A Call to Arms

imported post

KansasMustang wrote:

Mark Edward,
. . . WE collectively have to draw a line. MY personal line is registration. IF the Obama administration puts forth that ALL guns will be registered,,or any for that matter, initially I will just ignore the order, then if it gets to the point when I hear of it being enforced then the line has been crossed. But what are your core values, where do you draw your line? ARE you willing,,and I ask of all of you to give up your homes, your current somewhat easy life to live in a cave and fight a battle ?? . . . Armed insurgency is the VERY last resort, not the knee jerk reaction.

Click to expand...

One reason to take a stand against such proposals as "closing the gunshow loophole" is that they are collectively an attempt to re-fight the old battle about national gun registration that we fought and won in Congress 40 years ago.

However, is it really necessary to draw"lines in the sand" involving "armed insurgency" over such issues now? Do you want to attack DC because it still has a municipal gun registration law?

Lifein a cave sounds way too unpleasant and overdramatic.

imported post

OK, marine77, so far you've made two posts, and for the life of me I can't decipher either one of them. :?

imported post

Yeah, this "gunshow loophole" canard drives me nutso. All the gun shows I have ever been at have been crawling with LEOs in uniform and plainclothes and from every level of government. A felon would absolutely have to be NUTS to try and buy a firearm at a gun show, plus Brady checks are run on everything.

Open carry is one way of presenting a show of force to criminals. Both the street variety and those who would violate the ultimate Law of the Land.

IMO we are far from the point where an insurrection would be necessary. Our political system works, and I note that Obama took down a portin of his web page addressing the resurrection of the AWB when among other things blog chatter like this clued him in that we the people do not like that sort of talk. What we need to do now is to work toward a gun-friendlier majority in Congress two years from now. And love the NRA or hate it, they will be indespensable in that effort. I repeat that if you do not like what the NRA does, then become a member and change it. They do tend to listen to the folks who give them money, and they do have elections. And by all means nothing says you cannot be a member of two or more gun-rightss organizations; and we could do nothing better than to push for a congress of these groups nationwide. We should push for:

1. A requirement that every state shall fully recognize CHP permits issued by every other State.

2. the repeal of magazine-capacity limits for pistols

3. a national right-to-carry in any public place (ie no more weenie WalMart managers telling you not to bring your weapon into the store)

4. A two-year limit on loss of 2nd Amendment rights for "Domestic Violence" convictions.

That's for starters. And hey. If we cannot organize a congress of gun-rights groups, how in Sam Hill does anybody think that organizing an insurrection would be possible?

imported post

The Donkey wrote:

KansasMustang wrote:

Mark Edward,
. . . WE collectively have to draw a line. MY personal line is registration. IF the Obama administration puts forth that ALL guns will be registered,,or any for that matter, initially I will just ignore the order, then if it gets to the point when I hear of it being enforced then the line has been crossed. But what are your core values, where do you draw your line? ARE you willing,,and I ask of all of you to give up your homes, your current somewhat easy life to live in a cave and fight a battle ?? . . . Armed insurgency is the VERY last resort, not the knee jerk reaction.

Click to expand...

One reason to take a stand against such proposals as "closing the gunshow loophole" is that they are collectively an attempt to re-fight the old battle about national gun registration that we fought and won in Congress 40 years ago.

However, is it really necessary to draw"lines in the sand" involving "armed insurgency" over such issues now? Do you want to attack DC because it still has a municipal gun registration law?

Lifein a cave sounds way too unpleasant and overdramatic.

Click to expand...

Yeah, there's a reason to draw lines in the sand. We've already gone way past the line that should be there. The 2nd amendment states clearly Shall not be infringed. They've gone past the line set in 1789. NO gun laws are legal, period. All gun laws are unconstitutional, period. Now try and tell me I'm wrong. YOU just don't get it do ya Donkey/

imported post

dang double posted again

imported post

well sorry about that marshaul, like i say i'm not computer savvy enough to do some

things, i was trying to quote another member. i never post, don't like boards. But i

am adamant about keeping my rights. That's why i am here now and posting, and

in the process of getting my oc license. Hope that was clear enough for you.

imported post

KansasMustang wrote:

The Donkey wrote:

KansasMustang wrote:

Mark Edward,
. . . WE collectively have to draw a line. MY personal line is registration. IF the Obama administration puts forth that ALL guns will be registered,,or any for that matter, initially I will just ignore the order, then if it gets to the point when I hear of it being enforced then the line has been crossed. But what are your core values, where do you draw your line? ARE you willing,,and I ask of all of you to give up your homes, your current somewhat easy life to live in a cave and fight a battle ?? . . . Armed insurgency is the VERY last resort, not the knee jerk reaction.

Click to expand...

One reason to take a stand against such proposals as "closing the gunshow loophole" is that they are collectively an attempt to re-fight the old battle about national gun registration that we fought and won in Congress 40 years ago.

However, is it really necessary to draw"lines in the sand" involving "armed insurgency" over such issues now? Do you want to attack DC because it still has a municipal gun registration law?

Lifein a cave sounds way too unpleasant and overdramatic.

Click to expand...

Yeah, there's a reason to draw lines in the sand. We've already gone way past the line that should be there. The 2nd amendment states clearly Shall not be infringed. They've gone past the line set in 1789. NO gun laws are legal, period. All gun laws are unconstitutional, period. Now try and tell me I'm wrong. YOU just don't get it do ya Donkey/

Click to expand...

Ah yes, the absolute 2nd Amendment: kinda starts sounding weird if you think it includes the sort of "arms" that you wouldn't want to bring to the range: weapons grade anthrax/155 mm. cannons/tactical nukes.:shock:

Not to disparage your rights, but the idea of Kansas Mustang keeping and bearing these makesthis Donkeya bit uncomfortable.:uhoh:

So yeah, I think there is some arms regulation that can be constitutionally done, and some that cannot.

Where I draw the line are regulations NECESSARY to promote a COMPELLING state/public interest.:idea:

imported post

The Donkey wrote:

KansasMustang wrote:

The Donkey wrote:

KansasMustang wrote:

Mark Edward,
. . . WE collectively have to draw a line. MY personal line is registration. IF the Obama administration puts forth that ALL guns will be registered,,or any for that matter, initially I will just ignore the order, then if it gets to the point when I hear of it being enforced then the line has been crossed. But what are your core values, where do you draw your line? ARE you willing,,and I ask of all of you to give up your homes, your current somewhat easy life to live in a cave and fight a battle ?? . . . Armed insurgency is the VERY last resort, not the knee jerk reaction.

Click to expand...

One reason to take a stand against such proposals as "closing the gunshow loophole" is that they are collectively an attempt to re-fight the old battle about national gun registration that we fought and won in Congress 40 years ago.

However, is it really necessary to draw"lines in the sand" involving "armed insurgency" over such issues now? Do you want to attack DC because it still has a municipal gun registration law?

Lifein a cave sounds way too unpleasant and overdramatic.

Click to expand...

Yeah, there's a reason to draw lines in the sand. We've already gone way past the line that should be there. The 2nd amendment states clearly Shall not be infringed. They've gone past the line set in 1789. NO gun laws are legal, period. All gun laws are unconstitutional, period. Now try and tell me I'm wrong. YOU just don't get it do ya Donkey/

Click to expand...

Ah yes, the absolute 2nd Amendment: kinda starts sounding weird if you think it includes the sort of "arms" that you wouldn't want to bring to the range: weapons grade anthrax/155 mm. cannons/tactical nukes.:shock:

Not to disparage your rights, but the idea of Kansas Mustang keeping and bearing these makesthis Donkeya bit uncomfortable.:uhoh:

So yeah, I think there is some arms regulation that can be constitutionally done, and some that cannot.

Where I draw the line are regulations NECESSARY to promote a COMPELLING state/public interest.:idea:

Click to expand...

I hate to be the, one to tell you this Donkey, but a lot of things that are banned are not hard to acquire. Granted, 155 mm. cannons and tactical nukes are hard to come by, but anthrax is found throughout the west. It can be weaponized by just about anyone with a background in biology.

Many chemical weapons can also be easily produced. Risen comes from a bean that was grown when I was a kid to keep moles and gophers out of the garden. Just a year or two ago some guy in Las Vegas had some in a motel room and nearly killed himself when it got away from him. He'd distilled the stuff years ago and just kept moving it with him wherever he went.

Botulinum toxin "Botox" comes from bacteria. This is one of the most toxic poisons on Earth, and can be grown in your refrigerator.

I don't think people should have these things either because of the potential for accidents, but bad guys can get the stuff if they want to.

If someone wants a 155 howitzer, why not? Think of the 4th of July celebrations with that in your back yard. Just figureout some blank loads for it. The cost of one would keep 99.99% of people from getting them anyway. It's not like it would be hard to track down if it was misused, and since you can't really hide one as you move around with it, it would be the ultimate OC.:celebrate

imported post

Why don't some of you guys try thinking from a different direction?
After reading article 1 sec 8 of the constitution for the united States, I see nothing which allows congress to prevent any of us from lawfully owning cannons of any variety, can you?

imported post

Gordie wrote:

. . . If someone wants a 155 howitzer, why not? Think of the 4th of July celebrations with that in your back yard. Just figureout some blank loads for it. The cost of one would keep 99.99% of people from getting them anyway. It's not like it would be hard to track down if it was misused, and since you can't really hide one as you move around with it, it would be the ultimate OC.:celebrate

Click to expand...

Right: why shouldn'tyou be allowedbuy afully loaded, lightlyused, M109A6 Paladin for cash without a background check . . . .

True, you might not WANT to take part in the celebration by the Washington monument by firing at it from hereoutside of the DC beltway: but then again shouldn'tyou have the RIGHT to have theCAPABILITY if the celebration OFFENDS?

'Courseyou would need a few rocket assisted projectiles too. Ya think Craigslistshould have em?

imported post

mark edward marchiafava wrote:

Why don't some of you guys try thinking from a different direction?
After reading article 1 sec 8 of the constitution for the united States, I see nothing which allows congress to prevent any of us from lawfully owning cannons of any variety, can you?

Click to expand...

common "Defence" and general welfare clauses/commerce clause (if sold across state lines)/necessary and proper clause

imported post

Huh? What? What does common defense have to do with a sovereign citizen buying/possessing anything?
While they have LIMITED powers to REGULATE interstate commerce, that doesn't give them unlimited authority. Quite the contrary.
Congress has NO authority to ban the sale/possession of ANY private property, 'cept maybe counterfeit money.

imported post

I would trust the typical law abiding citizen with a howitzer more than I would trust a criminal with a steak knife. The criminal would most definitely do more damage.

Do you REALLY believe that the only (or even primary) reason a lot of crimes aren't committed with howitzers is that it is illegal to possess them?

Since when has ANY gun control ever stopped ANY crime?

imported post

The Donkey wrote:

Ah yes, the absolute 2nd Amendment: kinda starts sounding weird if you think it includes the sort of "arms" that you wouldn't want to bring to the range: weapons grade anthrax/155 mm. cannons/tactical nukes.:shock:

Click to expand...

I believe these things are considered ordnance, and not the sort of arms the founders intended to be borne with respect to the 2nd amendment.So your analogy seems rather disingenuous.

As a side note, one of my neighbors does have a canon of some sort that he touches off for various celebrations. It is pretty impressive as this is a suburban neighborhood.

imported post

Well, that'san interesting question isn't it:

Is 2A an absolute right, but "arms" limited to sidearms?

Or, is 2A subject to the same types of "strictly scrutinized" regulations as other rights like 1A?

My guess is that the courts will say something like the latter, even if you are right about the former.

imported post

Slayer of Paper wrote:

I would trust the typical law abiding citizen with a howitzer more than I would trust a criminal with a steak knife. The criminal would most definitely do more damage.

Do you REALLY believe that the only (or even primary) reason a lot of crimes aren't committed with howitzers is that it is illegal to possess them?

Since when has ANY gun control ever stopped ANY crime?

Click to expand...

I will do you one better. Name a law that has ever stopped or prevented a crime?.........

The answerer is none. Laws establish consequence's for behavior they do not "Stop" the behavior.

The closest law that I can think of that some one might be able to present an argument is speed limits how ever the law (limit) does not prevent the individual from speeding the individual chooses to not speed.

imported post

Alexcabbie wrote:

3. a national right-to-carry in any public place (ie no more weenie WalMart managers telling you not to bring your weapon into the store)

Click to expand...

I disagree. This would entail abrogation of private property rights to an even greater degree. Are we sure we want to trade rights like this? I am perfectly happy to respect the private property rights of others, especially if the government respects my right to carry.

imported post

smccomas wrote:

Slayer of Paper wrote:

I would trust the typical law abiding citizen with a howitzer more than I would trust a criminal with a steak knife. The criminal would most definitely do more damage.

Do you REALLY believe that the only (or even primary) reason a lot of crimes aren't committed with howitzers is that it is illegal to possess them?

Since when has ANY gun control ever stopped ANY crime?

Click to expand...

I will do you one better. Name a law that has ever stopped or prevented a crime?.........

The answerer is none. Laws establish consequence's for behavior they do not "Stop" the behavior.

The closest law that I can think of that some one might be able to present an argument is speed limits how ever the law (limit) does not prevent the individual from speeding the individual chooses to not speed.   

Click to expand...

Precisely right. This is why personal responsibility is paramount and the safety offered by the state illusory.

BTW speed limit laws don't reduce traffic accidents, for just the same reasons: the "problem" folks the law is designed to control are invariable the same people who ignore it, placing the burden of excess regulation squarely on those who didn't pose a problem to begin with. Same thing with driver's licensing. Ever see an illegal alien in line at the DMV (I know you may in a couple states, but not here in CA)? Yet illegals are the dangerous drivers that everyone always whines about causing accidents and being uninsured. Illegals simply don't waste time with licensing, and since we live in a "free" country where RAS is required to make a traffic stop, they simply drive the speed limit and never get busted (until they cause a wreck). Meanwhile, you and I bitch in line at the DMV, convincing ourselves that it's OK "because at least illegals can't drive". And then there's the whole mandatory liability insurance, and people whining when they didn't insure themselves and they get hit by an uninsured illegal and all of a sudden the state's regulation isn't there to protect them... Classic example of how regulation discourages personal responsibility by placing it in the hands of an irresponsible government.

imported post

marshaul wrote:

Alexcabbie wrote:

3. a national right-to-carry in any public place (ie no more weenie WalMart managers telling you not to bring your weapon into the store)

Click to expand...

I disagree. This would entail abrogation of private property rights to an even greater degree. Are we sure we want to trade rights like this? I am perfectly happy to respect the private property rights of others, especially if the government respects my right to carry.

Click to expand...

I agree on the public part when we say ie walmart, movie theaters ect. We then do get into private property I do not believe my 2A right trumps another persons private property rights.

Example a good friend of mine ask that when we visit her at her home that I not bring a loaded firearm into her house (she has a 5 year old). Its her house I cant argue with her nor should I. Make the choice abide by her rules (It is her house) or not come over.

imported post

Oh, hell, Civil War reenactors have had cannons for years. As far as I know not ONE has EVER been used in a crime. The only difference between a civil war cannon and any other is that civil war cannons load down the barrel, at least the majority do. There are a few breechloaders out there. Criminals are the ones you need to worry about, them and the gun grabbers who don't want law abiding citizens to own ANY firearms at all.