PDA

View Full Version : Talk with non gunnies about legal cases


nicki
02-25-2009, 2:16 AM
We have alot of postings and I would say that this board understands history, legal precedent and the twisted rulings that got us to where we are today.

I am going to ask the few of you who have a life off the forum to try something over the next few weeks with people who are off the forum.

Talk about various US Supreme court cases and how they came about. The reason I do this is most people's jaws drop when I tell them the rulings.

Here is a sampling of some of the cases I pick.

US vs Crunshiak, Overturn of murder convictions of sheriff and KKK.
US vs Raich Protecting Commerce Clause interpretation that allows Feds to control our lives by claiming everything involved in interstate commerce.
US vs Miller(1939) One sided case appealed to SCOTUS where plantiff was dead.

I follow up conversations on court cases as to why we need to keep guns as a way to ultimately control the government. Yeah, you wlll run into some diehard gun haters, but that isn't most people.

Nicki

KWA-S
02-26-2009, 12:29 AM
Nicki, I like your idea. I think the most interesting case is Warren VS DC. Its not a SCOTUS case, but I think its the most stunning, pro self defense case out there. I have found it a good ice breaker in persuading someone to begin thinking our way.

CapS
02-26-2009, 12:58 AM
That is a great idea. I've done it a little, but time to expand my horizons. Take a look at Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution for SCOTUS cases that put an end to a lot of what the founders were trying to do. Old Ben was right when he said, "A republic...if you can keep it."

/Cap

GuyW
02-26-2009, 1:24 AM
I'd push cases that say that police have no duty to protect indiviuals, as well as the CA government code section that says so.

The beauty is, you're not even talking about guns...
.

eflatminor
02-26-2009, 6:02 AM
is another good one affirming that it's up to the individual to protect themselves, not the police.

On the other hand, the whole reason for the 2nd isn't so much about personal protection nor hunting, it's about a balance in power after agreeing to a standing army. Whether or not to have a standing army was the central argument prior to and during the writing of the Constitution. Nobody wanted a standing army because history showed again and again how bad leaders turn that army against its citizens. But, there are advantages to a standing army, so ultimately, the framers said yes but required the 2nd to balance that power.

When people say, "America would NEVER turn it's army on the its own people" I remind them of Waco.

Cypren
02-26-2009, 9:43 AM
When people say, "America would NEVER turn it's army on the its own people" I remind them of Waco.

Please keep in mind that Waco was the ATF (and later the FBI) borrowing National Guard assets under knowingly false pretenses (the claim that the Davidians were concealing a drug lab). The Army wasn't involved at all.

Like I've said here a few other times, the real threat to our liberties isn't the military, but increasingly-militarized law enforcement agencies that are training their people to view ordinary citizens as "the enemy". If the government starts disarming and rounding people up for prison camps, it will be the ATF and FBI leading the charge, not the armed forces.

Glock22Fan
02-26-2009, 9:50 AM
Please keep in mind that Waco was the ATF (and later the FBI) borrowing National Guard assets under knowingly false pretenses (the claim that the Davidians were concealing a drug lab). The Army wasn't involved at all.

Like I've said here a few other times, the real threat to our liberties isn't the military, but increasingly-militarized law enforcement agencies that are training their people to view ordinary citizens as "the enemy". If the government starts disarming and rounding people up for prison camps, it will be the ATF and FBI leading the charge, not the armed forces.

True, but if such a situation escalated, under a President and Congress that felt that way, it might well reach a point where posse commitatus was suspended and the army asked to step in. We've seen the National Guard used that way, at Waco and at Berkley, so it could be seen as a logical extension. After all, this president had 68% of the votes, he can do whatever he likes as that's what Americans want him to do.

KWA-S
02-26-2009, 9:59 AM
While it is true that that is the intent of the 2A EFlat, that isn't a winning point for us. Or at least, it has never done me any good convincing people of the need for arms, etc. The argument for antis is an emotional one, and therefore, cannot be expected to be won with logic alone. What we need is some FUD (Before a flame war, note I don't mean it the way anti's use it). Real, cold hard fact FUD. We have to bring up points such as Warren which will shock and scare an anti into realizing the need for weapons.

I've gotten to the point where I've convinced all die hard antis that I know of this need for weapons, but none understand the need for a gun yet. They seem content with knives and batons because 1. They think they can hold off most threats with these tools, 2. Don't understand or care that some people cannot overpower someone in this sort of combat (handicapped, elderly, outnumbered), and 3. Realize that California has done their best to prevent them from owning and carrying a firearm (Registration, FUD'd laws, No-carry zones)

Additionally, my anti friends say after I've grilled them for a bit, "Guns should be more widely available, but harder to get"...failing to understand that 1. The law makes guns legally hard to get, 2. Criminals don't obey the law, and 3. A responsible gun owner takes care to think before he/she shoots, as well as is familiar with proper discipline and the law.

Eh, I have a bunch of IM conversations with me attempting to convince a brainwashed liberal which I wouldn't mind sharing for a case study if y'all want, but I digress.

Sorry for off topic.

Cypren
02-26-2009, 10:16 AM
True, but if such a situation escalated, under a President and Congress that felt that way, it might well reach a point where posse commitatus was suspended and the army asked to step in. We've seen the National Guard used that way, at Waco and at Berkley, so it could be seen as a logical extension.

Add to that the National Guard being used to confiscate legally-owned weapons post-Katrina, as well. But please keep in mind that what we usually refer to as the "National Guard" is in fact a blending together of multiple distinctly separate organizations: a state National Guard force for each state and territory, and a United States National Guard, a federal force. Members of National Guard units are typically members of a state National Guard force under the authority of the governor of the state, and are not federal employees (and hence not covered by the Posse Comitatus Act). Only when the President calls them for federal service and receives the approval of the state governor under whom they serve do they become members of the United States Armed Forces, and only temporarily (for the duration of the call to service).

For this reason, state National Guard troops can be (and have been, clearly) deployed against American citizens. Active-duty federal troops, however, have not been in our lifetimes, and my personal experience has been that culturally, the thought of being so deployed is abhorrent to active duty officers as a general rule.

I do not doubt that we will eventually (maybe even in the near future, given the rapidly deteriorating state of the post-WWII world order) see a power-mad President and Congress attempt to deploy the United States Armed Forces against American citizens. But absent a significant cultural shift within the ranks of the officer corps, I'm skeptical that they would comply on any reasonable scale.

Vtec44
02-26-2009, 10:30 AM
Nicki, I like your idea. I think the most interesting case is Warren VS DC. Its not a SCOTUS case, but I think its the most stunning, pro self defense case out there. I have found it a good ice breaker in persuading someone to begin thinking our way.


I use that case a lot, and surprisingly most people have never heard or know about its importance.

nicki
02-26-2009, 2:47 PM
The cases I have in mind are the following:

Crunshiak: Basically it gutted the whole bill of rights, most people believe that the bill of rights applies to the states.

The concept of "Selective Incorporation" is another thing most people who don't know find BS.

US vs Miller: Explaining that the defendant was dead, and it was a one sided case has caused alot of people's jaws to drop.

Nordyke vs King: Alameda county wihch has a high black population is using Crunkshiak to defend the gun show ban.

Raich Decision: The government claimed that even though she was growing pot in her ouwn house with a prop 215 scrip, the Fed drug laws applied to her through the interstate commerce clause because her actions meant she did not have to buy her marijuania from the illegal drug market and if she and anyone else was allowed to do what she was doing, it would interfer in interstate commerce of marijaunia.

This one is a good one to use with liberals by the way.

Restore interstate commerce back to true intent and we kill Fed Jurisdiction for most if not all Fed gun laws. Guess in theory you could then make a homebuilt full auto.

Nicki

Cypren
02-26-2009, 3:03 PM
Restore interstate commerce back to true intent and we kill Fed Jurisdiction for most if not all Fed gun laws. Guess in theory you could then make a homebuilt full auto.

Restore the Commerce Clause to its original intent and you'd almost eliminate the entire federal government. Almost everything it does outside of military and foreign policy is justified under that. It's the magic wish-granting genie of the legal world.

7x57
02-26-2009, 3:10 PM
Restore the Commerce Clause to its original intent and you'd almost eliminate the entire federal government. Almost everything it does outside of military and foreign policy is justified under that. It's the magic wish-granting genie of the legal world.

AFAIK I invented that phrase--if so, glad to see it spreading. :43:

OTOH, it's possible I got it from somewhere and forgot where--if so, and you know, tell me because I should probably be able to give attribution.

If only it were limited to three wishes. Apparently in the case of the Commerce Clause, the first thing the feds did was wish for more wishes.

7x57

KWA-S
02-26-2009, 3:35 PM
I use that case a lot, and surprisingly most people have never heard or know about its importance.

I don't how you would find that surprising. What the Supreme Court does isn't exactly mainstream, you don't see it in the news that often, the case itself isn't taught in schools (exception possibly being college level political courses), and most people don't bother learning politics or this sort of thing past the news, and are content with "HURR MSNBC told me to vote for Obama cause he's going to fix everything wrong in my life DURR."

I suppose that means its up to us to find ways to sneak it into small talk to inform people of the case. :D

Cypren
02-26-2009, 5:13 PM
OTOH, it's possible I got it from somewhere and forgot where--if so, and you know, tell me because I should probably be able to give attribution.

I don't know where I picked it up, but I know I sure didn't invent it. It was probably from one of your posts. :)

Vtec44
02-26-2009, 5:18 PM
I don't how you would find that surprising. What the Supreme Court does isn't exactly mainstream, you don't see it in the news that often, the case itself isn't taught in schools (exception possibly being college level political courses), and most people don't bother learning politics or this sort of thing past the news, and are content with "HURR MSNBC told me to vote for Obama cause he's going to fix everything wrong in my life DURR."

I suppose that means its up to us to find ways to sneak it into small talk to inform people of the case. :D


Come to think of it, yeah I shouldn't be surprised. It's just sad to see that a lot of people depend on and expect the police to protect them, but then to find out at the worse time that they are not obligate to under the laws. Yeah, it's pretty much up to us to tell people. I told my brother-in-law the other day, and his friend that's planning to go into law enforcement. They were both shocked.

nicki
02-27-2009, 12:37 PM
Most of these bad Supreme court rulings happened in the days of limited public information.

The reality is that readily available public access to information was really limited until recently due to the internet.

Prior to the internet, where did most people get their news and information from?

Up till the 1980's, most Americans got their information from the local paper, the three networks. Court cases weren't that newsworthy.

It will be a slow process, but I brought it up so that we don't become so educated in the truth that we loose our ablity to communicate with the sheep.

It doesn't matter what the truth is, what matters is what people believe.

We have to work with what people believe and we have to be gentle.

You wouldn't tell a little kid that Santa Claus, the easter bunny, the great pumpkin, and other things are not real in one sitting(some of you would), you tell them in stages. Same with the sheeple.

The thing is you don't tell them, you let them discover it for themselves, all you do is guide them.

Nicki

KWA-S
02-27-2009, 11:12 PM
Eh, Nicki, I'm getting a lot of blank, deer-in-headlights stares. Then again, in college, politics stops after voting for the Messiah. :banghead:

trashman
02-28-2009, 7:10 AM
Then again, in college, politics stops after voting for the Messiah. :banghead:

It has a lot to do with how little a 'present stake' most folks in college have in politics -- it's primarily abstract.

--Neill

Cypren
02-28-2009, 2:14 PM
It has a lot to do with how little a 'present stake' most folks in college have in politics -- it's primarily abstract.

Exactly. It's easy to vote for "hope" and "change" without a concrete plan when you've had, thus far, your entire life paid for by your parents and the government -- you don't have anything you've earned, and so you don't have anything to lose. And it seems as if most people are fundamentally unwilling to be honest about what government handouts actually mean: you're hiring (with your vote) a jackbooted thug to hold a gun to someone else's head to get that money. Few people would be comfortable doing that themselves, but pretty it up with the illusion of "consent" by 50.1% and they're perfectly happy to have the government do it in their name.

But really, most of these kids are just products of their system. They've spent 16 years being taught what to think so that they never learn how to think.