We Must Become Second Amendment Zealots If We Are To Survive.

Sierra Times ^ | 27 April 2003 | Michael Gaddy

[capitan_refugio]

You make good points. Let me "spin" a little bit (with bugging out my eyes or turning purple!)

"How many times has someone, or a group, armed with whatever weapons, successfully held off even a police SWAT team and gotten away? The answer is Zero."

Remember the INS/FBI Elian Gonzalez raid in Florida. Do you think that would have happened, the way it did, if the Florida family was adequately armed? I think, instead, there would have been an honest effort at negotiation.

"One A-10, with a couple of Hellfire missiles would put an end to that fantasy."

I can't remember when the military was last used against the populace. Probably the Civil War. In any case, the use by the Federal Government against the citizens of the US of military equipment of this type would make a radical change in the nature of our government. We would then have truly become a police state. All the more reason I should own a RPG tankbuster today.

"We are long past the point where an armed populace is going to overthrow any government in the USA. It ain't gonna happen. Not now. Not ever."

A few years ago, after an jury verdict in a police abuse case, that was unpopular in some parts of Los Angeles, race riots spontaneously broke out. The various police departments were unable to quell the riots. In some cases, the police retreated out of the riotous areas, leaving the law-abiding population at risk. A few Korean-born shopkeepers were able to protect their inner-city businesses by getting on the roof with legal guns and firing at the rioters. I believe that the Second Admendment (among others) gives me the individual right to protect myself, my family, my business, and my community - especially in the absence functioning law enforcement. It doesn't matter to me if the criminal threatening me is from the inner city or wears a BATF flak jacket.

"The best civilian firearms are laughable, even compared to the firepower a small town SWAT team can bring to the battle."

Read up on guerilla warfare and sniping tactics. One well-placed shot, taking out a field commander is as effective as bloodying the entire opposition. You were correct in an earlier statment - if you get yourself beseiged, you're dead.

Clearly, you have thought about this a lot. Your suggestions to win the war at the ballot box are on the mark. But I believe, without the Second Amendment, the others are meaningless.

[Dane]

You and Chancellor palpitation drive people away from the republicans in droves. The idea of voting for the same candidate as you makes me ill.

You're either idiots or shills

Really? You g@bl.c were never really with me, IMO. You could really care less who is power due to the electoral system. You just want to perpetually stew in your malcontnent juices, IMO.

[Dead Corpse]

You noticed that as well? Some of actually suspect they are both idiots AND shills.

[capitan_refugio]

Constitution says "Declare War", not "resolution of force"."

Does the Constitution says what form the declaration must take? Or the wording it must contain? NO

[Jay D. Dyson]

LOL. If standing up for our constitutional rights -- especially those rights that are demonized in the name of "safety" -- makes me a "1 issue malcontent," then I happily accept the label

Yep, you got that lable. No doubt about that. I guess you are of the contingent that by withholding our vote or voting for some no-name candidate, thus helping the election a Hillary Presidency, will all of the sudden bring up an AK-47 sugar plum popular revolution and a Libertarian Monarchy will be established, and all will be well with the world.

You know, there's nothing more reprehensible than contempt prior to investigation. You don't even know my voting plans, nor do you know the whole of my political philosophy. But just so we're clear, let me put this in layman's terms:

I ain't no Libertarian, monkeyboy.

JMO, but it is time to quit smoking "corn silk".

*TWEET* *throwing flag* Penalty. Personal foul; asinine remark. Ten yard penalty. Still first down.

-Jay

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

None of us need enemies. We've got you.

[Con X-Poser]

<< It's all kinda of moot now isn't it. It has been proven that Ron Paul joined arms with leftist liberal democrats in February to try to derail the War on Terrorism and on April 10th(the day after Baghdad falls), Con.Paul jumps over the fence and takes a position saying it is a good thing that saddam is gone. >>

It IS a good thing that Saddam is gone. It would also be a good thing if Castro, Putin, Jemin, Assad, Kadafy, Kim, and lots of others were gone too. That doesn't mean it would be right for us to go to war againt all of them, especially to violate the Constitution to do so.

Paul did not jump the fence at all. He stood on the Constitution. Anyone else who stands on the Constitution, be it purposely or accidentally (like some liberals do occasionally), will be on the same side of the fence.

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

Hope it's minimum wage for shilling. They don't deserve much more.

[Frohickey]

We are long past the point where an armed populace is going to overthrow any government in the USA. It ain't gonna happen. Not now. Not ever.

I have a quote for you...

"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace.  We ask not your counsel nor your arms.  Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you.  May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."   --Samuel Adams

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

Right for the first time.

I've never been "with you."
I'm for the Constitution, and those who support it faithfully.

[William Tell]

Dan from Michigan said: 'The trial lawyers want to litigate gun manufacturers out of business. That needs to be stopped by any means necessary."

I am actually opposed, as a matter of principle, to the summary execution without trial of trial lawyers. This is despite any benefits which might be obtained by such.

[Con X-Poser]

<< Constitution says "Declare War", not "resolution of force"."
Does the Constitution says what form the declaration must take? Or the wording it must contain? NO >>

But the fact that Congress rejected Paul's rider to make it a declaration indicates that they knew their's wasn't - otherwise they had NO reason to reject Paul's rider making it an official Constitutional declaration.

Now people like Hillary can play both sides. She can say she was against the war and against Bush even though she voted to give Bush dictatorial powers to wage unlimited war. If she had to vote on an actual declaration, she'd be accountable for her vote one way or the other.

[Dane]

None of us need enemies. We've got you.

Good it is out in the open.

Thank you for at least being honest, that defeating Hillary or a Hillary wannabe in the electoral arena, is not your goal.

Your goal, IMO, is self-pride and if that means a Hillary Presidency, so be it according to you.

You have made your point known, it is all about you and not about the future of this country, IMO.

[Frapster]

There are those who place politics above the guarantees of Creator and Constitution...

I guess I should assume that he's not saying God guarantees us the right to bear arms. I'd also say that while God created us as creatures who desire and even deserve freedom he makes no guarantees that any one of us will always enjoy freedom. The erosion of our 'right to bear arms' is a symtpom of the deeper issue.

[William Tell]

IGOTMINE said: 'I don't know about a Libertarian Monarchy or smoking corn silk, but I do know that two schmucks with a beat up car and an average "assault rifle" pretty much paralyzed law enforcement not so long ago. "

Exactly.

An anti-gun prosecutor was assassinated in his home recently. There was much speculation that this might be due to his anti-gun activities.

Our nation's founders understood that it was necessary many times to avoid a open confrontation.

Perhaps someone can bring me up to date on a situation which occurred in the San Francisco east bay area.

A man running a sausage making business armed himself and shot three government inspectors. It seems that he thought he should make the decisions regarding the sausage recipe and not them. I have no direct information to help me decide whether this man was being tyrannized, but I do know that the government cannot withstand losses of three to one to any enemy.

Therein lies the reason for Waco. It was necessary to have an outcome in which more non-government people died than BATF agents. Otherwise, the government would be forced to admit that it is unable to disarm the populace.

[Shooter 2.5]

Keepandbeararms.com and the members of the GOA have been attacking the NRA for some time now. The CSG which is a affiliate of the GOA still asked for help from members of the NRA in Georgia with a trigger lock law.

I'm still waiting for the day when the members of the GOA can quit mentioning the NRA and spend more time in explaining what they do instead of constantly worrying about the NRA.

[MosesKnows]

Wake up folks! Government has been involved in a well-planned, incremental approach to the disarming of the citizens of this country for decades.

Is that assertion to severe to be given fair consideration?

To test the validity of the assertion I would offer a review of a word from the Second Amendment. The word is infringed as it is used in the context of the Second Amendment.

"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.

The English word infringe is used as an intransitive verb in the Second Amendment meaning to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another. i.e. the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

A review of the intransitive verb encroach in the definition of infringe means to take another's possessions or rights gradually or stealthily.

Does this meet the criteria for gradually or stealthily?

1934-National Firearms Act
1938-Federal Firearms Act
1968- 68' Gun Control Act
1972-BATF expanded to deal with firearms
1986-Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act
1990-Crime Control Act
1994-Brady Bill
1994-Assault Weapons Ban
1998-National Instant Check System

The assertion passes my test and I consider the assertion valid. What is your test?

[capitan_refugio]

"But the fact that Congress rejected Paul's rider to make it a declaration indicates that they knew their's wasn't - otherwise they had NO reason to reject Paul's rider making it an official Constitutional declaration."

Your answer is a classic non sequitur. Could it be that those who voted against Ron Paul's rider did so because it was simply redundant? The point is, what passed was, for all purposes, a declaration of war if certain conditions were not met. This country has had several more "wars" than strict "declarations of war." Tell someone who fought in Korea or Vietnam that they are not veterans of a war.

[Polycarp]

[Con X-Poser]

<< Keepandbeararms.com and the members of the GOA have been attacking the NRA for some time now. The CSG which is a affiliate of the GOA still asked for help from members of the NRA in Georgia with a trigger lock law. >>

Most *members* of the NRA are still honest Americans. They have been compromised by their leadership.