We-the-People
Regular Member
imported post
The problem with our "system" is that the grabbers (and every other special interest group looking for "progress"ive laws) continue to play the same cards over and over until, after being told so many times, seem to be the truth to a sufficient number of sheep that they win a tiny legal hold somewhere abotu some thing. Then they work on that.
This can be seen over and over. Two excellent examples are smoking bans and DUI levels. When they first started, the anti-smoking special interst groups had zero chance of getting what they wanted..... a total ban on smoking anywhere they might be..... so they started with baby steps and "non smoking sections" on airplanes where they argued they were cooped up and involuntarilly being exposed to hazardous smoke (which, to date, has not been scientifically shown to cause any harm to anyone other than those who are allergic to it). If you doubt this, I have the scientific evidence (which happens to be the same evidence they use to justify their "hazardous" headlines). Today we find ourselves well along the slippery slope towards the ultimate goal of the anti-smokers, banning of tobacco, with prohibitions on using the stuff on private property. But they won't get to a total banuntil such time as the government no longer makes sufficient profits from their taxes on tobacco. The government, in fact, makes more "profit" from tobacco than ALL the other players in the chain of production and distribution COMBINED.
With the DUI issue, the Mothers Against Drunk Drivers (MADD) goal is a 0.00 threshold for DUI. one little blip of alcohol and you're DUI. Yet they, just as the anti-smoking groups, knew from the start that 0.00 wouldn't fly. So they fought for 0.10 and when they got that almost universally though the country they began going for 0.08 then 0.04 for commercial drivers. Now we hear of sporadic arguments to reduce the level to 0.05 and 0.01 for commercial drivers. Again, the slippery slope is working to their advantage with one tiny victory being worked, repeatedly, until the next slip down the slope is complete.
Now, I don't advocate drunk driving but 0.08 is more than sufficient when one considers that the driver at 0.08 is almost certainly more capable of driving safely than the "protected" 85 year old that gets his license renewal through the mail and hasn't seen the inside of a DMV office in 10 or 20 years..... or perhaps he did but no one dared question him. My own father in law, at 87, was in this position and WE had to take in upon ourselves to remove his license from him to prevent his driving because DMV just gave him a new one. My wifes aunt is the same. At age 84 she got her renewal notice in the mail and just sent in the check. Yet she'd run over a sidewalk and several large landscapign rocks just a couple of months prior and didn't even know it!
DO NOT allow any compromise on the RIGHT of the PEOPLE to keep and bear ARMS. The 2nd has no limitation on what those arms are. Nor does it authorize government to require the PEOPLE to obtain permission to exercise their RIGHTS. This is the reason you'll probably never see a dime of my money go to the NRA who are too ready to compromise for fear of losing if they stand by their principles. (I say probably because they may, some day, see the error of their ways).
Cases such as this one in Washington are exactly why OCDO is alive and well, growing substantially, and more and more of THE PEOPLE are standing up and demanding their RIGHT to keep and bear arms. While CC is great, only OC makes a political statement and makes visible the number of armed and lawful citizens who must be considered by both the criminal element and the politicians (not that there is much difference these days!).
WE THE PEOPLE
The problem with our "system" is that the grabbers (and every other special interest group looking for "progress"ive laws) continue to play the same cards over and over until, after being told so many times, seem to be the truth to a sufficient number of sheep that they win a tiny legal hold somewhere abotu some thing. Then they work on that.
This can be seen over and over. Two excellent examples are smoking bans and DUI levels. When they first started, the anti-smoking special interst groups had zero chance of getting what they wanted..... a total ban on smoking anywhere they might be..... so they started with baby steps and "non smoking sections" on airplanes where they argued they were cooped up and involuntarilly being exposed to hazardous smoke (which, to date, has not been scientifically shown to cause any harm to anyone other than those who are allergic to it). If you doubt this, I have the scientific evidence (which happens to be the same evidence they use to justify their "hazardous" headlines). Today we find ourselves well along the slippery slope towards the ultimate goal of the anti-smokers, banning of tobacco, with prohibitions on using the stuff on private property. But they won't get to a total banuntil such time as the government no longer makes sufficient profits from their taxes on tobacco. The government, in fact, makes more "profit" from tobacco than ALL the other players in the chain of production and distribution COMBINED.
With the DUI issue, the Mothers Against Drunk Drivers (MADD) goal is a 0.00 threshold for DUI. one little blip of alcohol and you're DUI. Yet they, just as the anti-smoking groups, knew from the start that 0.00 wouldn't fly. So they fought for 0.10 and when they got that almost universally though the country they began going for 0.08 then 0.04 for commercial drivers. Now we hear of sporadic arguments to reduce the level to 0.05 and 0.01 for commercial drivers. Again, the slippery slope is working to their advantage with one tiny victory being worked, repeatedly, until the next slip down the slope is complete.
Now, I don't advocate drunk driving but 0.08 is more than sufficient when one considers that the driver at 0.08 is almost certainly more capable of driving safely than the "protected" 85 year old that gets his license renewal through the mail and hasn't seen the inside of a DMV office in 10 or 20 years..... or perhaps he did but no one dared question him. My own father in law, at 87, was in this position and WE had to take in upon ourselves to remove his license from him to prevent his driving because DMV just gave him a new one. My wifes aunt is the same. At age 84 she got her renewal notice in the mail and just sent in the check. Yet she'd run over a sidewalk and several large landscapign rocks just a couple of months prior and didn't even know it!
DO NOT allow any compromise on the RIGHT of the PEOPLE to keep and bear ARMS. The 2nd has no limitation on what those arms are. Nor does it authorize government to require the PEOPLE to obtain permission to exercise their RIGHTS. This is the reason you'll probably never see a dime of my money go to the NRA who are too ready to compromise for fear of losing if they stand by their principles. (I say probably because they may, some day, see the error of their ways).
Cases such as this one in Washington are exactly why OCDO is alive and well, growing substantially, and more and more of THE PEOPLE are standing up and demanding their RIGHT to keep and bear arms. While CC is great, only OC makes a political statement and makes visible the number of armed and lawful citizens who must be considered by both the criminal element and the politicians (not that there is much difference these days!).
WE THE PEOPLE
