Talking Points

imported post

I think it is time to get with our reps at the capitol. I have a state Senator that is not going through an election this year, but my state Representative is. The incumbent is not running, so I have 2 new guys running,and I'll need to talk to all 3 of them. It may be best if we discuss what we will say to them. Each of us should make an appointment to talk to them in person.

I've come up with a few things I want to say. Below is a list and I may come up with more later. We need suggestions from everyone.

1. The 2A givesthe individual citizenthe right to KEEP and BEAR arms (per D.C. v Heller).Bring along notes. Among them should be the exact definition of these 2 words, straight from a dictionary or http://www.dictionary.com.

2. No other Right do we have to take a class for.

3. No other Right do we need to pay a tax to exercise. (Use the word TAX, not fee) Mention that this is akin to a poll tax.

4. No other Right do we have to get permission from the government to exercise. (Use the word permission, not permit or license)

5. If you are Christian, or if he/she is,refer to Luke 22:36. He said to them,"But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one." This demonstrates that even Jesus wants us to be armed. These are His words, not mine.

Let's see how many serious points and questions we can come up with. I am in limbo waiting to get appointment times with all 3 guys. Take a little time to do this and it will show that this is a big movement and that we are in solidarity. Come on Texas, we can get this passed if everyone commits.

imported post

Some of you Texans might want look up Texas SUPCO case "English v. State"....IIRC, they ruled that "the 2nd" was binding on states as well as feds.....sorry I don't have more exact info on the case number etc.

imported post

3. No other Right do we need to pay a tax to exercise. (Use the word TAX, not fee) Mention that this is akin to a poll tax.

Click to expand...

I would be inclined to state that this is more egregious than a poll tax because there is no constitutional protection or guarantee for any citizen to vote, only that they be treated equally if populous voting is used by the state. This is akin to charging a tax to a citizen before s/he can write a letter to the editor or speak before the city council.

imported post

I think some very important points have not yet been addressed:

* However honorable and logical a law written to reduce criminal possession may sound, there is no law that government can pass that would be effective in doing so and would not alsogut the Fourth, Fifth, and/or Eighth Amendments. Current laws are ignored by criminals (if not willfully disobeyed)and thus only affect LACs, and laws with enforcement measures makingthemimpossibletoignore wouldstomp onfar more than the 2A rights of LACs.

* Even if it were in fact possible to craft a law that effectively prevents gun ownership and use by criminalswhile leaving LACs alone, It will not prevent all gun crime because everyone was an LAC at one point in their lives. No-one is a felon from the moment they popped outta momma; it's ludicrous to think so. Up until as old as 17 in this state, it pretty muchtakes a first-degree or capital felony for a child to be charged as an adult, and any other crime is sealed on their 17th birthday, so for all practical purposes anyone who has not robbed a convenience store,shot three people, orforcibly raped someoneis an LACon their 17th birthday. Crimes are committed by LACs, thus LACs become criminals at some nonzero rate. A nonzero percentage of LACs own guns, and most LACs can own a gun in this state,and thus it is reasonable to posit that a nonzero percentage of LAC gun owners become criminals. So, even if a law somehow proves effective at eliminating recidivism, stands up to SCOTUS scrutiny, and leaves LACs alone, people are going to use guns to commit crimes.

* Most politicians and political pundits who advocate for gun control do, in fact, know both of these theses. They use gun control as a means to increase the power of government for their own ends, of which GCAs have two main purposes: either to not have to deal with it, or to rise to the top of the heap by leveraging government power for their own end. The first end is that taken by many GCAs such as the Million Mom March and most ordinary joes who subscribe to gun control. For them,banning guns creates an acceptable, simpler society where if only criminals and LEOshave guns, it's easy to spot the criminals, and as LACs don't have guns you remove a source of gun crime; LACs going bad. The other main result is that worked toward by many leaders of the major gun controlthink tanks; power. These people want to disarm the populace because they think that once this is done, they can leverage their government power to rise to the top of the heap. These people manipulate those under them in gun control groupswho are willing to go along with it, or even ignorant of that possibility. GCAs therefore are at best misinformed, and at worst your wannabe masters. The former condition can be corrected through education of the misinformed. The influence of the latter will diminish when this happens.

* Forget rights based arguments; removing all firearms from a society, even effectively,does not curb violent crime.There are many tools from a knife to a baseball bat that, although not as effective, certainly will do the job. Vehicular manslaughter is a rising crime in the U.S. even as gun-related crime decreases nationwide. Are we considering banning cars? No.

* Now, you have to be prepared to counter the counterargument; guns were designed solely to kill, while cars were designed as transportation. The answer is that regardless of a designed purpose, any tool can be a weapon, and any weapon can be a tool. There are very few instruments of human design that are totally unitaskers. Mortars and artillery have been used to start controlled avalanches. Guns, similar to bows, arrows, slings and spearsbefore them, are totally valid as hunting weapons and everything up to the first firearms were intended for that purpose. First priority of man is to eat, not to kill other humans. The firearm is a departure: the musketdid not replace the bow astheubiquitous hunting implement for over 400 years after the first military use of firearms, and over a century after anything resemblingmodern long armswas introduced. The argument however still stands; the gun has one function, but many uses, and only one is to take the life of another human being.