choose to within the common law of their state -— this is a continuance of the same common law practices and individual rights to keep and bear Arms from before, during, and after all of the American Revolution, founding of our country, and establishment of our national government via our Constitution and its ratified Amendments.
The real issue that the left is trying to take over, is its desire to usurp the common law.
The common law is no business of the federal government to be in; but the leftists keep trying to displace the common law with a radical, nationalizing-socialist, communo-organizers’ legal system, generated from the left’s own liberal-media-vapors and other thoughtless pop-cultural demands for *both* police state security and “professional student security” at university among students who do not know why they are free individuals and really could care less as long as they are taken care of by government - something that popular leftist professors’ in loco dictatorships, relish.
OK, having cleared that up, I will try to follow the steps suggested by Lee DeCovnick, about visiting my Representatives’ (state and U.S.) and Senators (state and U.S.).
Divide the country into a Blue Country and a Red Country.
Let the dems have half - and we’ll take half. Dems can have all the gun control they want. We won’t be here to stand in their way.
Dems can also offer every female free birth control and abortions until 5 minutes after the child is born (kid might be ugly)
Dems can unionized every job - and start minimum wage at a hundred dollars and hour. Union bosses can charge any dues they want. No dues, no job.
Marriage can be between any groups - people, animals, threesomes, fiftysomes... whatever.
Traditional Americans won’t live in the dem country to stop them. Dems can finally get it all their way. They can open their borders to every third world ‘immigrant’ in the world. We won’t rain on their parade.
Every area can be ‘gun free’ - well, except for the criminals..
I found one of the Ruger BX-25s in a shop nearby - made specifically for the 10/22; was so impressed with it I got a few more.
I totally disagree at this being a good idea. It sounds like bribery and I do not condone that at all, and there is absolutely no way I am going to give a nickel to Bill Nelson no matter how he votes on this issue.
I totally disagree at this being a good idea. It sounds like bribery and I do not condone that at all, and there is absolutely no way I am going to give a nickel to Bill Nelson no matter how he votes on this issue.
I totally disagree at this being a good idea. It sounds like bribery and I do not condone that at all, and there is absolutely no way I am going to give a nickel to Bill Nelson no matter how he votes on this issue.
I totally disagree at this being a good idea. It sounds like bribery and I do not condone that at all, and there is absolutely no way I am going to give a nickel to Bill Nelson no matter how he votes on this issue.
I totally disagree at this being a good idea. It sounds like bribery and I do not condone that at all, and there is absolutely no way I am going to give a nickel to Bill Nelson no matter how he votes on this issue.
I totally disagree at this being a good idea. It sounds like bribery and I do not condone that at all, and there is absolutely no way I am going to give a nickel to Bill Nelson no matter how he votes on this issue.
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.